Where does ones responsibility end?

Won't let me read the second one but the first one in my opinion is total BS. If I told you to go and rob a bank would you do it ? The driver was high on drugs , driving far beyond his capabilities and they blame someone else for trying to entice him into a drag race......The system here has gone totally mad.....He was totally illegal being behind the wheel with drugs in his system for a start.......So what were the main contributing factors to the crash? High speed and drug impairment.......Not sure how they came up with their verdict.....

 

Yep re both...I'm not subscribing to a mexican newspaper.

 

The weekly times one,lover.

 

A direct comment from a friend who is a professional crash scene investigator and who has seen more of this than you or I would ever want to in 10 lifetimes....

"...with my limited understanding of the law it is based on the “but for” theory. That is, but for the actions of the other driver engaging in an illegal street race then the vehicle would not have crashed and two people would not be dead. I should add, it might have been a slightly different outcome had only the driver of the other car been killed, as he would have been implicant in his own death, but the passenger was an innocent victim. I would stress, this is my understanding without referring back to the law books"

This gentleman is a very clear thinker on the topic of road trauma in my personal opinion and I would trust his judgment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Carl I will read it later.......I need to concentrate on this bottle of 2001 Cab Sav I am about to smash..........

 

The first one sounds like a charge of 'inciting' which is probably reasonable IMHO. Yes. the driver should have refused to be involved but there's pretty good precedent for incitement laws (refer numerous terrorist cases) which I wouldn't want to see removed.

I don't think it's unreasonable for farm machinery to be kept in reasonable condition, but I don't get the driving to work bit?

 

Karen what are you talking about. The first one the driver was under the influence of drugs. He was breaking the law before he released handbrake end of story.......

 

yeah I get that, but I still think the charge of incitement against the survivor is not unreasonable.

 

No idea about apportioning blame; I guess I just see it that the survivor should get some penalty for his involvement. The others have already paid the ultimate price for their part...
Agree the responsibility for the contract rigs must lay with the owners.

 

The trick is you google the link then click the result and you get access.












Heavy vehicle laws: Truck safety slug as farmers face huge fines
KATH SULLIVAN, The Weekly Times
January 31, 2018 12:00am
Subscriber only
FARMERS could be fined up to half a million dollars if an unroadworthy truck enters their property under “draconian and unfair” changes to safety laws.

And under the new laws, farmers could be liable if a truck driver is sleepy, or exceeds the speed limit on its way to or leaving a property.

Farm lobby groups have told The Weekly Times the Heavy Vehicle National Law changes, to be introduced in Victoria, NSW, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland on July 1, will mean any farmer receiving or loading a vehicle weighing 4.5 tonnes — the equivalent of a small truck — could be found liable for safety breaches.

The laws mean that farmers must:

KNOW what andhow much is loaded on a truck, and how it is restrained.

BE AWARE of instructions, or demands placed on transporters, including cause for a driver to speed, that may be unlawful.

ENSURE the truck is fit-for-purpose, mechanically safe and roadworthy.

KNOW the driver is not tired, sleepy or has worked longer than allowed.

UNDERSTAND safety risks of any activity related to transporting goods, such as delivery time.

ENSURE safety across all transport activities including packing, loading and consigning.

Under the changes, corporates breaching safety duty may be fined up to $500,000, and individuals $50,000.

In a brochure on changes in the chain of responsibility to farmers, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator states “not knowing the law and obligations it places on you is not an excuse (and) you may face significant penalties for non-compliance”.

But farm groups say the sector is ill-prepared for the chain of responsibility changes and have called for a simplified explanation of how farmers will be affected.

The National Farmers’ Federation said the changes would have “massive implications”.

NFF economics and farm business committee chairman Wayne Dunford said “there wouldn’t be a farmer not implicated” by the new rules.

“It’s opening up a Pandora’s box, and the sad thing is not many farmers know about it,” Mr Dunford said.

He said under the changes, “before you load a truck, you’ve got to know it’s roadworthy — now that’s not a farmer’s job ... farmers aren’t compliance officers.

“If a truck comes up the driveway — just like a car — you expect it’s registered and roadworthy. Farmers have no control over that.

