Criminal nuisance conviction for roading contractor after crash [Archive]

bungbung

13th July 2004, 10:57

Criminal nuisance conviction for roading contractor after crash

13.07.2004 11.00 am (New Zealand Herald Website)

Local bodies are investigating the implications of the convictions of a Hawke's Bay council and its subsidiary roading contractor for criminal nuisance leading to a motorbike crash 17 months ago.

A judge says the case against Tararua District Council and Infracon Ltd, relating to loose gravel on a country road and the absence of a sign warning traffic, does not have the "precedent value" argued by lawyers.

But it could impact on relationships between councils and their local authority trading authorities, known as 'Lates'.

The convictions came in a decision delivered by Judge John Hole in Napier District Court yesterday, after a private prosecution by the crash victim, Wellington businessman and city councillor Chris Parkin.

The council was convicted and discharged and left to pay just $339 of the $4500 sought in prosecution costs.

But Infracon, a Late owned by the neighbouring Tararua and Central Hawke's Bay district councils, was fined $2000, and ordered to pay reparation of $7029.56, as well as its $339 share for the prosecution, and standard court costs of $130.

The prosecution resulted from Mr Parkin's crash on February 16 last year, when his motorbike skidded on loose chip on a Route 52 bend between Weber and Porangahau. It crossed the road and hit a tree and a fence.

The gravel came from a recently-sealed patch on the opposite side of the road, but there was no sign warning Mr Parkin of the danger, although there was a warning for traffic coming from the opposite direction.

Mr Parkin was not badly injured but told the court at a May hearing, in which the council and the company defended the charges, that damage to his 1000cc Aprilla twin motorbike, clothing, boots and helmet cost more than $8500.

According to evidence, a sign was put in place after roadworks were completed about January 29, but there was no evidence of its presence after that date. The loose chip had been applied by a sub-contractor on February 10.

While the judge ruled the council and Infracon had both created a criminal nuisance by the acts or omissions alleged, he determined a degree of responsibility on the rider by deducting 20 per cent from the sum claimed for reparation.

There would still have been an onus on the rider to stop safely within half the length of clear road ahead, he said.

Judge Hole said the only penalty that could be imposed on either defendant was a fine, and he was satisfied that the circumstances were less serious than previous cases referred to in submissions by prosecution counsel Claire Boshier.

No one had been killed or seriously hurt, he said, and he had to take into account the practicalities involved with a rural local authority trying to control about 1900km of roads frequently under repair over a wide area.

A motorist using such roads as the secondary route from Wairarapa to Hawke's Bay on which the crash happened had to be aware of the possibility of "some deficiencies", he said.

Mongoose

13th July 2004, 11:12

Its a start, the judge got it half right from reading that. I have heard in the past of a local authority that paid out for damage because it accepted that there was no signage out.Chips put out for frosty conditions that were not signed and were still in place well after the frosts had disappeared, like days since the last frost. Perhaps this was to save a court case?

curious george

13th July 2004, 11:33

It's a good start. Perhaps contractors will be made to take more care in future.
Still should have thrown the bookat him

Motu

13th July 2004, 12:18

There would still have been an onus on the rider to stop safely within half the length of clear road ahead, he said.

The RIDER fucked up,not the Council or the roading contractor - he fucked up on his nice Aprillia and wants someone to pay for it - how bought we take responsability for our own actions and pay for it ourselves.

Careful of what you want guys,you want to give the Nanny State more power to control our lives - this sort of shit scares me.

Mongoose

13th July 2004, 12:25

merv

13th July 2004, 12:25

Mongoose

13th July 2004, 12:36

Yeah we talked about this when Chris first got the case to court. While he is a nice guy and its admirable he won I too would be worried about the effect this will have on litigation averse Councils that might start imposing additional rules to cover their backs.

See where you are coming from, but surely there should be an onus on the roadworks gangs to use the signage that they already have to its full affect? I ean, these same gangs are pretty hot on calling the cops when people ignore their signs, should work both ways re the using of the signs. If very one was to ride/drive with the thought that maybe this rad is stuffed up just around the corner imagine the lack of speed on the open road. I know the law states that you should beable to stop with half the clear distance ahead of you, in all practicality this would be near on impossible in relation to grit.gravel across the road. Think of how many corners there are where you can not actually see the road surface and have to apply a bit of blind faith that it affords the appropriate grip that you need for that corner.

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 12:50

Criminal nuisance conviction for roading contractor after crash

Great stuff, thanks for that post

I have fwd a copy to both local councils here.

This is a huge fear for me, coming across loose seal on a corner. Heard a lot of horror stories of guys coming off due to loose seal and no warning signs!

Comon everybody, fwd a copy to your local body roading manager!

merv

13th July 2004, 12:56

Yeah but to guys like me and Motu who love the gravel roads I can see the bunch of councillors discussing the issue "Motorcycles are not safe when there is gravel on the road, so we must prohibit all motorcyles using gravel roads or going anywhere near roadworks except farmers doing no more than 30km/hr, all those in favour - aye - carried, new bylaw in effect from Monday .."

It is the same sort of mentality that has got us judder bars, speed humps call them what you like in the city because its not safe to go 50km/hr down those streets so they think.

Or as I mentioned a while ago also I laughed to travel Banks Peninsula on my last holiday to ChCh and find roads such as Western Valley Road labelled suitable for four wheel drives only - damn my Hillman Hunter had no problems on those roads 30 years ago.

The namby pamby do-gooders will get us if it threatens their pockets as they have the rate payers to answer to, most of whom don't ride motorcycles.

Mongoose

13th July 2004, 13:04

Yeah but to guys like me and Motu who love the gravel roads I can see the bunch of councillors discussing the issue "Motorcycles are not safe when there is gravel on the road, so we must prohibit all motorcyles using gravel roads or going anywhere near roadworks except farmers doing no more than 30km/hr, all those in favour - aye - carried, new bylaw in effect from Monday .."

The namby pamby do-gooders will get us if it threatens their pockets as they have the rate payers to answer to, most of whom don't ride motorcycles.

Yeah, but on the otherhand I thought we were talking of gravel/grit on sealed roads. The council down here would be hard pushed to enact a law like that with out first supplying us with some sealed roads, majority are gravel except for main HiWays :blink:

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 13:17

The RIDER fucked up,not the Council or the roading contractor - he fucked up on his nice Aprillia and wants someone to pay for it - how bought we take responsability for our own actions and pay for it ourselves.

Careful of what you want guys,you want to give the Nanny State more power to control our lives - this sort of shit scares me.

What a load of crap, pull ur head in you ning nong.

Were you there? do you know where the rider fell off? - Didnt think so.

Far to many riders come off on loose seal due to no warning.

When your coming around a bend at 100kph, your leant over, you are looking thru the apex, not at the road surface right in front of you, you cant afford to skim the road right in front of you to try and pick out a small build up of loose stones, no way! you looking for your line, cars crossing the centre line in the distance, a distance that makes it hard to pick up little stones loose on the road surface

Im some cases you can see it, but not that often, i know this from FACT! i nearly came off twice last week riding out to Whanga, the corners are blind and by the time you "think" you might see loose seal your already dancing over the stones that have been flicked further along by cars/trucks.

This isnt the start of giving some "Nanny State more power to control our lives" There is a GOOD reason they have to put up road signs! becasues its dangerous! when they fail to do so people can get killed! Plain and simple.

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 13:21

Yeah but to guys like me and Motu who love the gravel roads I can see the bunch of councillors discussing the issue "Motorcycles are not safe when there is gravel on the road, so we must prohibit all motorcyles using gravel roads or going anywhere near roadworks except farmers doing no more than 30km/hr, all those in favour - aye - carried, new bylaw in effect from Monday .."

Or as I mentioned a while ago also I laughed to travel Banks Peninsula on my last holiday to ChCh and find roads such as Western Valley Road labelled suitable for four wheel drives only - damn my Hillman Hunter had no problems on those roads 30 years ago.

More rubbish!

Mate we arent talking about NEW laws here, we are talking about people doing their job peoperly! putting up WARNING signs like they HAVE TO!

The 4WD sign you saw was a WARNING sign, not a law prohibiting other cars, bikes etc.

jrandom

13th July 2004, 13:40

There is a GOOD reason they have to put up road signs! becasues its dangerous! when they fail to do so people can get killed! Plain and simple.

And... and... won't somebody *please* think of the *children*!

merv

13th July 2004, 14:07

More rubbish!

Mate we arent talking about NEW laws here, we are talking about people doing their job peoperly! putting up WARNING signs like they HAVE TO!

MATE we could be talking about new laws if those able to make the laws are under threat - you seem to be missing my point entirely. Where do you think bylaws come from? Is it easier for the Council to bring in a bylaw that can then be policed by the police or do you think they will ensure their contractors never miss a sign and therefore the risk of prosecution as in Chris' case.

Don't ever doubt the power of the bureaucrats. How do you think fireworks sales in this country were reduced as an example - because they weren't safe so they reckoned.

Do you really want to push people on how dangerous bikes are and man if you are close to crashing a couple of times when you ride then you will really be giving these guys a message about motorcycles?

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 14:19

MATE we could be talking about new laws if those able to make the laws are under threat - you seem to be missing my point entirely. Where do you think bylaws come from? Is it easier for the Council to bring in a bylaw that can then be policed by the police or do you think they will ensure their contractors never miss a sign and therefore the risk of prosecution as in Chris' case.

Do you really want to push people on how dangerous bikes are and man if you are close to crashing a couple of times when you ride then you will really be giving these guys a message about motorcycles?

Dude, forget theories, this is the REAL WORLD we are talking about, bikers lives!

You REALLY think the council would/could pass a bylaw banning motorbikes from riding over roads that currently have alterations going on???

Yea right,

What they will do (and i have worked in local govt for over 7 years!) is make sure their contractors are doing what they are supposed to do - and thats putting up signs warning people of the road conditions!

If you read the article you will notice it was the contractor who was really at fault, hence they got the majority of blame, not the council!

But its the council have the authority to ENFORCE their contractors to do a proper job!

Motu

13th July 2004, 14:45

duckman

13th July 2004, 15:26

Mongoose

13th July 2004, 15:31

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 15:31

Jeeeezzz,I give up on you fucktards,when are you ever going to realise that you,and only you are in control of your bike,if you can't be prepared for the unexpected and react to them you are destined for an early grave,or at least a litigation court as you try to hang some other poor prick for your fuck up.You hit a car that pulls out in front of you and you want to blame them,wake up,it's all in your control,buck up,or fuck up,then shut up.

Written like a true ignoramus.

Why do people bother with any road signs at all? i mean really, like you say if your not prepared for the unexpeced then you deserve to die!

Point in case - Your stopped at an intersection, UNBEKNOWN to you some teenager is racing another kid in their cars, they come roaring up behind you and loose control rearending you and your wife (whos sitting on the back).

NOW HOW THE HELL COULD YOU REACT TO THAT? you didnt even have a chance to see them coming let alone enough time to react!

Think outside the square that you are clown!

jrandom

13th July 2004, 15:42

Think outside the square that you are clown!

:third:

You're trying a bit too hard today, Motu. Only the green fish biting.

Good hefty pull on the line that was, though. Now be a sport and put him back in the water.

Funkyfly - YHBT. YHL. HAND. :done:

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 15:47

You hit a car that pulls out in front of you and you want to blame them.

Correct, the police would blame her also, she failed to follow the rules that were put in place to protect those on the road. In fact they would FINE her!

Rules are in place for a reason, to protect us!

There is also a rule for contractors to warn road users if you have just dumped a load of fresh seal - this is for public safety.

In this fellows case they failed to do that!

In fact maybe we should take a poll on this huh?

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 15:52

:third:

Only the green fish biting.

Good hefty pull on the line that was, though. Now be a sport and put him back in the water.

Funkyfly - YHBT. YHL. HAND. :done:

Being called a F*&Ktard by someone who doesnt know what they are talking about isnt what i would call fishing, besides im having more fun than he is. :laugh:

jrandom

13th July 2004, 15:58

Being called a F*&Ktard by someone who doesnt know what they are talking about isnt what i would call fishing

*I* would have called it trolling. With stinky bait, even. What do YOU call it?

im having more fun than he is. :laugh:

Good on ya. Just so long as you're not getting riled up and failing to enjoy the Online Experience. It's all about Chilling Out and Having Fun, you know. Peace.

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 16:10

*I* would have called it trolling. With stinky bait, even. What do YOU call it?

You want to "Fish" thats fine, but i would suggest to go fish on more light hearted topics, like tyres. This one INVOLVES PEOPLE LIVES!

Like i said i know riders who were almost killed because warning signs had not been erected telling of loose gravel and they rode into the corner as you would thinking it was a solid road surface.

Oh yea thats worth joking about he he. Oh look i caught a big one, te he he

Mongoose

13th July 2004, 16:12

You want to "Fish" thats fine, but i would suggest to go fish on more light hearted topics, like tyres. This one INVOLVES PEOPLE LIVES!

Like i said i know riders who were almost killed because warning signs had not been erected telling of loose gravel and they rode into the corner as you would thinking it was a solid road surface.

Oh yea thats worth joking about he he. Oh look i caught a big one, te he he

Unfortunately you have just told the yarn of enough lackwits out there that remove signs for this wexact reason, a bit of FUN to watch what happens to the poor unsuspecting.
Oh, but hang on, the should be suspecting at all times, silly unsuspecting people

pete376403

13th July 2004, 16:25

hey Motu, watch this movie www.hmif.co.nz/car.mpg (1.5 megs, not huge)and tell me how the pedestrian should have been prepared for this? This was taken from a pole cam.

duckman

13th July 2004, 16:31

hey Motu, watch this movie www.hmif.co.nz/car.mpg (1.5 megs, not huge)and tell me how the pedestrian should have been prepared for this? This was taken from a pole cam.
It looks like the ped was crossing on a red ?? Cause the cars had started coming from the right and were hit by the car rushing through a red from under the camera. (not the point I know) ... :no:

jrandom

13th July 2004, 16:43

You want to "Fish" thats fine, but i would suggest to go fish on more light hearted topics, like tyres. This one INVOLVES PEOPLE LIVES!

*I* don't want to fish. I was pointing out that Motu, quite likely, was. Are you getting confused?

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 16:51

*I* don't want to fish. I was pointing out that Motu, quite likely, was. Are you getting confused?

*Yawn* This isnt an english class so im not going to explain reference.

Thanks for your great contribution to this thread.

pete376403

13th July 2004, 17:04

It looks like the ped was crossing on a red ?? Cause the cars had started coming from the right and were hit by the car rushing through a red from under the camera. (not the point I know) ... :no:
Don't know. It appears to be a pretty wide road (five lanes that I can see) Maybe he started crossing with the signal but it changed when he was partway across, I mean he's got across at least four lanes before the car coming from the right enters the picture. Whatever, he certainly wasnt prepared for this

jrandom

13th July 2004, 17:07

*Yawn* This isnt an english class so im not going to explain reference.

Ooooh, this thread making us a bit touchy, eh? Yes, I read your post as a direct reply.

But I'm glad you take important issues like road safety seriously.

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 17:18

Ooooh, this thread making us a bit touchy, eh? Yes, I read your post as a direct reply.

But I'm glad you take important issues like road safety seriously.

When your wife rides, your Dad rides and your Mum rides - yes you do take other peoples lack of responsibility (i.e not erecting road signs) seriously.

Not to mention the near death of friends for this very reason

Motu

13th July 2004, 17:32

Sooo, you telling us all, that NO matter what, you have a spill then it is intirely your own fault? Hmmm, well, an interesting concept but not one I would subscribe to unless you belong to the policy makers for the Police that is.

No,I'm not trolling and I won't back down on this one - Mongoose,you are entirly correct,it is your fault,in retrospect there is always something you could of done to prevent an accident and blaming someone else is a cowards way to deal with your own lack of skills.I faced this whole issue 25yrs ago and like everyone trying to flame me I was really pissed off that someone would think of blaming me for what some other idiot did - but I'm not afraid to look at myself,and yes,I am to blame for every prang I've ever had,ever.

Everyone one on this site thinks they are such good riders - a good rider is not a fast rider,a good rider is one who doesn't make mistakes - I have a long way to go yet,but I've only been at it 34yrs.

Happy flaming,I enjoy a bit of heat!

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 17:40

I won't back down on this one - yes,I am to blame for every prang I've ever had,ever.

You didnt answer my question mate. I would have thought after calling people "F*&Ktartds" you would at LEAST answer their questions.

Here it is in case you missed it earlier....

Your stopped at an intersection, UNBEKNOWN to you some teenager is racing another kid in their cars, they come roaring up behind you and loose control rearending you and your wife (whos sitting on the back).

NOW HOW THE HELL COULD YOU REACT TO THAT? you didnt even have a chance to see them coming let alone enough time to react!

<waiting........>

Motu

13th July 2004, 18:00

Been there done that mate - I was rear ended on my 18th birthday,I take the blame for not monitoring my rear.

Jinx3d

13th July 2004, 18:00

When alls said and done, wether they put up the signs or they dont, a motorcyclist should always be aware of the possibility of gravel on a blind bend.

Its all well arguing the point but you still need a ride home and a letter to your insurance company.

Any m/cyclist that relies on the council and roading contractors for a safe road is straight out gambling.

Personally I think the guy in court has got a point but the slings and arrows of misforture cannot always be avoided by blaming others.

Mongoose

13th July 2004, 18:01

No,I'm not trolling and I won't back down on this one - Mongoose,you are entirly correct,it is your fault,in retrospect there is always

Everyone one on this site thinks they are such good riders - a good rider is not a fast rider,a good rider is one who doesn't make mistakes - I have a long way to go yet,but I've only been at it 34yrs.

Happy flaming,I enjoy a bit of heat!

Yes, life is full of "What if's" and "If only's" but to say that we are authers of ALL our own crashes is taking things just a tad far. I for one am not a *fast* rider but there is always the chance of being caught out re grit on the road.
To follow your arguement would mean that the roading people, who are meant to use signage cannot/should not be held responsible if/when they dont use it. Great in a perfect world. Unfortunately for both riders and workers, this aint a perfect world. So, while I may agree that on the whole we need to take responsibilty for our own life there are those that have taken on that resposibility that need to be held accountable.

So, run it past me again why we have any signs, like Frost, or yellow lines, speed advisory signs, Stop signs? Surely if we are held accountable there is NO need for ANY signs at all

Hitcher

13th July 2004, 18:13

Careful of what you want guys,you want to give the Nanny State more power to control our lives - this sort of shit scares me.

Agreed! Look what happened to all of the events that used to get organised by well-meaning community types after the Port Hills Cycle Classic ruling. Extinct, defunct, no more! Wowserism and political correctness should be fought tooth and nail. "Contents may contain hot liquid", I mean really...

