From the Hi-Viz Won't Save You Files...

[fat and old]

You don't give up, I'll give you that.

[BJL]

That’s pretty fair. Very fair actually. Would you go the other way....agree to hi vis if they said we’d intro strict liability if you agree ( there’s a diff there I’m pretty sure you see)?

Okay, let's just say I was feeling a bit under the weather the other night when I first responded to this and din't understand the nuances of it. Now I'm felling better and had another look, I think I get what you mean.

There's no right answer to this. Maybe I'm overthinking it a bit but it really does come down to which party wants what and what is asked in return. In this case, it's motorists who have opened their mouths and said they want cyclists to wear hi-vis clothing. In response, I've said I'll accept that if strict liability laws are introduced. In the example you gave, it's also motorists who are initiating the discussion by saying (hypothetically) that they'll introduce strict liability if we accept hi-vis clothing laws. In this case, I'm on the fence as far as strict liability laws are concerned and no doubt it won't be a 'no ifs and buts' affair that I'm after, and that there would be enough 'get out of jail free' cards to render the strict liability laws useless, but we'd still be stuck with mandatory hi-vis laws. All it'll take is one motorist who's hit a cyclist to say 'but the cyclist's hi-vis yellow jersey blended in with the yellow taxi that was there at the time' and it's all over.

So, I'd probably say no. I don't see why the introduction of strict liability laws should depend on cyclists being forced to wear hi-vis clothing as not seeing cyclists isn't the only reason motorists hit cyclists. Such as simply not looking or being distracted on phones. And those that deliberately 'close shave' but it goes horribly wrong. But in most cases, they cry to court 'Sorry mate, I didn't see you'.

I was almost wiped out today by a motorist failing to give way and I was wearing a bright red jersey. Luckily I half expected her not to give way and was on the brakes as I was on a descent. I did thank her for giving way though. And her window was open so there's no doubt that my thanks were heard. Really, I thanked her. No swearing whatsoever. I was really polite (in a sarcastic way) for a change. (For those in the outer east of Melbourne, this was at Vinter Ave/Lusher Rd in Croydon). A prime example of how VicIdiots takes several ideas on how something could be done and chooses the most stupid. Because for that location, and many others it is the ONLY explanation I can fathom. But now I'm starting to rant and get off topic

But the opposite of not necessarily true because if we have to wear hi-vis clothing, there should no longer be any excuse for motorists not to see us. It should force them to pay attention to the driving instead of organizing their next Tinder date.

However, if cyclists on the other hand were to initiate discussion and say we want strict liability laws, then it's likely something would be asked of us in return. Of course, there'd be the usual chorus of rego and what not but the one I see sticking would be hi-vis laws. And we'd still be running the same risk that the strict liability laws would be rendered useless by exemptions which no doubt would be applied in almost every situation.

Either way, I wouldn't accept any strict liability laws or offers of such unless they're mandatory, no ifs or buts. But I doubt that would happen.

Now you've done my mind in again.

[fat and old]

That's OK, hell will freeze over before I accept strict liability

[human909]

That's OK, hell will freeze over before I accept strict liability

Because strict liability is so harmful in Europe?

[fat and old]

That's OK, hell will freeze over before I accept strict liability

Because strict liability is so harmful in Europe?

Lucky for me I live in Australia then

You know I'm not a fan of reducing personal responsibility. This is an old argument, and neither of us will change our minds. I can live with that, and respect (and understand) your position.

[human909]

Lucky for me I live in Australia then

You know I'm not a fan of reducing personal responsibility. This is an old argument, and neither of us will change our minds. I can live with that, and respect (and understand) your position.

I'm interested in seeing this research about strict liability reducing personal responsibility. I can't think of too many pedestrians or cyclists who would say, "hey I don't mind if I get hit by this truck, because I am unlikely to be held responsible".

What I do know is that currently in Australia motorists are very commonly not held responsible for the injuries and deaths of vulnerable road users.

[fat and old]

I'm interested in seeing this research about strict liability reducing personal responsibility. I can't think of too many pedestrians or cyclists who would say, "hey I don't mind if I get hit by this truck, because I am unlikely to be held responsible".

Who said anything like that?

[Thoglette]

You know I'm not a fan of reducing personal responsibility

Yet that's exactly what we did when we effectively removed strict liability from drivers by confusing the terms negligent and accidental. (See, for example, "the history of haste wagons" particularly around p590 on. Likewise any history of "J-walking" -e.g. this one (Vox) or this one).

“chauffeurs assert with some bitterness that their 'joy riding' would harm nobody if there were not so much jay walking"

.

[fat and old]

You see that? Now that is effective advocacy!

[opik_bidin]

we just need to wear hi viz workwear for construction and traffic workers more often



I recall many aggresive drivers (the most of them) are tradies in sydney, and wearing hi viz that are work-wear makes them think you are one of their friends. Whenever I wear my hi viz jacket that is the standard for traffic controllers, otherpeople seem to be more patient

[fat and old]

You know I'm not a fan of reducing personal responsibility

Yet that's exactly what we did when we effectively removed strict liability from drivers by confusing the terms negligent and accidental. (See, for example, "the history of haste wagons" particularly around p590 on. Likewise any history of "J-walking" -e.g. this one (Vox) or this one).

