Can You Be Liable for Intentionally Not Helping in a Crash?

jsrz18 on 10/10/2020 - 20:16
Last edited 10/10/2020 - 20:17

Bit of an odd hypothetical question, but I'm curious.

Let's say you're driving and you've got some d**khead driving aggressively behind you and then he switches lanes and comes up next to you with the windows down, sticking the finger and yelling abuse and what not, but you don't really give a crap since you're in the left lane doing the limit, if not a tad bit over. And then he changes lanes again so he's in front of you and tries to brake and then speeds up again. The other car is loud as hell. Now everything goes back to normal, however, 500m later the other driver completely loses control and drives right into a tree and the car is completely wrecked. You slow down and have a good look, but since the other driver is probably some scumbag that's high on drugs and has probably never really worked a day in his life, you intentionally drive on because you believe that him dying is a win for society, and you don't believe this is a life worth saving. You've also worked hard all day and cannot wait to get home to watch the footy. You don't stop to help and you don't call the ambulance or police, you don't give a crap at all. Even once you've arrived home, you still don't call for assistance.

Hypothetically, let's say the other person is now dead, or has lost both their legs. Would you have any sort of criminal liability? I would assume that there'd be none whatsoever since you didn't do anything wrong but just wondering.

Automotive

Comments

  • krenske on 10/10/2020 - 22:18
    +1

    For a different perspective
    It is an offence to leave the scene of an accident but that’s nothing to do with rendering assistance

    • pjetson on 10/10/2020 - 23:30
      +15

      It is an offence to leave the scene of an accident

      That's only if you're involved in the accident.

  • Cheeper on 10/10/2020 - 22:55
    +3

    If I saw an accident and knew it was one of our many moron drop kicks that reign terror on the roads these days I would hope they were suffering immensely and just keep driving.
    Any penalty for doing so would not bother me.
    One less of these jerks on the road would be a blessing, at least they wont be killing or maiming some innocent road user.

    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 08:55

      Absolutely I totally agree

    • dufflover on 11/10/2020 - 17:15
      +1

      There's a few hoons and SPS-sufferers in my area who I "wouldn't complain" if that happened to them.
      Entirely self-inflicted if their (profanity) driving behaviour gets them killed and better just them than taking out an innocent driver or pedestrian in the process.

  • The Value on 10/10/2020 - 23:24
    +6

    It's not an eye for eye people. Don't make assumptions about people.

    • buckethat on 10/10/2020 - 23:44
      +1

      Well to be fair, I think he made judgement based on the behaviour on display.

      • crashloaded on 11/10/2020 - 08:31
        +11

        One instance of behaviour shouldn't mean death though. If that were the case should nurses just let all drug users needing treatment die? That's a pretty grim outlook on life.

        • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 08:56
          -8

          Hypothetically, I wouldn't have killed anyone. Just let them to die. If the person is clearly some junkie or drugs and alcohol, tatts on the neck and all, driving like an absolute lunatic, and looking like he's lived off the dole his entire life, it is definitely the right thing to do to leave them to die imo. Would be doing my bit for the community, the government and the police.

          • Ozpit on 11/10/2020 - 09:31
            +8

            @jsrz18: “tatts on the neck and all” would definitely push it over the line for me and I’d keep on driving. But if no “neck tatts and all“ I’d probably stop, phone 000 and render any other assistance I could.

          • crashloaded on 11/10/2020 - 09:35
            +12

            @jsrz18: You sound very young with that mentality. Judging someone's whole life on a less than 1 minute interaction with them is narrow minded and shallow. What if hypothetically, you saving that person's life, gave them the realisation of turning their life around and becoming a productive member of society? What if they were having a stroke or heart attack and it just appeared like they were on drugs but they also have "neck tatts". You also don't know what happened to a person in their life to put them in the position they are in. Yes you didn't kill anyone but not showing empathy toward another human regardless of your small interaction with them says more about you than it does about the person you left to die.

            • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 09:46
              -4

              @crashloaded: cheers for the input. I would have no regrets and wouldn't really care about the other person at all. Any other person it I would have a completely different outlook. I have actually helped someone in a previous car crash before.

