Literally on the road

[ghostgum]

After 9 year of bike commuting (almost 4 years in this session)
I finally came off the bike. Riding along at about 30km/h when
a car pulls out from stationary at a stop sign into my path.
I braked a little too quickly, lost control and ended up sideways
on the road just before the car. The driver said sorry then
drove off, ignoring my request for her details.
Two other cars stopped to give me their details as witnesses.

I ended up with some very minor bruising and grazes, and some
minor grazes to the handlebar grip and packrack. No problems
riding home - I must have met all the turkeys earlier in the
day.

I usually do go past that intersection a little slower
because the stupid drivers do tend to pull out, turning
right across your path, but in this case I thought (wrongly)
that the driver couldn't pull out because there was another
car blocking the other side of the road.

I reported it to the police. The constable (who also rides a
bicycle) was very good about it, but the critical thing was
that there wasn't a collision with the car. Consequently
the driver was not required to exchange details, and was
not required to check if I was Ok.

The driver did fail to give way, and would be getting a phone
call from the constable to discuss their responsibilities on
the road. They may also get a penalty notice.

This does raise an interesting question.
If one vehicle runs a second vehicle off the road and into
a tree, but the two vehicles don't touch, is the first
driver required to stop to render assistance?

 

[Michael Warner]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:32:33 +1000, ghostgum wrote:

> I usually do go past that intersection a little slower
> because the stupid drivers do tend to pull out, turning
> right across your path, but in this case I thought (wrongly)
> that the driver couldn't pull out because there was another
> car blocking the other side of the road.

I'm always amazed by the number of idiots who happily
drive into blocked intersections, pedestrian crossings,
even tram and train crossings. Sometimes I stop to discuss
their stupidity with them as I squeeze past, and they look
as me as though I'm from another planet.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Michael Warner wrote:
> Sometimes I stop to discuss
> their stupidity with them as I squeeze past, and they look
> as me as though I'm from another planet.

And are you?

Theo

 

[sinus]

After 9 year of bike commuting (almost 4 years in this session)
I finally came off the bike. Riding along at about 30km/h when
a car pulls out from stationary at a stop sign into my path.
I braked a little too quickly, lost control and ended up sideways
on the road just before the car. The driver said sorry then
drove off, ignoring my request for her details.
Two other cars stopped to give me their details as witnesses.

I ended up with some very minor bruising and grazes, and some
minor grazes to the handlebar grip and packrack. No problems
riding home - I must have met all the turkeys earlier in the
day.

I usually do go past that intersection a little slower
because the stupid drivers do tend to pull out, turning
right across your path, but in this case I thought (wrongly)
that the driver couldn't pull out because there was another
car blocking the other side of the road.

I reported it to the police. The constable (who also rides a
bicycle) was very good about it, but the critical thing was
that there wasn't a collision with the car. Consequently
the driver was not required to exchange details, and was
not required to check if I was Ok.

The driver did fail to give way, and would be getting a phone
call from the constable to discuss their responsibilities on
the road. They may also get a penalty notice.

This does raise an interesting question.
If one vehicle runs a second vehicle off the road and into
a tree, but the two vehicles don't touch, is the first
driver required to stop to render assistance?

Glad you are OK.

That drivers attitude really sucks. Hope she is made to pay.

Cudos to police for the right attitude (so far), thumbs down to the law for being an ass.

 

[Dancier]

I'm always amazed by the number of idiots who happily
drive into blocked intersections, pedestrian crossings,
even tram and train crossings. Sometimes I stop to discuss
their stupidity with them as I squeeze past, and they look
as me as though I'm from another planet.

Riding down Toorak Rd last Saturday this guy half blocks my access so I have a few nice words with him, the next intersection he fully blocks the intersection. What planet do these guys live on.

Last night riding home along Waverly road just past Blackburn road, this woman pulls along side me, swearing and tooting her horn. So she disapears into the distance thinking she would never see me again. So at the next set of light I knock on her window asking nicely what did I do, she just sat there swearing at me with her window up. Just another idiot driving a car I suppose.