“chauffeurs assert with some bitterness that their 'joy riding' would harm nobody if there were not so much jay walking"

.

To be honest, I see nothing in either of those articles that suggests that there was strict liability enshrined in law prior to the emergence of the motor car. Maybe my understanding is skeewif?


My question after reading these is this:


What would you have done?


It did provide me with some chuckles tho….

One parliamentarian suggested that, ‘considering the way the drivers of motor cars act, … the British public ought to be allowed to carry arms and shoot some of the beggars at sight.’28 There were no reports in Australia of this extreme response to motor vehicles. However, there were reports of motorists being abused, pelted with rocks, and the malicious arranging of sharp objects on roads to puncture tyres.29 Therefore, the primary sources from the period give voice to a public mood that displays significant anxiety, if not outright hostility, to the emerging motors. Indeed in 1905, the report on a meeting of the ACV tells that the pioneering motorists were concerned that a ‘“wave of hysteria” had swept over the community on the subject of motoring’.30 As this wave of hysteria was contemporaneous with the first motor vehicle legislation, the popular history literature suggests that this law was a populist response, pandering to the anxieties and hostilities of the non-motorist majority through the introduction of low speed limits, exorbitant taxation and curfews.31 For example, Birney articulates this linking of public antagonism with regressive law: The first cars were seen as little more than toys both by those who owned them and those that did not. All manner of draconian laws were invoked to suppress the ‘maniacal’ urges of this lunatic fringe. Very low speed limits were fixed and police were encouraged to give close attention to the behavior of motorists … In Melbourne any motorist who had the temerity to overtake a cable tram (speed about 12km/h) was dealt with swiftly and severely by the law.32

There's a strong parallel with present day attitudes to cyclists there. In fact, there's nothing new under the sun

The motor traffic is becoming a very great menace in the city, especially to elderly people who have to cross the streets, and whose lives are in jeopardy from day to day … Bicycles are bad enough, but it requires a great deal of alertness nowadays to dodge the motor bicycles and motor cars.73

Anyhoo, thanks for that. Printed and filed.

[Trevtassie]

we just need to wear hi viz workwear for construction and traffic workers more often



I recall many aggresive drivers (the most of them) are tradies in sydney, and wearing hi viz that are work-wear makes them think you are one of their friends. Whenever I wear my hi viz jacket that is the standard for traffic controllers, otherpeople seem to be more patient

"Poor bugger musta lost his licence for DUI/Hooning/General Douchebagery, there but for the grace of god go I"

[Thoglette]

To be honest, I see nothing in either of those articles that suggests that there was strict liability enshrined in law prior to the emergence of the motor car. Maybe my understanding is skeewif?

Sort of. There was "common law" which, had it been allowed to function, would have contained the presumption that the operator of heavy, dangerous equipment was responsible for the consequences of it's use until shown otherwise.

It was subverted by three factors: initially the class imbalance between victims and perpetrators; secondly by the very effective lobbying of the motor industry and motoring associations; and finally by modernism itself.

Modernism demanded that the law be "scientific" (common law being archaic) and support "the future" (the car). You need to remember that, at the time, Modernism (e.g. Futurism or Le Corbusier) was proto-fascist (see Umberto Eco's excellent article for clarity) and tangled up with eugenics; centralised planning; and efficiency.

My question after reading these is this:

What would you have done?

The young me or the old me? A young me would have been swept along by all the "progress", for certain. An old me, probably lobbying as ineffectively as those who did oppose the laws. While still working with that exciting new technology.

[fat and old]

Modernism demanded that the law be "scientific" (common law being archaic) and support "the future" (the car). You need to remember that, at the time, Modernism (e.g. Futurism or Le Corbusier) was proto-fascist (see Umberto Eco's excellent article for clarity) and tangled up with eugenics; centralised planning; and efficiency.]

This is why I am/was a student of Duchamp. Besides which, anything that led to Neville's tenure as the Chief Protector just doesn't sit well with me.

[find_bruce]

That's OK, hell will freeze over before I accept strict liability

Have you thought of getting a job on radio, because reality does not match your rhetoric.

Victoria has had strict liability for motor vehicle collisions since at least 2014. In its common law non-criminal law form, strict liability is when an injured person does not have to prove negligence to recover damages. As I understand it a cyclist is entitled to compensation under the TAC if they were involved in a collision with a motor vehicle, even if the vehicle was stationary. It wasn't introduced for the benefit of cyclists, but to reduce the costs or lawyers arguing about who was negligent. NSW hasn't gone as far and no fault compensation excludes economic loss

Strict liability already applies to many breaches of the road rules - most commonly speeding, drink driving, failing to stop at red lights - there is no mental element (eg you knew you were speeding) all they have to prove is the act of breach.

[fat and old]

That's OK, hell will freeze over before I accept strict liability

Have you thought of getting a job on radio, because reality does not match your rhetoric.

