Blackshape Prime on Sunrise

[red750]

A guy from Tyabb on Sunrise this morning promoting the Blackshape Prime for "personal commuting". Said contact RAA to get a licence with 30 hours training. Kochie's comment - that's less than a car. No mention of the cost or other things involved like restrictions, radio, medical etc. And since when have RPC pilots been able to fly retractables?

 

 

 

[yampy]

I guess RPC pilots have been able to fly retractable for some time . The scaled down Spitfire models on the RAAus register have retractable gear as do the Sabre model .

 

 

[Downunder]

It's just an "endorsement".

 

Plenty of retractable Raa aircraft around. A Pioneer in my area.

 

"Medical" as far as I'm aware costs nothing. (Cost me nothing)

 

"Radio" was part of my raa cert so also cost me nothing extra.....

 

I was up, had my cert and passenger/radio endo (without nav) at 20 hrs or so so 10 yrs ago.

 

One of the reasons "PPL" schools like to keep quiet about the raa cert is that it is relatively cheap and easy, so they would make less revenue.

 

Good on the bloke too, for promoting it on a national tv program.

 

What's the bet the RAA had nothing to do with it. To busy chasing fairies....

 

(Could have been the perfect opportunity for a "double header" having someone from the RAA promoting the RAA cert on the show as well)

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I for one am impressed he got his wares on National prime TV, quite a feat and presumably a relative/mate or better still, someone high up in Channel 7 is an aviator.

 

 

[old man emu]

Typical Kochie comment. His farts have more intelligent comment than what comes out of his mouth.

 

A day or so ago Sunrise showed dashcam footage from a truck which ran into the rear of a car which had suddenly stopped in a traffic-free lane, probably because he driver was lost at an intersection.

 

That fool Kochie said that if you hit anybody from behind, you are in the wrong.

 

Sorry Mr Koch LLB. The footage showed

 

1: Dangerous driving by the car driver for stopping in a clear traffic lane for no observable reason

 

2: An unavoidable collision between the truck and car caused by the driver of the car doing something the road traffic laws have been created to prevent.

 

The truck driver had a reasonable expectation that a car travelling in the left hand lane of a multi-lane road on the approach to an intersection on the right hand side would not just stop without any turning indication.

 

Kochie is a moron with a TV show. As for his economic advice, I wouldn't act on it to spend a penny if I had diarrhea.

 

 

[SSCBD]

No mention of the cost or other things involved like restrictions, radio, medical etc. And since when have RPC pilots been able to fly retractables?

Hi red750 - I was flying retract and controlled airspace back in the AUF days legally. Do a bit of research on our history.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Just had it on 10 news...280K for one

 

 

[winsor68]

A day or so ago Sunrise showed dashcam footage from a truck which ran into the rear of a car which had suddenly stopped in a traffic-free lane, probably because he driver was lost at an intersection.

That fool Kochie said that if you hit anybody from behind, you are in the wrong.

 

Sorry Mr Koch LLB. The footage showed

 

1: Dangerous driving by the car driver for stopping in a clear traffic lane for no observable reason

 

2: An unavoidable collision between the truck and car caused by the driver of the car doing something the road traffic laws have been created to prevent.

 

The truck driver had a reasonable expectation that a car travelling in the left hand lane of a multi-lane road on the approach to an intersection on the right hand side would not just stop without any turning indication.

Could I kindly request that you hand your license in until you have had some retraining?

 

 

[SAJ]

I just saw it on TV on ten central, its the type of aircraft every recreational pilot can afford.

 

The person doing the broadcast said you could have on to for $250,000

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Typical Kochie comment. His farts have more intelligent comment than what comes out of his mouth.A day or so ago Sunrise showed dashcam footage from a truck which ran into the rear of a car which had suddenly stopped in a traffic-free lane, probably because he driver was lost at an intersection.

 

That fool Kochie said that if you hit anybody from behind, you are in the wrong.

 

Sorry Mr Koch LLB. The footage showe

 

1: Dangerous driving by the car driver for stopping in a clear traffic lane for no observable reason

 

2: An unavoidable collision between the truck and car caused by the driver of the car doing something the road traffic laws have been created to prevent.

 

The truck driver had a reasonable expectation that a car travelling in the left hand lane of a multi-lane road on the approach to an intersection on the right hand side would not just stop without any turning indication.

 

Kochie is a moron with a TV show. As for his economic advice, I wouldn't act on it to spend a penny if I had diarrhea.

