Prang this morning (Canberra)

[BT Humble]

OK, so last week and this week my commute has been extended by 10km
each way due to a training course for work (Gordon-Civic instead of my
usual Gordon-Woden).

This morning I took my MTB rather than my old roadie, since the MTB
has lights and I was almost caught out by approaching dark a couple of
times last week. I headed up Athllon Drive, then the on-road lanes
along Adelaide Avenue. I was overtaken by a bloke on a roadie just
prior to the exit near Parliament House, then caught up with him again
shortly afterward when I found him lying on the kerb with a car pulled
over just ahead of him.

It turned out that the car which squeezed him out of his lane was
trying to avoid a second car, who had grown tired of waiting at the T-
intersection and pushed out into the traffic. Perhaps needless to
say, the push-out-into-traffic guy was driving a car with diplomatic
plates. :-/

Our man managed to brake and jump the front wheel up the kerb, but
unfortunately his angle of kerb approach was too acute and the rear
wheel was caught by the gutter. He was fortunate however that he
stopped about 20cm short of a street sign post, and that there was no
contact between him and the motor vehicles. He's lost a little elbow
and knee skin, and wrenched his left shoulder. The bike was a bit
scratched, but no real damage done - surprisingly the wheels were even
still straight.

The bloke who ran our guy off the road stopped immediately and offered
assistance, name, address, etc. Meanwhile the cause of all this
business left the scene of the accident, but was following by another
2 motorists who took his number, and now know where he works (an
embassy, needless to say). Apparently he claimed he'd been waiting at
the T-intersection for 10 minutes, and therefore had done nothing
wrong! I urged our guy to *at least* go to a doctor, and get his
injuries on the record.

I suspect we might be hearing a bit more about this!


BTH

[Bean Long]

BT Humble wrote:
<snip>

> I suspect we might be hearing a bit more about this!
>
>
> BTH

Sheesh! Makes me glad the wife and one child were throwing up all
morning or I might have been there when it happened! Which intersection
was it BT? The diplomatic plates mean he's off the hook doesn't it?

****ful!

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

[Donga]

On May 14, 1:52 pm, Bean Long > wrote:
> BT Humble wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I suspect we might be hearing a bit more about this!
>
> > BTH
>
> Sheesh! Makes me glad the wife and one child were throwing up all
> morning or I might have been there when it happened! Which intersection
> was it BT? The diplomatic plates mean he's off the hook doesn't it?
>
> ****ful!
>
> --
> Bean
>
> Remove "yourfinger" before replying

It would still be worth a personal letter to the Ambassador, copied to
our Alexander.

Donga

[rooman[_148_]]

Donga Wrote:
> On May 14, 1:52 pm, Bean Long > wrote:
> > BT Humble wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I suspect we might be hearing a bit more about this!
> >
> > > BTH
> >
> > Sheesh! Makes me glad the wife and one child were throwing up all
> > morning or I might have been there when it happened! Which
> intersection
> > was it BT? The diplomatic plates mean he's off the hook doesn't it?
> >
> > ****ful!
> >
> > --
> > Bean
> >
> > Remove "yourfinger" before replying
>
> It would still be worth a personal letter to the Ambassador, copied to
> our Alexander.
>
> Donga
Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 (the Act) and the
Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972 applies, and article 43 of
the Vicenna Convention
" Article 43
IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION

1. Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to
the
jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the
receiving
State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular
functions.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not, however,
apply
in respect of a civil action either:

(a) arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a
consular employee in which he did not contract expressly or
impliedly
as an agent of the sending State; or
(b) by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the
receiving
State caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.
"

all depends on how "official" the business was, who was driving and
why.

It is a generally accepted rule of modern practice that those who
suffer death or personal injuries, or damage or loss of tangible
property caused by a foreign State’s tortious act or omission may sue
that foreign State for monetary compensation.This exception was
originally assumed to cover the problem of traffic accident by a
diplomat of foreign State.

The foreign state can still be sued for a tortious act by its
representative under this principal unless the act is
exempted...

in addition DFAT Guidelines : on Immunity and protocols for
foreign diplomats and family is : -

Issue of a traffic infringement notice, or its local equivalent,
is not considered a violation of the immunities to which a diplomatic
or consular official may be entitled. It represents a notice that the
recipient appears, on the face of events, not to have complied with
local traffic laws or ordinances. It is a matter of public safety.
This practice is now adopted in many countries.

"As the immunity of consular officials is limited to acts performed in
the exercise of their consular functions, and the Department's view is
that driving a vehicle is considered to be outside the scope of
consular functions, consular immunity does not absolve the person from
an obligation to submit to a breath test.

Family members of consular officials have no immunity and can, if the
circumstances warrant, summonsed, arrested or detained. Consular
employees have less immunity than consular officers and could also be
summonsed, arrested or detained, if circumstances warranted.

so a noisey and legal approach by the guy who hit the deck should get a
proper response, not an immunity claim. In any event cover for injury
should be extended under ACT "nominal defendant " Law re: personal
injuries from MVAs ( uninsured or unidentified vehicles and similar
classes) , and civil actions to sue in tort are not negated and a claim
should be put if damages exist for personal injuries and property
damage.