              • crashloaded on 11/10/2020 - 09:49
                +2

                @jsrz18: Sure you have….

                • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 09:57
                  -4

                  @crashloaded: yeah. Only difference was the other person wasn't a dropkick junkie that deserved to die. And I was involved in the accident.

                  • crashloaded on 11/10/2020 - 10:10
                    +2

                    @jsrz18: Good to see we're now comparing apples to potatoes.

                  • R-Man on 11/10/2020 - 16:28
                    +5

                    @jsrz18: Feel like I'm taking bait here, but who are you to decide who deserves to die?

                    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 17:37
                      -2

                      @R-Man: That's true. I don't have the authority to decide, I just leave them be.

                • arkie0 on 11/10/2020 - 16:52
                  +1

                  @crashloaded:

                  Sure you have….

                  lol, judging someone on a less than a 1 thread interaction with them is narrow minded and shallow.

          • abb on 12/10/2020 - 09:16
            +3

            @jsrz18:

            If the person is clearly some junkie or drugs and alcohol, tatts on the neck and all, driving like an absolute lunatic, and looking like he's lived off the dole his entire life, it is definitely the right thing to do to leave them to die imo. Would be doing my bit for the community, the government and the police.

            On a similar note, I think people who condemn others to death based on perceived joblessness are not worth saving should they be dying. What's your rego OP? Wouldn't want to accidentally help you one day.

          • drfuzzy on 13/10/2020 - 12:21
            +1

            @jsrz18: I would stop and render assistance regardless of the drugs/tatts/or "dole his entire life". That is not enough to condemn someone.
            I might not stop and render assistance if I knew it was the OP.

          • Lord Fart Bucket on 14/10/2020 - 09:53
            +1

            @jsrz18:

            Would be doing my bit for the community, the government and the police.

            I was going to ask for a photo of you, so i may do to you as you would to do others. But, i'd be the same as you.
            Instead, know this: I don't care what you look like and what assumptions your appearance may give me. If you are hurt and it is in my capacity to help you, I shall render assistance to the best of my ability.

        • tyme on 13/10/2020 - 15:01

          Most people would argue drug users are victims of their addiction as much as they are criminals.
          That doesn't mean their victimhood outweighs any crimes they may have committed under the influence though.
          You may feel more comfortable letting a drug addict that has committed a murder or sex offence die compared to one that stole to feed their addiction.
          But in these examples it's not the drugs that's the key issue, it's what they've done that seperates them.

          So a nurse/doctor letting someone die based on drug use isn't a great example to pick out in my opinion.
          And if we re-evaluate based on more severe personal history (e.g a murder) then yes that "one instance" of behaviour would define that person's place in the world and in many people's views would warrant their life being destroyed (usually by a long prison sentence considering we do not have the death penalty).

          So the argument about "one instance" doesn't resonate with me. I think the question should definitely be about severity of the instance.
          Personally I don't think hooning warrants death as much as a despise it. If they get into an accident that only hurts themself then maybe that will be the catalyst for them to realize how dangerous their actions were while they recover in hospital.
          If the crash caused the deaths of innocent people though, there's less incentive to want to give that person a chance at redemption.

          • crashloaded on 13/10/2020 - 16:35

            @tyme: My comment was based on the fact that op is assuming the person is a drug user/dole recipient just by looking at them. Some things can appear on the surface to be drug use ie; mental disability.

            Anyway I read on one of ops posts he is 19 so that pretty much explains his train of thought for me. I probably thought similarly at his age.

      • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 13/10/2020 - 17:02

        Wishing death or permanent harm based on one encounter where someone was being a knob is a pretty big leap.

    • Ozsaver88 on 14/10/2020 - 10:57

      Thank you. Next time when we shall ask for their cv, seek a bit of personal background information and of course, medical history before making assumptions!!

  • Willco88 on 10/10/2020 - 23:53

    How would anybody even know if you did or didn't stop what a dumb question

    • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 10/10/2020 - 23:53

      CCTV.

      • Willco88 on 10/10/2020 - 23:55

        So some one is going to be sitting there watching 1000s of cars go by hoping someone didn't stop what a load of BS no such thing it wasn't hit and run or anything otherwise you'd cause more accidents having 100 cars stopping to assist LOLOLOLOL

        • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 10/10/2020 - 23:57

          In a not as popular are someone could easily look at CCTV at the time of the incident and find which driver drove off.

