Whose at fault????
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 11:04 am
Whose at fault????
Postby hillmatic » Thu May 17, 2012 11:08 am
Cheers
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby il padrone » Thu May 17, 2012 7:04 pm
Was this cyclist blind or summat ???
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10579
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
- Location: Sydney
Whose at fault????
Postby find_bruce » Thu May 17, 2012 7:19 pm
Also you don't give a lot of detail, where you were hit, how long you had been reversing, whether there was a marked bike lane etc so it's a little hard to say much other than point to road rule 296
So you are not starting from the greatest position296 Driving a vehicle in reverse wrote:(1) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle unless the driver can do so safely.
- gururug
- Posts: 1531
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:05 am
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby gururug » Thu May 17, 2012 7:27 pm
There may be some legal argument depending on where and how they hit you.
- uncle arthur
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:45 pm
- Location: Brisvegas
- Contact:
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby uncle arthur » Thu May 17, 2012 7:28 pm
And it is also safe to say you don't know how to spell.....find_bruce wrote:You are asking a bunch of cyclists about an incident where you crashed into a cyclist, so it is possible the answers you get may be less than objective.
Also you don't give a lot of detail, where you were hit, how long you had been reversing, whether there was a marked bike lane etc so it's a little hard to say much other than point to road rule 296So you are not starting from the greatest position296 Driving a vehicle in reverse wrote:(1) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle unless the driver can do so safely.
-
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:41 am
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby Percrime » Thu May 17, 2012 8:28 pm
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby trailgumby » Thu May 17, 2012 9:35 pm
No exceptions. 3 points for neg driving.
- CommuRider
- Posts: 5053
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby CommuRider » Thu May 17, 2012 9:57 pm
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby human909 » Thu May 17, 2012 10:23 pm
The officer is not correct. There is no such law.trailgumby wrote:having been a stupid dipstick who hit someone when they lurched forward to block me from reverse parking, the ossifer in the poleece stayshun ex plained me that the re-verseing veehickle is allways at fawlt.
No exceptions. 3 points for neg driving.
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby Mulger bill » Thu May 17, 2012 11:12 pm
My knowledge of the laws pertaining to this incident and the paucity of information makes it an impossible call so far.
London Boy 29/12/2011
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby zero » Fri May 18, 2012 1:21 am
The law exists. What the officer is repeating is a typical police interpretation - ie if you drive into someone who the police believe is stationary, you risk them assessing your driving as negligent. If you disagree you can have the matter heard at court.human909 wrote:The officer is not correct. There is no such law.trailgumby wrote:having been a stupid dipstick who hit someone when they lurched forward to block me from reverse parking, the ossifer in the poleece stayshun ex plained me that the re-verseing veehickle is allways at fawlt.
No exceptions. 3 points for neg driving.
-
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:01 pm
- Location: Bass Hill, NSW
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby r2160 » Fri May 18, 2012 8:20 am
On the one hand, the driver may have just stopped to reverse into a parking spot and the cyclist hit him from behind. That may go the way of the cyclist.
Lets also assume for a second that the vehicle indicated, stopped, started to reverse into the parking spot, and the cyclist hit him. To me that would be an altogether different situation.
Having said that, I was always under the impression that if a vehicle is hit from behind, it is generally the vehicle BEHIND that is at fault.
cheers
Glenn
"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever" Lance Armstrong
-
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby Ozkaban » Fri May 18, 2012 9:07 am
+1 to all of this.Mulger bill wrote:Come on team, give the OP a break. F7 aside, methinks it's a fair question. Not to mention the fact that a smokeboxer is actually willing to put his hand up and ask velonauts for advice. Better by far than bragging about it down t'pub.
My knowledge of the laws pertaining to this incident and the paucity of information makes it an impossible call so far.
I think the only advice worth anything is to talk to someone about the law - police is a good start, though independent legal advice may be better in this case.
There's simply not enough info on the incident to make a call. And even if there was, an anonymous 'velonaut' (like that term ) on teh interwebs would not be my source of truth in such a case...
- csy75
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:03 pm
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby csy75 » Fri May 18, 2012 10:09 am
bruce, i disagree with your point....the cyclist has crashed into him.find_bruce wrote:You are asking a bunch of cyclists about an incident where you crashed into a cyclist, so it is possible the answers you get may be less than objective.
it always annoys me when i read the following, " a motorcyclist crashed into a car when the car drove across yellow lines"...placing the blame on the motorcyclist when the car driver is at fault..
to me you are doing the same here....the car driver is reversing, the cyclist crests the hill then runs into him? I don't see that as the OP's fault....cyclist not maintaining proper distance or being able to break is my read on it.