Some years ago I had the unfortunate experience of being the driver who ran into someone who stopped suddenly.

Tried to get out of it because all the same reasons you've quoted.

 

But OME in Queensland at least he's absolutely correct.

 

There is almost no situation where the runner-up- the-bum is in the right. The only way you get out of anything is if someone else runs into you as well. Then it's the unlucky guy in the last car in the line who carries the whole cost/blame. ( yep -that was me too hence the desire to get out of it - four or five cars with me the lucky last. )

 

in Qld - driving too close to the car in front and being unable stop if the front driver suddenly stops is the dangerous at fault bit.

 

If you are driving it is your legal right to stop, slam on the brakes when you want. The reason there are laws about the distance from the car in front separation is to allow for sudden stops - there are a heap of legal reasons why you might have to slam on the brakes - child, animal, pedestrian jumps onto roadway, bits fall off car in front of you etc etc. all totally legitimate reasons that may not be observable to the driver behind. So no observable reason why the driver stops is not a traffic offence. Driving too close to stop is.

 

 

[red750]

But if you have dashcam vision showing the other car pulling in front of you with two clear lanes with no obstructions for a number of metres in front of him, then hitting the brakes in a typical insurance rort manouvre, particularly if you had left ample room to brake, surely you would have had a reasonable defence. Here is the incident, watch the cars brakelights.

 

Dashcam footage of a truck and car colliding sparks heated blame game on social media

 

 

[bexrbetter]

If you are driving it is your legal right to stop, slam on the brakes when you want.

I hit a car up the rear in Canberra. It was at a T junction with lights, and we were on the side road. It's an odd T junction in that when you were stopped on the side road wanting to turn right, the far lane on the main road to your left stopped almost straight ahead of you, eg; it intruded into the intersection.

 

There were numbers of accidents and complaints there because as you took off, the cars stopping on your left, well they were coming very much into your space and you kept your eyes glued on them and if the car in front of you slowed or stopped, they were often hit. The car in front of me actually stalled halfway round just as I looked left at a car stopping, and I argued it was unroadworthy, and I won.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Just had it on 10 news...280K for one

How much for one?

 

Wait, what?

 

 

[Downunder]

Just had it on 10 news...280K for one

And here's me thinking "oh, that's going to be expensive....maybe close to180 or 200k...lol."

 

 

[bexrbetter]

DU, sarcasm

 

 

[Downunder]

Hit "post"before my comment by mistake...

 

 

[NinjaNate]

Just had it on 10 news...280K for one

Yep I saw it on ten too Kyle. Looks nice but wow $280k!!! A plane for the masses because we all have a lazy $280k laying about ;)

 

 

[old man emu]

Here is the incident, watch the cars brakelights.Dashcam footage of a truck and car colliding sparks heated blame game on social media

That's the very incident I was referring to.

 

There is almost no situation where the runner-up- the-bum is in the right.

Almost "No", means sometimes "Yes."

 

Do you really think that the Constable who books you for a two-bob bum shunt really knows the Law? I'm afraid that the average General Duties Constable who would attend such a prang is ignorant of the Law, and will often just issue a ticket because that's what his Buddy Partner told him to do when he was a Probationary Constable, learning the Job. And the Buddy Partner had been taught the same error.

 

The reason that these Constables are not taken to task in the witness box is because people have unfounded faith in the level of knowledge of the Law that Police possess. Also, if you show a Court that a Constable doesn't know the Law, a Magistrate will still be loath to reimburse your expanses.

 

 

[Litespeed]

It is a hard one with the truck.

 

The driver is a complete idiot, but the truck seemed to bash the horn rather than emergency brake. I would fine both if it was me.

 

The driver of the car should get negligent driving charge. You do not have the right to brake anywhere you like in the traffic- unless it is a emergency. You must take care that your actions do not endanger others- even if you are in front. Just like it you have no right to go into a intersection when the light is green- you must do so safely and only when it is safe to do so.

 

The vehicle in front does not have carte blanche to do anything they like, nor can they just decide to brake and stop in a lane unless it is for emergency reasons or because the traffic ahead has stopped. Just like you can't just decide to enter a intersection and then stop and read a map etc.

 

If it went to court esp. if someone is injured and compensation was sought, then I would expect both drivers would be found to have contributed to the accident. Some states may see it different but that is the general principle.

