Floods and idiots

General conversation and chit chat - The place for non-shooting specific topics. Introduce yourself here.

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 23 Oct 2022, 6:53 am

cz515 wrote:Its obvious some people want to force their views and will not take any dissenting views and start calling those ppl names.

Funny it reminds me of a dictatorship... like china. Agree to what you say about everyone going in flood water, they should be fined a million dollars and thrown in jail or i will throw you in jail.


I think this thread is pointless, going in circles and should be closed


Criminal negligence is not a matter of opinion Ziad, it's a matter of law.

You may have an opinion about that law Ziad, but that doesn't change the law.

Wanting to shut down a discussion because you've been proven wrong is the dictatorial way, not the rebuttal.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by cz515 » 23 Oct 2022, 7:40 am

What i am trying to keep the discussing going. You are the one using derogatory terms and force to shut those who don't agree with you.
When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil
User avatar
cz515
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1032
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 23 Oct 2022, 8:05 am

cz515 wrote:What i am trying to keep the discussing going. You are the one using derogatory terms and force to shut those who don't agree with you.


When have I used a derogatory term to you Ziad?

I have merely pointed out that you were factually incorrect, something you seem to have trouble dealing with maturely.

I seem to recall that it was you, Ziad, in your last comment who called for closing the entire discussion, did you not?

Remember this? "I think this thread is pointless, going in circles and should be closed"

I do agree though, Ziad, your agressive responses are rendering further discussion pointless.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Fionn » 23 Oct 2022, 2:53 pm

Lazarus wrote:
Fionn wrote:
Lazarus wrote:You also in your last contribution avoided the questions.
Do you understand the concept of criminal negligence?
Do you think criminal negligence should go unpunished?
What if a first responder dies as a result of someone's criminal negligence.

I suggest to you that you avoid these questions because you know the answers and they disprove your flippancy.


The problem is you don't understand what criminal negligence is either.

A person could never be charged with criminal negligence in the death of a first responder in these types of scenarios. If you understood what criminal negligence is you would know why.


On the contrary fionn, it's you who seems to have misunderstood the concept.

From the attorney general's dept;

5.5 Negligence
A person is negligent with respect to a physical element of an offence if his or her conduct involves:

(a) such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances; and
(b) such a high risk that the physical element exists or will exist;
that the conduct merits criminal punishment for the offence.

If there is a passenger in the vehicle you are driving, you have a duty of care for that passenger.
If you behave recklessly and that person dies, you ARE criminally negligent in that death.

https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publication ... negligence


I haven't misunderstood anything, you suggested that a person could be found guilty of criminal negligence for the death/injury of a first responder. I pointed out that to suggest such a thing means you don't understand the law.

This is because in this type of circumstance the person doesn't owe a first responder a duty of care, so can't be found guilty of criminal negligence.

Another thing that shows a lack of understanding is quoting and linking to the AG's site. Criminal negligence which involves injury or death isn't a federal law, its a State law. So providing the federal physical element of the offence is meaning less and is not the only thing that needs to be proven in a Criminal negligence case that involves injury or death.

To find a person guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was the result of an illegal act, an omission, an act of neglect or a failure to take reasonable care.

Now neglect/negligence or failure to take reasonable care isn't defined and is based on common law. To prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that a person was negligent or failure to take reasonable care there are generally 4 elements which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and this is where your argument falls over as you don't even know what they are.

Further to this, you use the words "recklessly" and "negligent" interchangeably when they have very distinct meaning in law and can't be interchanged with each other.

Lazarus wrote:If you behave recklessly and that person dies, you ARE criminally negligent in that death.


Not at all, It depends on the circumstance, they maybe morally negligent, but not criminally negligent.
User avatar
Fionn
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 625
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by cz515 » 23 Oct 2022, 3:25 pm

Good point.

I also picked up that he quoted first responders but argued death of child. Thanks for clearing it up
When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil
User avatar
cz515
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1032
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 23 Oct 2022, 3:49 pm

@fionn
Criminal negligence in nsw:
Offences in NSW

In its Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book, the Judicial Commission of NSW (Judcom) sets out three main offences that involve criminal negligence in this state.

These are negligent driving, causing grievous bodily harm and the common law offence of manslaughter by criminal negligence.

Negligent driving falls under section 117(1) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW). The section carries three tiers of this offence, with a sliding scale of penalties that apply.

