More hit and run?

[ColinOldnCranky]

I was saying lock them up.

I was saying arrest them. Bail them. Take their license. Determine if they have a passport and take their pass port.

Wait until you are hit by someone. Even something small like them moving states and the police will never find them.

Conversely wait until you wind up on a charge that has a little substance but eventually peters out with you being exonerated. It happens.

Bear in mind that, other than trivial matters, getting things to court, especially if you are mounting a defence, will be a year or so.

In the meantime you lose your job that requires mobility outside of public transport hours (in Perth would be a lot of people), cash in substantial chunks of your retirement to maintain the payments on your mortgage, maybe move the kids out of existing school to another, cease contributing to your health fund, drop the insurance on your house, struggle to pay for the kids asthma medication, etc etc etc.

All because myforkwik can't wait to establish the full story.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the dog act of failing to stop. But, unless there is a compelling reason not to, I'd still rather wait for the correct outcome than risk even the occasional wrong one.

[ColinOldnCranky]

It seems a good time to point out to those who many who have, over time, indicated that any collision between a driver and a cyclist should be deemed absolutely to be driver fault, have a look at Boognoss recent posted video. Then consider what the story would have been if a van was driving safely past him at the time.

Of course, running away without assisting would still be heinous. Only making the point that it is possible for a faultless driver to injure or kill a rider without any blame attaching to them. Something many on this site have argued against insistently.

[/quote]

[Boognoss]

It seems a good time to point out to those who many who have, over time, indicated that any collision between a driver and a cyclist should be deemed absolutely to be driver fault, have a look at Boognoss recent posted video. Then consider what the story would have been if a van was driving safely past him at the time.

Of course, running away without assisting would still be heinous. Only making the point that it is possible for a faultless driver to injure or kill a rider without any blame attaching to them. Something many on this site have argued against insistently.

Well said and I agree 100%. I was extremely lucky in this instance that there was no traffic next to me or close behind at the time.

[biker jk]

It seems a good time to point out to those who many who have, over time, indicated that any collision between a driver and a cyclist should be deemed absolutely to be driver fault, have a look at Boognoss recent posted video. Then consider what the story would have been if a van was driving safely past him at the time.

Of course, running away without assisting would still be heinous. Only making the point that it is possible for a faultless driver to injure or kill a rider without any blame attaching to them. Something many on this site have argued against insistently.

Perhaps you should have read this before you made your straw man argument?

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/ ... therlands/

[ColinOldnCranky]

It seems a good time to point out to those who many who have, over time, indicated that any collision between a driver and a cyclist should be deemed absolutely to be driver fault, have a look at Boognoss recent posted video. Then consider what the story would have been if a van was driving safely past him at the time.

Of course, running away without assisting would still be heinous. Only making the point that it is possible for a faultless driver to injure or kill a rider without any blame attaching to them. Something many on this site have argued against insistently.

Perhaps you should have read this before you made your straw man argument?

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/ ... therlands/

I have read it in the past and even retained it in the dark recesses as it claim to explains the common misconception of a simple absolute guilt regardless of curcumstances that many attribute to the Dutch experience. Indeed, the article is EXACTLY what I am talking about, Specifically:

There are a number of (false) assumptions that lead to such an assertion. The first being that drivers are always at fault when they are in a collision with a cyclist, regardless of how the cyclist behaved. As I will explain later, this is not the case, and that already takes away the largest part of the base of the assertion.

So any improvement in safety under the dutch model does NOT require automatic and unchallenged fault. The outcomes reported can still be there without denying the possibility of a blameless driver injuring or killing a rider. Some people in Oz do deny the possibility but not the dutch it seems.

I am not against a presumption of guilt that then needs to be dis-proven. I am against that presumption being unchallengeable. THAT is the target of my point.

My side-point was not meant to be a straw man and I hoped that the qualification I added would make that clear. It was just providential that Boognoss just happened to post an illustrative video at this time. Apologies as it apparently did not.