--
rooman

[Bean Long]

rooman wrote:
<snip legalese>

Many thanks rooman... I've always wondered where the blue DC (diplomatic
corps) plates around Canberra sit with respect to road laws. This helps
muchly.

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

[Patrick Keogh]

Bean Long wrote:
> rooman wrote:
> <snip legalese>
>
> Many thanks rooman... I've always wondered where the blue DC (diplomatic
> corps) plates around Canberra sit with respect to road laws. This helps
> muchly.
>
.... and an even bigger sanction is the embarrassment caused to the
mission. No head of mission likes it when their staff do not keep their
noses clean. This can be a significant CLM for the staff member.

[BT Humble]

Bean Long wrote:
> BTHumble wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I suspect we might be hearing a bit more about this!
>
> >BTH
>
> Sheesh! Makes me glad the wife and one child were throwing up all
> morning or I might have been there when it happened! Which intersection
> was itBT? The diplomatic plates mean he's off the hook doesn't it?

The exit ramp from Adelaide avenue onto State Circle. At the point
where you can make a turn from State Circle, across the exit ramp and
cycle way, to get onto Perth Avenue.

Basically at the black smudge in the middle of this satellite photo:

http://tinyurl.com/2ueh9k

> ****ful!

Very! Since I didn't actually see anything happen (just the
aftermath) there didn't seem much point in giving him my phone number,
etc. I accompanied him until the Commonwealth Avenue bridge, at which
point we headed off in different directions.


BTH

[Adam F[_4_]]

BT Humble wrote:
> Bean Long wrote:
>> BTHumble wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I suspect we might be hearing a bit more about this!
>>> BTH
>> Sheesh! Makes me glad the wife and one child were throwing up all
>> morning or I might have been there when it happened! Which intersection
>> was itBT? The diplomatic plates mean he's off the hook doesn't it?
>
> The exit ramp from Adelaide avenue onto State Circle. At the point
> where you can make a turn from State Circle, across the exit ramp and
> cycle way, to get onto Perth Avenue.
>
> Basically at the black smudge in the middle of this satellite photo:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ueh9k
>
>> ****ful!
>
> Very! Since I didn't actually see anything happen (just the
> aftermath) there didn't seem much point in giving him my phone number,
> etc. I accompanied him until the Commonwealth Avenue bridge, at which
> point we headed off in different directions.
>
>
> BTH
>

I just can't bring myself to ride on the 80kmh roads around here - it's
too hairy. I see cars swerving into and out of the bike lane all the time!

--
//Adam F

[Bean Long]

BT Humble wrote:

> The exit ramp from Adelaide avenue onto State Circle. At the point
> where you can make a turn from State Circle, across the exit ramp and
> cycle way, to get onto Perth Avenue.
>
> Basically at the black smudge in the middle of this satellite photo:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ueh9k

I wasn't sure of where you meant until I rode in this morning. Right
out the front of the new Turkish Embassy. The scene played out in my
mind as I passed the point you were talking about. Traffic was banked
up with two or three cars stuck where said event occurred. Poor *******
would have had very little option but to slam into the gutter. Good on
you for helping out.

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

[Bean Long]

Adam F wrote:

> I just can't bring myself to ride on the 80kmh roads around here - it's
> too hairy. I see cars swerving into and out of the bike lane all the time!
>

State circle is 70 kph and where the accident happened I regularly get
up to 50 kph at that point on the bike. I'm usually more concerned
about drivers coming down from the embassies on the left at this point
and drivers turning left at Flynn Drive further down state circle.

Generally I feel quite safe on the 80 kph roads that have bike lanes.
It's when the traffic is heavy and the speeds are a little slower that I
get a bit scared. Northbourne is the best example. Speeds are around
60 or less but the traffic is all over the place. I have found that the
bike lanes on the 80 kph roads are sufficiently wide for me not to
have too many brown kicks moments.

--
Bean

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

[BT Humble]

Bean Long wrote:
> I wasn't sure of where you meant until I rode in this morning. Right
> out the front of the new Turkish Embassy. The scene played out in my
> mind as I passed the point you were talking about. Traffic was banked
> up with two or three cars stuck where said event occurred. Poor *******
> would have had very little option but to slam into the gutter. Good on
> you for helping out.

I did what I could, which was little enough. You have to make
contributions to the karma bank, and I've made a few withdrawals over
the years too.


BTH

[Adam F[_4_]]

Bean Long wrote:
> Adam F wrote:
>
>> I just can't bring myself to ride on the 80kmh roads around here -
>> it's too hairy. I see cars swerving into and out of the bike lane all
>> the time!
>>
>
> State circle is 70 kph and where the accident happened I regularly get
> up to 50 kph at that point on the bike. I'm usually more concerned
> about drivers coming down from the embassies on the left at this point
> and drivers turning left at Flynn Drive further down state circle.
>
> Generally I feel quite safe on the 80 kph roads that have bike lanes.
> It's when the traffic is heavy and the speeds are a little slower that I
> get a bit scared. Northbourne is the best example. Speeds are around
> 60 or less but the traffic is all over the place. I have found that the
> bike lanes on the 80 kph roads are sufficiently wide for me not to have
> too many brown kicks moments.
>

Actually you're right - Northbourne is the scariest ;)

--
//Adam F