- ldrcycles
- Posts: 9594
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:19 pm
- Location: Kin Kin, Queensland
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby ldrcycles » Fri May 18, 2012 10:24 am
That was my understanding also, whether it is actually correct is another matter, i don't know.r2160 wrote: Having said that, I was always under the impression that if a vehicle is hit from behind, it is generally the vehicle BEHIND that is at fault.
- csy75
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:03 pm
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby csy75 » Fri May 18, 2012 10:55 am
luckily i did all the right things in this instance and insurance denied her claim ( thank god for taking photos ) and my also heading straight to police station myself.
this is why i use a camera at all times on the road...
so hit from behind may mean many things...
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10579
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby find_bruce » Fri May 18, 2012 12:15 pm
find_bruce wrote:You are asking a bunch of cyclists about an incident where you crashed into a cyclist, so it is possible the answers you get may be less than objective.
You make a valid point, I should have said "had a collission with" rather than "crashed into" - I was deliberately trying not to say who was at fault because there was not enough information, as others have more eloquently put it.csy75 wrote:it alwaysnnoys me when i read the following, " a motorcyclist crashed into a car when the car drove across yellow lines"...placing the blame on the motorcyclist when the car driver is at fault..
You are correct, as long as you remeber the genrally bit. As Percrime said when you are reversing you can be hit square up the back and actually be at fault - see road rule 269 extracted above.r2160 wrote:Having said that, I was always under the impression that if a vehicle is hit from behind, it is generally the vehicle BEHIND that is at fault.
Amen to that Oz - these sort of threads should come with a disclaimer - "if you rely upon advice given anonymously on teh interwebs, we reserve our right to point & laugh"Ozkaban wrote:an anonymous 'velonaut' (like that term ) on teh interwebs would not be my source of truth
- CommuRider
- Posts: 5053
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby CommuRider » Fri May 18, 2012 1:45 pm
Was she wanting to upgrade her SUV?csy75 wrote:I was hit from behind by a women in a 4WD on purpose...she left the scene of the accident to go to the police and proceeded to claim against me for insurance.
-
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby eeksll » Fri May 18, 2012 2:14 pm
depending on how I interpret this "(the same way i was going)", iehillmatic wrote:I was reverse parking (rear to curb) when a cyclist travelling down the hill (the same way i was going) crashed into my car when i was backing into the spot.
The same way you where going when you where backing up
Or
The same way you where going when you where going forward?
now this makes it sound like this interpretation "The same way you where going when you where backing up ".hillmatic wrote:i did not see them as i was looking in the rear vision mirror.
if so, is one of you not going the wrong way?
- csy75
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:03 pm
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby csy75 » Fri May 18, 2012 2:39 pm
she wasCommuRider wrote:Was she wanting to upgrade her SUV?csy75 wrote:I was hit from behind by a woman in a 4WD on purpose...she left the scene of the accident to go to the police and proceeded to claim against me for insurance.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby Xplora » Fri May 18, 2012 8:31 pm
It really seems that there needs to be a basic understanding of what is considered the default position, and work out the exceptions from there. Hitting from behind is a simple one, because you can't force road users in front to brake less if they need to stop. If you can't avoid them, you're too close or not paying attention. Pretty simple! It's the same as "give way to people already in the roundabout". It's presumed that you give way to the right, but sometimes a vehicle stalls inside the roundabout (or cyclist picks a big gear) and you can't just give carte blanche approval to poor sharing because a roundabout is NOT a straight road with stop signs blocking the other roads.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Whose at fault????
Postby RonK » Fri May 18, 2012 9:34 pm
well there is another interpretation which says if you run into the back of a vehicle you are always in the wrong.zero wrote:The law exists. What the officer is repeating is a typical police interpretation - ie if you drive into someone who the police believe is stationary, you risk them assessing your driving as negligent. If you disagree you can have the matter heard at court.human909 wrote:The officer is not correct. There is no such law.trailgumby wrote:having been a stupid dipstick who hit someone when they lurched forward to block me from reverse parking, the ossifer in the poleece stayshun ex plained me that the re-verseing veehickle is allways at fawlt.
No exceptions. 3 points for neg driving.
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby Mulger bill » Fri May 18, 2012 10:16 pm
If the "welcome" hasn't scared him off AND created a tabloid stereotype of cyclists in his mind.
London Boy 29/12/2011
-
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby diggler » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:31 pm
-
- Posts: 3056
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Re: Whose at fault????
Postby zero » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:30 pm
There are scenarios where more than one driver can be at fault or charged with a driving offence.diggler wrote:The policeman said the reverser is always wrong. I don't agree. If that were the case, that means if I see somebody reversing, I can just ram into them and it is their fault. I don't see how that makes sense. Yes a reverser should give way but was the accident caused by the reverser not giving way? If the car had stayed still, would the collision have occurred?
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.