        • Euphemistic on 11/10/2020 - 06:21
          +6

          If its a serious crash investigators are highly likely to want to look at cctv.

        • CBrads4 on 11/10/2020 - 14:44

          Dash cams are much more popular these days. The car behind you has a dash cam and the police request that footage to assess the accident and you're done.

    • ozbjunkie on 11/10/2020 - 15:04
      +1

      You dropped this

      /s

  • BigBirdy on 11/10/2020 - 08:34
    +10

    Maybe the other driver was trying to alert you to a dangerous section of road ahead. You didn’t respond to his warning, so he took it upon himself to race ahead and show you the danger. You should recommend him for a posthumous award …
    (Even if you think he’s a drug addled moron, you should still call police & ambulance)

  • [Deactivated] on 11/10/2020 - 11:10
    +10

    Is that you, Richard Pusey?

    • mjdau on 11/10/2020 - 12:03
      +5

      "All I wanted to do was go home and eat my sushi, you've f@@@ed my f@@@ing car"

    • pn09 on 11/10/2020 - 14:18
      +6

      What sort of parents call their kid "Dick Pusey" ?

      Seriously…

      • capslock janitor on 11/10/2020 - 16:39

        The parents that did it. As a reminder how they were made and came into the world.

  • OzHunterNSW on 11/10/2020 - 11:47
    +6

    Yes… of corse.

    If you live in Australia you may have heard recently about a porsche driver who failed to assist in a road accident. He elected to film the dying people rather than render assistance.

    As with the "aggressive" driver…. who is the bigger man?

    You sound like you would rather place a knee upon their neck or chest, rather than offer proper assistance like any real Australian citizen would.

    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 11:50
      +1

      The porsche driver literally caused the whole thing. And no I wouldn't want to put a knee into anyone's chest. I'd rather continue on my drive and leave the dropkick to die.

      • bobbified on 11/10/2020 - 12:22
        +9

        The porsche driver literally caused the whole thing.

        The porsche driver was speeding and he was pulled over - just like thousands of other drivers on the road every other day. The truck driver is the one that caused the whole thing. He was driving while fatigued and crashed into all the parked cars on the side of the road.

        Everyone is pinning the blame on the porsche driver because what he did afterwards was morally outrageous (but not necessarily illegal).

        • Zachary on 11/10/2020 - 14:11
          +2

          is that the one that killed the driver and the cops by mowing them all down in his truck? I think he's excuse was "I thought I saw a witch."

          • bobbified on 11/10/2020 - 14:22
            +1

            @Zachary: It was the incident where the porsche was pulled over by cops on the side of the road. The fatigued truck driver came along and slammed into the police cars, killing the cops. The porsche driver wasn't killed.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/10/2020 - 09:24

              @bobbified: The truck driver wasn't fatigued. He was high as a (profanity) kite. Read the reports and transcripts.

              Everyone is pinning the blame on the porsche driver because he was driving under the influence, speeding, driving dangerously and the entire event wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for his actions.

              • bobbified on 13/10/2020 - 09:43

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                ….Everyone is pinning the blame on the porsche driver because he was driving under the influence, speeding, driving dangerously and the entire event wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for his actions.

                What he did isn't right, but you can't pin the whole thing on the Porsche driver. Otherwise you could also blame his mum. Because If she didn't give birth to him, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. And if his grandma didn't give birth to his mum, she couldn't have given birth to him. And this whole thing wouldn't have happened.

                Fact is, the truck driver is the one that slammed into the police cars and killed those cops. He is responsible.

                The porsche guy was driving much more over so I'm not referring to that case, but cops routinely pull over people travelling less than 10km/h over the limit. They are taught to do a risk assessment before each traffic stop. I wonder if they believe that someone driving less 10km/h over the limit on the road is more dangerous than pulling someone over and standing by the side of the road for 10 minutes so while half the other traffic flies by and the other half is rubbernecking.

