RAAus Member Public Liability Insurance

The risk definition can be altered until you ALLOW nothing much of a real nature , to be done by anyone.. I would suggest we are already seeing this effect.

Why would you be allowing things anyway? That would make you responsible for the outcome. The government doesn't even register your new car now, the dealer does it.

 

You can't be required to not die. Ie Guarantee to live just so someone "dependent" on you is OK.

No one is saying that at all.

 

However, your dependents have a right to expect your support until they get better/reach a majority etc. When someone takes away that expectation by killing you the law says they have to pay for that expectation. (That's not the full version of it, but it shows how the principle works.

 

Previously your wife and children wold be left destitute.

 

That "requirement' to satisfy allows a world that most would not recognize or wish to live in. as there's no Defined limit that it operates up to.

If you're talking about prescriptive regulations where the State took over your thinking for you and specified this safety equipment, or a 3 ft high safety fence 10' back from the track before giving the track a "ticket" yes that went around 1984, and we got to do anything we liked provided we could do it safely. That's how AUF got into the air. You're looking at it all back to front.

 

Like you say" that is enough". The goal posts keep getting moved. Zero road deaths etc. Not achievable and a misleading concept being used for an excuse to impose unlimited restrictions on any thing that particular "PUSH" sees as undesirable. or doesn't interest them.

The goalposts were always moving. My family were the last in the district to sell the horse team and buy a tractor. If you've been ignoring each development in self administration for the last 30 years, sure you're going to be totally confused about how you're supposed to behave now, even if you decide to set up a sausage sizzle at Bunnings. Whose fault is that?

 

Zero road deaths is a target to aim at. Just a reminder that Victorian Speedway has operated for over 50 years with zero driver deaths. It's harder to achieve that on the roads because the compliance and enforcement team isn't watching all behaviour at all times, the tracks are consistently safe with no oncoming traffic, trees etc. but there's an old saying "If you don't have a target, how are you going to hit the bullseye?" Yes, there are PUSHES in the wrong direction, but that's still part of the old prescriptive ways which we do use for our road laws. In Self Administration active participants are usually making the guidelines and so they usually reflect state of the art.

 

 

At one extreme there are people who jump off cliffs in wing suits. Or try to climb Everest. You cant stop it.

As I mentioned to Facthunter, no one has to, but if they hurt someone they pay.

 

 

It has been said that the law is an ass. It can certainly be unfair.. and some privileged people can do great harm with no fear of the law because they own it.

 

For example, you can be represented by an incompetent lawyer and suffer great damage as a result, with no redress at all. And what of the insane person who commits murder while free at the behest of an incompetent judge? There have been a few of these lately. The judge is legally blameless.

 

Thinking that the law is just or fair or sensible is plain wrong. I have seen people lose badly because they thought there was some fairness in the law. Sure, there are some who win big because of the same reason, but they only read about, not known personally to me.

 

 

It has been said that the law is an ass. It can certainly be unfair.. and some privileged people can do great harm with no fear of the law because they own it.

 

For example, you can be represented by an incompetent lawyer and suffer great damage as a result, with no redress at all. And what of the insane person who commits murder while free at the behest of an incompetent judge? There have been a few of these lately. The judge is legally blameless.

 

Thinking that the law is just or fair or sensible is plain wrong. I have seen people lose badly because they thought there was some fairness in the law. Sure, there are some who win big because of the same reason, but they only read about, not known personally to me.

I can quite understand how some people have difficulty with the law

 

 

I can quite understand how some people have difficulty with the law

There is a big difference between having difficulty with the law and thinking that it is used as a destructive instrument to make money for law firms.

 

Believing that there is some sort of fairness, common sense or justice in it would be a grave misjudgment.

 

Sometimes it gets it right, and sometimes wrong. If aircraft manufacturers and pilots got it wrong as often as the judiciary there'd much carrying on.

 

 

A court official said to my father. You won't get JUSTICE in Here. Only LAW. The more money you have the better the LAW works for you. You see examples of that every day. Even operators in the game recognize legal representation is out of reach and unavailable to the average person. It also takes too long. is cumbersome and not addressing the rectification of many problems it adjudicates on. Nev

 

 

NEVER end up in a court of law, whether you are right, wrong or indifferent it will cost you money and time, one way or another.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

It has been said that the law is an ass. It can certainly be unfair.. <snip>

 

For example, you can be represented by an incompetent lawyer and suffer great damage as a result, with no redress at all. And what of the insane person who commits murder while free at the behest of an incompetent judge? There have been a few of these lately. The judge is legally blameless.

Have just paid our PII of some $20k and would have to disagree that there is no redress for incompetent lawyering. We are very much held to account by Legal Services Board and profession specific laws with severe penalties for mistakes.

 

Insane persons are not set free at the behest of judges. Forensicare is full of insane murderers who will remain there for life.

 

Kaz

 

 

There is a big difference between having difficulty with the law and thinking that it is used as a destructive instrument to make money for law firms.

 

Believing that there is some sort of fairness, common sense or justice in it would be a grave misjudgment.

 

Sometimes it gets it right, and sometimes wrong. If aircraft manufacturers and pilots got it wrong as often as the judiciary there'd much carrying on.

As I previously mentioned, I can understand that some people have difficulty with the law. This thread is about Public Liability Insurance, where, if you you happen to injure or kill someone, and someone thinks you were negligent, you will simply call your insurance company, and they will take it from there. You do not have to hire lawyers, so you don’t have to worry about who has deep pockets, and you don’t have to be subject to the horror stories, whether fictional or true. You may come in contact with one if your Insurance company decides not to settle out of court. All you have to do is tell the truth for a few minutes and that shouldn’t be hard. Then you’re out of it.

 

Just as a matter of academic interest PL cases consist of two lawyers arguing their cases, for the plaintiff and the defendant, so if lawyers are as bad as we read above, you’ve still got a 50:50 chance. However, for this thread you don’t need to discuss the merits of lawyers, you just need to look at your PL Insurance obligations and make sure you are covered. If you operate at a regular RPT airport where you may hit an RPT aircraft you may need more than $20 million cover.