Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Vehicles assumed to be at fault in all accidents with bicycles

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by wokwon, Jun 17, 2016.

  1. Infrastructure Victoria "All Things Considered" Paper http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/download_file/481/237

    One part of it is:
    Infrastructure Victoria - 30-year Strategy :: Enable physical activity and participation

    I think that's a contender for the stupidest idea this year.

    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. Now that's just asking for trouble.

    Do the people at the Darwin awards have contenders for Dumbest ideas
  3. It does work in other countries with vastly different road user attitudes (all modes), and with different infrastructure.

    A simple transplant of legislation won't work alone.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. I'm chewing my own face off in an attempt at not saying anything about this :rolleyes:.
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. So the onus would be on the licensed and registered motor vehicle driver to prove the guy who is unlicensed and unregistered is at fault. Sounds terrible.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. This is a favourite topic of avid politically active cyclists and I can only imagine they are actively marsahaling riders to write enmasse to infrastructure Victoria.

    The concept does work in other countries, but they have a vastly different road using / road user culture and are already positively disposed to cycling and cyclists. Victoria and Victorians fail on all counts.

    I don't keep a close tab on cycling stats, but I think a majority of their injuries are caused by other vehicles, so I can see how this concept has some appeal.
  7. Again we nibble away at the premise that we are innocent until proven guilty.

    This is a serious issue, not just this particular issue, but in general.
    • Agree Agree x 8
  8. The fact that this is coming from Infrastructure Victoria, and NOT a road safety agency, is highly significant.
    This is not a safety initiative, it is a social engineering proposal.
    • Agree Agree x 6
  9. It's OK, MUARC can invent some statistics to justify it. Just show them the money.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. What a load of absolute crap.

    That is all.
  11. Precisely - this is not new - they're just expanding their horizons, and becoming more bold about it...
  12. I'm not against the idea. I know people here are going apeshit though, if this is you, atleast look at this video to see if you still are outraged.

  13. I think basing fault on what form of transport you use is wrong.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  14. I'm all for it.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  15. Somewhat related: City of Melbourne is exploring a plan to ban all motorised goods delivery, either totally or for most hours of the day. Delivery vans and trucks can be replaced by 'cargo cycles'. Apparently.
  16. Another distorted and idiotic "Road Rule" Most collisions between Cyclists and vehicles are the fault of the cyclist doing something stupid that they think they can get away with because they don't have rego to identify them. How can a vehicle stopped at a set of traffic lights be at fault if a cyclist crashes into the back of them because the cyclists wasn't watching what they were doing?
    • Like Like x 1
  17. You're joking right???
  18. #18 AyeKay, Jun 17, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
    A number of university studies, including one recently from Uni SA dispute your causation ratios.
    No Cookies | The Advertiser

    But yes, if a cyclist ran up the back of a stationary car, they would be at fault. Don't see it happening too often though. See cars a..e ramming each other all the time though.

    The proposal seems to replicate the liability rules already in place re pedestrians - that vehicles have duty to avoid, even if the predestination is breaking a rule.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. no it was on radio yesterday but I think they are only looking at it
  20. I cant see any reason why this should be relevant to here, when you consider both states have taken completely different paths to their transportation models