 

As far as multiple rear end crashes- in NSW the last car to hit only pays for the car they hit and so on down the line. I know because this happened to me 20yrs ago. The police that arrived were fortunately- the accident investigation team, lucky us. The fool at front slammed on the brakes on a major road for no reason and we all barreled in. The cop stated that as no one was injured and cars were movable (to a side st) she would not charge anyone. But the first driver- the idiot, wanted everyone fined- the nice officer obliged. The idiot was charged with negligent driving - they had no lawful reason to emergency brake, and by the very nature of it been a arterial road, the whole road is a NO stopping zone. Just like you can't park your car on a freeway lane and have a picnic.

 

A similar situation is when swerving to avoid wildlife, if you cause a accident- you are at fault. You can not drive in a manner that endangers others- no matter what signs, lights, wildlife etc.

 

I agree though that many cops have very little law knowledge and just rely on us copping it. Or they pick the easiest target and don't want to get involved.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I must admit I’m going on Qld law and what it was in 1990s. Before the advent of dash cams.

 

In those days it was all my word against yours type stuff.

 

I had about 4 or 5 cars in front of me. I got stung for the lot. insurance covered it eventually but as my luck would have it, it was a loaner car from a dealer and they tried to get out of it. I knew nothing of it all for about a year till I got a surprise summons delivered to me at home one night. The law at the time was - I was the guilty party. Obviously got the lawyer etc. but nope. Then it was if you rear ended someone you were in the wrong - period.

 

Only mitigating circumstances were if the vehicle in front was driving backwards at the time. You had to prove the vehicle reverse gear was engaged. Of course it wasn’t in this case because it was a sudden stop in traffic and no debate about that. As I stated, in the chain impact scenario the last car is the guilty one because there would always be the claim by one of the middle guys that he DID stop in time but was rear ended and pushed into the car in front by the impact. Thus the guy behinds fault.

 

In the end my legal challenge was not who was at fault in the crash - that was foregone. My challenge was proving I was covered by the dealers insurance. That took ages but was eventually proved so I had minimal costs. ( in $s. But not in emotional stress etc)

 

 

[SDQDI]

Yes that is how it is in NSW.

 

The person who runs into a car from behind is in the wrong unless the car in front is reversing (to park) OR deliberately cuts in front of another vehicle.

 

 

[SDQDI]

This is the relevant 'legislation' for NSW and I believe at least Vic is worded the same.

 

126 Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles

 

A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.

 

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

 

 

[old man emu]

We are all driving under legislation called the Australian Road Rules. This is a body of legislation dealing with the use of motor vehicles on public roads and road related areas. The content of the legislation was agreed to by representatives of each State and Territory so that everyone across the continent would operate in the same way. Each State, however, maintained its sovereignty over the Law in its domain, so that each State was permitted to add minor things to it.

 

Australian Road Rules

 

The Australian Road Rules were implemented in 1999 and have been regularly updated since then. Each state and territory adopts the Australian Road Rules in its own legislation. With minor exceptions, the Australian Road Rules are applied consistently in each state and territory.

 

While Rule 126 might seem to apply to the incident involving the truck, you should review the tape and listen to the sound of the engine of the truck. The truck driver was backing off well before the car propped. You also have to apply the "reasonable person" rule. Watch the tape an imagine yourself driving as you normally do. Wouldn't it be your reasonable expectation that with the left lane clear of traffic are far as can be seen, the car would continue on in the left lane?

 

As I said, the truck driver was travelling where he should have been, at what seems to be a reasonable speed for the conditions when the car driver created an unsafe situation which the truck driver could not avoid by the employment of a safe action. If I was the investigating Constable, I'd have no hesitation in reporting the driver of the car for 'Negligent Driving", ie driving in a way that is unsafe for other persons using the road at that time. And I'd subpoena the camcorder tape as prima facie evidence.

 

One might think that the Law is black and white, but it is open to the defence of exception.

 

 

[SDQDI]

OME I reckon with that video the car is close to cutting off territory but I still think it is not quite there. I don’t know what he was thinking (the car) but when he changed lanes there was ample room between him and the truck and it didn’t sound like the truck applied his brakes till nearly after the collision?

 

If someone is wanting to slow down I think the sensible thing to do would be to change to the left lane but it certainly looks like this car doesn’t know where he wanted to go and is having second thoughts about the intersection.

 

 

[johnm]

could also be ................ that truck driver wanted some really good dash cam footage (sarcasm)

 

or; both the car and the truck driver were physically there, but, mentally - were way, way, away somewhere else