Us bikers, we noble riders of the highways and byways are a minority group. We get discriminated against unfairly and fairly. We are also the masters/mistresses of our own destiny. Chris Parkin had his day in court (as is his right) and won, but the cynic in me feels that this may be a Pyrrhic victory in the longer term.

Hitcher

13th July 2004, 18:18

More rubbish!

Mate we arent talking about NEW laws here, we are talking about people doing their job peoperly! putting up WARNING signs like they HAVE TO!

The 4WD sign you saw was a WARNING sign, not a law prohibiting other cars, bikes etc.

Of course you're right in terms of the simple facts of this matter. But the real issue here is Council overreaction to protect themselves from similar future litigation. God knows where that may take us...

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 18:23

Been there done that mate - I was rear ended on my 18th birthday,I take the blame for not monitoring my rear.

Your right, pretty silly not to monitor your rear, hope you have learnt form that......

but what if you had been monitoring your rear? What would you have done if your sitting there watching traffic pass i front of you, trucks etc, cars on either side of you, so your blocked in, as you often are in a city. You got NOWHERE to go man.

What are you gonna do in the 2 seconds you got bofore they hit you? 2 seconds man that all whatcha gonna do huh?

Face the facts mate the victim simply cant be blamed for everysingle accident they end up being involved in - period.

merv

13th July 2004, 18:39

Of course you're right in terms of the simple facts of this matter. But the real issue here is Council overreaction to protect themselves from similar future litigation. God knows where that may take us...

Exactly what I was saying. Hitcher you me and Motu must be in some sort of different group here as I for sure would hate to see that overreaction as per my messages above and previously on this topic.

Hitcher

13th July 2004, 18:43

Exactly what I was saying. Hitcher you me and Motu must be in some sort of different group here as I for sure would hate to see that overreaction as per my messages above and previously on this topic.

As sure as god made little green apples, bureaucrats will overreact. I can hear their wordprocessors humming as I write...

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 20:16

As sure as god made little green apples, bureaucrats will overreact. I can hear their wordprocessors humming as I write...

For sure dude, but like i said i have worked in local govt for over 7 years, i have seen numerous issues like this come to the fore, dog attacks for example, remember when that hit the headlines, i was there, i saw how my council and others reacted. What was done law and procedure wise to reduce the risks

But we arent talking about some need for further restrictions/laws/bylaws etc. They are already in place. We need ADHERANCE to these.

Put the damn sign up like you are suppose to do. DO YOUR JOB!

I dont think you guys understand how local govt works.

So you want to talk about "over reacting"? look at your own reactions to one man making a stand in court.

That is over reacting. As if council could ever restrict motorbike access on main roads due to roadworks. Sheesh.

Posh Tourer :P

13th July 2004, 20:31

Your right, pretty silly not to monitor your rear, hope you have learnt form that......

but what if you had been monitoring your rear? What would you have done if your sitting there watching traffic pass i front of you, trucks etc, cars on either side of you, so your blocked in, as you often are in a city. You got NOWHERE to go man.

What are you gonna do in the 2 seconds you got bofore they hit you? 2 seconds man that all whatcha gonna do huh?

Face the facts mate the victim simply cant be blamed for everysingle accident they end up being involved in - period.

There is always something you could have done to lessen the impacts. Perhaps stand up on your bike, so you dont get completely screwed by the car behind... perhaps this perhaps that....The "victim" by definition is the one who was in the right. Of course they cant be blamed... I agree with Motu. *Every* incident you are involved in, you have some control over the outcome.. It isnt necessarily all your doing, but as far as I can see, motu never said that. There is *always* some personal responsibility. Accepting that is part of the learning process... You accept you did something wrong, you change your habits... Like not carrying hot coffee in your lap while driving a car for instance... Unfortunately, personal responsibility doesnt seem to be in fashion right about now....

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 20:43

The "victim" by definition is the one who was in the right.

Of course they cant be blamed... I agree with Motu.

It isnt necessarily all your doing, but as far as I can see, motu never said that.

Um.. Posh, maybe you should have read the thread before commenting on it dude.

To quote Motu "it is your fault,in retrospect there is always something you could of done to prevent an accident"

Motu thinks EVERY accident could have been prevented, and that it is *always* YOUR fault. in other words the "Victim" can always be blamed

I know this is a longish thread but it might pay to read it ALL bro.

Posh Tourer :P

13th July 2004, 20:48

For sure dude, but like i said i have worked in local govt for over 7 years, i have seen numerous issues like this come to the fore, dog attacks for example, remember when that hit the headlines, i was there, i saw how my council and others reacted. What was done law and procedure wise to reduce the risks

But we arent talking about some need for further restrictions/laws/bylaws etc. They are already in place. We need ADHERANCE to these.

Put the damn sign up like you are suppose to do. DO YOUR JOB!

I dont think you guys understand how local govt works.

That is over reacting. As if council could ever restrict motorbike access on main roads due to roadworks. Sheesh.

So what about monitoring the signs to make sure they havent blown over or been stolen?

I have no doubt that councils could restrict access to most things.. What they often do is advise against it, and then you get no insurance cover if you crash while ignoring the warnings. What if you thought the warnings were ridiculous, and you crashed due to an unrelated factor (not the one directly warned about)....? Hows about that for an interesting idea.
Already happens on motorcycle rentals... no insurance if you ride on certain roads....

Dog control bylaws? ridiculous wording and overpolicing of hysterically induced new laws... Dogs now cant be taken off leash almost anywhere... I know most dogs I've looked after need regular exercise, and I'm not fit enough to give it to them while keeping them on a lead at all times....
I was a circular delivery boy, and forgot not to deliver to a house where the dog often jumped the fence if it saw you delivering.... complain? nah just dont deliver to the house. The owner was out quickly to make sure we were ok.. it was probably illegal to not keep it contained, and I for one was bloody scared at a large german shepherd rushing me, but thats life huh? live and learn... Now it would need to be contained and etc etc etc, not good enough to rely on the owner to look after it. After that incident I went and learnt how to deal with a dog... If I'd been bitten/attacked, I wouldnt have wanted to get the dog put down, but thats what woulda happened.... Natural reaction for a dog to attack, but I suppose we must sanitise the world and put out warning signs and introduce bylaws and get rid of such hazards as dogs....

Whatever happened to using your initiative and thinking about what you might encounter, and taking preventative steps? surely it'd be cheaper if everyone was a little more careful around dogs rather than legislating against them... the common sense bank is where that knowledge should be stored..... I know it's tough love, and think of the children and what if it was my children, etc etc, but there comes a line where I think I'm man enough to take responsibility for my actions and accept that there is an element of personal responsibility in every situation I encounter. And that includes where I take my children and what I let them do. I only hope my wife will think the same way.

maybe

13th July 2004, 20:51

Good to hear ...we do have to take responsibility as riders.....I think most of us do ride responsibly......if you stuck to being able to stop in half the clear distance ahead on rides like in the Wiarapa it would be real slow riding.

Posh Tourer :P

13th July 2004, 20:54

Um.. Posh, maybe you should have read the thread before commenting on it dude.

To quote Motu "it is your fault,in retrospect there is always something you could of done to prevent an accident"

Motu thinks EVERY accident could have been prevented, and that it is *always* YOUR fault. in other words the "Victim" can always be blamed

I know this is a longish thread but it might pay to read it ALL bro.

I did read that post and interpreted that, maybe wrongly, as mitigate an accident rather than prevent completely.

I agree it is *always* your fault. Doesnt mean that someone else cant have some fault too... Almost every second government cock-up has "several people at fault" for instance

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 21:16

I did read that post and interpreted that, maybe wrongly, as mitigate an accident rather than prevent completely.

I agree it is *always* your fault. Doesnt mean that someone else cant have some fault too... Almost every second government cock-up has "several people at fault" for instance

Not sure how you "interupted" it wrong.

The question was asked "you telling us all, that NO matter what, you have a spill then it is intirely your own fault?"

Motu's answer "Mongoose,you are entirly correct,it is your fault,in retrospect there is always something you could of done to prevent an accident"

Anyway you made an error, big deal.

I was hoping this post would make riders sit up and take attention, ALOT of bike accidents are due to loose metal on the road. Here was some ammo (biker wins court case) to make councils realise how dangerous loose metal can be if road users arent given any warning.

Heck maybe the letters i sent to local govt here might be raised at the next meeting, maybe contractors are asked to be more active in placing warning signs, and just maybe it saves a bikers ass when he ride that bit of road next time.

Its called looking out for one another! Anything to help bikers stay upright.

Nothing to do with proving whos at fault, nothing to do with everyone having to accept that they cause every accident

Motu kicked that idea in the teeth claiming it was purely the riders fault and that no one is to blame but him.

I disagree, if a warning sign had been erected the rider "most likely" would have been able to slow his speed accordingly before hitting the gravel.

Funkyfly

13th July 2004, 21:23

So what about monitoring the signs to make sure they havent blown over or been stolen?.

Come on mate, common sense here. if its stolen then its stolen, at least they put it up in the first place.

What they often do is advise against it, and then you get no insurance cover if you crash while ignoring the warnings.

Wrong mate, my wife is the manager of an insurance company, you would be covered. Advise is nothing in court of law, it LAW that counts. Go ask your insurance company!

Skyryder

13th July 2004, 21:30

If the council or any othe contractor is out on the roads doing repairs then I expect a sighn up to inform me that the road is under repair etc and not untill the road is safe should the sighn be taken down. Having said that as a rider I take all the necessary precautions that I believe are necessary to get me from point A to point B safely. Providing I ride to the law I expect to arrive safely. I am not God. I can not see around corners, I can not predict a motorist in front of me signall right and as I pass on the left, changes direction, nor do I have any controll over numerous other dangerous situatiuons of other road users that we all know about, vehicles running red lights, failing to stop at compulsary stops etc.

And since this thread has got into the realm of speculation, let those of you who have posted that this was the riders fault, consider your position if the rider had been killed.

I'm with you on this Funkyfly and others. Motu and his lot sound like cadgers. Bloody riduculus. Some how, the erection of road signs warning of danger, have become some sort of conspiracy. Words fail.................

Skyryder

Motu

13th July 2004, 22:57

Lou Girardin

14th July 2004, 06:39

Jeeeezzz,I give up on you fucktards,when are you ever going to realise that you,and only you are in control of your bike,if you can't be prepared for the unexpected and react to them you are destined for an early grave,or at least a litigation court as you try to hang some other poor prick for your fuck up.You hit a car that pulls out in front of you and you want to blame them,wake up,it's all in your control,buck up,or fuck up,then shut up.

I normally agree with you Motu, but have you thought about how slow you have to go to be able to stop in half the clear distance ahead on some of these blind bends. If you do, you're risking a Liberace from someone following you.
That was a cop-out by the Judge. It sounds fine on paper, but a bit unrealistic in the real world.
The problem would be solved if our right to sue for negligence was re-instated.

Motu

14th July 2004, 07:18

True - so,when you can't,be prepard....I think it's quite simple really,it's my life I'm protecting,and anyone else I might hit.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 07:43

Oh dear Funkyfly - you haven't ridden many bikes and it shows...

.

I been riding for about 2 years now and covered over 30,000 in that time.

While i have only ridden a dozen bikes and 2 years isnt a long time i dont see what on earth this has to do with the discussion at hand other than trying to discredit my reasonings - Nice try.

what are you going to do when a small child runs out in front of you and you bowl it over cause there wasn't a sign saying he was going to run out on the road?
.

Man you are sooo far off base its not even funny, its pathetic!

Theres no law saying you have to put up a sign when a kid runs out on the road!

For the 3rd time Motu - TRY AND REMEMBER IT THIS TIME -We are talking about trying to get people to DO THEIR JOB!

Contractors are to erect signs warning of anywork they are doing/have done.

When they dont do their job its makes the road more dangerous, esp for us riders.

"Kicking kids limp bodies" - your sad mate, really sad.

[QUOTE=Motu]

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 08:08

True - so,when you can't,be prepard....I think it's quite simple really,it's my life I'm protecting,and anyone else I might hit.

Be prepared for what Motu?

Be prepared to avoid the accident?

But you cant "be prepared" for everything!

Tell me, your coming around a tight blind bend with a truck right up your rear (because your riding slow due to being "prepared") you cant pull over there is no room, now you need to lean over to go around this bend BUT HANG ON THERE COULD BE ICE OR SAND OR EVEN LOOSE METAL better "prepare"

you prepared well, lots of loose gravel - well done - BUT hang on while you were "prepared" for the gravel/ice/sand buy maybe slowing down further so you dont have to lean the bike over the truck has rear ended you because he didnt see the loose metal, in the 2 seconds you have time to react you tried to get away but being on loose gravel the rear skidded.

I think we ALL "prepare", but this doenst always protect us from accidents.

Motu

14th July 2004, 08:09

No,it's about blaming someone else when you made a mistake - it shouldn't matter if signs were out,if safety gaurds are on a machine,a pool is fenced or a thousand other so called safety measures are in place,it's about personal responsability and making sure you are actualy capable of doing what you embark on.

France is a country of cowards,they also have beautiful tree lined roads - the trees are being ripped out because people are dying when they crash cars and motorcycles into them - it's the tree's fault you see,I'm sure you understand that logic.NZ is turning into a country of cowards too scared to face up to who is at fault,blame someone else,make them pay....

To stop kids running into the street we will have 2 meter mesh fences erected along all our roads,to stop motorcycle riders crashing on road works all roads will be made of playground rubber,this will increase traction,a bonus.we must protect the public.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 08:24

No,it's about blaming someone else when you made a mistake -

.

Wrong, this is about trying to reduce the chance of bikers coming off

Like i posted before "Its called looking out for one another! Anything to help bikers stay upright. Nothing to do with proving whos at fault, nothing to do with everyone having to accept that they cause every accident"

To stop kids running into the street we will have 2 meter mesh fences erected along all our roads,to stop motorcycle riders crashing on road works all roads will be made of playground rubber,this will increase traction,a bonus.we must protect the public.

What planet are you living on? roads made of playground rubber?

Im trying to keep this thread in the REAL WORLD, not in the realms of fantasy.

merv

14th July 2004, 08:30

The problem would be solved if our right to sue for negligence was re-instated.

Oh dear the American way. Then the point I keep making will really bite in and the Councils and Contractors will protect their butts in the very fashion I have been suggesting. I haven't been trying to pass judgement on Chris or the Councils but have simply been warning that if you take the "who can I blame?" attitude those that get blamed will soon form a defence on the recommendation of their lawyers and insurance companies.

Councils have that extra ability to be able to introduce bylaws as per the dog example.

Do we really want anti-bike bylaws - if you accept no responsibility and push them that's what it will come to. The dog example started through lack of responsibility on the part of the dog (you could read bike eh!) owners.

Funk if you really are in a Council you will know this and stop spouting on the opposite - its not the Council executive and team that's the problem its usually the elected Councillors and Mayor that push for policy change to keep their voters happy and that means their ratepayers who don't want to face legal bills and other costs. Lump all the responsibility on the contractors and up go your maintenance costs because they simply pass that on.

Motu

14th July 2004, 08:32

Wrong, this is about trying to reduce the chance of bikers coming off

Like i posted before "Its called looking out for one another! Anything to help bikers stay upright. Nothing to do with proving whos at fault, nothing to do with everyone having to accept that they cause every accident"

It's called LOOKING OUT FOR YOURSELF,relying on someone else for your life is life threatening,take responsability for your own actions.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 08:35

It's a good start. Perhaps contractors will be made to take more care in future.

Muto, this is what its about, making people take more care to do their job, doing this could help save lives.

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 08:45

Every accident you have is your own fault. There is ALWAYS something you could have done to avoid one.

Chris Parkin is an idiot for pushing that through the courts because this outcome will set a precedent and give an excuse to local government to legislate in many, many ways against motorcycles and motorcyclists.

Save your own life, and stop relying on central and local government to legislate the mechanism of your own redemption. Road works aren't about saving lives, its about national and local economies and trucks just don't care about a bit of pea gravel.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 08:47

simply been warning that if you take the "who can I blame?" attitude those that get blamed will soon form a defence on the recommendation of their lawyers and insurance companies.

Councils have that extra ability to be able to introduce bylaws as per the dog example.
.

If the contractors had DONE THEIR JOB and erected signs then the rider would have no case!

What kind of defence could they form? Ooh ooh heres a good one - maybe they could start DOING THEIR JOB!

Funk.....stop spouting on the opposite - its not the Council executive and team that's the problem its usually the elected Councillors and Mayor that push for policy change.

What are you on about? Councillors and the Mayor ARE PART OF the council (Local govt), thus included in my remark!

merv

14th July 2004, 08:50

FzerozeroT

14th July 2004, 08:53

What planet are you living on? roads made of playground rubber?

Im trying to keep this thread in the REAL WORLD, not in the realms of fantasy.

It isn't the realm of fantasy, through the process of organic chemistry (cracking i think?) you could turn tyre rubber into a hard compound that would have enough flex to not tear apart like seal does, if NZ pioneered the process without telling anyone then we could be paid to take the worlds excess tyres, cover our own roads with the money, then release the "secret formula" and sell the poor saps back thier tyres at an inflated price. Muahaha :devil2:

Seriously though, I'm taking your side on this issue as far as they have a job to do, so do it properly. But no need to be so angry (and childish) towards Motu (come on 'Muto', is that supposed to be an insult?) Motu is taking the same stance that he has when this subject has occoured in the past and I respect him for drawing an absoute line, he seems to follow kantian etics and good for him, I'm sure that he is great to work for and with because he sounds like he doesn't fuck around with namby pamby bullshit.

I'll drag up my crash which Motu will remember for me being a moaning bastard also. 300m visibility to the corner where i crashed and i was doing 30kph which would have been the signposted speed if there were signs, roadworkers have denied that there was a problem with the corner and so I'm taking it to small claims, i went back to see if they had swept the gravel away. Lo and behold, they have resealed the entire intersection in bitumen. well now, why would you seal an intersection a second time in 2 months? because they fucked up the first time! :kick:

I'm all for responsibility which is why I'm going to see the people responsible in court, maybe they will take more tax money off of me for roading, oh boo hoo, we pay a fraction of the roading bill compared to heavy transport. I would like to see billions spent on roading, and not straightening corners! good thick roads that last forever and a day before they need resealing.

:done: rant over, that feels better :niceone:

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 09:00

Every accident you have is your own fault. There is ALWAYS something you could have done to avoid one.
.

Crap Jim, why dont you bowl down to the local cop shop and hospital and ask around.

excuse to local government to legislate in many, many ways against motorcycles and motorcyclists.
.
And in the REAL WORLD what might some of those be Jim?

Save your own life, and stop relying on central and local government to legislate the mechanism of your own redemption. Road works aren't about saving lives, its about national and local economies and trucks just don't care about a bit of pea gravel.

LOL, man why cant people READ! Contractors are required to put up signs - why would that be?