Negligent driving occasioning death is the most serious offence. It’s followed by driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, and then there’s negligent driving not occasioning death or grievous bodily harm.
https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/crimi ... uth-wales/

According to Gibbs and Wright Litigation Lawyers:

"In Australia, negligence occurs when a person causes damage to another person through recklessness or carelessness. The negligent behaviour can be a result of either an act, or a failure to act."

https://gibbswrightlawyers.com.au/publi ... -australia

It's not worth arguing over mate, although you and Ziad seem determined to do so, but the law is clear, if you wish to believe otherwise despite the evidence, that is your right.

@Ziad
I first mentioned a passenger, did I not?
I am unable to find a direct reference to a first responder dying during the rescue of a negligent driver but on the balance of probability, given the evidence above I think there would at least be grounds for a civil case.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Fionn » 23 Oct 2022, 5:54 pm

Lazarus wrote:@fionn
Criminal negligence in nsw:
Offences in NSW

It's not worth arguing over mate, although you and Ziad seem determined to do so, but the law is clear, if you wish to believe otherwise despite the evidence, that is your right..


There is no arguing, as you don't have an argument, you are simply mistaken or don't know any better.

Nothing you have posted disagrees with what I have said and there is nothing in what you posted about being found guilty of criminal negligence for first responders.

The injury or death of first responders have nothing to do with traffic laws.

What Gibbs and Wright Litigation Lawyers wrote is about civil legal negligence, not about criminal negligence. Maybe you missed the bit where they say they are civil & commercial litigation lawyers :lol: :lol: :roll:

You don't even seem to understand there is a very big different between the 2 and they have little to nothing in common.

As you clearly don't understand it, I will explain it very briefly. Criminal negligence is a common law offence, generally to be found guilty of a common law offence their needs to be an element of Mens rea. Criminal negligence doesn't require Mens rea and as such the court places a much higher bar for the person to be convicted of it, otherwise the law would unfairly punish the less educated, less intelligent or for simple bad luck. As you don't have the defence of "I didn't know"

To be found guilty of Criminal negligence the person must have owed the victim a certain level of care. they must have breached their duty of care through negligence or recklessness. The person must have voluntarily breached their duty and that their actions led to the injury or death of another.

Note* Duty of care and negligence or recklessness are very complex area of common law, that aren't defined and depend on individual circumstance and case law plus a myriad of other things that take a lot of books to explain how its applied.

But to be 100% clear, you as a person being rescued by a first responder no matter for what reason you found yourself in the need of help have no duty of care to the first responder.
User avatar
Fionn
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 625
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Fionn » 23 Oct 2022, 6:51 pm

cz515 wrote:Good point.

I also picked up that he quoted first responders but argued death of child. Thanks for clearing it up


Lazarus is all over the place with his discussion, he seems to have picked up that his discussion about first responders was poorly thought out so is avoiding it now.

But now is quoting federal and civil laws to justify his belief.

As an interesting side note, I have spent the last week driving past a road closed side on my road and also drove though flood waters for a couple of days on the same road.

It seems I was criminally negligent.

But the circumstance of the matter is, the council place the road closed sign at the start of the road (dirt road) from the main road and the impassable section is just further past my place. They have been to busy too remove it as the waters have gone days ago. The flood water I drove though was run off from one of my dams and was 5cm deep at most and barely moving, or another section was where a neighbours dam across the road backed up across the road and again is maybe 5cm deep.

But I accept that some will label me a criminal. :unknown:
User avatar
Fionn
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 625
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 23 Oct 2022, 7:53 pm

"Lazarus is all over the place with his discussion, he seems to have picked up that his discussion about first responders was poorly thought out so is avoiding it now."

Fionn you are obviously not reading what I've said.
From my final comment to Ziad:
"I am unable to find a direct reference to a first responder dying during the rescue of a negligent driver"

That's not avoiding, I admitted I could find no reference.

Your comment that you've been driving through floods all week suggests that you have taken the word "idiots" in the title as a personal shot at you, it wasn't as I don't know you, although I am forming an impression.

To repeat, again, and for the final time, those who wish to drive through floods, please, be my guest.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Fionn » 23 Oct 2022, 9:10 pm

Lazarus wrote:That's not avoiding, I admitted I could find no reference.


Yes its avoiding, first responders have been injured or killed in responding situations.