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/10/2020 - 14:06

                  @bobbified: It's a simple chain of events. He was doing 149km/h, DUI, had already nearly caused an accident, and was pulled over. That's where the chain started.

                  The fact you're bringing up a "traffic stop risk assessment" is, frankly, hilarious. Your reference to his mother is just a poor attempt to use a fallacy.

                  Obviously both Pusey and the truck driver will be punished end of the day.

                  • bobbified on 13/10/2020 - 14:10

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: So are you saying the porsche driver should be put in jail because someone else killed the four cops? There's a reason the truck driver was charged with the death of the cops and not the porsche driver.

                    The fact you're bringing up a "traffic stop risk assessment" is, frankly, hilarious.

                    Are you that simple-minded that you really think a "traffic stop risk assessment" isn't a thing?

                    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/10/2020 - 16:30

                      @bobbified:

                      So are you saying the porsche driver should be put in jail because someone else killed the four cops? There's a reason the truck driver was charged with the death of the cops and not the porsche driver.

                      Is that what I wrote? No.

                      I said due to the chain of events he is to blame. He's where the chain started. Obviously both Pusey and the truck driver will be punished end of the day.

                      Are you that simple-minded that you really think a "traffic stop risk assessment" isn't a thing?

                      Is that what I wrote? No.

                      I said you bringing it up is hilarious. That's it. You obviously don't see why.

                      Straw man, red herring, attacking the man, anything else?

                      • bobbified on 13/10/2020 - 16:42

                        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                        I said due to the chain of events he is to blame.

                        What exactly does "he is to blame" mean if you're not saying he's at fault? I'm not sure about you, but if someone is blaming me for something, then they're saying that it's my fault.

                        Obviously both Pusey and the truck driver will be punished end of the day.

                        The truck driver will be punished for the deaths. Pusey (what an unfortunate name, but it suits him!) will be punished for the traffic and other offences he committed that day, but not the deaths.

                        I said you bringing it up is hilarious. That's it. You obviously don't see why.

                        Why is it hilarious? Please enlighten me. I brought up a traffic stop risk assessment in the situation were routinely police pull people over when they're driving less than 10km/h over the limit and whether it was worth risking their own lives on the side of the road (vs the risk caused by someone driving that little over an arbitrary limit).

                        Straw man, red herring, attacking the man, anything else?

                        Now you just sound like you're trying to wriggle out of what you were saying earlier!

                        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/10/2020 - 16:55

                          @bobbified: Popcorn

                          What is your objective here?

                          • bobbified on 13/10/2020 - 19:01

                            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                            What is your objective here?

                            As i said in my first post, the porsche driver is not responsible for the deaths of the officers. The truck driver is.

                            Feel free to eat your popcorn in peace lol :)

    • core101 on 13/10/2020 - 18:34

      If someone is under influence and they botch first aid, they will most likely be liable for negligence directly cause by their actions, vs that same person deciding unable to assist directly. In First aid they teach you that Shock is also real medical condition, people act unusual, and as a victim they probably won't be liable for not providing first aid or leaving the scene.

  • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 12:00
    +1

    Appreciate all the replies. Was certain there was no liability in such a situation but just wanted to check in.

    • crashloaded on 11/10/2020 - 12:28
      +4

      Maybe delete thread before your laptop is seized 😂

  • gyrex on 11/10/2020 - 12:42
    +4

    I'm not sure of the legal requirements to stop and assist but I like your way of thinking and I'd tend to think along the same lines as you :)

  • 82norm on 11/10/2020 - 13:15
    +4

    My only concern is if there was a passenger, say young child who maybe injured. There are douchebag’s out there who have no care in the world for anyone including their own. In that instance, I would probably pull over to check. At least my conscience will allow me to sleep at night. Who knows, you go over and check out the scene and you find wads of cash, gold bullions…..hmmm, no ones around, watching…..tempting!

    • capslock janitor on 11/10/2020 - 16:40

      true ^^

    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 17:36
      +1

      Well in this hypothetical scenario, there was no one in the car. Unless he kidnapped someone and stuck them in the boot. All windows open, insanely loud sub.. no one else there. Otherwise I probably would have stopped.

  • greatlamp on 11/10/2020 - 13:28
    +4

    You can drive past an accident that you didn't cause.

