Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

News and events in the media and political arena relating to firearms.

Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by adam » 17 Jun 2016, 11:10 am

It appears as though our illustrious Victorian government is considering a policy where drivers will be deemed to automatically be at fault in a car vs bicycle accident - unless they can prove otherwise...

Change current regulations and legislation in line with a number of European countries where drivers/vehicles are assumed to be at fault in all accidents with bicycles unless fault can be proven otherwise.


Source: http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.c ... red/need-4

Looks like a lot more victorians might be getting a taste of what we're used to. The concept of forcing people to prove our innocence as opposed to the contrary seems to be gaining traction with politicians... :allegedly:
adam
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 319
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by AusTac » 17 Jun 2016, 12:56 pm

Don't even get me started on vic cyclists mate! Holy hell the're are some good ones around but some are temporary citizens
Certified part time hillbilly
User avatar
AusTac
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1171
-

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by Gregg » 17 Jun 2016, 1:42 pm

I wouldn't worry yet.

Following it through I see Infrastructure Victoria is not part of the Victorian Government. They're an independent body that just makes recommendations to the Government supposedly (anyone at the government listening or just another group big noting themselves I wonder?)
Howa 1500 .270 WInchester
Savage Model 10/110 Predator .204 Ruger
User avatar
Gregg
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 378
South Australia

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by adam » 17 Jun 2016, 2:31 pm

Gregg wrote:I wouldn't worry yet.

Following it through I see Infrastructure Victoria is not part of the Victorian Government. They're an independent body that just makes recommendations to the Government supposedly (anyone at the government listening or just another group big noting themselves I wonder?)


Thanks - I wasn't sure... Infrastructure Victoria... kinda sounded like Nation Building Authority.... (aka Utopia TV Series) ;)
adam
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 319
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by happyhunter » 17 Jun 2016, 7:32 pm

Riders (bicycle and motorbike) and pedestrians are exposed and vulnerable and often end up dead/seriously injured as a result of road accidents so cannot defend themselves so it makes sense that the burden of proof should be placed on car drivers.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by <<Genesis93>> » 18 Jun 2016, 8:27 am

So drivers would be treated as licensed firearm owners, GUILTY until proven otherwise...

Spend about 2 minutes in the city centre or surrounds and witness how compliant with road rule bike riders are.... you'd think that traffic lights didnt exist, and courtesy was a foreign concept to riders.

Not saying all riders are the same, just as there are some bad apples behind the wheel
<<Genesis93>>
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2191
-

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by Oldbloke » 18 Jun 2016, 9:04 am

<<Genesis93>> wrote:So drivers would be treated as licensed firearm owners, GUILTY until proven otherwise...

Spend about 2 minutes in the city centre or surrounds and witness how compliant with road rule bike riders are.... you'd think that traffic lights didnt exist, and courtesy was a foreign concept to riders.

Not saying all riders are the same, just as there are some bad apples behind the wheel


Agree. Not all, but many are their own worst enemies. Road rules are regularly totally ignored. Its like dodgem bikes in the CBD.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by happyhunter » 18 Jun 2016, 10:12 am

<<Genesis93>> wrote:So drivers would be treated as licensed firearm owners, GUILTY until proven otherwise...

Spend about 2 minutes in the city centre or surrounds and witness how compliant with road rule bike riders are.... you'd think that traffic lights didnt exist, and courtesy was a foreign concept to riders.

Not saying all riders are the same, just as there are some bad apples behind the wheel


Bike riders are far outnumbered by cars. I see many more car drivers breaking the road rules and placing others at risk than bike riders. Ride a push bike or motorbike for day and witness the number of car drivers using their mobile phones, picking their nose, flossing their teeth and fixing lipstick while driving. Distracted drivers kill riders so it is fair that the burden of proof be placed on the car driver.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by <<Genesis93>> » 18 Jun 2016, 11:06 am

have you driven a car through a major CBD ever? If theres a Red light then once the light is red ie. after the amber rush..... 99% of motor vehicles stop. From what I've witness the stats for cyclists is far less.... I'd suggest half may stop... but that would be generous.

Yes, motor vehicles out number cycles many times over.... thats why theyre removing car-lanes left right and centre and making them bike lanes, oh, hang on...
<<Genesis93>>
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2191
-

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by juststarting » 18 Jun 2016, 12:12 pm

I love how people say most of them are good, but there are some who... because you know most of them, yeah? Make lycra warriors pay registration and third party insurance and then they will be equal road users. There are plenty of people who get hurt by them and a couple killed around bayside. They are the most inconsiderate road users with higher sense of entitlement, even though they don't actually pay for it. I live around the area and drive along beach road more often then not and my experience is the exact opposite. Some of them are very considerate and follow all road rules, most I've seen however are not.
---
https://reloadingstudio.com
User avatar
juststarting
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2738
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by juststarting » 18 Jun 2016, 12:16 pm

Btw - there's a huge difference between cyclist who go for a casual ride and road cyclist who are doing 30km, 40km+ and ride in groups taking up more road than a truck, I refer to those.
---
https://reloadingstudio.com
User avatar
juststarting
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2738
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by happyhunter » 20 Jun 2016, 11:19 am

<<Genesis93>> wrote:have you driven a car through a major CBD ever? If theres a Red light then once the light is red ie. after the amber rush..... 99% of motor vehicles stop. From what I've witness the stats for cyclists is far less.... I'd suggest half may stop... but that would be generous.