Because it can save accidents and lives!

Therefore road works SIGNS are about saving lives!

Go ask why a roading contractor has to put up a sign when they are working.

FzerozeroT

14th July 2004, 09:03

Jim i assume you've driven trucks before, and sure a patch of gravel doesn't hurt, but a shoulder can suck a unit right off the road, I've seen it happen! Roading contractors will have to get thier fingers out of thier asses because this isn't an issue that will cost big money, they are skimming on a few thousand dollars worth of road signs to make a little extra coin, you've seen the boards up, ra-de-ra roadworks $1.5 milion and they have about $2000 of road signs for it.

FzerozeroT

14th July 2004, 09:05

shit i'm feeling ranty,

How about if I go into a set of marked roadworks at 30kph, then decide to roost all the workers, should they take responsibility for standing in the way of my stones, they have a sign up which shows cars spraying stones at each other.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 09:13

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 09:16

Crap Jim, why dont you bowl down to the local cop shop and hospital and ask around.

And in the REAL WORLD what might some of those be Jim?

LOL, man why cant people READ! Contractors are required to put up signs - why would that be?

Because it can save accidents and lives!

Therefore road works SIGNS are about saving lives!

Go ask why a roading contractor has to put up a sign when they are working.

I've spent 3 months in and out of the Burwood spinal unit and Wellington Hospital orthopaedic unit with 4 separate compression fractures to C4, c5, T4, and T5 vertebrae. So before you go tossing childish and baseless insults around you might want to ask yourself if other haven;t had to ask hard questions of themselves.

I got run over (twice in the same accident) by someone slightly over the alcohol blood level. You know what? If I hadn't pissed around in Christchurch that afternoon I would have been in Picton earlier instead of having to rush. I wouldn't have had the accident. It happened because I didn't stick to a sensible timetable. Not because someone had a couple of wines at a mates place before he got on the ferry.

If you want a litigious model have a look at the US legal system. If someone doesn't wear a helmet, has a crash, and ends up brain damaged, it is entirely plausible that the Helmet manufacturers could be sued, and likely that they would lose the case.

You want that here? Keep taking everyone to court every time someone does something stupid, like not paying attention to the fact that there are hazards around road works, and the fact that it was signposted on the other side of the road.

You are obviously so entrenched in the abbrogation of personal responsibility to outside organisations that you are happy to continue the blameless victim model that cost 100s of millions of dollars in Govt. and personal insurance schemes.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 09:24

Checking Wellington City Council bylaws this provision exists now - just imagine them putting it into effect when they feel like it in relation to unsafe use of motorcycles on roads under repair if that's what they felt like doing:

18.11 Provision for Resolutions
18.11.1 The Council may by resolution impose such prohibitions, restrictions, controls, or directions concerning the use by traffic or otherwise of any road or other area or building controlled by the Council, as are permitted by any relevant enactment.

18.11.2 Any resolution may:

Be made in respect of a specified class, type or description of vehicle, and may be revoked or amended by the Council.

Now I say this a bit tongue in cheek really because Chris is a WCC Councillor and he probably would argue against enactment in his city.

Im talking about contractors doing their job merv, putting up signs like they are required to.

trying to get contractors to do their job (putting up signs) would reduce the need for councils to do anything stupid like implement such bylaws.

do you understand that?

Hence if we put pressure on councils to make sure their contractors are doing a proper job it will be good not only for the biker out there on the roads but also help curb any further court case's and resulting bylaws.

Man i hope you guys are starting to get this, its like teaching an old dog new tricks.

Mongoose

14th July 2004, 09:25

Oh dear Funkyfly - you haven't ridden many bikes and it shows...what are you going to do when a small child runs out in front of you and you bowl it over cause there wasn't a sign saying he was going to run out on the road? Go and kick his limp body cause he was such a silly little bugger - no,you'll blame his parents for their lack of control of their offspring,maybe you can sue them for damages.

Get out there on a bike and get some life experiances - Taranaki has some of the best riding roads we have,you can learn a lot out there...on the road.

Good try at fuzzying the edges of the debate Motu. In one leap you have taken this debate from known, man made dangers (ie grit on a corner,road ripped up etc) to a child running out infront of you. One has the opertunity, the expectation, to be signed the other not.
While I agree that there are too many numby pamby wrap them in cotton wool laws and rules I do not see how road signs fall into this.
My last posting asked, and yes I was expecting an answer from you, what do we have ANY road signs at all for?
Come to think of it, why do we have to have a ticket to ride/drive and why do we have any road rules?

FzerozeroT

14th July 2004, 09:28

I've spent 3 months in and out of the Burwood spinal unit and Wellington Hospital orthopaedic unit with 4 separate compression fractures to C4, c5, T4, and T5 vertebrae. So before you go tossing childish and baseless insults around you might want to ask yourself if other haven;t had to ask hard questions of themselves.

I got run over (twice in the same accident) by someone slightly over the alcohol blood level. You know what? If I hadn't pissed around in Christchurch that afternoon I would have been in Picton earlier instead of having to rush. I wouldn't have had the accident. It happened because I didn't stick to a sensible timetable. Not because someone had a couple of wines at a mates place before he got on the ferry.

If you want a litigious model have a look at the US legal system. If someone doesn't wear a helmet, has a crash, and ends up brain damaged, it is entirely plausible that the Helmet manufacturers could be sued, and likely that they would lose the case.

You want that here? Keep taking everyone to court every time someone does something stupid, like not paying attention to the fact that there are hazards around road works, and the fact that it was signposted on the other side of the road.

You are obviously so entrenched in the abbrogation of personal responsibility to outside organisations that you are happy to continue the blameless victim model that cost 100s of millions of dollars in Govt. and personal insurance schemes.

How can you blame yourself for that, I was at a bus stop at 9pm in chch and got mugged by 5 guys with a skateboard, when i woke up in hospital i thought, well it wasn't the smartest time to be at the bus stop, partial responsibility, but why is it not the smartest? why should anyone have to worry about 5 homies beating the crap out of them?

I thought the deal was no helmet no ACC?

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 09:37

I got run over (twice in the same accident) by someone slightly over the alcohol blood level. You know what? If I hadn't pissed around in Christchurch that afternoon I would have been in Picton earlier instead of having to rush. I wouldn't have had the accident. It happened because I didn't stick to a sensible timetable. Not because someone had a couple of wines at a mates place before he got on the ferry.
.

If your rushing caused the accident then your to blame, i hope you stood up in court and told the judge how he shouldnt charge the other driver because it was all your fault? i hope YOU paid the other drivers fine?

If you want a litigious model have a look at the US legal system.....You want that here? Keep taking everyone to court every time someone does something stupid..

Read the other posts mate, this isnt about encouraging court action! go on - read the posts, its about using an EXISTING court case to try and prevent accidents by getting contractors do to their job, thus PREVENTING further court cases!

You are obviously so entrenched in the abbrogation of personal responsibility to outside organisations that you are happy to continue the blameless victim model that cost 100s of millions of dollars in Govt. and personal insurance schemes.

You have no idea mate, i take a lot personal responisbility.

Im awaiting you answer to the above questions. re. you causing an accident

750Y

14th July 2004, 09:42

well this morning i put the boy's bottle of milk in the microwave to heat for 83 seconds , gave the top a wash & popped out to the shed to get the bike out & start it up. i'm heading back into the house when i hear the mrs scream "who the f&*%$k does that!!!???". I walk in & see milk all over the floor & all up her nice clean black work clothes. turns out she has 'in her haste and sense of routine' heard the beeps come in & grabbed the bottle out spilling it everywhere. then she looks at me & i'm trying not to laugh as she repeats her question, i just say calmly 'you shoulda looked instead of rushing it'. anyway, it's all my fault lol.

Mongoose

14th July 2004, 09:45

FzerozeroT

14th July 2004, 09:49

haha, I know, what really defies me is that somehow it's my fault when she doesn't put the new roll of dunny wrap on the holder :P

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 10:05

If your rushing caused the accident then your to blame, i hope you stood up in court and told the judge how he shouldnt charge the other driver because it was all your fault? i hope YOU paid the other drivers fine?

Read the other posts mate, this isnt about encouraging court action! go on - read the posts, its about using an EXISTING court case to try and prevent accidents by getting contractors do to their job, thus PREVENTING further court cases!

You have no idea mate, i take a lot personal responisbility.

Im awaiting you answer to the above questions. re. you causing an accident
First point. I'm not your mate, so you can knock that off.

Second point - I couldn't stand up in court, the other driver was fined $600 and disqualified for a month. I still maintain that if I'd kept to my schedule I wouldn;t have had the accident, I wouldn;t have been pressured to get to the ferry terminal on time, and I might have been paying attention to my surroundings instead of celebrating the fact that I made it to Picton with 15 minutes to spare.

Third point - I have read every post.

Chris Parkin had an accident and felt moved to blame everyone but himself. The Judge mentioned in his judgement that if Mr Parkin had been taking more care he may have avoided having an accident in the first place. Mr Parkin was awarded less money as a result, and I agree with the Judge's comments.

There was no precedent prior to this case, for taking contractors or councils to court if you had an accident on signposted roadworks.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 10:14

Second point - I couldn't stand up in court, the other driver was fined $600 and disqualified for a month.

So Mr personal responsibility - YOU cost this other driver $600 and loss of license. How did you take personal responsibility for this?

Did you pay the $600 for him? Did you get him a work license ($1000) so he wouldnt loose his job due to your bad decision?

There was no precedent prior to this case, for taking contractors or councils to court if you had an accident on signposted roadworks.

I agree Chris was partly to blame, just as the judge said, but the MAJORITY of blame went to the contractor.

AGAIN - Im trying to encourage councils to make sure contractors do their job correctly - erect signs! Maybe this case will make them sit up and take notice! We are talking LIVES here Jim.

Dont want to help save lives then dont.

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 10:38

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 10:44

Nice twist. I wondered if you would keep pushing this flawed logic.

Flawed logic? im simply following your argument (that YOU accept personal responsibility for any accident you are involved in) to its natural conclusion

You stated the accident was caused by you "celebrating" and not paying attention.

I would like to know what you did to help this poor innocent person out.

Answer please........

jrandom

14th July 2004, 11:11

Flawed logic? im simply following your argument (that YOU accept personal responsibility for any accident you are involved in) to its natural conclusion

That's not the natural conclusion of Jim's argument.

The natural conclusion is that everyone accepts responsibility for their own portion, and gets on with sorting themselves out.

Do you really believe what you're saying, or are you just trying to wind people up?

FzerozeroT

14th July 2004, 11:13

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/motorcycles/download/perfectday.mpg

quite appropriate

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 11:18

That's not the natural conclusion of Jim's argument.

The natural conclusion is that everyone accepts responsibility for their own portion, and gets on with sorting themselves out.

Do you really believe what you're saying, or are you just trying to wind people up?

You think everyones a joker huh? first Motu now me?

What i dont believe is that there is never an innocent party in an accident.

A person changes a CD in their car, crosses the centre line and side swipes you, how can that be your fault?

You go back and read Motu and Jims statements - it is ALWAYS your fault

Well thats just rubbish.

Why didnt the cops charge Jim?

Why only charge the other driver?

Answer please.....

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 11:23

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/motorcycles/download/perfectday.mpg

quite appropriate

Great AD.

Riders need all the help they can get to stay upright, in that ad the SIGNS saved his life.

or course we cant have them ALL in the real world but certainly the more the better, bring on the road works warning signs!

jrandom

14th July 2004, 11:28

You think everyones a joker huh? first Motu now me?

I wasn't calling you a joker; I just wondered if you were intentionally taking a reductio ad absurdum in the wrong direction in an attempt to fluster Jim. Naughty but effective debating tactic.

What i dont believe is that there is never an innocent party in an accident.

Many of the guys on the forum, including myself, share the view that 'accidents' never *are*.

A person changes a CD in their car, crosses the centre line and side swipes you, how can that be your fault?

Difference between 'fault' and 'ability to avoid', I think. In that example, it may have been possible to swerve around the CD-changing driver. Etc.

Answer please.....

Stop saying that. If you pose a good, or even sufficiently annoying question, it will be answered. If your post doesn't merit a response, tagging that onto the end won't make you more noticeable.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 11:39

Many of the guys on the forum, including myself, share the view that 'accidents' never *are*.

Difference between 'fault' and 'ability to avoid', I think. In that example, it may have been possible to swerve around the CD-changing driver. Etc..

enuff of this "may have", in this case you didnt have time to avoid, thats the whole point JR, YOU CANT AWAYS AVOID BEING INVOLVED!

Stop saying that. If you pose a good, or even sufficiently annoying question, it will be answered.

Um JR, people have a habit of picking and choosing what they will answer so as to minimize any adverse effect it may have on their arguement, look back thru and you will see many unanswered questions.

And what do you know, you never answered those questions.

I will ask again, this time without the "please answer" - Why didnt the cops charge Jim?

Mongoose

14th July 2004, 11:40

Difference between 'fault' and 'ability to avoid', I think. In that example, it may have been possible to swerve around the CD-changing driver. Etc.
.

From Motu

No,I'm not trolling and I won't back down on this one - Mongoose,you are entirly correct,it is your fault,in retrospect there is always something you could of done to prevent an accident and blaming someone else is a cowards way to deal with your own lack of skills.I faced this (end quote)

Two completely different things being said here. While I agree with some of the *ability to avoid* part of what was said.Some things, as mentioned by Motu are unavoidable. There is a large difference between having the ability to avoid and being at fault.
Also Motu, you must possess magic powers in your ability to know my skills or lack of, my defensive driving or lack of.Dont mind opinion on the genral topic being discussed but to then judge my riding style is going a tad far considering we have never riden together.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 11:52

From Motu

Mongoose,you are entirly correct,it is your fault,in retrospect there is always something you could of done to prevent an accident - end quote

Two completely different things being said here. While I agree with some of the *ability to avoid* part of what was said.Some things, as mentioned by Motu are unavoidable. There is a large difference between having the ability to avoid and being at fault.
Also Motu, you must possess magic powers in your ability to know my skills or lack of, my defensive driving or lack of.Dont mind opinion on the genral topic being discussed but to then judge my riding style is going a tad far considering we have never riden together.

the FACT remains that there is such a thing as an innocent party in some accidents.

Often there is NO WARNING, thus you may have no way to aviod it.

Time for a poll on this.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 12:01

Why didnt the cops charge Jim?

Because it's easy to quantify an illegal blood alcohol level, which the other driver had. Laws banning hurrying and failing to pay attention aren't practical, so Jim didn't get booked.

If Jim had done something pinnable-downable, instead of contributing in a manner which isn't codified in the road regulations (but which was still, as Jim so admirably admits, a factor in the accident), he would have been charged as well.

Now, in terms of your statement about it sometimes being impossible to 'avoid being involved', I'm fairly sure that for any example you come up with (the one about the CD-changer being a case in point) I could come up with some reasonably plannable action by the 'victim' driver or rider that would have avoided the 'accident'. Such as expecting cars to wander over the centerline and being alert enough to steer quickly out of the way when it happens.

I think that to get past that particular argumentative impasse, one would have to assume evil intent from the 'at fault' party, at which point it becomes a matter of assault and/or murder. Not an accident.

Hence my position that accidents are theoretically avoidable. Since nobody's perfect, though, I can't claim that I or anyone else is capable of demonstrating that by never having an 'accident' in any circumstances. But when I do have one, I fully expect to be able to identify contributing factors in my own shortcomings.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 12:03

the FACT remains that there is such a thing as an innocent party in some accidents.

Your strident assertions prove nothing.

Time for a poll on this.

Neither does any prevalence of opinion.

Mongoose

14th July 2004, 12:09

Hence my position that accidents are theoretically avoidable. Since nobody's perfect, though, I can't claim that I or anyone else is capable of demonstrating that by never having an 'accident' in any circumstances. But when I do have one, I fully expect to be able to identify contributing factors in my own shortcomings.

This is a far more acceptable form of putting things, not as was stated earlier in the thread that you are at fault in EVERY case. Of course having a prang makes you think what you could and would do in future to *try* and avoid a simular situation. According to what was said earlier, if two parties are involved both are a guilty as each other - bollocks i say to that sentiment.
But, back to the original, signage for road works/gritting of roads etc. While a downed biker may have contributed to some extent so did the lack of signage.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 12:10

Because it's easy to quantify an illegal blood alcohol level, which the other driver had. Laws banning hurrying and failing to pay attention aren't practical, so Jim didn't get booked.

If Jim had done something pinnable-downable, instead of contributing in a manner which isn't codified in the road regulations (but which was still, as Jim so admirably admits, a factor in the accident), he would have been charged as well.

Now, in terms of your statement about it sometimes being impossible to 'avoid being involved', I'm fairly sure that for any example you come up with (the one about the CD-changer being a case in point) I could come up with some reasonably plannable action by the 'victim' driver or rider that would have avoided the 'accident'. Such as expecting cars to wander over the centerline and being alert enough to steer quickly out of the way when it happens.

I think that to get past that particular argumentative impasse, one would have to assume evil intent from the 'at fault' party, at which point it becomes a matter of assault and/or murder. Not an accident.

Hence my position that accidents are theoretically avoidable. Since nobody's perfect, though, I can't claim that I or anyone else is capable of demonstrating that by never having an 'accident' in any circumstances. But when I do have one, I fully expect to be able to identify contributing factors in my own shortcomings.

Dude, you can plan all you want, you still can plan for everything!

Sure accidents are aviodable if BOTH sides were planning ahead, What im talking about here is failure of one party to drive safely and another party not being able to do anything about it.

It happens, go ask a cop.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 12:14

While a downed biker may have contributed to some extent so did the lack of signage.

I think that everyone who's posted to this thread would agree with that statement. It seems self-evident that it's possible NOT to crash on a blind corner with unexpected gravel; hence, if one crashes, at least partial responsibility devolves on the rider.

I thought that this, which was effectively the judge's position in the case referred to previously, made complete sense. The guys who've posted here arguing for personal responsibility are railing against the 'victim mentality' that would argue NO responsibility for the rider in the gravelly-corner case.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 12:15

Your strident assertions prove nothing.

Neither does any prevalence of opinion.

You are so full of it, big brazen statements, yet again pulled out of the air.

The majority of our laws are based on prevalance of opinion!

The majority of opinion proves majority belief.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 12:18

What im talking about here is failure of one party to drive safely and another party not being able to do anything about it.

I know. Give me an example of one of those situations where no amount of planning or actions by one party could avoid the 'accident', and remember that it should include an absence of malevolent intent on either side.

It happens, go ask a cop.

I know it happens. But I'm arguing that doesn't always have to.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 12:21

I think that everyone who's posted to this thread would agree with that statement. It seems self-evident that it's possible NOT to crash on a blind corner with unexpected gravel; hence, if one crashes, at least partial responsibility devolves on the rider.

