Thread: Bull bar blitz: rural drivers fined

Originally Posted by V8Ian

That's a bit harsh Bob. It's almost impossible to see a black cow on an unlit road.

X2 on this. We have had people die around my area for the same reason and the cow does not have to be black.

On this point I assumed that the crashed car had just overtook the other car but it passed the car going in the opposite direction so had the other vehicles headlights in their eyes for a few seconds and hit the cow on their side of the road as they just passed the other vehicle and before the drivers eye re-adjusted.

Originally Posted by bob10

Agree. I wonder if they would have hit it, if they were driving smarter. Breath tested? Bob

a few years ago a falcon ute hit a horse that had escaped from a drovers camp maybe 15km north of emerald

the horse came through the windscreen and the driver was killed

would you, from your earlier statement, suggest that that the driver undergo a posthumous blood alcohol test to see if the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of impact?

what about the driver of the ambulance that first responded? because it, too hit a horse, hard enough that it wrote off the F250 ambulance?

Originally Posted by Sprint

a few years ago a falcon ute hit a horse that had escaped from a drovers camp maybe 15km north of emerald

the horse came through the windscreen and the driver was killed

would you, from your earlier statement, suggest that that the driver undergo a posthumous blood alcohol test to see if the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of impact?

what about the driver of the ambulance that first responded? because it, too hit a horse, hard enough that it wrote off the F250 ambulance?

It is my understanding that in NSW (and probably in other states as well) that all drivers (dead or alive) in all fatal accidents automatically are subjected to blood tests. I suspect this is routinely applied to all serious accidents as well as fatals.

This is not "to see if the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of impact" but to simply determine the status of one causal factor beyond dispute, and is part of the normal investigation.

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

It is my understanding that in NSW (and probably in other states as well) that all drivers (dead or alive) in all fatal accidents automatically are subjected to blood tests. I suspect this is routinely applied to all serious accidents as well as fatals.

This is not "to see if the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of impact" but to simply determine the status of one causal factor beyond dispute, and is part of the normal investigation.

John

havent got a problem with that, just had a problem with the inference that the driver may have been under the influence, and that may have contributed to the crash....

In Vic all passengers that are taken to hospital after a crash have a blood sample taken for BAC.

"I will be very disappointed if the fines are repealed"...

If a person has bought one of these bull bars and it has a certificate of compliance why would you want to the purchasers fined & penalised.

The law works on the premise of what a reasonable man ought to know.

The reasonable man does not need to know the ADR's all he needs to know is that he bought a product of a company & was given a compliance certificate.

BTW - I have no association with Tuff at all & would not even think about putting one on my car, but that is not the point.

According to your logic if an electrical compliance catch's fire due to not being designed correctly even though it has a CE certificate the customer would get fined & not reimbursed.

Originally Posted by chuck

The law works on the premise of what a reasonable man ought to know.

Not in today's world.
I wish you were right. I'd love to see documented legislation that supports your opinion.