Yes, motor vehicles out number cycles many times over.... thats why theyre removing car-lanes left right and centre and making them bike lanes, oh, hang on...


I avoid driving a car to the CBD like the plague. Prefer motorised two wheel transport where I can split lanes and park on the footpath. From my observation as many cars run the red as do bicycles although trucks seem to be the worst offenders. Personally, I never run red lights on the motorbike or push bike because it is the fast way to an early grave.

The way I see it is the more riders (motorbike and pushbike) on the roads the better off we all are. It means less congestion, less pollution and more free parking spaces for those space hogging handicapped commuters on four wheels.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by adam » 20 Jun 2016, 2:05 pm

happyhunter wrote:so cannot defend themselves so it makes sense that the burden of proof should be placed on car drivers.


Does this mean you support guilty until proven innocent - provided it's directed to a selected group of people?
adam
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 319
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by happyhunter » 20 Jun 2016, 3:59 pm

No, it doesn't. It's a point of view that represents the vulnerable party in these types of incidents. In car vs bike crashes it is very difficult to prove the fault of the car driver and often the victim is not able to present their version of events. There were several cases recently where distracted/fatigued/phone using drivers severely injured or killed bike riders. These cases went through the courts and it was very difficult to prove the guilt of the driver.

Reality is too many people get behind the wheel of a car and their sense of entitlement turns them into temporary psychopaths and the law is starting to recognise that.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by AusTac » 20 Jun 2016, 4:37 pm

It goes both ways no matter what mode of transport you choose
Certified part time hillbilly
User avatar
AusTac
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1171
-

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by Gamerancher » 24 Jun 2016, 12:14 am

At least you can get around the lane hogging, Lycra wearing faggots. Try getting past one in a fully loaded B-double in traffic!
User avatar
Gamerancher
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1596
New South Wales

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by happyhunter » 24 Jun 2016, 9:56 am

If anybody knows this gutless pr1ck you know what to do.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/photo ... pqq1w.html

Another example of why this proposal to put the burden of proof is a reasonable.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by Gamerancher » 25 Jun 2016, 11:20 am

Hey happyhunter don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning any sort of intimidation here. I get really annoyed at truck drivers who brag about using the size of their vehicle to scare the crap out of other road users, they are usually inexperienced or total f#%*kwits who need to make up for their shortcomings as an operator. My gripe is with the cyclist doing 30km/h in a 60/80 zone hogging a lane and creating havoc in busy traffic. I get stuck behind them, everyone thinks it me holding up traffic and stack the other lanes trapping me in. I have lost count of the number of lives I've saved over the years taking evasive action to avoid certain fatal accidents due to stupidity of other drivers/riders. I reckon if I had a dash-cam over the years I could run a 12 month series on stupid drivers. I've retired from highway / inter-capital work now and don't miss it one bit.
User avatar
Gamerancher
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1596
New South Wales

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by MalleeFarmer » 25 Jun 2016, 1:05 pm

Personally I think until Push Bikes pay road tax (on fuel atm) and rego they should not be on the road. Also Motorbikes are a completely different story as they pay rego and road tax they have all lights and turn signals and legally have to follow road rules and the fact that they have rego plates means they can be booked after an event has occurred such as with red light cameras. Pushbikes on roads are a menace..
"Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness." Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
MalleeFarmer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 627
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by AusTac » 25 Jun 2016, 2:18 pm

MalleeFarmer wrote:Personally I think until Push Bikes pay road tax (on fuel atm) and rego they should not be on the road. Also Motorbikes are a completely different story as they pay rego and road tax they have all lights and turn signals and legally have to follow road rules and the fact that they have rego plates means they can be booked after an event has occurred such as with red light cameras. Pushbikes on roads are a menace..



Vote +1 MalleeFarmer, you running this year mate? ;)
Certified part time hillbilly
User avatar
AusTac
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1171
-

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by MalleeFarmer » 25 Jun 2016, 2:28 pm

AusTac wrote: Vote +1 MalleeFarmer, you running this year mate? ;)


Nah sorry mate. Though some of our options make me want to.
"Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness." Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
MalleeFarmer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 627
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by <<Genesis93>> » 25 Jun 2016, 3:41 pm

Suggesting to bicycle riders that they contribute by paying a rego fee.....is akin to presenting Dracula with a huge crucifix, bath in holy water while pointing a -shooter chambers filled with silver bullets....

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

then they start with the "we're saving the environment", "we dont take up much space".... then defensive mode starts with "we're the victims / the vulnerable road users / targeted or hated by drivers"

blah blah blah...