I thought that this, which was effectively the judge's position in the case referred to previously, made complete sense. The guys who've posted here arguing for personal responsibility are railing against the 'victim mentality' that would argue NO responsibility for the rider in the gravelly-corner case.

I dont recall seeing much "victim mentality" in this thread. I dont remember anyone stating the rider wasnt partly at fault.

What we have had is a barrage of stupid statements by Motu, Jim and yourself stating it is alway the riders fault.

This is simply wrong.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 12:22

You are so full of it, big brazen statements, yet again pulled out of the air.

You're accusing me of brazenly pulling the statement that you brazenly pull statements out of the air, out of the air? I wasn't attempting to prove anything with assertions; I was pointing out that *you* were doing so.

The majority of our laws are based on prevalance of opinion!

Which is why Winston Churchill described democracy as "the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried". It's one of those 'logic' ideas - you know, the fact that a majority opinion is not proof of correctness?

The majority of opinion proves majority belief.

Of course. But... it doesn't prove right or wrong.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 12:27

Which is why Winston Churchill described democracy as "the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried". It's one of those 'logic' ideas - you know, the fact that a majority opinion is not proof of correctness?

Of course. But... it doesn't prove right or wrong.

JR society needs a measuring stick, remember we are trying to keep this REAL WORLD, in new zealand that measuring stick for right and wrong is often what the majority believes.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 12:28

What we have had is a barrage of stupid statements by Motu, Jim and yourself stating it is alway the riders fault.

Kindly quote the bits where Jim and I said that it was "always the rider's fault".

This is simply wrong.

I'm going to say this once more and then give up. You can't just state that something is, or isn't, right or wrong - you have to demonstrate it by a line of reasoning if you want to convince anyone who thinks otherwise.

Saying "This is simply wrong" and hoping that the statement stands on its own merit is known as making an unsupported assertion, which is one of those things called 'logical fallacies' that don't belong in a good argument.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 12:34

Kindly quote the bits where Jim and I said that it was "always the rider's fault"..

Posted by Jim - "Every accident you have is your own fault. There is ALWAYS something you could have done to avoid one."

You can't just state that something is, or isn't, right or wrong - you have to demonstrate it by a line of reasoning if you want to convince anyone who thinks otherwise.

Go back and read my scenarios about waiting in traffic, blocked in with no where to go and someone rear ending you, in such a case you would be an innocent party.

reason on that and compare it to jims comment above.

well?

I have carried this torch long enough, i look fwd to someone else carrying it on.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 12:37

JR society needs a measuring stick, remember we are trying to keep this REAL WORLD, in new zealand that measuring stick for right and wrong is often what the majority believes.

Indeed. And I wouldn't try to argue otherwise. But the majority opinion can be influenced towards a better position by a single good argument, which is why it's important to attempt the consideration of these questions without prejudice to what people may already think.

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 12:42

I will ask again, this time without the "please answer" - Why didnt the cops charge Jim?

The cops did every thing they could to charge me, but as far as the law was concerned I'd done nothing wrong, I was wearing protective clothing, my bike met legal requirements to be on the road, and the skid marks indicated that I'd seen the threat and braked, though to this day I have no memory of the proceeding 12 hours and only a spotty recollection of the next 3 days.

I believe that I could have avoided it. It is 100% my fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, because of a lack of personal discipline. Everyone is human and we all make mistakes, but motorcyclists need personal discipline, skills, and survival habits that run contrary to the current philosophy of having an accident and then going, "O well, insurance will fix it and I'm such a good driver/rider it couldn't possibly be my fault." You can get away with that attitude more often in a car than on a bike, and if you don't take the approach that every accident is your own fault, you aren;t riding in survival mode. It's harsh, but a necessary attitude if you want to keep on riding bikes for years, rather than just to the next accident.

You've selectively quoted me and put words in my mouth. That's not a conversational technique. Neither is demanding answers. I'm happy to sustain an argument, but not when it is apparent that it is wasteful of both party's time.

I'd like to thank JR for popping in because he has said what I wanted to say in response to your comments and saved me from making a bigger arse of myself than usual.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 12:43

Go back and read my scenarios about waiting in traffic, blocked in with no where to go and someone rear ending you, in such a case you would be an innocent party.

That scenario is precisely why I always filter away from the back of a traffic queue. A colleague of mine had precisely that accident, and he doesn't filter like I do. I've never been rear-ended. Do our respective styles influence the likelihood of that particular accident happening? I think so. Once again, I'm not talking about 'fault', in any moral sense. I'm talking about control and ability to influence outcomes.

I have carried this torch long enough, i look fwd to someone else carrying it on.

Giving up already? You should take lessons from Zed.

merv

14th July 2004, 12:44

If the contractors had DONE THEIR JOB and erected signs then the rider would have no case!

What kind of defence could they form? Ooh ooh heres a good one - maybe they could start DOING THEIR JOB!

What are you on about? Councillors and the Mayor ARE PART OF the council (Local govt), thus included in my remark!

You seem oblivious to the real point - all this stuff about contractors doing their job - what kind of defence? etc you are spouting on about.

I will try again. The point I am making is that if contractual arrangements make that the absolute responsibility of the contractor or the Council, either way to ensure 100% compliance will cost money and it is unlikely to be achievable. Others have mentioned signs blown over, stolen etc. Defending lawsuits from crashed bikers will cost money. Organisations and their insurers on the advice of their lawyers are averse to spending money. If we push them and they lose they will legislate to ensure they don't lose.

Say all you like about the contractor, but the Council employs the contractor, and the contractor will have some weight with Council opinion and it won't be in favour of bikers that cost either party real hard money.

My point about the Council executive and staff versus the Mayor and Councillors was aimed at your comment about you having 7 years experience with a Council (I was presuming as an employee and not an elected representative) though you aren't an experienced biker, and that was to point out to you no matter how intelligent or logical the staff might be, the elected people hold sway based on usually minority pressure from squeaky wheels. It wouldn't take much for there to be an outcry against motorcycles racing dangerously down the nice ratepayers lovely country roads. Solution, ban the bastards.

Are you too stuck in a warp here to see that.

No-one wins when the lawyers get involved and costs skyrocket.

pete376403

14th July 2004, 13:00

I know. Give me an example of one of those situations where no amount of planning or actions by one party could avoid the 'accident', and remember that it should include an absence of malevolent intent on either side.
I know it happens. But I'm arguing that doesn't always have to.
Something along the lines of when the earthquake that hit california some time back, cars on the upper decks of the motorways fell onto cars below. Not much anyone could have done about that, without taking precautions to extremes (don't drive at all, don't live in california)

jrandom

14th July 2004, 13:06

Something along the lines of when the earthquake that hit california some time back, cars on the upper decks of the motorways fell onto cars below. Not much anyone could have done about that, without taking precautions to extremes (don't drive at all, don't live in california)

Heh. OK. Er... perhaps I should have added "when earthquakes are not involved".

But I think that Funkyfly's points related to the 'fault' (ha ha!) being one-sided. In the case of an earthquake or other natural disaster, the fact that you happen to be in a car or on a bike when it hits is rather incidental and doesn't really bear on the question of distributed blame for road accidents in general.

Motu

14th July 2004, 13:10

Two completely different things being said here. While I agree with some of the *ability to avoid* part of what was said.Some things, as mentioned by Motu are unavoidable. There is a large difference between having the ability to avoid and being at fault.
Also Motu, you must possess magic powers in your ability to know my skills or lack of, my defensive driving or lack of.Dont mind opinion on the genral topic being discussed but to then judge my riding style is going a tad far considering we have never riden together.

Sorry,that wasn't directed to you alone,just my poor grammer at work,I was saying several things in one paragraph.

Being prepard on the road is important,as I said in my reply to Lou - if you are in a situation with limited stopping distance you don't have to crawl along,just be aware that something out of the ordinary may occour and be able to react if and when.

How about a bit of real life?...Last summer with melting roads I was riding on one of Auckland regions most popular bike roads,they will know the road between Hunua and Clevdon well,maybe not as well me - I have been riding this road since the early 70s,when it was all gravel..familiararity breeds contempt eh? coming into a blind down hill right hander I find a huge lump in the road,pushed up by trucks on the soft seal,this thing is 200mm high and only 100mm wide,like it was pulled up between the rear tyres of a truck.Holy shit! no signs and it's right on my line! I flick the bike upright,hit it straight then slam the bike down to make the rest of the corner,all without backing off the gas,that woulda been stupid.Only a small portion of what I did was skill on my part,well,ok,no skill on my part,but it was seeing a hazzard and having an instinctive plan to put into place,the rest was my bike,and of course my choice of bike for back roads is no coincidence.

Yes,I can be caught out unawares,no doubt about that,but I make sure I have an escape plan,somewhere to go,enough room to brake,swerve,whatever.I'm not infalable by a long way,but I have many cards up my sleeve.

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 13:30

Posted by Jim - "Every accident you have is your own fault. There is ALWAYS something you could have done to avoid one."

Go back and read my scenarios about waiting in traffic, blocked in with no where to go and someone rear ending you, in such a case you would be an innocent party.

reason on that and compare it to jims comment above.

well?

I have carried this torch long enough, i look fwd to someone else carrying it on.

One of the things always hammered home in riding courses is maintaining a survival space. If the only thing you have to deal with is traffic, then you should be able to create an out. If you didn't and didn't maintain sufficient watch in your mirrors then it's your fault. No contrast, it's the same argument.

Act's of "God" like Earthquakes don't count unless you started the earthquake. Then it's your fault.

We didn't all buckle to your view, so you're taking your toys elsewhere? Given the collective number of years riding, and the collective ages of the participants opposing your argument, and add that to some of the views you've expressed earlier one would have expected you to come over to the "dark" side by now.

Mongoose

14th July 2004, 13:31

Sorry,that wasn't directed to you alone,just my poor grammer at work,I was saying several things in one paragraph.

How about a bit of real life?...Last summer with melting roads I was riding on one of Auckland regions most popular bike roads,they will know the road between Hunua and Clevdon well,maybe not as well me - I have been riding this road since the early 70s,when it was all gravel..familiararity breeds contempt eh? coming into a blind down hill right hander I find a huge lump in the road,pushed up by trucks on the soft seal,this thing is 200mm high and only 100mm wide,like it was pulled up between the rear tyres of a truck.Holy shit! no signs and it's right on my line! I flick the bike upright,hit it straight then slam the bike down to make the rest of the corner,all without backing off the gas,that woulda been stupid.Only a small portion of what I did was skill on my part,well,ok,no skill on my part,but it was seeing a hazzard and having an instinctive plan to put into place,the rest was my bike,and of course my choice of bike for back roads is no coincidence.

Yes,I can be caught out unawares,no doubt about that,but I make sure I have an escape plan,somewhere to go,enough room to brake,swerve,whatever.I'm not infalable by a long way,but I have many cards up my sleeve.

I dare say we all have a cought out story,or three. I also am begining to think that there is a different interpretation on what has been said and what was actually meant, maybe I am wrong again but then again, I am used to that :laugh: . I am now starting to take your idea Motu and join it in with the others, yes in most situations there is an out(off road riding helps in this ability) but at the same time others have to shoulder their share of the blame as well.

750Y

14th July 2004, 13:51

i wonder if the guy this thread was originally about will ever read this & what his spin would be. I wonder if he in any way was able to make good use of his personal standing as a councillor to influence the process or to at least have his case known and accepted. seems weird to me that this is the first proceeding of it's type to come before the courts. wonder how far joe bloggs with no money or position woulda got?

Mongoose

14th July 2004, 14:37

scroter

14th July 2004, 15:10

[QUOTE=bungbung]
The prosecution resulted from Mr Parkin's crash on February 16 last year, when his motorbike skidded on loose chip on a Route 52 bend between Weber and Porangahau. It crossed the road and hit a tree and a fence.

The gravel came from a recently-sealed patch on the opposite side of the road, but there was no sign warning Mr Parkin of the danger, although there was a warning for traffic coming from the opposite direction.

Mr Parkin was not badly injured but told the court at a May hearing, in which the council and the company defended the charges, that damage to his 1000cc Aprilla twin motorbike, clothing, boots and helmet cost more than $8500.

According to evidence, a sign was put in place after roadworks were completed about January 29, but there was no evidence of its presence after that date. The loose chip had been applied by a sub-contractor on February 10.
QUOTE]

how come it took more than 18 days to sweep this road?

scumdog

14th July 2004, 16:10

jrandom quote:"I know it happens. But I'm arguing that doesn't always have to."

I don't think anyone was saying it ALWAYS has to jr. :calm:

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 16:14

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 16:25

Heh. OK. Er... perhaps I should have added "when earthquakes are not involved".

But I think that Funkyfly's points related to the 'fault' (ha ha!) being one-sided. In the case of an earthquake or other natural disaster, the fact that you happen to be in a car or on a bike when it hits is rather incidental and doesn't really bear on the question of distributed blame for road accidents in general.

How about someone having a heart attack when driving? A seizure? when driving?

merv

14th July 2004, 16:26

How about someone having a heart attack when driving? A seizure? when driving?

One thing's for sure you wouldn't be able to prosecute the Council for it.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 16:30

I dare say we all have a cought out story,or three. I also am begining to think that there is a different interpretation on what has been said and what was actually meant, maybe I am wrong again but then again, I am used to that :laugh: . I am now starting to take your idea Motu and join it in with the others, yes in most situations there is an out(off road riding helps in this ability) but at the same time others have to shoulder their share of the blame as well.

LOL, we arent talking "most" situations here, Motu and Jim laid down a line that stated there is ALWAYS an out.

aza131

14th July 2004, 16:33

A friend of mine struck this very thing on the port hills in Ch Ch, droped the bike his shoulder hit the armco and smashed it to peices. He now only has the use of one arm, I would like someone to tell him that this was his fault!

Unfortunatly sometime shit happens!! :argh:

Mongoose

14th July 2004, 16:35

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 16:39

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 16:39

We didn't all buckle to your view, so you're taking your toys elsewhere? Given the collective number of years riding, and the collective ages of the participants opposing your argument, and add that to some of the views you've expressed earlier one would have expected you to come over to the "dark" side by now.

Mate - ops cant call you guys that anymore can i. Fella, this thread has 2 tangents

1) Your idea that if your involved in any addident you are always at fault. True or False

2) Try to raise council awareness of the dangers of contractors not erecting warning sign. Good idea or bad

Ive said my peice and invested a lot of time trying to gather support for point 2 being a good idea.

This has simply been a waste of my time, i tried but didnt get far.

So now i personally will contact different councils in the areas i ride to notify them of the inherent dangers i personally see when contractors fail to erect signs.

If one biker managers to save his ass due to the signs then alls not in vain.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 16:43

[QUOTE=Jim2]Certainly, in some way it will be. Especially if you knew the little darlings had been there.[/QUOTE

FFS you guys, now i gotta go buy one of them magic balls wot tells Ya wots gonna happen when yer not looking :brick:

I know how you feel Mongoose :brick: :brick: :brick:

Help oher riders stay upright out there? Na lets just piss all over anyone involved in an accident and forget about trying to be proactive.

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 16:57

Certainly, in some way it will be. Especially if you knew the little darlings had been there.

FFS you guys, now i gotta go buy one of them magic balls wot tells Ya wots gonna happen when yer not looking :brick:

Sorry Mongoose. I'm not doing this to rile people, and I don't think Motu or JRandom are either. People are really keen to pass the blame off these days, and if you examine your own offs from the point of view of what you did wrong you learn a lot more than writing it off as an event caused by events outside your control.

I remember being told off by an NZMS instructor for blaming the couple of offs I'd had on other drivers. I felt really indignant that anyone could interpret what was obviously stupidity on the part of other road users as being my fault. A few years reflection a couple more offs, and then a biggy changed my viewpoint, and helped remove ego from riding a bike. For me anyway.

My brother-in-law lost his right arm and leg (all of both) in a motorcycle accident and once he got over his anger he says he should have stayed at a mate's place instead of trying to get home while really tired. The fact that a drunk driver crushed him against a bridge and flicked him 20ft into the stream below is of less importance to him than what HE could have done to avoid it in the first place.

Motu

14th July 2004, 18:03

Just to keep the camp fire burning on this issue here is a question for Ya's all

You are driving/riding at night, its wet as you approach the intersection, being a defensive sort person you slow down seeing as its wet. But, halfway thru your left turn you find out that not all thats wet that night is water, the little bampots around here use oil to do there wheellies in(under powereded cars!). As these bampots dont piss around, no one litre of oil on the road, Oh no sir, tip the whole 44 gallon drum full of it out on the road.
So here you are, half way around the corner and suddenly no traction, is this your fault?
ps This scenario is based on actual events :argh:

OK,I could go down in a screaming heap - but there are clues....smell for a start,fresh oil,used,diesel,all will have a smell,209 liters on the road is gunna cause a stink,get my senses alert to something wrong,it will look different - you have to be on the ball,looking all the time,sight,smell,sound,sixth sense,be a cat,stay alive.

Tomorrow may be differnt,but up to today I have never been caught out by road works - there is always a clue,roadworkers are messy buggers and leave evidence of their tampering...look for it.

Hitcher

14th July 2004, 18:04

Help oher riders stay upright out there? Na lets just piss all over anyone involved in an accident and forget about trying to be proactive.

Nobody is trying to "piss over" anybody. All Jim2 and others are saying is people should be prepared to take ownership for their own misfortunes, rather than trying to offload blame onto others. Accidents are exactly that, and rarely are they due to a single cause. Yes, there is much that can be done to proactively improve road safety. But looking to the courts to provide the answers is often counterproductive.

In the Chris Parkin case if is evident that there could have been better signage of the roadworks. But the issue of who (if anybody) is at fault or to blame here is moot.

speedpro

14th July 2004, 19:57

Been there done that mate - I was rear ended on my 18th birthday,I take the blame for not monitoring my rear.
My pillion and I were rear ended when I stopped at a compulsory stop sign. There was two lanes of traffic crossing in front of me. I was sitting behind one car that moved off, I approached the stop line and the guy behind just drove into me when I stopped. I always had every intention of stopping and moved forward with caution, there was lots of traffic.

How the hell could that possibly be my fault?

Mongoose

14th July 2004, 20:19

OK,I could go down in a screaming heap - but there are clues....smell for a start,fresh oil,used,diesel,all will have a smell,209 liters on the road is gunna cause a stink,get my senses alert to something wrong,it will look different - you have to be on the ball,looking all the time,sight,smell,sound,sixth sense,be a cat,stay alive.

Tomorrow may be differnt,but up to today I have never been caught out by road works - there is always a clue,roadworkers are messy buggers and leave evidence of their tampering...look for it.

Yeah, well, guess its one of those " You had to be there" situations.

