Crash Warwick Farm..Bike Rider Blamed WTF !

[hoffy]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s ... 21,00.html

It's all the Motorbike riders fault....what a bunch of farkin' No-Hopers !!

[lifeofcrimeguy]

I don't see that they are really blaming him for the crash, more the fact that he didn't stop which is obviously screwed up. Ofcourse when they say 'they appeared to be racing' doesn't actually mean that the bike was racing the car, we know most cagers are clueless, but he probably was.

Here's a question if you don't actually participate in the accident but only witness it, do you have a legal obligation to stop? The motorcyclist may have been accelerating (hard) in his normal fashion and didn't believe he had anything to do with the accident and therefore no obligation to stop? I know it sounds far fetched but it's happened with me where I wasn't racing them but they were racing me. Not sure it would ever fly as a defence unless you had video footage or something.

[hoffy]

I wouldn't stop..too much stress of having to deal with it, you would probably be accused of causing the accident, when it was really a P-Plater who thought he was M.Schumaker that caused all the carnage..

[Frank]

I don't see that they are really blaming him for the crash, more the fact that he didn't stop which is obviously screwed up. Ofcourse when they say 'they appeared to be racing' doesn't actually mean that the bike was racing the car, we know most cagers are clueless, but he probably was.

Here's a question if you don't actually participate in the accident but only witness it, do you have a legal obligation to stop? The motorcyclist may have been accelerating (hard) in his normal fashion and didn't believe he had anything to do with the accident and therefore no obligation to stop? I know it sounds far fetched but it's happened with me where I wasn't racing them but they were racing me. Not sure it would ever fly as a defence unless you had video footage or something.

Yes there is a legal responsability to stop, even if you are not involved and are only a witness.

[javaman]

That's a skewed article allright.

I would have stopped just not to be seen as 'running away' and get to much *more* trouble.

[ducati_paul]

Forget the legal obligation, what about a Moral obligation!? how could you witness an accident and think "meh not my problem" and keep going?

[ZXRobyn]

Actually, not only are you legally obliged to stop if you witness an accident, but you are also legally obliged to render assistance - if doing nothing else, but calling an ambo.

And yes I agree with ducati_paul in regard to the moral obligation . . . . but hey, there are plenty of people out there who do not have morals.

[photomike666]

Considering the power to weight of most motorcycles Vs most cars, what are the chances the motorcycle was behind the car? If the motorcycles was indeed ahead of the car and paying attention to the road ahead, is there a possibility the rider did not see the car crash and simply rode away believing yet again a car had failed to keep up with the bike?

Having not seen or been aware of the accident, on what grounds should the rider have stopped. Should we each u-turn and check everything is OK everytime we hose a car off the lights, just in case they have stacked and we are morally responsible?

Seems another case of Media hype and discrimination against motorcycles with absolutly no proof something untward happened.

[Cath]

Here's a question if you don't actually participate in the accident but only witness it, do you have a legal obligation to stop?

No, you don't.
I'm 99.9% sure that you are not legally obliged to do anything, if you are only a witness. The only time you are legally obliged is if you were involved in the accident, or involve yourself by beginning First Aid (if you start First Aid, I'm fairly sure you have to continue until someone else takes over, your life is at stake if you continue, or you pass out from exhaustion). Just walking by when it happened? Legally, you can keep on walking.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that this guy may not even be legally in the wrong. He could probably argue that he wasn't involved or that he wasn't aware of the impact (if he was far enough in front when the other guy left the road). This is all speculation pulled from my arse, based on my reading this: ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 - SECT 70

Obviously, legal and moral / ethical are two completely different things. I don't know anyone who could witness a traumatic accident and NOT help. Seriously, could you look at your face in the mirror ever again? So, I *really* hope the bike dude was so far in front he didn't even realise there'd been an accident. I feel sorry for the innocent guy who was hit - and for all his loved ones.