 

[Peka]

This does raise an interesting question.
If one vehicle runs a second vehicle off the road and into
a tree, but the two vehicles don't touch, is the first
driver required to stop to render assistance?

You'd have to check the relevant legislation. It may be a grey area....

Regardless of what that says, the driver caused you to crash and will liable as far as insurance goes (if there's enough damage and if you choose to claim against their insurance). Of course, their insurance company will try and get out of it, but I know of numerous cases of motorcyclists who have gone down due to a dopey driver, not collided with said driver's car, and still been successful in claiming against mr dopey's insurance. Having witnesses will help a lot.

 

[zog]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Michael Warner wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I stop to discuss
>>their stupidity with them as I squeeze past, and they look
>>as me as though I'm from another planet.
>
>
> And are you?

maybe it's the "Spock" ears

 

[cfsmtb]

This does raise an interesting question.
If one vehicle runs a second vehicle off the road and into
a tree, but the two vehicles don't touch, is the first
driver required to stop to render assistance?

Ahh, interesting. Under new legislation in Victoria, it's illegal to leave the scene of an accident (ie: several high profile hit-run cases here). Anyone want to follow detail of this up, I'm kinda busy. Otherwise, it's damn good to known you're ok & still on the bike. Lets us known how you go with police & followup.

 

[Russell Lang]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ghostgum Wrote:
>>
>> This does raise an interesting question.
>> If one vehicle runs a second vehicle off the road and into
>> a tree, but the two vehicles don't touch, is the first
>> driver required to stop to render assistance?
>
>
> Ahh, interesting. Under new legislation in Victoria, it's illegal to
> leave the scene of an accident (ie: several high profile hit-run cases
> here). Anyone want to follow detail of this up, I'm kinda busy.
> Otherwise, it's damn good to known you're ok & still on the bike. Lets
> us known how you go with police & followup.

My reading of the current regulations found the following,
which seems to suggest that the other driver should not
have left the scene. However I am puzzled by the text
"(other than a motor vehicle)". This appears to be the
only paragraph about this topic.


287. Duties of a driver involved in an accident
(1) If owing to the presence of a vehicle (other than a motor vehicle) an accident
occurs whereby any person is injured or any property (including any animal)
is damaged or destroyed, the driver of the vehicle-
(a) must immediately stop the vehicle; and
(b) must immediately render such assistance as he or she can; and
(c) must at the scene of the accident as soon as possible give his or her
name and address and also the name and address of the owner of the
vehicle and the identifying number of the vehicle-
(i) to any person who has been injured or to the owner of any
property which has been damaged or destroyed; or
(ii) to a person representing the injured person or the owner of the
property; and
(d) must at the scene of the accident as soon as possible give those
names and addresses to any police officer who is present; and
(e) if any person is injured and no police officer is present at the scene of
the accident, must as soon as possible report in person full particulars
of the accident at the police station that is most accessible from the
scene of the accident if that station is open and, if it is not open, at the
next most accessible station; and
(f) if any property is damaged or destroyed and neither the owner of the
property nor any person representing the owner nor any police officer
is present at the scene of the accident, must as soon as possible report
in person full particulars of the accident at the police station that is most
accessible from the scene of the accident if that station is open and, if
it is not open, at the next most accessible station.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.
Note The accident reporting requirements for motor vehicles is in section 61 of the Road
Safety Act 1986.
(2) In this rule-
accident has the same meaning as crash.
Note Crash is defined in the dictionary.

From the dictionary:
crash includes-
(a) a collision between 2 or more vehicles; and
(b) any other accident or incident involving a vehicle in which a person is
killed or injured, property is damaged, or an animal in someone's
charge is killed or injured.
Note Vehicle is defined in rule 15.