Skyryder

14th July 2004, 20:21

Just a wee note Funkyfly, you won this one even though the opposition have failed to notice. :kick: There are situations out there that can not be forseen. There are cagers who for whatever reason do things that are unexpected. And we do all that we can to anticipate their stupidity. Most of the time we are successfull. On occasions some of us are not. There are distractions that require our attention and those that on occasaions cause 'involuntary' distractions. These, as the word means, are beyond our control. We are after all only human and our senses do have a finite ability.

I simply expepct roading contractors to adhere to there legal responsibilities in the same manner as the Ministry of Transport expects me to on the road. If I fuck up because it's my fault so be it, but I dammned if I am going to make allowences for some dickhead because he does not take my life as serioulsy as I do.

Skyryder

Lou Girardin

14th July 2004, 20:33

My pillion and I were rear ended when I stopped at a compulsory stop sign. There was two lanes of traffic crossing in front of me. I was sitting behind one car that moved off, I approached the stop line and the guy behind just drove into me when I stopped. I always had every intention of stopping and moved forward with caution, there was lots of traffic.

How the hell could that possibly be my fault?

It wasn't your fault, but were you watching the vehicle behind you? This incident is why I always work up to the front of a queue.
It's a very rare accident in which even the innocent party couldn't have done something to avoid it.
This is the essence of defensive driving.

James Deuce

14th July 2004, 20:48

Mate - ops cant call you guys that anymore can i. Fella, this thread has 2 tangents

1) Your idea that if your involved in any addident you are always at fault. True or False

2) Try to raise council awareness of the dangers of contractors not erecting warning sign. Good idea or bad

Ive said my peice and invested a lot of time trying to gather support for point 2 being a good idea.

This has simply been a waste of my time, i tried but didnt get far.

So now i personally will contact different councils in the areas i ride to notify them of the inherent dangers i personally see when contractors fail to erect signs.

If one biker managers to save his ass due to the signs then alls not in vain.

There's no call for rudeness.

Council's are local taxation agents. Motorcyclists are a minority that ride vehicles that are unsafe in conditions that 4 (or more) wheeled vehicles simply shrug off by being inherently more stable. Are you a rate payer in the district that the Councils you are contacting operate? If not then don't expect elected officials to be particularly sympathetic. You may find that rural councils are openly hostile given the combination of parochial conservatism and adherence to the principal that all motorcyclists are evil town destroying gang members. Even if they don't believe the second point it can easily be summoned and used to convince "right-thinking" people to respond apathetically to motorcycle friendly safety initiatives that involve significant extra funding.

You ride a mototrcycle in an underpopulated country with a hugely over developed roading infrastructure. The road is going to be dodgy off the main arterial routes, including the alternative route that Mr Parkin had his accident on. NZ is also one of the most urbanised society's in the world, and a Council with a shrinking rural population due to urban drift and therefore tax base, is always going to go for the cheapest road repair job they can get. Get used to it and ride accordingly.

If you want to help other bikers, whining in an Internet forum isn't going to help, neither is a piecemeal approach to random Councils. You need a strong political organisation with real political clout, including memebers of Government and Opposition. NZers are really good at moaning about stuff, but when it comes to long term hard work with no immediate personal payoff, and putting aside minor interpersonal differences for a bigger picture, it all turns to crap. Do you really think you are the first person to indignant about someone else's apparent lack of competence? How about approaching a council that you have a relationship with through a family member or personal contact. Convince someone with clout who isn't a biker that it is in their interest to make a few biker friendly noises within their political forum.

Single focus political groups like BRONZ are good at ocassional political victories, but quietly political broad spectrum groups like Ulysses are much more successful in the broader sense. Telling me I'm a wrong headed moron (I take it that is the distilled gist of increasingly personal attacks) achieves precisely zero.

Motu

14th July 2004, 21:05

My pillion and I were rear ended when I stopped at a compulsory stop sign. There was two lanes of traffic crossing in front of me. I was sitting behind one car that moved off, I approached the stop line and the guy behind just drove into me when I stopped. I always had every intention of stopping and moved forward with caution, there was lots of traffic.

How the hell could that possibly be my fault?

I think you guys are being oversensitive here - by accepting responsibilty and realising that there were things you could of done doesn't mean you went out and purposfully made yourself crash,step back and look at it impartialy.When I first learned this stuff I too was spitting mad indignent,but think about it,making arguments in my head (no internet then) I realised I didn't have a leg to stand on

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 21:30

Nobody is trying to "piss over" anybody.

really?

"The RIDER fucked up.....he fucked up on his nice Aprillia and wants someone to pay for it - how bought we take responsability for our own actions and pay for it ourselves."

"it's all in your control,buck up,or fuck up,then shut up."

"blaming someone else is a cowards way to deal with your own lack of skills"

"Chris Parkin is an idiot for pushing that through the courts"

"Chris Parkin had an accident and felt moved to blame everyone but himself"

I call that pissing over the guy. The people who made these comments werent even there at the time of the accident, have they talked to chris about the crash details to hear what he has to say?

scumdog

14th July 2004, 21:30

A truck re-cap flailing across the road towards you can be damn hard to avoid - and I can't see how being hit by one could be my fault. :blink:

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 21:34

speedpro

14th July 2004, 21:35

I think you guys are being oversensitive here - by accepting responsibilty and realising that there were things you could of done doesn't mean you went out and purposfully made yourself crash,step back and look at it impartialy.When I first learned this stuff I too was spitting mad indignent,but think about it,making arguments in my head (no internet then) I realised I didn't have a leg to stand on
Assuming it was my fault and I am now accepting responsibility for being rear ended at the compulsory stop sign where there was too much traffic to safely enter the intersection without stopping which was a legal requirement anyway, just what was I doing that I could have stopped doing, or not doing that I could have started doing, that would have helped me avoid causing this guy to rear end me??

It was a nice sunny afternoon, sun overhead and not in the eyes.

My personal opinion is that there was nothing I could have done in this situation to avoid this incident, apart from staying at home.

I suppose I could have stopped on the very left of the lane. But then of course some dick would have pulled up beside me at the intersection causing another set of problems to avoid. Even in the RX4 he would still have hit me as he wasn't watching and said as much. I was riding a Z1000J with a VERY loud pipe, it wasn't the sort of thing that could possibly have been overlooked. In any case I hadn't overtaken anyone leading up to the intersection and it was a lane of stop/go traffic.

I don't mind owning up to things when I screw up but in this case I'm not owning up to anything.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 21:37

Just a wee note Funkyfly, you won this one even though the opposition have failed to notice. :kick: There are situations out there that can not be forseen. There are cagers who for whatever reason do things that are unexpected. And we do all that we can to anticipate their stupidity.

I simply expepct roading contractors to adhere to there legal responsibilities in the same manner as the Ministry of Transport expects me to on the road. If I fuck up because it's my fault so be it, but I dammned if I am going to make allowences for some dickhead because he does not take my life as serioulsy as I do.

Skyryder

Um thanks for that Sky, not sure what i won exactly, a whole lot of contempt maybe!

Glad someone was able to follow my logic.

Appreciated.

Funkyfly

14th July 2004, 21:41

Thanks to the heated debate on this im now a moped rider!

Woohoo.

speedpro

14th July 2004, 21:47

Thanks to the heated debate on this im now a moped rider!

Woohoo.
Talk about doing things that will get you in trouble - riding a moped. You should avoid them for your own safety, ask Motu.

Posh Tourer :P

14th July 2004, 22:47

really?

"The RIDER fucked up.....he fucked up on his nice Aprillia and wants someone to pay for it - how bought we take responsability for our own actions and pay for it ourselves."

"it's all in your control,buck up,or fuck up,then shut up."

"blaming someone else is a cowards way to deal with your own lack of skills"

"Chris Parkin is an idiot for pushing that through the courts"

"Chris Parkin had an accident and felt moved to blame everyone but himself"

I call that pissing over the guy. The people who made these comments werent even there at the time of the accident, have they talked to chris about the crash details to hear what he has to say?

You are being pedantic to point score without providing a reasoning behind your statements. There should always be a because statement or a reasoning/explanation of your statement SEX! Statement Explanantion eXample (or for the politically correct, SEE, which it changed to after I'd been taught it from the end of primary onwards). OK so you dont always need an example, but it often clarifies things further than a straight explanation. For an example of an example, see any of your attempts to do a reductio ad absurdio on the situation of accidents. I know I dont always follow the SEX principle, but I think you need to do it more often than you do.
You werent there either were you? I have heard about what actions Chris took after his accident, and have based my opinions of him on this. Unfortunately you cant always get everything first hand, thats why we have news media (mass information through an efficient intermediary).

Posh Tourer :P

14th July 2004, 22:57

So Mr personal responsibility - YOU cost this other driver $600 and loss of license. How did you take personal responsibility for this?

Did you pay the $600 for him? Did you get him a work license ($1000) so he wouldnt loose his job due to your bad decision?

There is a huge gulf between legality and lack of fault. The legal system does not cover every instance of responsbility, and nor should it. The legal system was put in place by majority rule (in a secondary kind of convoluted way) to make sure that the most blatant dismissals of responsibility by individuals can be punished, in an attempt to teach the individual what the majority of the population regards as normal behaivour/thinking

Motu

14th July 2004, 23:00

Talk about doing things that will get you in trouble - riding a moped. You should avoid them for your own safety, ask Motu.

One of the best learning experiances I've ever done,riding a C50 stepthrough for 7 years and an FA50 for one year,you are at the mercy of everything on the road,you have no power in every sense,your every action is self presevation - no,you won't get me talking down to a moped rider,lest his name is Flunkyfly!

Posh Tourer :P

14th July 2004, 23:21

this thread has 2 tangents
1) Your idea that if your involved in any addident you are always at fault. True or False
2) Try to raise council awareness of the dangers of contractors not erecting warning sign. Good idea or bad
Ive said my peice and invested a lot of time trying to gather support for point 2 being a good idea.
So now i personally will contact different councils in the areas i ride to notify them of the inherent dangers i personally see when contractors fail to erect signs.

I've done no.1, so lets do no.2
You have said before that you are not encouraging court action, but only supporting an existing court case. As far as I can see, this is in fact encouraging court action, if a court case is court action (yes, I dont see how this can be not) and supporting ~ encouraging (I think these two words are fairly similar in meaning in this case http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=support and http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encourage).
Ok so this is then encouraging court action. Then Merv's point/reply to that particular post sometime today stands. (Its a couple of pages back if you want to go find it)

Then, if Merv's point stands, it may be a bad idea.

I also question that if there is more council awareness of the "inherent" (sorry I hate that word) dangers of a lack of signage of roadworks when contractors do not erect signs, isnt that similar to a lack of signage when signs are stolen, and how do you distinguish between the two? I noticed that you rubbished my idea of responsibility for monitoring the signs to ensure they werent blown over or stolen, so is it enough for you to have the signs up there in the first place, no matter how long they last? If you want signs up, shouldnt you be supporting signs being up for the duration of the roadworks, as I assume that is the legal requirement?

More later... maybe tomorrow if I have time

mangell6

15th July 2004, 00:11

Phew I have made it to the end of this thread, so far.

Personally there should have been road signs advising of road works and the rider knew that the road was and still is a country road with loose metal, trees, leaves, mud and other debris scattered over it, therefore should have taken more care.

Well a lot of points have been made and I would like to make several statements.

1. The majority of individuals do not want to be responsible for their own actions. Just check out your workplace and see how many people put their hand up when something goes wrong.

2. NZ society has moved to the "blame" mentality. For examples read any newspaper (or this thread). People are making themselves "victims" by blaming others for there own misfortunes.

3. OSH and litigation have resulted in NZ becoming "risk averse". Check out the "playgrounds" and see how "safe" they have become compared to ten years ago. This is a direct result of schools and local bodies being accused of having "unsafe" playgrounds based on the number of "accidents". Which is a direct result of caregivers/parents not taking responsibilty to _teach_ children how to safely use the playground.

4. Society has a "I wasn't told" mentality. Please tell me all that can occur so that I can be prepared. The opposite to this is sometimes refered to as (un)common sense. Like it is winter, the white stuff on the side of the road is called frost, frost is frozen water, which is also known as ice, the road looks wet, wet means water . . . . I do not need a sign to says "ICE".

I may not have communicated things appropriately but Motu is correct when he says that we have control of ourselves and we can therefore limit the unfortunate events that might occur to us. The unfortunate events that do occur are called "accidents" and are always preventable in hindsight by both parties, however there is no such thing as accidents in law (or OSH) and someone has to be blamed. If you want to be a victim put your hand up.

Mike

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 07:06

You have said before that you are not encouraging court action, but only supporting an existing court case. As far as I can see, this is in fact encouraging court action, if a court case is court action (yes, I dont see how this can be not) and supporting ~ encouraging (I think these two words are fairly similar in meaning in this case http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=support and http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encourage).
Ok so this is then encouraging court action. Then Merv's point/reply to that particular post sometime today stands. (Its a couple of pages back if you want to go find it)

I have never supported the court case! Never! If you read what ive been saying its that this case has happened - ok, lets do what we can to help riders and minimize the chances of another court case!

I also question that if there is more council awareness of the "inherent" (sorry I hate that word) dangers of a lack of signage of roadworks when contractors do not erect signs, isnt that similar to a lack of signage when signs are stolen, and how do you distinguish between the two? I noticed that you rubbished my idea of responsibility for monitoring the signs to ensure they werent blown over or stolen, so is it enough for you to have the signs up there in the first place, no matter how long they last? If you want signs up, shouldnt you be supporting signs being up for the duration of the roadworks, as I assume that is the legal requirement?

Its about people doing their best to do their job - and for good reason - when they do their job it can SAVE LIVES.

You cant blame a contractor for not doing their job if the sign is stolen, its not their fault.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 07:09

There is a huge gulf between legality and lack of fault. The legal system does not cover every instance of responsbility, and nor should it. The legal system was put in place by majority rule (in a secondary kind of convoluted way) to make sure that the most blatant dismissals of responsibility by individuals can be punished, in an attempt to teach the individual what the majority of the population regards as normal behaivour/thinking

What i was getting at Posh, is that if Jim was totally at fault and caused this accident then he hurt the other driver financially, maybe even cost him his job!

SPman

15th July 2004, 07:36

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 08:08

What i was getting at Posh, is that if Jim was totally at fault and caused this accident then he hurt the other driver financially, maybe even cost him his job!

Leaping to conclusions again.

He was 75, had sold his shop in Nelson to retire to the Hibiscus Coast, and had stopped at a mate's place in Picton for a couple of wines before getting on the ferry. He drove through a stop sign with his lights off at 9:30pm. He didn;t stop at the stop sign. As I have already said the MOT (this was 1992 and the last weekend that Traffic Cops existed) did an analysis of the site and found that he was to blame. My fault exists in not getting Picton earlier, for putting myself in the position of being in traffic that was going to be faintly chaotic due to the nature of loading a ferry, and for not having a state of mind that maximised my survivability. I was totally to blame for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don;t care about the legality. I could have avoided this acident by being a sensible grown-up instead of a brat trying to do too much in one day.

You can stop putting a spin on it now, unless you are of course practising for a job as a Government spin doctor.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 08:41

Leaping to conclusions again.

You can stop putting a spin on it now, unless you are of course practising for a job as a Government spin doctor.

Jim - "It happened because I didn't stick to a sensible timetable. Not because someone had a couple of wines at a mates place before he got on the ferry."

You didnt mention any of these other details Jim, thus implying the only thing the other driver could have been responsible for was having a couple of wines.

Drunken Monkey

15th July 2004, 09:00

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 09:02

Sheesh, what a minefield.! Whilst I except responsibility for my actions on the road and if I fuck up and have a moment, I accept it is my fault, just as I have legal responsibilities for which I will be prosecuted if I transgress, so the Councils and Roadworkers have legal responsibilities. Like me, if they can get away with them, they will. But also, like me, if they get caught out, then, they too can expect to be prosecuted. And if I have to put up with continual bombardment of what my legal responsibilities are, vis, "speed kills" etc, then so can the authorities.! People should occasionally remind them of their obligations.
However, I refuse to accept that I am in the wrong, purely because I am on my bike on the road and have to be totally omniprescient to all conditions and situations. There can be times when everything is out of your control and you are along for the ride, whichever way it pans out. So, should you have not got out of bed that morning? Apparently.
We should always ride to conditions, but a little help is always appreciated, esp. road signs.

It would appear Motu, Jim and friends are on a crusade, the You need to take responsibility for everything that could ever happen to you on the road crusade.

They are one extreme in the "responsibility" debate, the other extreme being you can always blame someone else.

Lifes not like that, there are grey areas and a medium.

Whos at fault when your driving around a 100kph sweeper at 160kph, half cut in the morning, in an old car with no WOF because it been in an accident before, the steering arm on your car sheers off and at a sped close to 160kph you crash into another car.

The other driver had seen you loose control (he was prepared for something like this) and tried to stop/swerve, but at a speed of nearly 260kph (one doing 160 the other 100) simply didnt have enough time/room to avoid you. Remembering our reaction times, the time it takes to lift you foot off the gas and onto the brake, the time it takes for the brakes to apply, the time it takes to realise that a car is coming straight for you, the time it takes to pull on the wheel, the time it takes for this turning force to be applied thru your tyres.

It goes on and on, and there are plenty of real life experiences where "victims" simply couldnt avoid the accident.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 09:06

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 09:11

Jim2, although I think in principle that taking a personal responsibility view is a relatively reasonable thing to do, 'punishing' yourself with that long string of 'what if's?' before your accident isn't a terribly productive approach.

Yes, you MAY have avoided that accident IF you hadn't altered your schedule. You MAY also be dead IF you had stuck to your schedule, and your schedule brought about a completely different string of events which put you in an unlucky, but more dire set of circumstances. Looking back over your situation and saying 'what if' may help you rationalize your predicament, but there are an infinite number of 'what if's'. What IF you were heinously breaking the speed limit - you MAY have been through that intersection before the other driver was in that suburb. (And current LTSA marketing would indicate that MAY have made you a murderer...)
You MAY also have won the lottery IF you stopped at a dairy and bought a lotto ticket. You MAY have also kissed that $5 goodbye, as you have no control over how those little balls drop out the machine.

You'll never know and you can't change history.
Taking reasonable steps is more along the line of Motu's approach (although he may not articulate it as well as he could have), ie not riding to your limits so you have room to maneuvre, taking the best course of action when a hazard has been identified. As others have said, there has to be some practical approach to the daily risk taking that is life.

I think people are missing the point. I made a series of bad decisions that culminated in an accident. There are no what ifs. I ignored weather reports, my 2 hour late departure time, and my state of mind. It happened, there were no what ifs about it. As part of the process of dealing with it you have to examine what you could have done differently, and I arguably contributed the greater amount of stupidity to the accident. I've learned a lot about myself and how I should approach these situations. Standing back and blaming the other dude entirely is pointless because you learn nothing at all.

