Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 116707 2011-03-16 08:22:00 Driver or cyclist at fault? 64etert (15489) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
1186818 2011-03-16 23:49:00 The motorist is charged with Careless use of a Motor vehicle causing death.

Careless use is considered to be a breach of the normal standards of care exercised by a "prudent" motorist.

The problem I have with this is the different penalties for different degrees of this offence. Simple careless use, i.e. opened door, cyclist fell off but wasn't hurt, probably a minor fine.

Careless use causing injury/death, more serious charge, more serious penalties.

However, in my mind the negligence was the same - i.e. opening the door without looking.

I have no problem with a law that suggests you should check before opening the door - common sense I would have thought.
bazmeister (3216)
1186819 2011-03-16 23:49:00 ... I'd send the City Council to Home Detention for six months for allowing a crazy road configuration.

That's what I thought.
bk T (215)
1186820 2011-03-16 23:54:00 IMO, and I dont have all the facts, ie: door opened & cyclist rides into door, or whatever, however, I would say the cyclist should have been on the damn cycle path, thats what its there for!, 2nd, did the cyclists NOT expect the door to open?, what was she watching?, 3rd, I dont think there is a law about opening the door.

Just more PC nonsense if you ask me!

There is something about it is your fault if you open it and someone hits it

Also doesnt a cyclist have to give 1.5 meters in case the door is opened?

EDIT: just ride in to the door for gods sake, better than running under a truck coming the other way, might hurt a little and you will destroy the car door, it will probably bend right round LOL
Gobe1 (6290)
1186821 2011-03-16 23:54:00 And why not may I ask?

The road code is written and based on Legislation but it's not the actual legislation as passed by Parliament.

Its a waste of bandwidth
prefect (6291)
1186822 2011-03-16 23:55:00 And why not may I ask?

The road code is written and based on Legislation but it's not the actual legislation as passed by Parliament.

Just commenting, however we all know it is not the actual legislation.

"DISCLAIMER

The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) has endeavoured to ensure the material in this document is technically accurate and reflects legal requirements. However, the document does not override governing legislation. The NZTA does not accept liability for any consequences arising from the use of this document. If the user of this document is unsure whether the material is correct, they should make direct reference to the relevant legislation and contact the NZTA."
Terry Porritt (14)
1186823 2011-03-17 00:09:00 The actual offence the person is charged with is careless use which is an offence under the Land Transport Act 2005 and as amended in 2007 Section 8.

It's over to the prosecution to prove the case if it's defended naturally.
Snorkbox (15764)
1186824 2011-03-17 00:27:00 Its a waste of bandwidth

But I would not have wanted you to be disappointed! I might have upset you more than you normally are for the rest of your day if that's possible.
Snorkbox (15764)
1186825 2011-03-17 00:30:00 I am sorry if you want to argue you have to pay prefect (6291)
1186826 2011-03-17 01:06:00 Who is to say that the cyclist didn't suddenly veer out from behind the driver's blind spot?

The driver WILL NOT serve any time. Why should he?
Zippity (58)
1186827 2011-03-17 01:15:00 Are not cyclists pushing for vehicles to give them 1.5m clearance? Therefore should not cyclists give stationary vehicles 1.5m clearance also????

Do you ride a cycle? If you did, you would know this would put you in the middle of car lanes in most cities. Not an option.
user (1404)
1 2 3 4 5