    You cannot stop, look, then drive away. If you appear to be giving assistance, you cannot decide to abandon the accident victim.

    Your example has a couple of grey areas - were you involved in the accident - maybe.
    Did it appear you were preparing to give assistance- maybe

    • capslock janitor on 11/10/2020 - 16:40
      +1

      Rubberneckin' time

    • derrida derider on 12/10/2020 - 00:24

      Yes, that's right. There is no obligation in Oz to stop and help, but if you do choose to do so you cannot then just abandon the person - in effect you have taken responsibility for them until better help arrives.

      From time to time some people push for "Good Samaritan" laws obligating people to stop and help, but they've never got up in Oz because OS experience is that they regularly end up doing more harm than good. However you set the obligation there are always massive grey areas that you can't judge well.

    • Jenus on 12/10/2020 - 13:02

      I would imagine that if it was a particularly nasty accident, there would be people with good intention who stop to have a look, and then be so frozen that they can't do anything. Or just nope the hell out of the situation because they can't process it.

      I'm not saying it's the right thing to run away once you've stopped, but I've come to realise that people deal with trauma in many different ways.

  • Agarwal on 11/10/2020 - 13:40

    Who was playing footy?

  • arlennnn on 11/10/2020 - 13:41
    +5

    Instantly thought of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-NWFpUSgXQ

    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 17:41
      +1

      hahahaha thanks for that. gave me a good chuckle. Very, very similar to this scenario.

  • Okayy on 11/10/2020 - 14:48
    +2

    Doesn’t matter if there is any sort of liability comes legally or whatnot but I would stop and call emergency services, I believe in do good!

    • derrida derider on 12/10/2020 - 00:27

      Of course, and I reckon anybody who wouldn't do so is a complete dipspit. But we're talking legal postion, not moral choice, here.

  • This Guy on 11/10/2020 - 15:21
    +1

    Yes. 500m up the road after a road rage incident. It's pretty hard to argue that you are not part of that accident. You would be leaving the scene of an accident.

    But, the first rule of providing first aid is to assess dangers. In this case all you could do park safely, away from the accident, call emergency and follow their directions.

    Additionally, some training, jobs or even relationships introduce a legal duty of care. If it was your sixteen year old child, who was working for you at the time and you are your companies first aid officer, it would be highly advisable to stop.

    There are also good seminarian laws. If you really wanted to make sure your child who sped and yelled at you died, you could always render incompetent assistance.

    Dashcams and mobile phones are very common. The idiot probably crashed uploading the incident to facebook. Without your own dash cam another witness might pin it on you (two cars were road raging). I would rather get the ball rolling on dealing with this incident earlier rather than later, so I would most likely stop.

    (not advice, mostly sarcasm).

  • Cluster on 11/10/2020 - 15:43
    +4

    I did a first aid course recently and it was mentioned that while you don't have to intervene to help (assuming you're not the only person around who can help, you're not refusing to aid a person in immediate danger when you could do so, etc), once you become involved in providing help you have a legal duty to continue to help until someone else takes over or you're unable to render further assistance (sheer physical exhaustion is one good example).

  • leiiv on 11/10/2020 - 15:57

    I would assume other passerby will call emergency after seeing the crash.

    But what if, without you knowing, that by the action of cutting you over and making you slowed down, the other guy actually saves your lives? Imagine that in the alternate universe where that guy did not cut you over and crash, you would not slow down, and a terrible accident that you cannot foresee happened. Would you still feel the same?

  • OzzyOzbourne on 11/10/2020 - 16:14

    As long as you don't film them and say "look what you've done to my car!"

  • euk on 11/10/2020 - 16:14
    +6

    Ok, to clarify a few things:

    Unless you caused an accident/were at the scene of an accident as it happened, you are not legally obligated to stay and/or render assistance/provide evidence etc. However, your moral compass may need calibrating.

    If you render assistance (as Joe Blogs), the 'good samaritan act' allows you to render assistance and not be sued if what you do harms the person inadvertantly.