The two injury accidents I've had have been preceded by a shouting match with my wife. Lesson: fight with wife, take bike gear off and sit down for two days without moving. If I had been sensible, I wouldn't have been in the wrong place, and this is a what-if, but it is highly likely the old gentleman would have driven to the ferry queue with his lights off quite happily.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 09:17

You are being pedantic to point score without providing a reasoning behind your statements. There should always be a because statement or a reasoning/explanation of your statement SEX! Statement Explanantion eXample (or for the politically correct, SEE, which it changed to after I'd been taught it from the end of primary onwards). OK so you dont always need an example, but it often clarifies things further than a straight explanation. For an example of an example, see any of your attempts to do a reductio ad absurdio on the situation of accidents. I know I dont always follow the SEX principle, but I think you need to do it more often than you do.
You werent there either were you? I have heard about what actions Chris took after his accident, and have based my opinions of him on this. Unfortunately you cant always get everything first hand, thats why we have news media (mass information through an efficient intermediary).

Pedantic - "Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details."

You call me pedantic then go on to state i should use the "SEX principle" when attempting a "reductio ad adsurdio" like you learnt to.

LOL. Tell me again whos being pedantic?

Drunken Monkey

15th July 2004, 09:19

Fair 'nuff, I see what you're driving at.

Just to be a pedantic bastard though:

...there were no what ifs about it...

then...

...As part of the process of dealing with it you have to examine what you could have done differently...,

One could reasonably beleive that saying "what you could have done differently" is the same as "WHAT IF you did something different", no? Possibly the source of FunkFly's confusion...

...Standing back and blaming the other dude entirely is pointless because you learn nothing at all....

Indeed, it gets you nowhere. I didn't disagree with that. One would hope he also took your self-responsible approach, starting with apologising profusely to you, then making steps that he didn't drink & drive or ignore stop signs again...

mangell6

15th July 2004, 09:24

The two injury accidents I've had have been preceded by a shouting match with my wife. .

So now we know who the real responsible party was for those two accidents!! :whistle:

How come the legal system does not "ignorance" as a valid reason?

:whocares:

:sunny:

NordieBoy

15th July 2004, 09:27

It wasn't your fault, but were you watching the vehicle behind you? This incident is why I always work up to the front of a queue.
It's a very rare accident in which even the innocent party couldn't have done something to avoid it.
This is the essence of defensive driving.

My accident was at the lights.
I was about 10 cars back from the front.
A car stops behind me.
A car dosn't stop behind her...

About the only thing I could have done was to not be there.

Result - 1 written off Gilera Nordwest and one sore little finger.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 09:33

I think people are missing the point. Standing back and blaming the other dude entirely is pointless because you learn nothing at all.

Oh, we finally see the word "entirely" :niceone:

We are getting somewhere, i dont think anyone is trying to remove all blame from you for the accident - rather you were not "entirely" at fault. Therefore you are free to lay some blame on the old guy who was over the limit, failed to stop and driving without his light ons. In this case it would be unfair or unreasonable to fully blame yourself.

Jim "Every accident you have is your own fault."

blame can often be attributed to more than one party, in some cases more blame can lie with a certain party (drunk drivers), and even in some cases a party can be blameless.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 09:35

My accident was at the lights.
I was about 10 cars back from the front.
A car stops behind me.
A car dosn't stop behind her...

About the only thing I could have done was to not be there.

Result - 1 written off Gilera Nordwest and one sore little finger.

Makes it hard to believe "Every accident you have is your own fault." doesnt it.

Sorry to hear.

Drunken Monkey

15th July 2004, 09:37

How come the legal system does not "ignorance" as a valid reason?

Despite your 'who cares' sign, I'll answer this one anyway for those who do...

All word of law is printed and available for review by all citizens at various local establishments, typically public libraries, but sometimes also bookstores (eg Whitcoulls in the city), council buildings, etc...

*Apparently* it's up to us (as dutiful, patriotic citizens) to read and understand it.

Bloody impractical, I say.

Maybe they should teach some common law at schools?

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 09:43

One could reasonably beleive that saying "what you could have done differently" is the same as "WHAT IF you did something different", no? Possibly the source of FunkFly's confusion...

Sometimes you need to nail people down on the details, its real easy to speculate.

People are taking the word of some newspaper reporter (we know they often get it wrong) and blaming a fellow rider without even talking to him to get his version and check the facts.

Kinda makes you think about just how close the riding community really is huh.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 09:56

Oh, we finally see the word "entirely" :niceone:

We are getting somewhere, i dont think anyone is trying to remove all blame from you for the accident - rather you were not "entirely" at fault. Therefore you are free to lay some blame on the old guy who was over the limit, failed to stop and driving without his light ons. In this case it would be unfair or unreasonable to fully blame yourself.

Jim "Every accident you have is your own fault."

blame can often be attributed to more than one party, in some cases more blame can lie with a certain party (drunk drivers), and even in some cases a party can be blameless.

No, it was entirely my fault for putting myself in the position I did due to the factors I have already explained. There are lots of people in this thread removing themselves from ALL responsibility for accidents they've had. I'f I'd been sensible and stayed in Christchurch for the night I wouldn't have had that particular accident.

I died twice, once at the scene and once in the ambulance. The chap who ran me over was very apologetic (apparently) but that tune changed in court when it was apparent that I wouldn't be attending, and the MOT officer who attended the scene and did the post accident analysis was no longer available in an official capacity, only as a civilian witness due to being made redundant that same weekend.

Getting bitter about that doesn't help, and I still maintain that it was my fault, despite the legal blame being assigned to the other driver. He broke the law, and I was stupid. He may well have died of old age since, but I still have to live with the aftemath, and I will do anything to avoid that sort of situation including taking responsibility for setting up the environment that caused the accident. If you wanted to extend the "victim" analogy, you could say that the other driver was the victim of a society that tolerated drinking and driving. I rather suspect that he would maintain to this day (if still alive) that it was my own stupid fault for chosing to ride one of those dangerous motorbikes.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 10:13

No, it was entirely my fault for putting myself in the position I did due to the factors I have already explained.

Well common sense tells me the accident wasnt "entirely" your fault as you would suggest, and that why the cops charged the old guy. Because he had to SHARE some of the blame. The Law said he was also to blame.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 10:27

Originally Posted by NordieBoy
My accident was at the lights.
I was about 10 cars back from the front.
A car stops behind me.
A car dosn't stop behind her...

About the only thing I could have done was to not be there.

Result - 1 written off Gilera Nordwest and one sore little finger.

Here is a real life example we can explore if you dont mind Nordie.

Jim how is this accident "entirely" his fault?

Im going to leap to some conclusions here....

1)Nordie was watching his rear, but due to the car directly behind him he was unable to judge the last cars speed etc..

2)Nordie had left space as an out in front of him (he has no control over the space behind (car drivers often park right behind a bike)

You cant spend every seccond at a stop looking in your mirrors and turning around, you need to also watch the car in front doesnt reverse instead of going fwd (i have seen it happen more than once) and keep an eye on what those beside you are doing, also you want to watch the intersection for any cars failing to obey the rules that might possibly crash into your line.

Lets say Nordie had been doing all of these things.

How is he "entirely" at fault again?

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 10:34

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 10:37

That's up to Nordie to decide.

As Nordie has already stated the ONLY thing he could have done was not be there.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 10:57

mangell6

15th July 2004, 11:01

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 11:06

An old boss who lived in Saudi Arabia said that whenever a non-Saudi had an accident with a Saudi it was the non-Saudis who was always at fault because if the non-Saudi was in their own country then the accident would not have occured.

PS What decisions were made prior to arriving at the lights?

I wonder who the non-saudi thought was at fault?

decisions before arriving at lights?

well there are certain things you must do, you need to make sure you are in the correct lane.

What are you getting at?

Drunken Monkey

15th July 2004, 12:08

I'f I'd been sensible and stayed in Christchurch for the night I wouldn't have had that particular accident.

Surely a case of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. If you were never born, dude, you'd have never lived.

There are lots of people in this thread removing themselves from ALL responsibility for accidents they've had

Although some may not agree with your stand, it doesn't necessarily imply that we intend to absolve ourselves of all responsiblity. As Funkfly has pushed on more than one occasion, it's not that blame lies completely with one party or another, but varying degrees between. As responsible motocyclists, we all accept a small percentage of the blame each time we turn the ignition and roll out the driveway.
Like I said, fair enough (and to some degrees, admirable) if your attitude to your 'self-responsible' accident helps you rationalize it, some of us just think it's an uncecessarily inflexible attitude.
If the other driver had the same attitude as you, you wouldn't have ever been put in that situation. There goes that IF word again...

merv

15th July 2004, 12:19

Hey Merv, from a couple of your posts it would appear you know Chris personally.

It would be great if he could come online and give us his thoughts and the facts about his accident and case.

Yes I know Chris reasonably well and he does ride with us occasionally. I don't think he is a K'Ber. He has in the past explained his crash and his actions to people like me and Lynda but I haven't debated this with him. It was his choice to take the action he did and as I have mentioned with him being a councillor it was interesting he took that course of action.

All I have been harping on about is personally I would not have taken that action because it may lead to defensive behaviour to the detriment of many bikers.

Being a dirt biker too, the loss of riding areas over the last few decades has been a classic loss I have seen due to actions of the few. Councils can be mean arsed suckers because they try to keep their ratepayers (in general) happy - though as I have said its the squeaky wheel problem.

merv

15th July 2004, 12:29

3. OSH and litigation have resulted in NZ becoming "risk averse". Check out the "playgrounds" and see how "safe" they have become compared to ten years ago. This is a direct result of schools and local bodies being accused of having "unsafe" playgrounds based on the number of "accidents". Which is a direct result of caregivers/parents not taking responsibilty to _teach_ children how to safely use the playground.

Mike

This is a bloody good example of the type of thing I have been talking about, but simply replace "dangerous playground" with "dangerous motorcycle" and what likely result are we to get from the do-gooders if we keep pushing them.

As a kid I loved all the old steel bar playgrounds etc. We got more daredevil with them each year - riding our pushbikes down the slides and such things.

My kids got to try namby pamby treated timber forts and things - no real playgrounds for them, the Councils have ripped them out, and now they are worried about the arsenic in the timber and they may all be gone too. Then what? Sit in front of the TV or computer safely cocooned in their own home living a virtual risky life - that will be the life of my grandkids if I have any.

Hitcher

15th July 2004, 12:36

My kids got to try namby pamby treated timber forts and things - no real playgrounds for them, the Councils have ripped them out, and now they are worried about the arsenic in the timber and they may all be gone too.

This is a great example of perceived versus actual risk. Yes, treated timber contains arsenic (and some other chemicals), yes, if a child were to sit down and diligently gnaw at the timber they would injest arsenic. How much would they need to injest to get a lethal dose -- about 10 tonnes in one sitting. I suspect that even the most determined nibbler would have their work cut out for them...

Motu

15th July 2004, 12:44

My kids hate the new playgrounds - the firemans pole has disapeared,or atleast replaced by a new 'safe' version.As kids we were in life threatening situations several times a day,our parents never batted an eye,life was safer for us than it was for them.As with Merv I've seen nearly every area I've ridden on be lost to some council bullshit - prompted by my very own actions,I'll take the blame for that too.The threat to us as riders is very real,lube those squeeky wheels yourself - or someone else will take care of it for you.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 12:44

Surely a case of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. If you were never born, dude, you'd have never lived.

Although some may not agree with your stand, it doesn't necessarily imply that we intend to absolve ourselves of all responsiblity. As Funkfly has pushed on more than one occasion, it's not that blame lies completely with one party or another, but varying degrees between. As responsible motocyclists, we all accept a small percentage of the blame each time we turn the ignition and roll out the driveway.
Like I said, fair enough (and to some degrees, admirable) if your attitude to your 'self-responsible' accident helps you rationalize it, some of us just think it's an uncecessarily inflexible attitude.
If the other driver had the same attitude as you, you wouldn't have ever been put in that situation. There goes that IF word again...

You're beng too kind, and far too existential. I made bad decisions and paid the price. My fault surely?

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 12:57

This is a bloody good example of the type of thing I have been talking about, but simply replace "dangerous playground" with "dangerous motorcycle" and what likely result are we to get from the do-gooders if we keep pushing them.

"likely result"? this is pie in the sky stuff merv, your speculating it would go that far.

If there was a barrage of court cases like we all fear then yes i too would expect it to go further than we would like!

However, making councils aware of this ONE case, if they do anything at all that is, will more likely prompt them to simply "tell" the contractors to buck up and do there job.

Council - "Oh look, a local body were sued because a contractor didnt do their job correctly, hmm, what should we do? Spend the next 12 months introducing a new law banning motorbikes from going anywhere near roadworks? Oh hang on this same thing could happen to cars, and push bikes, to fully protect ourselves we would have to ban ALL vehicles! Maybe we should protect ourselves against our contactors. lets make sure they are doing their job as per the regulations already in place."

If the signs are up - no court cases!

Lets encourage em to help get those signs up like they are supposed to be.

You talking about a new law being introduced because someone fails to follow an existing law?

Comon guyz sheesh.

Mongoose

15th July 2004, 12:58

You're beng too kind, and far too existential. I made bad decisions and paid the price. My fault surely?

Partly so.You also did not pour wine down the other fellas throat, forget to tell him to turn his lights on or to stop at the *Stop* sign.

merv

15th July 2004, 13:18

You talking about a new law being introduced because someone fails to follow an existing law?

Comon guyz sheesh.

You edited this one while I was reading it, but your comment above has a classic example. Boyracers. Boyracers drove fast breaking the law, boy racers made noise breaking the law, next thing we have additional laws and bylaws.

I cannot drive any of my vehicles along Wineera Drive in Porirua after the curfew now because they are under 3,500kg, so the sign says, so I cannot come home from Titahi Bay that way.

New laws - we now have the "breaking traction" law, the confiscation of cars law - how many more do you want to hear about? It all happened rather quickly too that these laws were brought in.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 13:22

Partly so.You also did not pour wine down the other fellas throat, forget to tell him to turn his lights on or to stop at the *Stop* sign.

I think the point is defintely being missed.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 13:24

You edited this one while I was reading it, but your comment above has a classic example. Boyracers. Boyracers drove fast breaking the law, boy racers made noise breaking the law, next thing we have additional laws and bylaws.

I cannot drive any of my vehicles along Wineera Drive in Porirua after the curfew now because they are under 3,500kg, so the sign says, so I cannot come home from Titahi Bay that way.

New laws - we now have the "breaking traction" law, the confiscation of cars law - how many more do you want to hear about? It all happened rather quickly too that these laws were brought in.

The then current laws didnt cover what these thousands of kids were out there doing. So new laws were needed. If there was ALREADY a law on "breaking traction" they would not have needed to bring a new law in.

There is already a code stating road work signs need to be erected.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 13:28

"likely result"? this is pie in the sky stuff merv, your speculating it would go that far.

If there was a barrage of court cases like we all fear then yes i too would expect it to go further than we would like!

However, making councils aware of this ONE case, if they do anything at all that is, will more likely prompt them to simply "tell" the contractors to buck up and do there job.

Council - "Oh look, a local body were sued because a contractor didnt do their job correctly, hmm, what should we do? Spend the next 12 months introducing a new law banning motorbikes from going anywhere near roadworks? Oh hang on this same thing could happen to cars, and push bikes, to fully protect ourselves we would have to ban ALL vehicles! Maybe we should protect ourselves against our contactors. lets make sure they are doing their job as per the regulations already in place."

If the signs are up - no court cases!

Lets encourage em to help get those signs up like they are supposed to be.

You talking about a new law being introduced because someone fails to follow an existing law?

Comon guyz sheesh.

Noticed the large number of club (not just motorcycle ones) events, track days, and extreme sporting events that have been cancelled as a direct result of a cycling competitor deciding to ride on the wrong side of the road and getting killed, despite being told not to in a briefing, and then the organiser being convicted of exactly the same offence outlined here? There is also an increase in costs because of the requirement to purchase liability insurance for every aspect of an event.

It is no longer a reach. It would be easier from a politcal and cultural perspective to ban motorcycles than fix the issue of lazy contractors. You would, guaranteed, get more support for banning bikes than enforcing ISO9000 level standards on roading contractors.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 13:37

I think the point is defintely being missed.

Your not wrong, we have an oppertunity here to possibly save lives and everyone is too scared to say anything because they think the sky will fall in on bikers.

Wonder what the first negro lady to take a whites only bus was thinking about when she took her seat, was it of all the possible new laws that the white people might make to keep her off the bus next time? because that was certainlty the way the public opinon was back then.

she was thinking of her "people" who had human rights

Im thinking or our "people" out there on the roads, and the MANY that come off on unmarked roadworks who have the right to be warned of roadworks.

But everyone stay very still, maybe no one will notice us, after all whats a few bikers getting killed or maimed after all, a small price to pay for our great freedom.

Why dont some of you actually call the roading manager at your local council and see what he thinks.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 13:44

It is no longer a reach. It would be easier from a politcal and cultural perspective to ban motorcycles than fix the issue of lazy contractors. You would, guaranteed, get more support for banning bikes than enforcing ISO9000 level standards on roading contractors.

It would not be easier, look at what happened when they treid to put up rego for bikes to over 300, huge public outcry. and that was only over a bit of money!

Read the posts on how the govt backed down from its inital plan.

To try BANNING motorbikes would be a million times worse, and you couldnt ban motorbikes without banning pushbikes.

I would predict the public outcry would be HUGE!

You cant "guarantee" anything - so dont pretend you can

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 13:52

It would not be easier, look at what happened when they treid to put up rego for bikes to over 300, huge public outcry. and that was only over a bit of money!

Read the posts on how the govt backed down from its inital plan.

To try BANNING motorbikes would be a million times worse, and you couldnt ban motorbikes without banning pushbikes.

I would predict the public outcry would be HUGE!

You cant "guarantee" anything - so dont pretend you can
There was no huge public outcry. There was surreptitious prodding from well positioned motorcyclists and about 0.5% of motorcyclists bothered to respond to the call for public input to 4 proposals relating to changing ACC levies.

I can guarantee that public opinion is already negatively inclined in regard to motorcycles. They are also expensive for a Public Health system to support. I can guarantee that it would take a minimum of effort to ban motorcycles. Push bikes are a different story altogether. Even though they are more vulnerable in traffic than motorcycles, they are currently politically in vogue for being a "green" transport alternative. Motorcycles burn hydrocarbons, so not only do they place the biggest burden proportinally on the health system they pollute as well.

Motu

15th July 2004, 13:55

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 14:14

There was no huge public outcry. There was surreptitious prodding from well positioned motorcyclists and about 0.5% of motorcyclists bothered to respond to the call for public input to 4 proposals relating to changing ACC levies.