Victoria has had strict liability for motor vehicle collisions since at least 2014. In its common law non-criminal law form, strict liability is when an injured person does not have to prove negligence to recover damages. As I understand it a cyclist is entitled to compensation under the TAC if they were involved in a collision with a motor vehicle, even if the vehicle was stationary. It wasn't introduced for the benefit of cyclists, but to reduce the costs or lawyers arguing about who was negligent. NSW hasn't gone as far and no fault compensation excludes economic loss

Strict liability already applies to many breaches of the road rules - most commonly speeding, drink driving, failing to stop at red lights - there is no mental element (eg you knew you were speeding) all they have to prove is the act of breach.

Have you thought about getting a job as a politician, because your explanations do not match my issue.

No state in Australia has the type of strict liability oft spoken of when talking about bicycles. I'd have thought it was obvious that this is what I was speaking about, but alas not.

[find_bruce]

Have you thought about getting a job as a politician, because your explanations do not match my issue.

No state in Australia has the type of strict liability oft spoken of when talking about bicycles. I'd have thought it was obvious that this is what I was speaking about, but alas not.

I'd never make it as a politician - too many skeletons, not enough closets. Leaving aside the amusing insults, the most common form of strict liability I have heard spoken of is the Dutch model, which is about whose insurance pays for the damage - ie pretty much what has already been implemented in Victoria, but not using those words

[fat and old]

That’s friendly banter....I thought we were Australians?

If we already have Dutch style SL what are people asking for then? You have me confused.

[Thoglette]

If we already have Dutch style SL what are people asking for then?

Two things: one, for the rest of the country to get on board; two, for this to be reflected in the behaviours of our friends in blue polyester and the magistrates.

[Thoglette]

....A driver saw a construction sign (but only one) and still managed to run into and kill the lolly pop man. He was adjusting his radio.

MSN report

A Tasmanian driver who struck and killed a road worker while adjusting his radio insists he did not see more than one roadworks warning sign, a Launceston inquest has heard.

[find_bruce]

If we already have Dutch style SL what are people asking for then?

Two things: one, for the rest of the country to get on board; two, for this to be reflected in the behaviours of our friends in blue polyester and the magistrates.

Your second point reflects the major handwaving that goes on with questions of strict liability in that the people advocating it do not necessarily understand (1) Dutch law (2) Australian law or (3) what precisely they are proposing. I make no claims to expertise in Dutch law, but as far as I can tell the "strict liability" in Dutch law is limited to compensation, a matter in which police in Australia have no involvement. The main reason for the Victorian law change was to reduce the involvement of the courts.

If you want an example of strict liability in Australian law in relation to bicycles, the 1m passing laws (everywhere but Victoria) are strict liability & yes I would agree with you the police failure to enforce the laws is undermining their effectiveness.

[fat and old]

If we already have Dutch style SL what are people asking for then?

Two things: one, for the rest of the country to get on board; two, for this to be reflected in the behaviours of our friends in blue polyester and the magistrates.

Your second point reflects the major handwaving that goes on with questions of strict liability in that the people advocating it do not necessarily understand (1) Dutch law (2) Australian law or (3) what precisely they are proposing. I make no claims to expertise in Dutch law, but as far as I can tell the "strict liability" in Dutch law is limited to compensation, a matter in which police in Australia have no involvement. The main reason for the Victorian law change was to reduce the involvement of the courts.

If you want an example of strict liability in Australian law in relation to bicycles, the 1m passing laws (everywhere but Victoria) are strict liability & yes I would agree with you the police failure to enforce the laws is undermining their effectiveness.

I don't and have never claimed to be a lawyers pencil, yet my understanding of TAC was that yes, there is a no fault scheme. But only to a point. If you are to pursue damages for pain and suffering for instance, then that is a common law matter where the ambulance chasers jump in. You can win, you can lose. That isn't Dutch style S/L as I understand it. My understanding is that in the Dutch system the "offending" party pays out, not a central fund or body such as the TAC. As you point out, I may well not have any real grasp on that either, in which case I welcome our S/L overlords with open arms. A no fault system I can live with. A bigger is always at fault I cannot.

[Thoglette]

A bigger is always at fault I cannot.

Despite the understanding that this is the case in four out of five cases (probably more but dead cyclists tell no tales) ?!

[AdelaidePeter]

....A driver saw a construction sign (but only one) and still managed to run into and kill the lolly pop man. He was adjusting his radio.

MSN report

A Tasmanian driver who struck and killed a road worker while adjusting his radio insists he did not see more than one roadworks warning sign, a Launceston inquest has heard.

off topic, but for the record: the driver (Murray Higgs of Mayfield, Tasmania) was penalised with a 3 month suspended jail sentence and a 12 month loss of licence https://www.examiner.com.au/story/18071 ... egligence/ , while the road worker's employer was fined $250,000. I'm sure the employer deserved it, but it's part of a trend that the driver isn't really responsible, even when they are at fault.

[fat and old]

while the road worker's employer was fined $250,000. I'm sure the employer deserved it.

Based on what?