Criminal nuisance conviction for roading contractor after crash

[jrandom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.