I can guarantee that public opinion is already negatively inclined in regard to motorcycles. They are also expensive for a Public Health system to support. I can guarantee that it would take a minimum of effort to ban motorcycles. Push bikes are a different story altogether. Even though they are more vulnerable in traffic than motorcycles, they are currently politically in vogue for being a "green" transport alternative. Motorcycles burn hydrocarbons, so not only do they place the biggest burden proportinally on the health system they pollute as well.

It was on the news, hundreds of bikers showed up. i remeber seeing it, it was cool to see them all.

Now imagine if the govt tried to ban all bikes, i can guarantee a hell of a lot more that .5% of NZ's bikers would step up, not to mention all the liberals out there who would be dead against the govt banning bikes, not to mention the greens who seen bikers as a better form of transport than cars.

Have motorbikes been banned in america, this horrible place where there is no personal responsibility and law suits abound?

Hmm, hang on, not only are bikes still allowed but they still dont have to wear helmets!

Banning bikes! as if.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 14:24

The potential is already out there for road closeur,look at any construction site - 2meter high mesh fences all round,this is not to stop people trespassing on the site,but to stop people trespassing on the site,injuring themselves and sueing the construction company.If the councils push the road construction companies into a corner they will just say right,this road is closed to all traffic while we do repairs - take a look at Fulton Hogan,this is almost what they are doing.Imagine coming off the Tuakau bridge and seeing SH22 closed because they are filling a couple of pot holes at Naike.

There is also the potential that no one under the age of 25 can drive any form of vehicle.

There is the potential govt will ban any car over 2000cc's

lets take a look at what im trying to achieve again huh.......

"do what we can to help riders and minimize the chances of another court case!"

If we sit around with our fingers up our ass doing nothing, then there will be another courtcase, its just a matter of time.

Then there will be another.

Then another.

Oh no then your worst fears will come true and bikes will be banned?

Hang on, what if we encouraged councils to encourage contrators to put up these signs like they are supposed to.

If the signs are there, bikers/cagers cant take the contractors/council to court.

Can you follow that logic?

Its better to talk to councils now BEFORE more cases like this spring up that might force them to create silly laws. It would help prevent it going it to the relms of sillyness.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 14:41

It was on the news, hundreds of bikers showed up. i remeber seeing it, it was cool to see them all.

Now imagine if the govt tried to ban all bikes, i can guarantee a hell of a lot more that .5% of NZ's bikers would step up, not to mention all the liberals out there who would be dead against the govt banning bikes, not to mention the greens who seen bikers as a better form of transport than cars.

Have motorbikes been banned in america, this horrible place where there is no personal responsibility and law suits abound?

Hmm, hang on, not only are bikes still allowed but they still dont have to wear helmets!

Banning bikes! as if.

They have a constitution in the US and we don't, so the argument doesn't wash. That constitution also allows US citizens to make time-wasting legal claims against manufacturers by refusing to take personal responsibility for stupidity. Which we end up paying for, as the cost of a lost law suit is spread over the costs of global motorcycle manufacturers. By far the biggest subset of "motorcyclists" in NZ are farmers, and they just don't care about the same issues that motorcycling road users do. I went on the protest ride and I also supported one of the 4 proposals in writing to the ACC. There were a tiny proportion of NZ motorcyclists on the protest ride, and the ACC recieved only double figures worth of submissions. There was not a "huge" public outcry at all.

The Greens do not support motorcycles as an alternative way of managing traffic congestion. No political party in NZ does.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 14:44

There is also the potential that no one under the age of 25 can drive any form of vehicle.

That has effectively already happened. Insurance companies have made sure that full insurance is out of reach of most first car buyers, and the graduated license system has meant that quite a few under 25s I know can't be bothered finishing the process. Some don't consider motorcycles because the graduated license system for bikes is considered draconian by non-enthusiasts.

Mongoose

15th July 2004, 15:04

I think the point is defintely being missed.

Not realy, you say you had no input into the outcome but your myopic view has appeared to have blinded you to the fact that it was not ALL your fault

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 15:14

They have a constitution in the US and we don't, so the argument doesn't wash. That constitution also allows US citizens to make time-wasting legal claims against manufacturers by refusing to take personal responsibility for stupidity.

The point of looking at America was that it if any govt was going to "protect" itself against lawsuits from bikers (as you argue the NZ govt will) then America would have done it already!

Have they banned bikes in france?
Motu - "France is a country of cowards,they also have beautiful tree lined roads - the trees are being ripped out because people are dying when they crash cars and motorcycles into them - it's the tree's fault you see"

I am currently awaiting a reply from the greens as i was under the impression they did support the use of bikes to reduce pollution and congestion.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 15:21

That has effectively already happened. Insurance companies have made sure that full insurance is out of reach of most first car buyers, and the graduated license system has meant that quite a few under 25s I know can't be bothered finishing the process. Some don't consider motorcycles because the graduated license system for bikes is considered draconian by non-enthusiasts.

Dont think so, My wife is the manager of a local insurance branch, and what you have stated is rubbish!

Not sure where you got this "information" from but its wrong or you have been miss informed.

under 25's have trouble getting insurance if the car is deemed too fast etc.

ANY under 25 with a good record could walk in an get insurance for a toyota corrolla.

The kids out there buying 250hp turbos might have trouble, and for good reason, bikes have to stick to 250cc on their learners and restricted.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 15:28

Not realy, you say you had no input into the outcome but your myopic view has appeared to have blinded you to the fact that it was not ALL your fault

Just let him beat himself up over it Mongoose.

You fully deserved all you got Jim, pay more attention to drunk old men with no lights on running stop signs at 9:15pm next time.

Oh and dont forget to "perpare for the unexpected" - not quite sure how that works but seems to be the in thing to do.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 15:30

Dont think so, My wife is the manager of a local insurance branch, and what you have stated is rubbish!

Not sure where you got this "information" from but its wrong or you have been miss informed.

under 25's have trouble getting insurance if the car is deemed too fast etc.

ANY under 25 with a good record could walk in an get insurance for a toyota corrolla.

The kids out there buying 250hp turbos might have trouble, and for good reason, bikes have to stick to 250cc on their learners and restricted.

$1900 from AMI for 1 year comprehensive for a 1990 BMW 318ti worth $5000 is too much. That was the cheapest of all the mainstream insurance companies for a first time car buyer, no convictions of any type, and a law clerk who lives with her parents and garages the car to boot. It is not a fast car, not a turbo, and doesn't register on the stolen vehicle stats as a particular risk. Thankfully the National Auto Club will insure it for $900 per year, but that is still a significant percentage of the value of the vehicle.

Last week there was a television current affairs show that sent 5 relatively clean cut 20 somethings out to get insurance and I couldn;t belive the quotes coming back. They were all for substantially more than 50% of the value of the vehicle and excess ran to 1000s of dollars. As you said the ones asking for quotes for turbo vehicles were turned down.

A 22 year old I work with wanted to buy a 2.0L non-turbo Legacy wagon and AMI and State both turned him down without discussion. The NAC will do it, but he has a $4000 excess if the car gets stolen. It's listed for $6000.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 15:31

Just let him beat himself up over it Mongoose.

You fully deserved all you got Jim, pay more attention to drunk old men with no lights on running stop signs at 9:15pm next time.

Oh and dont forget to "perpare for the unexpected" - not quite sure how that works but seems to be the in thing to do.

Precisely.

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 15:33

The point of looking at America was that it if any govt was going to "protect" itself against lawsuits from bikers (as you argue the NZ govt will) then America would have done it already!

Have they banned bikes in france?
Motu - "France is a country of cowards,they also have beautiful tree lined roads - the trees are being ripped out because people are dying when they crash cars and motorcycles into them - it's the tree's fault you see"

I am currently awaiting a reply from the greens as i was under the impression they did support the use of bikes to reduce pollution and congestion.

Umm the US Government isn't involved in roading. Everything is private enterprise there.

Mongoose

15th July 2004, 15:40

Precisely.

Umm, precisely what? Jim

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 15:46

Umm, precisely what? Jim

What Funkyfly said which is quoted in my post , however I'm not "beating myself up over it", it is a fact that I screwed the pooch, and lived to learn from it.

Mongoose

15th July 2004, 15:50

What Funkyfly said which is quoted in my post , however I'm not "beating myself up over it", it is a fact that I screwed the pooch, and lived to learn from it.

So, let me sort this out in my own mind, you accept full responsibilty for that prang with no contributing factors by anyone else?

Motu

15th July 2004, 15:53

Have they banned bikes in france?

You're just loving this eh,so'k,it's prompted a good debate,but forget about converting people to your or my causes - we don't do that.I don't want to force anyone to my beleifs,just a bit of eye opening,something to think about - for those that can think anyway.

Oh,banning bikes in France? what the hell for? why do you think they would want to do that? They are removing the trees that kill people - the bikes can stay,France loves bikes.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 15:56

$1900 from AMI for 1 year comprehensive for a 1990 BMW 318ti worth $5000 is too much. That was the cheapest of all the mainstream insurance companies for a first time car buyer, no convictions of any type, and a law clerk who lives with her parents and garages the car to boot. It is not a fast car, not a turbo, and doesn't register on the stolen vehicle stats as a particular risk. Thankfully the National Auto Club will insure it for $900 per year, but that is still a significant percentage of the value of the vehicle.

Last week there was a television current affairs show that sent 5 relatively clean cut 20 somethings out to get insurance and I couldn;t belive the quotes coming back. They were all for substantially more than 50% of the value of the vehicle and excess ran to 1000s of dollars. As you said the ones asking for quotes for turbo vehicles were turned down.

A 22 year old I work with wanted to buy a 2.0L non-turbo Legacy wagon and AMI and State both turned him down without discussion. The NAC will do it, but he has a $4000 excess if the car gets stolen. It's listed for $6000.

Jim - "Insurance companies have made sure that full insurance is out of reach of most first car buyers"

It isnt out of reach, look at how many kids under 25 we have on the roads, that fact it can cost thousands relates to the higher risk they are, the same reason bikers pay more ACC than car drivers. Go to brittin and try to get insurance! see how many kids there are driving around in turbos and 4wd's

You see the news the other night, a group of youths had stolen over 500 cars, most were legacys and wrx's - they are far easier to pinch. thats wht the cost is high.

Like i said ANY insurance company will cover under 25's FULLY for a toyota collora.

You want to live in a city with high car theift - then be prepared to pay, why not come to taranaki, insurance is a lot cheaper here.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 16:09

You're just loving this eh,so'k,it's prompted a good debate,but forget about converting people to your or my causes - we don't do that.I don't want to force anyone to my beleifs,just a bit of eye opening,something to think about - for those that can think anyway.

Oh,banning bikes in France? what the hell for? why do you think they would want to do that? They are removing the trees that kill people - the bikes can stay,France loves bikes.

converting people? like you said its a debate.

Banning bikes in France?

You stated NZ is turning into a country of cowards, like France has become.

And that cowards fail to take personal responibility for their actions

implying these cowards in france fail to take personal responsibilty for there actions - thus cutting down trees that "kill people"

you comment this same evolution of NZ into a counrty of cowards will prompt govt to introduce silly bylaws restricting motorbike use.

Well France seems to be a lot further down the evolution chain than us as you mention.

Yet in this country (France) of cowards they have yet to ban motorcycles.

Motu

15th July 2004, 16:46

Um???? ahhh,well,ah,um?

James Deuce

15th July 2004, 17:15

Jim - "Insurance companies have made sure that full insurance is out of reach of most first car buyers"

It isnt out of reach, look at how many kids under 25 we have on the roads, that fact it can cost thousands relates to the higher risk they are, the same reason bikers pay more ACC than car drivers. Go to brittin and try to get insurance! see how many kids there are driving around in turbos and 4wd's

You see the news the other night, a group of youths had stolen over 500 cars, most were legacys and wrx's - they are far easier to pinch. thats wht the cost is high.

Like i said ANY insurance company will cover under 25's FULLY for a toyota collora.

You want to live in a city with high car theift - then be prepared to pay, why not come to taranaki, insurance is a lot cheaper here.

Most of the population lives elsewhere than Taranaki, and Insurance is dearer in the major centres. A Corolla of similar value was more expensive than the BMW 318 case that I quoted. We ended up looking for a the cheapest car to insure for her and that is what we found.

A vast proportion of those kids in Turbos are either on Mum & Dad's insurance or they have TPFT, or they have none at all. I suspect the latter more often than not.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 17:37

Drunken Monkey

15th July 2004, 18:13

The then current laws didnt cover what these thousands of kids were out there doing. So new laws were needed. If there was ALREADY a law on "breaking traction" they would not have needed to bring a new law in.

Spend an afternoon out on site working and what do I miss...

-Anyway-

That, kind sir, is a load of codswallop. There were already provisions within the law to prosecute people were who involved in illegal drag racing/burnouts/etc... The application was poor, and grumpy councillors and residents wanted a change made so they could prosecute more easily. Problem was, the laws were passed so quickly and without thought, they could be applied elsewhere their intended use, and that is a problem. Not only that, we do not have a specific 'breaking traction' law here at all (we have a similar one which may be applied along the lines of 'excessive acceleration')
Same deal with the dog attack - I was of the understanding there was no law change needed: the council admitted they were not enforcing existing law.

merv

15th July 2004, 20:01

The then current laws didnt cover what these thousands of kids were out there doing. So new laws were needed. If there was ALREADY a law on "breaking traction" they would not have needed to bring a new law in.

There is already a code stating road work signs need to be erected.

Damn you are hard to get through to. You are actually really supporting my case with this argument.

You say there is already a code for road signs, OK agreed, but the comparison is there isn't a law prohibiting use of motorcycles on gravel covered roads. So just like the boy racer situation, there are some laws, and some things aren't covered, but presto change of law and we have some more. Exactly the same scenario and I'm buggered as to why you can't see that. There isn't ALREADY a law against bikes on these roads.

You just keep harping on about the requirement for signs. We all agree with you about it that there is a contractual arrangement for signs to be provided, but the problem is enforcing it 100%, whether they are an ISO 9000:2000 certified business or not. That is not what will drive public opinion (read ratepayers) and therefore Council action.

Otherwise in the case of boyracers the contractors could have used better seal on the roads so it would not be damaged by the boy racers "breaking traction", but no, we now have the ability for the police to book someone for sustained braking of traction.

As another point one to watch is the recent outcry against the deaths of the Asians in their 4x4 on the beach - prohibition or restrictions were mentioned. Watch this space if too many more incidents occur. As a 4x4 user I will be pissed off if we are limited in where we can go for the sake of the few. People like you were spouting on about the lack of speed signs etc like that was an issue. Yeah right, if the sand was a bit lumpy why weren't all people saying "damn shame the Asians drove too fast for the conditions and misjudged it". I am sure Motu can pick up on this one further.

So you don't think over-reaction by bureaucrats occurs, is that what you are saying - just make them manage their contractors perfectly 100% error free? In your association with the Council, whatever that has been for 7 years, that's what you believe huh?

merv

15th July 2004, 20:21

Spend an afternoon out on site working and what do I miss...

-Anyway-

That, kind sir, is a load of codswallop. .....

..... we do not have a specific 'breaking traction' law here at all (we have a similar one which may be applied along the lines of 'excessive acceleration')

Excuse me you haven't read this then http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/boyracerdetails.php

To save you clicking on the link read this:

The "Boy Racer" Act - more details
The Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003 will come into force at midnight on Thursday 1 May 2003. Amongst other things it provides discretionary powers for "enforcement officers" (usually NZ Police officers) to impound vehicles operated in breach of what are colloquially called "boy racer" offences. The Act amends the Land Transport Act 1998.

The Act is aimed at combating the problem of unauthorised street racing, drag racing, wheel spinning and other stunts on roads, and the spillage of oil and other lubricants on roads without reasonable excuse. A "race" may be against another vehicle or racing against the clock but does not mean simple speeding – which will continue to be dealt with under existing legislation.

The following are the major offences and the maximum penalties.

You must not operate a motor vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road (unless authorised by law).

You must not, without reasonable excuse, operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction (unless authorised by law).

If you commit either of these offences the maximum is 3 months imprisonment, or $4,500 in fines, and a minimum period of disqualification of 6 months.

Here is the actual clauses of the 2003 amendment to the Act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=190555&advquery=traction&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&record={3127F7F}&softpage=DOC&wordsaroundhits=6#JUMPDEST_#JUMPDEST_

Drunken Monkey

15th July 2004, 20:25

I stand corrected.

merv

15th July 2004, 20:31

OK I was referring to it as "breaking traction" as I remembered it but the actual words are "loss of traction".

merv

15th July 2004, 20:35

Hey another 800 or so posts and we'll catch up to the religious thread.

Zed you must have an opinion on this one from your good book surely?

NordieBoy

15th July 2004, 21:02

Makes it hard to believe "Every accident you have is your own fault." doesnt it.

Sorry to hear.

Managed to pick up another Nordie (the same colour) with the insurance money and bought back the wreck for $500.
$1000 later it was back on the road :done:

"Every accident you have is your own fault."
Adrian Hayter's view (yachtsman/author solo around the world in the 1950's) was that there was no such thing as an accident and didn't like the idea of the ACC.

That makes a certain amount of sense and you can analyse an "incident" in hindsight and come up with any number of "if only"'s that would have prevented it.

All you can do is be as prepared and careful as the current and forseeable situation allows you to.

Unfortunately that damn quantum butterfly keeps flapping it's wings and things keep happening.

Ride carefully, ride safely and keep within your abilities.

If you're cruizing and you get out of your comfort zone then look at changing/training to improve those areas.

If you're looking to push hard on the public roads then make sure you're not going to be a danger to others.

Disclaimer...
If none of the above makes sense - well it did before I started typing...

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 21:03

You say there is already a code for road signs, OK agreed, but the comparison is there isn't a law prohibiting use of motorcycles on gravel covered roads. but presto change of law and we have some more.

but the problem is enforcing it 100%, whether they are an ISO 9000:2000 certified business or not. That is not what will drive public opinion (read ratepayers) and therefore Council action.

As another point one to watch is the recent outcry against the deaths of the Asians in their 4x4 on the beach - prohibition or restrictions were mentioned. Watch this space if too many more incidents occur. As a 4x4 user I will be pissed off if we are limited in where we can go for the sake of the few. People like you were spouting on about the lack of speed signs etc like that was an issue. Yeah right, if the sand was a bit lumpy why weren't all people saying "damn shame the Asians drove too fast for the conditions and misjudged it". I am sure Motu can pick up on this one further.

So you don't think over-reaction by bureaucrats occurs, is that what you are saying - just make them manage their contractors perfectly 100% error free? In your association with the Council, whatever that has been for 7 years, that's what you believe huh?

I find it really hard to find a point in that post of yours Merv.

But anyway to answer your question, did i ever say or imply council can manage their contractors perfectly 100% error free? - No i didnt, i said "encourage council to encourage contractors" to do their job correctly, or to the best of their ability.

