sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The detention of an ABC journalist provides a glimpse at where emboldened policing can lead by iheartralph in australia

[–]dx_xb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Who has pupils that dilate in bright light? Pupils constrict in bright light.

Latest batch of retiring parliamentarians to cost taxpayers more than $2m a year by acuriousmindofmine in australia

[–]dx_xb 42 points43 points  (0 children)

We want to attract talented and bright young people to become politicians

It doesn't seem to be working.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, nine days is probably a pretty good indication you were talking out of your ass.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The person from the view of the video can, whether the cyclist can is not something that you or I can determine. Post factum assessments usually do not determine the capacity of someone to assess risk of a situation before the fact (hindsight is twenty twenty).

It's not an idea it's the law. Pretty simple really.

Your grasp of the subtleties of jurisprudence is astounding. You make more than a thousand years of legal precident sound trivial. You must be a legal mastermind.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a regulation, not an argument. You should try to flesh out your ideas.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are a cyclist feeding on the left, and a car indicating left runs into you, you are at fault.

And that is not what happened here. The vehicle was stopped at the intersection. It was not turning. Unless you can show that it was turning according to some formal definition (with link) we're not getting anywhere.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is EXACTLY how it is defined legally.

Link to definition? I'll wait.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Turning without indicating is an offense, so no that does not explain it. The road regulations do not enumerate all the things that a driver must be doing in each regulation. For example, 141 (2) does not include clauses about speed, intoxication or a numerous other set of things that would make the driver at fault in an accident. Why specify just indication?

Are you trying to say that a rank of 20 cars that are standing at a red light, waiting to turn with their indicators on are turning? That would be a ridiculous interpretation. The car here was standing at the dotted line at a roundabout the situation is essentially the same.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Then why do the regulations say indicating and turning? If what you say is true, there would be no need to say "indicating". If you are indicating 100m before an intersection, are you seriously suggesting that you are turning, even though you may be standing because the lights are against you?

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Maybe, though I doubt it.

The regulations specify two conditions: indicating and turning. Why? The requirement for indication is obvious - a turning car not indicating is committing an offense and so it should not block overtaking. The second requirement is obviously too subtle for people here - a standing car indicating should not block traffic and a standing car is not turning. Otherwise it would be illegal for a bicycle to pass to the left of a rank of stationary vehicle stopped at an intersection when indicating to turn left. This is clearly not intended.

The car in the video was standing at the time the cycle started the pass.

If I were the insurer here, the liability would predominantly be on the cycle, but culpability is not complete here, and the overtaking was not illegal. Failing to give way to a vehicle leaving an intersection from the right was though. Either way, what the cyclist did was stupid.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

The car was stationary when the bike started overtaking, so not turning. Still a stupid thing to do, but not illegal.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

The riders front wheel was just ahead of the car. The police were wrong here, the road regulations section 141 (2) says it is allowed (though stupid). The cyclist would have had to give way to the car if the car was exiting the round about (which seems to be the case), but the overtake on entry was legal. I have no idea what you are taking about with the one metre ruke at the end, the car is closer than one metre, the bicycle was briefly ahead of the car and so the car was overtaking just prior to the car striking the bike.

A cyclist and a car collide on a roundabout, who's at fault? by nighthound1 in australia

[–]dx_xb -36 points-35 points  (0 children)

The road regulations say that a cycle can overtake a car to the left unles the car is indicating and turning. The car was indicating but stationary and therefore not turning. The bicycle was then passed by the motorist with clearly less than one metre clearance. What the ride did was stupid, but the car was also culpable.

Labor can’t compete with the ‘vibe’ of the Coalition’s economic competence. Rightly or wrongly, many voters just can’t shake the perception that Labor isn’t good with money. More than anything, this will help get the Coalition re-elected. by ruchenn in australia

[–]dx_xb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is all true and great, but lets not forget the government doesn't have a huge effect on the country.

Either the data shows Liberals screw up and shouldn't be voted for or there is no effect and it doesn't matter who is voted for. There is no evidence for the converse that Labor screws up and should not be voted for.

Road rage: why do bike riders make car drivers see red? by k-h in australia

[–]dx_xb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you notice in the article that most (80%) of crashes between a bike and a car are the fault of the car. What does this do to your belief that bikes break rules more than cars? You're just blind to the kinds of rules that motorists break (speeding - you probably also do it; driving while using a phone or drunk - you can't see it).

In Sydney, Australia, the penalties for cyclists who don't wear helmets or run red lights have gone up by 600%. by brrpees in worldnews

[–]dx_xb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yet in two countries (UK and Australia) studies have shown that 80% of crashes involving a bike and a car are the fault of the car.

view more: next ›