The reason you can't find if any person has been charged because of it is because its legally impossible.

Even as you now claim there is grounds for a civil case again shows you have no understanding of the law.

There would be absolutely no grounds for a civil case either, for the simple thing that you don't seem to want to understand. You don't owe a first responder a duty of care in this circumstance.

You clearly have little understanding of the law or how its applied, given the rather silly things you posted. But keep doubling down, and I will happily point out the flaws.

Lazarus wrote:Your comment that you've been driving through floods all week suggests that you have taken the word "idiots" in the title as a personal shot at you, it wasn't as I don't know you, although I am forming an impression.

To repeat, again, and for the final time, those who wish to drive through floods, please, be my guest.


I haven't taken anything personally, as I have said all along, it depends on the individual circumstance of the situation. I posted about what I have been doing to illustrate its not black or white, hence why their isn't an offence that prohibits you driving though flood waters.

It would be pretty simple to make such a thing an offence, but their isn't one for good reason.

But here is a question for you, what is the legal difference between a puddle and flood waters?
Last edited by Fionn on 23 Oct 2022, 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fionn
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 625
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by on_one_wheel » 23 Oct 2022, 9:14 pm

Lazarus wrote:"Lazarus is all over the place with his discussion, he seems to have picked up that his discussion about first responders was poorly thought out so is avoiding it now."

Fionn you are obviously not reading what I've said.
From my final comment to Ziad:
"I am unable to find a direct reference to a first responder dying during the rescue of a negligent driver"

That's not avoiding, I admitted I could find no reference.

Your comment that you've been driving through floods all week suggests that you have taken the word "idiots" in the title as a personal shot at you, it wasn't as I don't know you, although I am forming an impression.

To repeat, again, and for the final time, those who wish to drive through floods, please, be my guest.


Sooner or later you'll realise your arguing with scratched record that's trying its hardest to sound intelligent.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3561
South Australia

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Oldbloke » 23 Oct 2022, 9:59 pm

Does all this mean that driving through creeks or rivers in a 4x4 stupid?

Isn't it primarily about piss poor preparation, equipment & perhaps less experience.

I've driven through plenty of minor floods on roads, in the HQ, Triton & even in our i30. But I'm careful and I guess conservative. Never a problem.
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: Floods and idiots

Post by cz515 » 23 Oct 2022, 10:29 pm

According to LAZ you are a bloody idiot, and should be fined atleast $100k. Same as Fion

you have taken the word "idiots" in the title as a personal shot at you, it wasn't as I don't know you, although I am forming an impression.


Hmmmm :crazy:
When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil
User avatar
cz515
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1032
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Oldbloke » 24 Oct 2022, 1:29 am

Oldbloke wrote:To me it's simple.
People make mistakes. That's life.
If they do something pretty stupid, like drive around a road closed sign ( I can understand why some might) and then need SES to rescue them or a helicopter then they should get the bill.

As I mentioned earlier, people often just lack the nouse or common sense required to make a good decision. So, don't think they should get fined. But there does need to be a disincentive.


Just adding to my earlier comment above.

There would be injuries but I don't recall hearing of a death of say,, of an SES or Police force member rescuing a member of the public from a flood or any other situation. Im sure it happens, but pretty unusual.

In any case wouldn't they have sh1t in place like,,,,,
Training/education
PPE
Equipment/tools
Procedures
Risk management.
Supervision

etc therefore minimising any risk?
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: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 24 Oct 2022, 8:01 am

And again

Person missing in NSW floodwaters after car enters Gulgong creek, north of Mudgee
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-24/ ... /101568164
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by cz515 » 24 Oct 2022, 11:21 am

No mention is there were warning signs placed on the road or not.
Last edited by cz515 on 24 Oct 2022, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil
User avatar
cz515
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1032
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 24 Oct 2022, 12:45 pm

No, and I doubt it would make any difference to those mourning her tragic loss.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by cz515 » 24 Oct 2022, 5:02 pm

Actually tbh her body is not yet found, and yetthey also say she got out of the car.

So who knows
When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil
User avatar
cz515
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1032
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 24 Oct 2022, 5:29 pm

cz515 wrote:Actually tbh her body is not yet found, and yetthey also say she got out of the car.

