Comments on: Where law and logic don’t mix http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/ Work is just something I do between bike rides Tue, 03 Jan 2012 06:01:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jon http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-1557 Jon Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:33:15 +0000 http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/#comment-1557 <p>This still infuriates me. Do we know if there has been an appeal against the verdict yet? I see BV have picked up on it.</p> This still infuriates me. Do we know if there has been an appeal against the verdict yet? I see BV have picked up on it.

]]> By: Christopher http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-1554 Christopher Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:25:39 +0000 http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/#comment-1554 <p>I was under the impression where both road users are partially responsible then the responsibility is shared or liability reduced. A cyclist without a front light would be eligible for (eg) only 80% of the damages - on the technicality that they didn't have a front light though with consideration that this would not have prevented the accident.</p> <p>It could make you wonder though - in a car crash - rear car rams another car from behind at night. Lets say that the headlights of the car in front were not on (though the brake lights were). I would find it hard to believe that there would be the same verdict.</p> I was under the impression where both road users are partially responsible then the responsibility is shared or liability reduced. A cyclist without a front light would be eligible for (eg) only 80% of the damages – on the technicality that they didn’t have a front light though with consideration that this would not have prevented the accident.

It could make you wonder though – in a car crash – rear car rams another car from behind at night. Lets say that the headlights of the car in front were not on (though the brake lights were). I would find it hard to believe that there would be the same verdict.

]]> By: ChrisS http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-1555 ChrisS Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:13:17 +0000 http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/#comment-1555 <p>We were far than impressed with the magistrates comments on this weeks <strong><a href="http://www.yarrabug.org/radio/?p=226" rel="nofollow">YarraBUG Radio</a></strong>, i.e.: Laws of Physics, anyone?</p> <p>Anyway I really didn't mean it about Ballarat being a Event Horizon.</p> <p>It's a grouse place. Honest.</p> We were far than impressed with the magistrates comments on this weeks YarraBUG Radio, i.e.: Laws of Physics, anyone?

Anyway I really didn’t mean it about Ballarat being a Event Horizon.

It’s a grouse place. Honest.

]]> By: Karl McCracken (twitter: @KarlOnSea) http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-1556 Karl McCracken (twitter: @KarlOnSea) Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:23:24 +0000 http://treadly.net/2009/04/24/where-law-and-logic-dont-mix/#comment-1556 <p>I think the judge was incorrect on his interpretation of the law too - the lamp has to be visible from 200m, not project 200m. You can see a candle 200m away, but it does f***-all to project any light and illuminate the road.</p> I think the judge was incorrect on his interpretation of the law too – the lamp has to be visible from 200m, not project 200m. You can see a candle 200m away, but it does f***-all to project any light and illuminate the road.

]]>