SMH is reporting 6 injured at Southern Cross Drive in a road incide...  5 seriously injured.  SMH has provided a photo of a Black Nissan 4wd BMI68K.

More details via John Sunde's twitter including this image which was the source of the smh image.

Potential incident location by analysing street view

Views: 16634

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, the CTP paid/pays for all the personal injury stuff and loss of future income / medical expenses etc.

When it came to replacing my bike the driver said they would pay for it themselves until they realised I wasn't riding a $100 K-mart BSO. When they found out my bike (not expensive by any means but not cheap either) was going to cost more than they expected they dealt with their third part / comprehensive insurance who paid me the costs of the replacement once I'd forked out the money myself and once the driver had paid the insurer the excess.

Sorry, misread. I thought replacing property was mentioned.

if police took action agaist driver, bike riders can sue him

In the end, do you know who paid up the collective $70k bike damage for that 'accident'?

No, but if I recall correctly the inference was that the riders didn't get any money from the driver, although he was found guilty. I don't know, but I can imagine a reasonable conclusion was that he was uninsured.

Interestingly, even though the cyclists ploughed in to the back of his Falcon - and one would normally assume "you're responsible for your following distance" and "usually if one vehicle runs in to the back of another, the vehicle at the rear is at fault", he was found guilty (not sure of what charge(s)). The facts presented indicated he was driving erratically (swerving in and out of the lane several times and stopping suddenly) and I doubt he helped himself much by claiming "the cyclists should have had a police escort" (what, you mean like the kind reserved for the POTUSA and The Queen, but not even our PM gets?) when he did finally face court after missing no fewer than four appearances.

 The facts presented indicated he was driving erratically (swerving in and out of the lane several times and stopping suddenly) 

I was wondering about the vechicism , because I recall that incident where the  cyclist in CP being charged by the police after being hit by a driver, and actually had to fight the charge  - and the other recent case where the Police were too happy to accept the "the cyclist swerved in front of me" excuse and let the driver get on their merry way while the cyclist was in hospital.

Its a fallacy that following distance is absolute. Years ago I was driving a fully loaded 8 tonne truck slowly down a steep incline to a red light. I was at pretty much max braking with both the service and exhaust brakes. Some idiot in some crappy hotted up hatch overtook, cut me off cutting back in and then slammed on the brakes in front of me to the point of skidding. Nothing for it but to unfortunately hit him which bulldozed him slightly into the intesection where his front bonnet was then collected by a bus. Huge mess. He was charged with unsafe lane change/neg driving. Thank heavens no one was hurt.

Yep, I agree. The two second "rule" is a good general rule for the common garden variety suburban vehicle being driven in reasonable conditions. 

The stupid thing about the situation you found yourself in is that it was only going to end badly for the hatchback. Just why bother? Why the hell didn't he stop to think for a moment? Why? Because people don't think. At least I hope it would have been a relatively easy one for you to prove you weren't in the wrong - there is no way you would have been coming down there at speed and the only way to hit the hatch would have been for him to have braked in front of you.

I remember a couple of years ago heading down to Wollongong along SCD to visit friends. Some kid in a hotted up Supra (which was so modified there was no way it would or could have been insured) was playing real-life Frogga weaving through the three lanes of traffic, well overspeed and with his seat so far reclined he needed to look out the rear seat passenger window (which I might add, he wasn't doing anyway).

As we get to the flyover near the airport tunnel the traffic slows up and we crawl towards the tunnel where we find the Supra wedged under the back of a truck. I was this: >< close to stopping a having a word to the Supra driver that this is exactly the reason you don't drive like a c0ck but I didn't need to - standing on the side of the road was the Stubby-and-steelcap-boot-wearing truckie letting the driver know.

The Supra was a write off, the truck might have had some white paint marks on the bottom edge of the steel bar hanging off the back.

I have to state the obvious: KARMA

One of the coppers who attended the scene said he/she believed the car driver was "distracted". Read into that what you will.

The words the police officer used were "driver inattention" ... has a different and lesser meaning then "distraction" which could involve illegal activities such as mobile phone usage when driving.

Happy to be corrected.

What's the current status regarding this matter?  Has the driver been charged yet?  What's his name?

RSS

© 2018   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service