So who knows


The news has reported her body has been found Ziad, probably best to get your facts right when talking about a young person's death.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Oldbloke » 24 Oct 2022, 7:41 pm

Can I just suggest.

Take a bex.jpeg
Take a bex.jpeg (271.45 KiB) Viewed 2029 times
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: Floods and idiots

Post by Gamerancher » 25 Oct 2022, 1:09 am

Body found 450m downstream of the vehicle. Driver ignored road closed sign and drove around it. Water was around 1.5m deep and very fast flowing. Accidental my ar$e!
User avatar
Gamerancher
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1596
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 25 Oct 2022, 8:46 am

Exactly gamerancher.
This is a hideous, tragic and totally avoidable way to lose one's life.
Being a passenger this young lady had no choice.
The driver who deliberately drove into deep water is as much to blame as if he'd fired a gun into a crowded area.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Fionn » 25 Oct 2022, 11:11 am

Lazarus wrote:Being a passenger this young lady had no choice.
The driver who deliberately drove into deep water is as much to blame as if he'd fired a gun into a crowded area.


You are jumping to conclusions without any details. You have no idea if the lady had no choice. For all we know she could have been the one telling the driver to go through the water, that it's safe and the driver may not have wanted to until she assured them it was safe to do so.

You know only a tiny snippet of the facts but you're already found the driver guilty.
User avatar
Fionn
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 625
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 25 Oct 2022, 11:38 am

Fionn wrote:
Lazarus wrote:Being a passenger this young lady had no choice.
The driver who deliberately drove into deep water is as much to blame as if he'd fired a gun into a crowded area.


You are jumping to conclusions without any details. You have no idea if the lady had no choice. For all we know she could have been the one telling the driver to go through the water, that it's safe and the driver may not have wanted to until she assured them it was safe to do so.

You know only a tiny snippet of the facts but you're already found the driver guilty.


That's got to be one of the furthest stretches to be needlessly argumentative I've seen in ages.

Do you as a driver, the one in control of the vehicle, allow your passengers to dictate how and where you drive?
You don't let official signage, or the government authorities who placed it tell you not to drive on flooded roads, because you feel you know better than they do, you've made that clear in comments above.

As gamerancher pointed out, it has been established that the driver ignored signage, repeated pleas on the media and basic common sense and chose to drive into the flood.

Trying to blame the unfortunate young lady who died as a result of the driver's arrogant disregard for basic safety, just to attempt to win a pointless argument is one of the grubbiest things I've seen.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Fionn » 25 Oct 2022, 2:44 pm

Double post
Last edited by Fionn on 25 Oct 2022, 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fionn
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 625
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Fionn » 25 Oct 2022, 2:50 pm

Fionn wrote:
Lazarus wrote:That's got to be one of the furthest stretches to be needlessly argumentative I've seen in ages.

Do you as a driver, the one in control of the vehicle, allow your passengers to dictate how and where you drive?
You don't let official signage, or the government authorities who placed it tell you not to drive on flooded roads, because you feel you know better than they do, you've made that clear in comments above.

As gamerancher pointed out, it has been established that the driver ignored signage, repeated pleas on the media and basic common sense and chose to drive into the flood.

Trying to blame the unfortunate young lady who died as a result of the driver's arrogant disregard for basic safety, just to attempt to win a pointless argument is one of the grubbiest things I've seen.


I suggest you re-read my post, although it may be a lack of comprehension skill on your part which is causing your confusion.

So to make it more simple for you, the only argument I put forward was that you were jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.
User avatar
Fionn
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 625
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Lazarus » 25 Oct 2022, 4:15 pm

Fionn wrote:
Fionn wrote:
Lazarus wrote:That's got to be one of the furthest stretches to be needlessly argumentative I've seen in ages.

Do you as a driver, the one in control of the vehicle, allow your passengers to dictate how and where you drive?
You don't let official signage, or the government authorities who placed it tell you not to drive on flooded roads, because you feel you know better than they do, you've made that clear in comments above.

As gamerancher pointed out, it has been established that the driver ignored signage, repeated pleas on the media and basic common sense and chose to drive into the flood.

Trying to blame the unfortunate young lady who died as a result of the driver's arrogant disregard for basic safety, just to attempt to win a pointless argument is one of the grubbiest things I've seen.


I suggest you re-read my post, although it may be a lack of comprehension skill on your part which is causing your confusion.

So to make it more simple for you, the only argument I put forward was that you were jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.