 

[dave]

ghostgum wrote:
> After 9 year of bike commuting (almost 4 years in this session)
> I finally came off the bike. Riding along at about 30km/h when
> a car pulls out from stationary at a stop sign into my path.
> I braked a little too quickly, lost control and ended up sideways
> on the road just before the car. The driver said sorry then
> drove off, ignoring my request for her details.
> Two other cars stopped to give me their details as witnesses.
>
> I ended up with some very minor bruising and grazes, and some
> minor grazes to the handlebar grip and packrack. No problems
> riding home - I must have met all the turkeys earlier in the
> day.
>
> I usually do go past that intersection a little slower
> because the stupid drivers do tend to pull out, turning
> right across your path, but in this case I thought (wrongly)
> that the driver couldn't pull out because there was another
> car blocking the other side of the road.
>
> I reported it to the police. The constable (who also rides a
> bicycle) was very good about it, but the critical thing was
> that there wasn't a collision with the car. Consequently
> the driver was not required to exchange details, and was
> not required to check if I was Ok.
>
> The driver did fail to give way, and would be getting a phone
> call from the constable to discuss their responsibilities on
> the road. They may also get a penalty notice.
>
> This does raise an interesting question.
> If one vehicle runs a second vehicle off the road and into
> a tree, but the two vehicles don't touch, is the first
> driver required to stop to render assistance?
>
>
Yeah. ANd you still have a civil claim against her.

 

[dave]

Dancier wrote:
> Michael Warner Wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm always amazed by the number of idiots who happily
>>drive into blocked intersections, pedestrian crossings,
>>even tram and train crossings. Sometimes I stop to discuss
>>their stupidity with them as I squeeze past, and they look
>>as me as though I'm from another planet.
>>
>
> Riding down Toorak Rd last Saturday this guy half blocks my access so I
> have a few nice words with him, the next intersection he fully blocks
> the intersection. What planet do these guys live on.
>
> Last night riding home along Waverly road just past Blackburn road,
> this woman pulls along side me, swearing and tooting her horn. So she
> disapears into the distance thinking she would never see me again. So
> at the next set of light I knock on her window asking nicely what did I
> do, she just sat there swearing at me with her window up. Just another
> idiot driving a car I suppose.
>
>
Hey I had one once who sad ¨I respect cyclists but the law doesnt say I
have to give way to you¨ Was yours blonde too?

 

[dave]

Russell Lang wrote:
> "cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>ghostgum Wrote:
>>
>>>This does raise an interesting question.
>>>If one vehicle runs a second vehicle off the road and into
>>>a tree, but the two vehicles don't touch, is the first
>>>driver required to stop to render assistance?
>>
>>
>>Ahh, interesting. Under new legislation in Victoria, it's illegal to
>>leave the scene of an accident (ie: several high profile hit-run cases
>>here). Anyone want to follow detail of this up, I'm kinda busy.
>>Otherwise, it's damn good to known you're ok & still on the bike. Lets
>>us known how you go with police & followup.
>
>
> My reading of the current regulations found the following,
> which seems to suggest that the other driver should not
> have left the scene. However I am puzzled by the text
> "(other than a motor vehicle)". This appears to be the
> only paragraph about this topic.
>
>
> 287. Duties of a driver involved in an accident
> (1) If owing to the presence of a vehicle (other than a motor vehicle) an accident
> occurs whereby any person is injured or any property (including any animal)
> is damaged or destroyed, the driver of the vehicle-
> (a) must immediately stop the vehicle; and
> (b) must immediately render such assistance as he or she can; and
> (c) must at the scene of the accident as soon as possible give his or her
> name and address and also the name and address of the owner of the
> vehicle and the identifying number of the vehicle-
> (i) to any person who has been injured or to the owner of any
> property which has been damaged or destroyed; or
> (ii) to a person representing the injured person or the owner of the
> property; and
> (d) must at the scene of the accident as soon as possible give those
> names and addresses to any police officer who is present; and
> (e) if any person is injured and no police officer is present at the scene of
> the accident, must as soon as possible report in person full particulars
> of the accident at the police station that is most accessible from the
> scene of the accident if that station is open and, if it is not open, at the
> next most accessible station; and
> (f) if any property is damaged or destroyed and neither the owner of the
> property nor any person representing the owner nor any police officer
> is present at the scene of the accident, must as soon as possible report
> in person full particulars of the accident at the police station that is most
> accessible from the scene of the accident if that station is open and, if
> it is not open, at the next most accessible station.
> Penalty: 3 penalty units.
> Note The accident reporting requirements for motor vehicles is in section 61 of the Road
> Safety Act 1986.
> (2) In this rule-
> accident has the same meaning as crash.
> Note Crash is defined in the dictionary.
>
> From the dictionary:
> crash includes-
> (a) a collision between 2 or more vehicles; and
> (b) any other accident or incident involving a vehicle in which a person is
> killed or injured, property is damaged, or an animal in someone's
> charge is killed or injured.
> Note Vehicle is defined in rule 15.
>
>

Yeah another part of the act will define their duties as regards motor
vehicles. Probably the same but with higher penalties.

OK so go see the cops. Say you are a vindictive sod and want her charged
with this offence. Its worked for me.

Thats 3 points and 185 ish bucks its cost her. Then ring her (THe cops
will give you the number.) Tell her you are sending a letter of demand
for damages and if you have any trouble getting her to pay you will put
it in the hands of your lawyer. Its not a surefire win cos you didnt
actually hit her.. but probably.

 

[hemyd]

"Dancier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> Last night riding home along Waverly road just past Blackburn road,
> this woman pulls along side me, swearing and tooting her horn. So she
> disapears into the distance thinking she would never see me again. So
> at the next set of light I knock on her window asking nicely what did I
> do, she just sat there swearing at me with her window up. Just another
> idiot driving a car I suppose.
>
>
> --
> Dancier
>
Reminds me of a few weeks ago as I'm passing a clinic driveway in New Street
Brighton. Lady waiting to leave the driveway moves forward just as I'm
almost passing her car front. I spoke into her open windows "Can you please
not do that". Upon having done that, the good lady had this fit of rage and
erupted into a long series of horn tooting. "This does not sound good" I
thought, half expecting her to run me down after she entered New Street and
caught up with me..... never happened, though. Maybe she got over her fit of
rage...

My commute to work along there and St. Kilda Road is marked with drivers
pulling out in front of me, turning left around me and pulling out of side
streets and blocking my path. Just part of the joys of commuting by bike...

Henry.

 

[Michael Warner]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:41:15 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:

> And are you?

I hope so, otherwise I must be related to these strange
humanoid life forms which spend their lives in tin cans.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

 

[Resound]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ghostgum Wrote:
>>
>> This does raise an interesting question.
>> If one vehicle runs a second vehicle off the road and into
>> a tree, but the two vehicles don't touch, is the first
>> driver required to stop to render assistance?
>
>
> Ahh, interesting. Under new legislation in Victoria, it's illegal to
> leave the scene of an accident (ie: several high profile hit-run cases
> here). Anyone want to follow detail of this up, I'm kinda busy.
> Otherwise, it's damn good to known you're ok & still on the bike. Lets
> us known how you go with police & followup.

My reading of the current regulations found the following,
which seems to suggest that the other driver should not
have left the scene. However I am puzzled by the text
"(other than a motor vehicle)". This appears to be the
only paragraph about this topic.


287. Duties of a driver involved in an accident
(1) If owing to the presence of a vehicle (other than a motor vehicle) an accident
occurs whereby any person is injured or any property (including any animal)
is damaged or destroyed, the driver of the vehicle-
(a) must immediately stop the vehicle; and
(b) must immediately render such assistance as he or she can; and
<schnip>

This is sort of vague as far as the phrase "involved in an accident" goes. Now I'm not for one moment suggesting that someone in a vehicle that causes someone else to have an accident in the process of avoiding them isn't involved, but are there legal issues with deciding whether someone is involved in an accident if they haven't made contact? How does the law define "involved"? Again, I'd definitely call it involved to cause an accident even if they don't make contact, but what does the law say?