[MadKaw]

Obviously, legal and moral / ethical are two completely different things. I don't know anyone who could witness a traumatic accident and NOT help. Seriously, could you look at your face in the mirror ever again? So, I *really* hope the bike dude was so far in front he didn't even realise there'd been an accident. I feel sorry for the innocent guy who was hit - and for all his loved ones.

Unlike all the car drivers on the Putty Rd that eventful day. The first guy there (only minutes after the impact), in the Pajero, didn't even get out of his car (as did a quite a few others), he would have driven past if the road wasn't blocked.
Worse of all, it turned out he had a fire extinguisher in his car, which he only produced after being yelled at, well after he arrived and well after its usefullnes...

If the law says you should render assistance, this guy should have been locked up.!!

[Frank]

Cath he may have not be legally involved in the accident itself, and wether or not if he seen the accident behind him is all just conjecture (sp?) disregard any morals, but going by the link you posted..

ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 - SECT 70
Offence of failing to stop and assist after impact causing injury
70 Offence of failing to stop and assist after impact causing injury

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) a vehicle or horse being driven or ridden by the person on a road or road related area is involved in an impact occasioning the death of, or injury to, another person, and This doesn't apply
(b) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the vehicle or horse has been involved in an impact occasioning injury to another person, and this may well do if he seen the accident behind him.
(c) the person fails to stop and give any assistance that may be necessary and that it is in his or her power to give. BUT this doesn't mention anything about the person being accutally involved in the accident, just failly to stop and give assistance.
Maximum penalty: 30 penalty units or imprisonment for 18 months or both (in the case of a first offence) or 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years or both (in the case of a second or subsequent offence).

Now after saying all that I could well be wrong here as well, I would like to hear more from someone who actually knows what the laws regarding this would be though. As for the knob in the 4x4 at the putty incident, well he clearly has no morals what so ever and to my mind was just an out and out prick. As for anyone actually being charged with failly to stop and help whilst not actually being involved I can't think of an incident were someone has been charged for it, generally the people that do stop or those involved are to otherwise occupyed to be bothered taking down details of those that have buggered off.

[Cath]

It could be down to interpretation, Frank, but I read the law as saying:
(1)
(a) AND
(b) AND
(c)

So to be legally guilty, the guy would need to be (a) involved AND (b) knew or ought to know AND (c) failed to stop. If (a) doesn't apply (still an IF, but that's what we're discussing), then he can't be legally guilty of this offence, since all three must occur (because of the use of AND, instead of OR).

[hoffy]

The reason I would not stop is simple...I didn't see the impact, even if I did see the impact, I didn't see the impact..if you see a crash in your rear view mirror on a major arterial road, I doubt you would stop or even would have a legal obligation to stop anyways..

Plus, why would you stop, the papers are blaming him without even knowing him or the circumstances etc etc..so I'd be reluctant to stop and throw myself to the lions, so to speak.

Another bike rider, I would stop straight away unconditionally.

Also the headline reads
"Man killed as P-plate sports car drag races motorbike"

The motorbike had nothing to do with it, it should read
"Man Killed as P-plate sports car loses control"

[Frank]

hmm could be right there Cath.

[lifeofcrimeguy]

One obvious question is was he actually racing the car? If it is proven to be the case, then I think he would/should automatically share equal blame with the car. I know in certain states in the States that there is no obligation to stop but once you do stop you can't leave until cops tell you to kind of thing. But basically yeah, I think I would stop simply becasue the subconscious would pull the bike over anyway with no input from me. Ofcourse, if I hadn't been racing but everyone else thought I was, I would probably regret pulling over, morals aside. I would be curious to know how rigoursly "racing" is defined legally. Personally, seeing as that car could never hope to beat the bike, it's not really racing becasue a race has at least the possibility of competition. I guess the only way to be safe is to make sure that you let the other guy pull off first and then sit behind them making it obvious you're not racing, then over take them down the road if that's you intention.

Wouldn't mind hearing from Aardy about some of the legal gray areas.