I said that a number of times now, im getting really tired of repeating myself.

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 21:06

Hey another 800 or so posts and we'll catch up to the religious thread.

Zed you must have an opinion on this one from your good book surely?

Merv i thought we were getting close, but then i saw the number of views the religios thread has had -11,000!

I dont know how long i can keep going on this, i dont have much support.

merv

15th July 2004, 21:16

I find it really hard to find a point in that post of yours Merv.

But anyway to answer your question, did i ever say or imply council can manage their contractors perfectly 100% error free? - No i didnt, i said "encourage council to encourage contractors" to do their job correctly, or to the best of their ability.

I said that a number of times now, im getting really tired of repeating myself.

My point all the way through (embellished with examples) is that push any bureaucrats and they will react by covering their butts - and in the case of those with law making abilities they can make laws to deal with things they don't like.

You seemed to continually say the answer was to enforce the use of signage.

I continually responded by saying that it wasn't 100% possible, therefore any risk to Councils as an example might be countered by them (and it may seem illogical to you) imposing restrictions on us we didn't want.

In other words I didn't really agree with Chris taking the action he did because while he may have won the battle as they say he may not have won the war. We have no idea what the bureaucrats are thinking right now in Dannevirke do we, but I am sure they will be thinking "not our fault, how do we avoid likely litigation in future from these dangerous bikers?"

Simple huh!

The change to the law to counter boy racers is a great example. Just try and think of the wording they might use to counter bikers sliding on gravel - who knows what bureaucrats let loose can do. Remember someone said way back on this thread something like there is likely to be little sympathy for "those damn noisy irresponsible bikers that always travel too fast on our roads".

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 21:40

My point all the way through (embellished with examples) is that push any bureaucrats and they will react by covering their butts".
Im not trying to "push" anyone, quite the opposite, encourage. If you can encourage people to DO THEIR JOB it could reduce the number of bikers having offs and the number of possible court cases brought against councils.

You seemed to continually say the answer was to enforce the use of signage.

I said council are the only one who can enforce the contractors to do their job correctly, contractors wont listen to rate payers, "enforce" was not in relation to making sure a road sign is there 100% of the time, that is not something you can enforce, as was posted before "what if someone steals the sign?"

again if they were encouraged to make SURE they erected the signs the chances of futher court cases would drop.

Council could do spot checks now and again, they check contracotrs work all the time, checking correct signage wouldnt be a big issue.

I continually responded by saying that it wasn't 100% possible, therefore any risk to Councils as an example might be countered by them (and it may seem illogical to you) imposing restrictions on us we didn't want.

mute point - see above.

merv

15th July 2004, 21:51

Funkyfly

15th July 2004, 21:52

Hey another 800 or so posts and we'll catch up to the religious thread.

Zed you must have an opinion on this one from your good book surely?

And what do you have to do to get on the "most active" list for this site, sheesh my fingers are raw from this thread!

Must have typed over 60 posts in the last 3 days!

merv

15th July 2004, 21:54

And what do you have to do to get on the "most active" list for this site, sheesh my fingers are raw from this thread!

Must have typed over 60 posts in the last 3 days!

Counter must be slow to react then.

Beemer

15th July 2004, 23:28

Correct, the police would blame her also, she failed to follow the rules that were put in place to protect those on the road. In fact they would FINE her!
I think you lost most of us with your mysoginistic attitude here - "fine HER"? Geesh, what century do you live in? Why do women get cheaper insurance? Because they don't "nearly crash twice" and blame all their mistakes on others.

Yes, there should be signs at both ends of road works, but the bottom line is he came off because he couldn't react in time to the road conditions. The outcome could have been exactly the same if it had been a truck that had lost part of its load a few minutes earlier. There are no warning signs for dead possums, live sheep, harrier hawks, etc., all hazards you are highly likely to meet on this particular stretch of road, so it all comes back to the rider to ride within their capabilities.

Are you still working in local government? If so, you have WAY too much time on your hands. Get a bike (so you can tell us what it is and we can go out of our way to avoid riding near you) and get some riding in rather than wasting so much time slagging off everyone with an opinion that differs from yours.

And, for our benefit, please beg, steal or borrow a dictionary. :argh:

Motu

16th July 2004, 07:16

I dont know how long i can keep going on this, i dont have much support.

Have you wondered why?

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 08:43

OK I wasn't talking about you pushing Councils, that refers to Chris and anyone else that takes action against them. i.e. push them (legally) and they will defend, especially if it happens too often for their coffers to bear.

I know all that.

I never condoned what Chris did, read my posts, but he did it, and it WILL (court cases) happen again if contractors continue to have a blase attitude regarding signs.

Now how are councils going to feel when they are facing 10 more court cases? Might that prompt them to introduce the banning of bikes like everyone fears?

As bikers wouldnt it be a good idea to try and decrease the chances of further court action against councils?

I was trying to raise contractor awareness by rallying support to talk to local councils about the dangers (both to human life and legally) if nothing were to change, and contractors didnt put more effort into making sure signs are placed.

This is called being proactive, get in there and try to fix the problem BEFORE it gets out of hand.

Do you understand that?

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 08:57

[QUOTE=Funkyfly]Correct, the police would blame her also, she failed to follow the rules that were put in place to protect those on the road. In fact they would FINE her!
I think you lost most of us with your mysoginistic attitude here - "fine HER"? Geesh, what century do you live in? Why do women get cheaper insurance? Because they don't "nearly crash twice" and blame all their mistakes on others.
:

Excuse me, dont get all anti male because i said the women involved in the accident would be fined. In no way did i imply woman caused accident, or were a greater risk on the road. For goodness sake. here, go off on this - Go burn a bra.

Yes, there should be signs at both ends of road works, but the bottom line is he came off because he couldn't react in time to the road conditions. The outcome could have been exactly the same if it had been a truck that had lost part of its load a few minutes earlier. There are no warning signs for dead possums, live sheep, harrier hawks, etc., all hazards you are highly likely to meet on this particular stretch of road, so it all comes back to the rider to ride within their capabilities.
:So true, but you know what - pay attention now - there isnt any code stating signs should be erected for dead possums, live sheep hawks etc is there.

Why do you think road work signs are made? to sit on the deck on some truck? or be to erected thus giving road uses some warning of whats ahead.

Are you still working in local government? If so, you have WAY too much time on your hands. Get a bike (so you can tell us what it is and we can go out of our way to avoid riding near you) and get some riding in rather than wasting so much time slagging off everyone with an opinion that differs from yours.

And, for our benefit, please beg, steal or borrow a dictionary. :argh:

And if you want to slag me off thats fine, because i now you havent the slightest idea what i do and ifind it quite funny

Oh and if you read my profile you would know i have a bike, i ride a GSXR.

Firefight

16th July 2004, 09:00

And what do you have to do to get on the "most active" list for this site, sheesh my fingers are raw from this thread!

Must have typed over 60 posts in the last 3 days!

Silly me, I thought this was all because you cared about your topic ?

Firefight :wacko:

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 09:06

Have you wondered why?

Wondered why i cant keep going on?

Thats because i have to REPEATE myself every 10 posts! :argh:

Wonder my im not getting much support?

Prob a couple of reasons, i get up peoples nose, i speak my mind, i somehow manage to insult women :blink: ive only been riding a couple of years - therefore i couldnt possibly know anything, i havent ridden many bikes so again i dont rate.

Then again there have been a few supporters in spite of my obnoxious attitude and frightfully bad spelling, in fact counting em up looks 50-50.

But personally i dont think many take the time to read my posts and understand what im getting at.

that is - Doing nothing could end up far worse!

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 09:08

Silly me, I thought this was all because you cared about your topic ?

Firefight :wacko:

Go read ALL the posts and you will see why i do care.

People please, if you are going to post a comment read all the posts first.

Firefight

16th July 2004, 09:17

Go read ALL the posts and you will see why i do care.

People please, if you are going to post a comment read all the posts first.

Ah yes, I have read all the posts, The bit that confused me was you question re how to get on the most post per day thingy ? It caused me to wonder about your real agenda. Anyway, I guess I have HELPED YOU GET A COUPLE CLOSER TO YOUR REAL GOAL.

F/F :Pokey:

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 09:33

Ah yes, I have read all the posts, The bit that confused me was you question re how to get on the most post per day thingy ? It caused me to wonder about your real agenda. Anyway, I guess I have HELPED YOU GET A COUPLE CLOSER TO YOUR REAL GOAL.

F/F :Pokey:

Whats confusing about that? i was simply wondering.

If my agenda here was to hit the "top 10 posters of the day" list i would be most appreciative.

However its not. Sorry to disappoint you Firefly.

So you really didnt help at all, shame that.

denill

16th July 2004, 10:04

The HB Today Editorial on the Aprillia's off:
http://www.mytown.co.nz/story/mytstorydisplay.cfm?thecity=hawkesbay&thepage=news&storyID=3578274&type=nzh

Cheers
Bill

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 10:47

The HB Today Editorial on the Aprillia's off:
http://www.mytown.co.nz/story/mytstorydisplay.cfm?thecity=hawkesbay&thepage=news&storyID=3578274&type=nzh

Cheers
Bill

I thought what was fairly well written, apart for the fact the writer seems to laud Chris as a peoples champion.

But certainly his last comments tend to fit in where im coiming from that -

"it is to be hoped that Mr Parkin's court case will give councils and their contractors a wake-up call, and remind them of the need for intelligent use of road-signs and their obligations to motorists; not only to remind them when there are roadworks, but not to remind them when there are not"

The case happened, cant change that now, lets hope some good can come out of it.

Interesting heading it had "Small win for all motorists" denoting that its not just bikers who are susceptible to accidents on unmarked roadworks. Effectly removing the threat to local govt by bikers alone to those reading his article. Which is true, its not just bikers councils will need to be worried about, as i said in an earlier post CARS AND PUSHBIKES would also pose a risk to councils if they have an accident on unmarked roadworks.

The kneejerk reaction by some of our members is quite surprising -

Merv - "Do we really want anti-bike bylaws - if you accept no responsibility and push them that's what it will come to."

Jim - "Chris Parkin is an idiot for pushing that through the courts because this outcome will set a precedent and give an excuse to local government to legislate in many, many ways against motorcycles and motorcyclists."

Jim - "It would be easier from a politcal and cultural perspective to ban motorcycles than fix the issue of lazy contractors. You would, guaranteed, get more support for banning bikes than enforcing ISO9000 level standards on roading contractors."

Guys this isnt just about bikes!

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 12:20

Every accident you have is your own fault. There is ALWAYS something you could have done to avoid one.

Jim, Have you seen the photo of the recent accident involving a cop and doctor in taranaki taken from the air? Horrible sight but....

It happened on a bridge in the rain.

The cops car aquaplaned, bounced off the guardrail on the bridge and crossed the centre line crashing head on into a subaru.

Now keeping in the relms of reality can you please explain to me how the driver of the 4WD is at fault for being in this horrible accident?

Mongoose

16th July 2004, 12:24

Jim, Have you seen the photo of the recent accident involving a cop and doctor in taranaki taken from the air? Horrible sight but....

It happened on a bridge in the rain.

The cops car aquaplaned, bounced off the guardrail on the bridge and crossed the centre line crashing head on into a subaru.

Now keeping in the relms of reality can you please explain to me how the driver of the 4WD is at fault for being in this horrible accident?

Simple Pimple, he should have seen the water on the road, in the other lane, should have knwn that the approaching car might aquaplane,should have know it might bouce off the guard rail and into his lane, so he should have slowed down.

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 12:35

Simple Pimple, he should have seen the water on the road, in the other lane, should have knwn that the approaching car might aquaplane,should have know it might bouce off the guard rail and into his lane, so he should have slowed down.

Both parties could see the "rain", however it can be impossible to pick out a puddle, esp when its raining, If the cop couldnt see it how could he?

Judging by how people were driving in that rain here in taranaki i can say its most likely the good doctor had indeed slowed down.

Even slowing down doesnt mean the accident would have been avoided

Mongoose

16th July 2004, 12:39

If the cop couldnt see it how could he?

But he should have and should also accept the responsibility for not seeing it :crazy: Or so we ae lead to believe anyway

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 12:44

But he should have and should also accept the responsibility for not seeing it :crazy: Or so we ae lead to believe anyway

Dude i was travelling in this rain at 50kph, it went from normal rain to really heavy in a seccond.

I can tell you straight the chances of him seeing it were zilch.

We had 2 people who were involved, one was a highway patrol cop, a seasoned officer, NEITHER of them saw it, what makes you think anyone else could?

merv

16th July 2004, 13:15

Guys this isnt just about bikes!

Exactly and that is why I was asking how long before we see additional restrictions on our freedom due to the crash of the Asians in the 4x4 on the beach.

I love how you think the members here are knee jerking and yet you still seem oblivious to the fact that bureaucrats knee jerk and quickly bring in more oppressive laws that restrict the freedoms of people like us no matter how many simple examples I describe to you.

James Deuce

16th July 2004, 13:21

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 13:28

Up to him to decide.

Cop out.

What if the doctor thinks (and quite rightly in my opinion) that he wasn't at fault?

Are you still going to insist that you know for a fact that he must be mistaken because "Every accident you have is your own fault" and there is no way someone could ever be innocent?

Mongoose

16th July 2004, 13:37

Cop out.

What if the doctor thinks (and quite rightly in my opinion) that he wasn't at fault?

Are you still going to insist that you know for a fact that he must be mistaken because "Every accident you have is your own fault" and there is no way someone could ever be innocent?

With you in the Cop Out comment FF

Motu

16th July 2004, 13:37

Mongoose

16th July 2004, 13:38

Dude i was travelling in this rain at 50kph, it went from normal rain to really heavy in a seccond.

I can tell you straight the chances of him seeing it were zilch.

We had 2 people who were involved, one was a highway patrol cop, a seasoned officer, NEITHER of them saw it, what makes you think anyone else could?

FF this was an attempt at long range :Pokey: at the theories of someothers

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 13:46

I love how you think the members here are knee jerking and yet you still seem oblivious to the fact that bureaucrats knee jerk and quickly bring in more oppressive laws that restrict the freedoms of people like us no matter how many simple examples I describe to you.

And you dont think they (including yourself) are knee jerking? All this talk about just banning motorbikes on NZ roads because of Chris's case?

We have read TWO articles in the press on Chris's case. Neither have suggested any kind of knee-jerk reaction is likely.

And contrary to what people had stated on this thread the JUDGE in Chris's case stated that this wont set a precedent!

I personally think some KB's are over reacting - Im thinking some good might come of Chris's case as the reporter stated.

Time will tell, maybe we should see what happens in six months.

REMEMBER - I have stated many times if NOTHING good comes from this case (contractors dont be more active) then we will see MORE court cases. Not because Chris's case was a precedent but simply because the contractors arent doing their duty and as the reporter said drivers on the road have had enough!

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 13:56

Out of the bounds of this thread - and I am cetainly not judging the cop who was killed - but how many times has anyone aquaplaned here? I never have,and I've driven some real shitters with bald tyres too fast in some heavy rain,I've hit some real deep spots and it felt like it slowed the car down as I went through,but never,ever aquaplane.A cop car would have good tyres I presume - but to aquaplane a cop car off the road at 100kph,I'd a thought it was time to slow down.Ok,I wasn't there,have no idea of what happened,but aquaplaning is a high speed condition,for it to happen at low speed sounds a bit suss.

In taranaki i have aquaplaned twice in the last two months, scary , and i was looking REAL hard for puddles believe me! You certainly dont need to be driving "fast" but the faster you go the worse it is.

The papers called it a high speed crash, certainly looking at the wreckage at least one car was travelling at a decent speed. To loose grip long enough to hit a guardrail then bounch off it and not only cross the centerline but almost drive off the otherside of the road i would say you had be travelling fairly fast.

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 13:57

FF this was an attempt at long range :Pokey: at the theories of someothers

Just trying to back you up dude. :yes:

Paul in NZ

16th July 2004, 13:58

Guys (and girls)

Remind me NEVER to go to a party, bar or any place I want to have a good time at if there is the slightest danger anyone that posted on this thread will be there....

In fact... I think the council or govt should put up WARNING signs....

"Danger, Unexpected Gusts of Hot Air and Righteous Indignation may BORE you to Death for the next 17 pages of posting"

Sweet Jesus... (sorry Zed)

"WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE GO RUN A COUPLE OF TANKFULLS OF GAS THROUGH YOUR BIKES AND LEAVE IT BE!"

In the words of Mr Smith... Streutharama

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 14:02

I thought what was fairly well written, apart for the fact the writer seems to laud Chris as a peoples champion.

But certainly his last comments tend to fit in where im coiming from that -

"it is to be hoped that Mr Parkin's court case will give councils and their contractors a wake-up call, and remind them of the need for intelligent use of road-signs and their obligations to motorists; not only to remind them when there are roadworks, but not to remind them when there are not"

The case happened, cant change that now, lets hope some good can come out of it.

Interesting heading it had "Small win for all motorists" denoting that its not just bikers who are susceptible to accidents on unmarked roadworks. Effectly removing the threat to local govt by bikers alone to those reading his article. Which is true, its not just bikers councils will need to be worried about, as i said in an earlier post CARS AND PUSHBIKES would also pose a risk to councils if they have an accident on unmarked roadworks.

Would really like to hear your comments on this Motu and JIM.

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 14:21

Hitcher

16th July 2004, 14:38

750-odd more posts and we'll be up there with the RR thread!!

Beemer

16th July 2004, 14:56

Posted by Funkyfly: And if you want to slag me off thats fine, because i now you havent the slightest idea what i do and ifind it quite funny

Oh and if you read my profile you would know i have a bike, i ride a GSXR.[/QUOTE]

FF, your response suggests you think I CARE what you do. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't. I don't really care what you ride either, because I've been riding long enough to know it's not WHAT you ride, it's HOW you ride it. Thanks for the heads-up on the GSXR though, at least now I have a chance of avoiding meeting you in person.

I'd go off and burn one of my bras, but I'm too busy using them as slingshots to fire missiles at morons. :whocares:

Funkyfly

16th July 2004, 15:08

Posted by Funkyfly: And if you want to slag me off thats fine, because i now you havent the slightest idea what i do and ifind it quite funny

Oh and if you read my profile you would know i have a bike, i ride a GSXR.

FF, your response suggests you think I CARE what you do. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't. I don't really care what you ride either, because I've been riding long enough to know it's not WHAT you ride, it's HOW you ride it. Thanks for the heads-up on the GSXR though, at least now I have a chance of avoiding meeting you in person..

Im dumbfounded, i was simply doing what YOU asked me to do - remember?

Beemer - "Get a bike (so you can tell us what it is and we can go out of our way to avoid riding near you)"

The reason i mentioned looking up my profile because as a Journalist i thought you would have done your homework before telling me to get a bike.

but thanks for the laugh i need it.