Criminal nuisance conviction for roading contractor after crash

**Funkyfly** · 15th July 2004, 10:37

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

Originally Posted by merv

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.

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.

**mangell6** · 15th July 2004, 11:01

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?

**Funkyfly** · 15th July 2004, 11:06

Originally Posted by mangell6

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

Originally Posted by Jim2

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.

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

Originally Posted by Funkyfly

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

Originally Posted by mangell6

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

Originally Posted by merv

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

Originally Posted by Drunken Monkey

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

Originally Posted by merv

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

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

Originally Posted by Funkyfly

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

Originally Posted by Mongoose

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

Originally Posted by merv

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.