“It shouldn’t be anyone but the driver’s responsibility to do the right thing by the log book … that’s not our job, any farmer will tell you that.”

RELATED COVERAGE

EDITORIAL: LOADS OF TROUBLE FOR FARMS

Mr Dunford said the NFF supported road safety, but the changes to the chain of responsibility laws, which he said doubled fines, had not been adequately communicated to farmers.

“If you’re a large freight company, you’ve got someone looking at NHVR regulations and changes all the time, but farmers are not sitting at a computer all day monitoring what NHVR says,” he said.

“It’s all jargon you’d expect (trucking companies) Linfox and Toll to understand, but there’s no understanding of how the ag sector works.”

Mr Dunford said some farm industry groups were working to create a simplified checklist so farmers could ensure they had met their responsibilities. He also suggested a delay of six months may be needed on the introduction of the changes.

The Victorian Farmers Federation was also worried by what it called a lack of information available to farmers about the changes.

“Any time farmers send or receive goods they will now have a shared responsibility, if not liability, to ensure ‘all reasonable steps’ are taken to comply with the new legislation, but neither NHVR or agencies such as the police can tell us what ‘all reasonable steps’ are to ensure we comply with new legislation” VFF grains group president Ross Johns said.

“Many farm businesses will be unaware of the new legislation and the implications for their businesses. This is compounded by the fact that NHVR cannot tell us how they must comply.”

Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association blasted the rules as “draconian and unfair” and said “the Government and NHVR had done a piss-poor job of explaining the changes to the agriculture industry”.

“It’s like they never even considered agriculture,” TFGA spokesman Nathan Richardson said.

Mr Richardson said he believed the changes meant farmers were expected to “complete full-blown risk and hazard analysis for any truck leaving a farm or carrying produce, irrespective of who owns, or drives, the truck”.

“We’re not against safety, but we’re farmers, not safety inspectors,” Mr Richardson said “While we’re filling out the paperwork who is going to be milking the cows or shearing the sheep and mending the fences?”

But the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator’s Chain of Responsibility manager, Michael Crellin, said farmers already had responsibility when dealing with trucks, under the existing law.

“I don’t think there’ll be a lot of change (for farmers)” he said. “A person can only be responsible for that which they can control or influence. If they begin the dialogue with their transport provider, they’ll be well placed to minimise the risk (when the laws come in).”

Mr Crellin said while the increased fines looked “hefty and terrible” it would be up to “the courts to weigh it up and make judgment about what is an appropriate penalty”.

NHVR spokesman Andrew Berkman told The Weekly Times NHVR had held “extensive briefings nationally and conducted a comprehensive education and awareness campaign to outline the changes to many of the 165,000 businesses which make up the heavy vehicle supply chain”.

Mr Dunford said he feared the full impact of the changes would not be known, until they were tested in court.

A spokesman for Transport Minister Barnaby Joyce said “the amended laws maintain existing chain of responsibility safety requirements, but are better aligned with Workplace Health and Safety laws, which require all businesses to take a proactive approach to heavy vehicle safety for the benefit of the entire community.”

RULES WORSEN RED TAPE

GIPPSLAND wool and livestock producer Steve Harrison feared the changes to chain of responsibility under National Heavy Vehicle Law would leave farmers to deal with more red tape.

“It’s definitely more red tape,” said Mr Harrison.
“Why should this be left to farmers? Truck drivers have their jobs, but this sounds like all of a sudden a lot of it has to be handed to the farmer.”

Mr Harrison estimated his Giffard West farm would receive a truck “about once a fortnight” to shift livestock, take wool to market or deliver inputs such as fertiliser and gravel

“The average farmer wouldn’t be over this at all, I wouldn’t think,” he said.

“Maybe the grain blokes, who own their trucks, but I don’t think most are across it.

“It sounds like they want us to tell a truck driver how to do their job. The average farmer is not in a position to regulate or police that.”

 

You must have missed my last post......I was busy with more important things that didn't involve googling BS........

 

Good trick

 

Here is the outcome of the first situation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-16/man-jailed-over-fatal-drag-race-on-melbourne-ej-whitten-bridge/9555224