You clearly made the inexcusable suggestion that the passenger may be to blame for the driver's actions that were the direct cause of her loss.
There is no doubt about that or how grubby it is to do so then trying to worm your way out of it by claiming I misunderstood you.

I'll make one final and no doubt futile attempt to get through to you.

The driver of a vehicle has the legal responsibility for everyone in the vehicle and a duty of care for them, other road users and anyone potentially put at risk by their behaviour behind the wheel.

Further, re your uninformed comment that drivers are not responsible to first reponders:

"AAI Limited v Caffrey [2019] QCA 293

Do Drivers Owe a Duty of Care to Rescuers? The Queensland Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that drivers owe a duty of care not only to passengers and other drivers, but also to police officers or any other rescuers who attend an accident scene."

https://www.corneyandlind.com.au/compen ... -rescuers/

You've reached the bottom of the hole, it's not possible to get much lower, so best you stop digging.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Oct 2022, 5:01 pm

Fionn wrote:
Lazarus wrote:Being a passenger this young lady had no choice.
The driver who deliberately drove into deep water is as much to blame as if he'd fired a gun into a crowded area.


You are jumping to conclusions without any details. You have no idea if the lady had no choice. For all we know she could have been the one telling the driver to go through the water, that it's safe and the driver may not have wanted to until she assured them it was safe to do so.

You know only a tiny snippet of the facts but you're already found the driver guilty.


All Fion is saying is we don't have all the facts/circumstances surrounding the incident.

Yes, the driver makes the final decision and is control of the car. He is ultimately responsible I guess.

But, who knows, the woman or another passenger may have been ranting about how urgent is was to continue. This could have influenced the drivers decision. And there are plenty of other scenarios I'm sure.

Nor do we have any idea about drivers experience or the model of car.

Sure, on the surface it seems a stupid decision to bypass the signage but until we know more we need to with hold our judgements.

One of the issues is "signage" only gives a message or info. (how many ignore speed or stop signs?) People are can easily to ignore it. If a locked gate/boom was in place it would be more effective.

Just down the road from where I live there is a creek that floods every few years. Council has a simple boom gate it locks if the water is high. Works well.
Engineering always beats signage.
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: Floods and idiots

Post by Fionn » 25 Oct 2022, 5:21 pm

Lazarus wrote:You clearly made the inexcusable suggestion that the passenger may be to blame for the driver's actions that were the direct cause of her loss.
There is no doubt about that or how grubby it is to do so then trying to worm your way out of it by claiming I misunderstood you.


The suggestion that she may hold some blame is as reasonable or unreasonable as your suggestion that she doesn't given the information known.

That was the point by the way (which I know you don't understand)

You have no idea what happened, but you jump straight to judgement about something you know nothing about, that's a very closeminded way to be.


Lazarus wrote:I'll make one final and no doubt futile attempt to get through to you.

The driver of a vehicle has the legal responsibility for everyone in the vehicle and a duty of care for them, other road users and anyone potentially put at risk by their behaviour behind the wheel.

Further, re your uninformed comment that drivers are not responsible to first reponders:

"AAI Limited v Caffrey [2019] QCA 293

Do Drivers Owe a Duty of Care to Rescuers? The Queensland Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that drivers owe a duty of care not only to passengers and other drivers, but also to police officers or any other rescuers who attend an accident scene."

https://www.corneyandlind.com.au/compen ... -rescuers/

You've reached the bottom of the hole, it's not possible to get much lower, so best you stop digging.


Again, why are you posting civil law cases? you don't seem to understand civil law and criminal law are different!

I told you this last time you posted about civil law trying to pass it off as applying to criminal law and you are now trying to do it again :crazy: .

Maybe google it so you at least know the difference as you are just making a fool of yourself. Happy to have a discussion about criminal negligence, but at least try and learn the basic concepts of law first. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Fionn
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 625
Victoria

Re: Floods and idiots

Post by Die Judicii » 26 Oct 2022, 1:22 pm

Hey CZ,,,,,,, Are you really Ziad ? I seem to remember you from way back. I was under the impression that you had been ****ed ?
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
I've come to realize that,,,,, the two most loving, loyal, and trustworthy females in my entire life were both canines.
User avatar
Die Judicii
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Queensland

PreviousNext

Back to top
 
Return to Off topic - General conversation