The car is not king

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

The car is not king

Postby lethoso » Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:03 pm

Spotted this article earlier, and although it's a pedestrian, not a cyclist it does have some relevance:

The court heard Ms MacDonald's van had a side mirror on an extended metal bar which struck the teenager on the left shoulder as she passed him.

In a written judgment Justice Duncan McMeekin said the question was whether the teenager was also negligent for his own safety.

"The defendant's argument is that, acting reasonably, [the teenager] was obliged to get off the road surface entirely," he said.

However, Justice McMeekin found the teenager had acted reasonably.

"The defendant's argument really amounted to this proposition - upon the approach of a vehicle all pedestrians ought to remove themselves from the bitumen surface of the roadway until the vehicle has passed."

"That is not how citizens conduct themselves in daily life.

"If the proposition is right then other vulnerable road users, such as cyclists, have no business being upon the road surface.

"I observe that [the teenager] had every right to walk on the road surface if he wished."

the rest is here - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... 1t3mf.html

It's good to see the courts affirm that drivers sit on the same level as every other road user. :)
Image
lethoso
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: brisbane, 4101

by BNA » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:11 pm

BNA
 

Re: The car is not king

Postby zero » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:11 pm

Civil liability is a different matter to the criminal (road law). Purely on the basis of the criminal road law, both will likely have broken road rules (as there was what appears to be a usable nature strip present). The defence is absurd though, as there is no basis in QLD law for a motorist to expect a pedestrian to vacate the roadway - its just not a requirement at all there at all. They even has the same 2 abreast rule as cyclists.

The civil requirement is pretty clear though - if you injure an avoidable pedestrian that was plainly visible to you through your windscreen, you can expect to pay for it, regardless of what the pedestrian was doing.
zero
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The car is not king

Postby jules21 » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:14 pm

it's unclear whether the motorist actually suffered any loss though - i read another article on that that listed the 3rd party injury insurer as a co-defendant. it's possible they had to pay the costs.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: The car is not king

Postby Comedian » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:34 pm

Car drivers need to be aware that no matter what the reason they aren't allowed to run someone over... be it on foot or on a bike. Unfortunately for bikes they have the SMIDSY get out of gaol card... hopefully one day that will change.
Once you can climb hills on a bike it's all downhill. :mrgreen:

Hopefully I'll know what that's like..... one day. :shock: :lol:

Image
User avatar
Comedian
 
Posts: 4401
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The car is not king

Postby stanevelyn » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:18 am

This situation does indeed extend to us cyclists. It also extends to wilfully injuring a pedestrian or rider. A lot of close calls experienced by pedestrians, and more so cyclists are the result of a wilful planned attempted assault (Usually through the drivers stupidity or immaturity). I believe that a wilfully planned assault also extends to the use of mobile phones, and texting, and eating, and putting on make up, and etc etc etc. whilst driving that cause a close call to a cyclist or even a collision.

By using a mobile phone, etc, etc, etc, the driver is purposefully, and conciously, distracting themselves from driving thus creating a dangerous situation.

The penalties for these offences should be at least as severe as assault, if not manslaughter/murder. As the driver has pre meditated their use of a phone, etc, etc, etc. thus purposefully putting other road users in danger and fear of injury or death.

The sooner penalties are toughened for bad motorists the better.

I hope that I made some sense here.

Cheers,

Stan
stanevelyn
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:37 pm

Re: The car is not king

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:00 pm

stanevelyn wrote:The sooner penalties are toughened for bad motorists the better.

I hope that I made some sense here.

Cheers,

Stan


It does make a lot of sense Stan, except for the first line. You could make the penalty for dooring 12 months gaol and confiscation of the vehicle, won't matter a damn if it isn't enforced. On the whole, peoples behaviour is influenced more by the chance of being caught than by the possible penalties. You may have noticed less speeding and drink driving happening on the road but Mr Plods political masters have concentrated on these easy to detect, easy to prosecute and very revenue positive measures to the point that seeing a patrolling police vehicle anywhere any time is now the exception rather than the rule. Overall standards of behaviour on the roads have fallen because of this IMO.

The success or failure of public order and road safety procedures should never be judged by money collected or money saved.

Shaun
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25552
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: The car is not king

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:53 am

Mulger bill wrote:
stanevelyn wrote:The sooner penalties are toughened for bad motorists the better.

I hope that I made some sense here.

Cheers,

Stan


It does make a lot of sense Stan, except for the first line. You could make the penalty for dooring 12 months gaol and confiscation of the vehicle, won't matter a damn if it isn't enforced. On the whole, peoples behaviour is influenced more by the chance of being caught than by the possible penalties. You may have noticed less speeding and drink driving happening on the road but Mr Plods political masters have concentrated on these easy to detect, easy to prosecute and very revenue positive measures to the point that seeing a patrolling police vehicle anywhere any time is now the exception rather than the rule. Overall standards of behaviour on the roads have fallen because of this IMO.

The success or failure of public order and road safety procedures should never be judged by money collected or money saved.

Shaun
Wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning. I have seldom seen evidence of harsh penalties affecting outcomes, it just makes the hater in us feel better. However real expectations of being caught do. It's why we all slow down at places we know the cops set up their radars.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4627
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: The car is not king

Postby Xplora » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:39 pm

Mulger bill wrote: Overall standards of behaviour on the roads have fallen because of this IMO.

Or number of red light/speed camera infringements issued.

I agree, I think the roads have gotten a lot worse over the years, the cars might be slower but they are definitely less "focussed" in their skills. The number of people who just aren't treating the road with any attention is NUTS. This MIGHT be a big city problem... you just can't stuff around for ages when there are 20 cars behind you!
Xplora
 
Posts: 5583
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR


Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter