HIT BY A CAR
- Thread starter Kammy
- Start date
Daver
Kung Fu Panda
apsilon said:
Because, according to the original post, the rider must have been in front of the car. This means that technically the car was the one which would be in the wrong, because the car ran into the rider. If the car had been hit on the front then that means that the car ran into the bike, wheras if the car had been hit on the side it means that the bike ran into the car.
Remember also that the person in front always has right of way, so then the car is to blame. Even if the spotter said there was no car coming and then changed his mind it is still the car's fault at the point of impact. From the driver's point of view the rider should and could have stopped, but the fact still remains that the car hit the bike, not the bike hitting the car.
I was under the impression the rider crossed in front of the car. Bicycle = vehicle = must obey road rules which he clearly wasn't which would put the rider in the wrong.
Hard to say from the description of the incident. Guess we need more info or a map of the area to work out where these stair are in relation to the road etc.
Hard to say from the description of the incident. Guess we need more info or a map of the area to work out where these stair are in relation to the road etc.
Gutty
Likes Bikes and Dirt
So if i'm driving down the road, and some pedestrian jumps out INFRONT of my car and i hit him. Am i "technically" in the wrong ???
Or maybe i've decided to set my launch ramp up right next to the highway, and jump straight out into traffic. Is the car that hits me in the wrong ???
Get a clue dude. :roll:
Or maybe i've decided to set my launch ramp up right next to the highway, and jump straight out into traffic. Is the car that hits me in the wrong ???
Get a clue dude. :roll:
toodles
Wheel size expert
Gutty said:
Technically yes. The law is specific in that vehicles must ALWAYS give way to pedestrians. You can claim diminished responsibility due to the carelessness of the pedestrian but yes you are in the wrong for some farked up reason.
Not too sure about the bike thing though as the bike is a vehicle and it would be more a failure to give way for a cyclist than the car being at fault unless the cycle was hit from behind.
Without knowing the exact details this is a bit of a pointless discussion but...
If it were a pedestrian they would be in the wrong if they weren't crossing legally. You can't just throw yourself in front of a vehicle and claim the vehicle is in the wrong. If you think you can I hope you have your affairs in order.
In the case of a bicycle it's a vehicle and would also be in the wrong. Just because it managed to get in front of a car seconds before an impact doesn't make it right.
If a car pulls out of a driveway or an intersection in front of another car and gets cleaned up who's at fault? Hint: it's not the car doing the cleaning.
If it were a pedestrian they would be in the wrong if they weren't crossing legally. You can't just throw yourself in front of a vehicle and claim the vehicle is in the wrong. If you think you can I hope you have your affairs in order.
In the case of a bicycle it's a vehicle and would also be in the wrong. Just because it managed to get in front of a car seconds before an impact doesn't make it right.
If a car pulls out of a driveway or an intersection in front of another car and gets cleaned up who's at fault? Hint: it's not the car doing the cleaning.
Gutty
Likes Bikes and Dirt
You guys are messed up !!
If i'm driving my car down the road and some pedestrian jumps from the footpath directly into the path of my car, that is called suicide !! I would not be at fault.
I can tell you this confidently because i have one dead mate that played that game. He was drunk and stumbled into traffic. He died, no car was at fault......he was.
Much like if a car pulls out of a side street and you T-bone them. You are not at fault. The car that pulled out is even though it ended up infront of you. cars can only stop so fast you know ?!?!
In this case, the bike clearly pulled out infront of the car......and not even from a side street, from a set of stairs.
daver, you're a goose. You have no idea.......I can only assume you don't even have you learners permit yet. :roll:
If i'm driving my car down the road and some pedestrian jumps from the footpath directly into the path of my car, that is called suicide !! I would not be at fault.
I can tell you this confidently because i have one dead mate that played that game. He was drunk and stumbled into traffic. He died, no car was at fault......he was.
Much like if a car pulls out of a side street and you T-bone them. You are not at fault. The car that pulled out is even though it ended up infront of you. cars can only stop so fast you know ?!?!
In this case, the bike clearly pulled out infront of the car......and not even from a side street, from a set of stairs.
daver, you're a goose. You have no idea.......I can only assume you don't even have you learners permit yet. :roll:
roffle
Likes Dirt
Daver said:
I'm with Gutty on this, NSW regulation states that:
"The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian." It is an offence.
So, the bicycle rider rode into the path of an oncoming car. By law, the rider is at fault. And you think the car driver is at fault? If someone can explain this to me *commander?*, please..
toodles
Wheel size expert
Gutty said:
I'm not shitting you. That is the basis of the law. The vehicle is at fault. Same thing happens if you drive down the road and run into a cow. Dumb as it may sound, cattle have right of way on our roads. The driver of the vehicle is at fault. It's only when you apply the circumstances of the case in court can blame be negated and/or reversed.
Like I said before though, I'm not sure if this would apply to a bicycle.
You're in Logan which is QLD IIRC so QLD law may be different but here's a small snippet from the NSW RTA:
236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the
path of a driver.
Offence provision.
Sounds like drivers have right of way to me. Of course this is the general rule and things such as pedestrian crossings etc take precedence.
236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the
path of a driver.
Offence provision.
Sounds like drivers have right of way to me. Of course this is the general rule and things such as pedestrian crossings etc take precedence.
roffle
Likes Dirt
Thankyou apsilon! Ok, lets apply the circumstances:
I assume they understood the risk involved.
So, knowing what could happen they continued the activity.
One of them caused a traffic hazard by riding out onto the road.
He was hit by a car on the road.
It seems like it isn't the car driver at fault to me, especially seeing as the rider of the bicycle caused a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver in the first place.
Was the driver supposed to swerve off and hit other people travelling much faster in the opposite direction? Or possibly plow onto the sidewalk hitting more pedestrians?
OT* Does the fact he is a minor count for anything?
I assume they understood the risk involved.
So, knowing what could happen they continued the activity.
One of them caused a traffic hazard by riding out onto the road.
He was hit by a car on the road.
It seems like it isn't the car driver at fault to me, especially seeing as the rider of the bicycle caused a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver in the first place.
Was the driver supposed to swerve off and hit other people travelling much faster in the opposite direction? Or possibly plow onto the sidewalk hitting more pedestrians?
OT* Does the fact he is a minor count for anything?
Gutty
Likes Bikes and Dirt
I'm sure you're not shitting me Toodles :wink: , my point is, as far as i know from previous experience, that law only applies if the car is given ample(not sure how they judge this) time to stop.
If you were doing 60km/h down jackass street, and when you get to about 5 meters away i jump in front of you, there is no way on earth you could, or even be expected to, stop in time.
As i said, it's happened to a mate of mine, his parents went to court seeking damages from the victims compensation fund and were pretty much laughed at. Well, they weren't really laughed at, but they were told they had no chance as their son was to blame for his own death.
No driver was even charged with an offence....let alone convicted.
If you were doing 60km/h down jackass street, and when you get to about 5 meters away i jump in front of you, there is no way on earth you could, or even be expected to, stop in time.
As i said, it's happened to a mate of mine, his parents went to court seeking damages from the victims compensation fund and were pretty much laughed at. Well, they weren't really laughed at, but they were told they had no chance as their son was to blame for his own death.
No driver was even charged with an offence....let alone convicted.
toodles
Wheel size expert
Yeah it's a stupid law that's probably a carry-over from motor vehicles were first introduced or something but it's there. Obviously, judges and juries take into account things like stopping distance and whatnot and dismiss the case.
The cow thing came up last year when a car crashed into a cow and got written off. The driver went looking for compensation and ended up having to pay for the cow as well as getting his car fixed.
The cow thing came up last year when a car crashed into a cow and got written off. The driver went looking for compensation and ended up having to pay for the cow as well as getting his car fixed.