Given the extortionate taxes motor vehicle drivers pay...... plus the fact that every road manager (councils and state road authorities) are tripping over themselves in a lustfull pursuit of bike user group love by CONVERTING car lanes to bike lanes....

IT is ONLY fair that eventually bike riders start to actually pay for the honor of taking car lanes away not to mention the massive capital cost of installing all the bike infrastructure...

MY opinion (thanks for asking) is 18+ then you pay a rego and/or licence fee if you're using the 'public' road network.... safety vest, say, with an identifying number on it... OH that right, they DO NOT want to be identified...

In the Melbourne CBD yesterday... stopped at traffic lights.... 2 bikes pull up net to me. They actually stopped. look left. Look right..... THEN CASUALLY MOVE THROUGH UNDER RED.

Because bike rider take advantage of their on-road anonymity and take the RED signal as a suggestion. Not a rule.
<<Genesis93>>
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2191
-

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by MalleeFarmer » 25 Jun 2016, 4:09 pm

This is Right Genesis!! You sir are on the money!
"Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness." Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
MalleeFarmer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 627
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by happyhunter » 25 Jun 2016, 4:35 pm

MalleeFarmer wrote:Personally I think until Push Bikes pay road tax (on fuel atm) and rego they should not be on the road. Also Motorbikes are a completely different story as they pay rego and road tax they have all lights and turn signals and legally have to follow road rules and the fact that they have rego plates means they can be booked after an event has occurred such as with red light cameras. Pushbikes on roads are a menace..


Don't agree. Plenty of kids ride push bikes and I don't see why a kid who is too young to legally drive or work should have to pay bike rego or have a license. Push bikes are clean transport, take up no parking space and do not contribute to road congestion, so bike riders should be rewarded rather than punished for choosing a mode of transport that benefits the majority.

I do ride a motorbike as main transport and no longer own a car and not only do I pay rego but I also pay a 'motorcycle safety levy, ie, extra tax for riding a motorbike. From experience, and that's driving cars and both motorbike and bicycle as road transport, I'd say cars are the menace as I've never had anybody on a push bike or motorbike be aggressive or manacing as car drivers.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by <<Genesis93>> » 25 Jun 2016, 5:30 pm

MalleeFarmer wrote:This is Right Genesis!! You sir are on the money!

I, Sir.... am a Madam.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, only when I wear the wife's dresses :unknown: :wtf:

not very often... actually never :thumbsup:

Ok,,, we'll go with Sir. :D
<<Genesis93>>
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2191
-

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by MalleeFarmer » 25 Jun 2016, 5:36 pm

:o :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness." Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
MalleeFarmer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 627
Victoria

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by <<Genesis93>> » 25 Jun 2016, 6:44 pm

happyhunter wrote:Push bikes are clean transport, take up no parking space and do not contribute to road congestion, so bike riders should be rewarded rather than punished for choosing a mode of transport that benefits the majority.


do tell about this efficiencies of bike transport.......
Been to an urban area of Melbourne, or no doubt Sydney etc.... do you know how many 2 lane thoroughfares, main road etc have been 'environmentalised' or otherwise been made 'bike friendly' by taking Car lanes away??

Yes. 2 Car lanes to 1 car and 1 bike lane is not catering for a need but frustrating dirty polluting car users into submission until they discard their cars and adopt Clean utopian 2 wheel non-motorised sweet daisy smelling bicycle transport cue the hippy-guitar-pot-smoking-music....

When a car lane is converted to a bike lane - the bike take up the same space as a car (with the added 'benefit' of annoying all the drivers stuck in an endless line of cars while the total of 2 bikes casually cycles past head held high with the knowledge that the earth will rotate longer as a result of their sacrifices :roll: :roll:

This is what happens when the council seeks enviro brownie point over logic and common sense; Albert St East Melbourne.
<<Genesis93>>
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2191
-

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by happyhunter » 26 Jun 2016, 12:01 pm

Yes. 2 Car lanes to 1 car and 1 bike lane is not catering for a need but frustrating dirty polluting car users into submission until they discard their cars and adopt Clean utopian 2 wheel non-motorised sweet daisy smelling bicycle transport cue the hippy-guitar-pot-smoking-music...


That would be a great thing to happen. The fewer stinking cars on the road the better.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by happyhunter » 26 Jun 2016, 12:07 pm

Matthew Terrance O'Connor, 27, was arrested on Friday morning at a home in Heidelberg, a day after he is accused of killing cyclist Peter McGuffie in a hit and run on Barkly Street.[\quote]
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/matth ... prr78.html

Looks like they caught the gutless piece of crap.

Mr O'Connor was charged with culpable driving, dangerous driving causing death, failing to remain at an accident and failing to render assistance. He has also been charged with breaching bail.

A true dirt bag that deserves to spend a few years behind bars.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: Drivers vs Cyclists: Drivers guilty by default...

Post by Sydor » 26 Jun 2016, 2:09 pm

Presumption of innocence is the fundamental to any system that desires to be fair. The fact that LFAO are stripped this right is bad enough.
Sydor
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 42
Victoria

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Firearms related media and politics