    If you are a doctor/nurse/paramedic etc, you are NOT legally obligated to render assistance if at an accident. However, as pointed out above, if you/someone identifies you, then you will be required to provide REASONABLE assistance. That is, CPR, airway support, whatever. This does not mean the clinician/whatever is allowed to perform maneuvres that are deemed to be extreme without normal equipment/team/support etc, such as a pen cricothyroidotomy.

  • RolandWaites on 11/10/2020 - 16:27
    +12

    Pretty big judgement call to say some guy on the road, no matter how much of an idiot he is, deserves to die because he was being abusive while driving and you were running late to watch the footy.

    • pegaxs on 11/10/2020 - 17:01
      +14

      I agree with this. Absolutely disgusting commentary by OP by judging the character of this person and letting them die based on nothing more than being just a perception of them being just another arsehole driver on the road. That could have been someone's father, someone's son, someone's brother.

      What I have found is that people generally don't go off their brain in traffic unless someone else does something to trigger them. It would be more likely this person would have reacted to the way OP was driving or that OP was the instigator, but for their poor choice in handling the situation, OP thinks that the only fit retribution is to sentence this person to death and dismiss it as "well they yelled at me, so they deserve it."

      What if the guy just lost his job or lost custody of his kids to a bitch ex-wife? Lost a family member or some other traumatic experience and OP cut them off and that was the straw on the camel's back? And what if OP's valuation of this person is wrong? What if they are a big contributor to the community, a volunteer who helps those less fortunate. A moment of mental stupidity, totally out of character for this person has now cemented their impending death.

      OP, one day, I hope for your sake, or if you or any member of your family is in a similar situation as your example, that someone doesn't just dismiss you as "just another bogan in a shitbox". What an absolute shit attitude to have for the life of another human being that you know nothing about.

      • Hargain Bunter on 11/10/2020 - 17:50
        +4

        Thank you Pegaxs and Roland for bringing some civility to this post. I completely agree, this is still a fellow human being in our society who is deserving of life, and a road rage incident doesn’t change that.

      • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 17:51
        +7

        LMAO so someone's having a shit time so they can go hooning and yelling crap at everyone and driving 50km over the limit. "What if they are a big contributor to the community" Lol no sorry. Unless they're been on some volunteer placement for their dole cheques for the past decade, then no.

        Also you could apply the family analogy to anything. Some drunk guy beats his wife. She stabs him. He dies. Well that was someone's son, father, husband, cousin, uncle..

        In this scenario, ethically and morally I would be wrong. Never once did I deny that. Whilst I disagreed with pretty much everything you said, I appreciate your opinion.

        • Hargain Bunter on 11/10/2020 - 18:04
          +4

          In this scenario, ethically and morally I would be wrong.

          I think you have effectively answered your own question, while there may not be a legal liability, it is the wrong thing to do.

    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 17:43

      I agree with you in the sense that I can't really make the call that "he deserves to die" at that one point in time. I should probably rephrase that to - his life isn't worth being saved. That captures my perspective exactly.

    • BobLim on 12/10/2020 - 02:14

      "Deserves to die" isn't really the same as "deserves my assistance" though - especially if you're unlikely to be able to make a difference

      • dufflover on 12/10/2020 - 11:51

        Common emotive guilt trip tactic.
        Like the kid who was too busy texting and walked off the car park and died.
        Did he "deserve" to die for that? No.
        Should I feel any sort of guilt for him acting in a way that would get him a Darwin award? No.

        Considering so many innocent road users are impacted by the other idiotic drivers like recently the car that got pushed onto the opposing lane, even more so.

    • bargaino on 23/10/2020 - 00:56

      deserves to die because he was being abusive while driving a

      There was more to it: "The other car is loud as hell.". This pretty much clinches the evidence that the driver was an irredeemable arsehole. Good riddance.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/10/2020 - 16:59

    Sounds like you feel a bit guilty hence you are asking and people are judging you a bit harshly.

    If there is no liability then all you did is: gave him the middle finger just as he gave you before.

    Mind you the universe operates in strange ways.

    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 17:54
      +1

      I don't believe people are judging harshly. Ultimately, if a scenario like this is posted on a public form, I accept and expect that. If I didn't want to hear people's opinions, I never would have posted it and would have kept it to myself.

  • herecomestheoost on 11/10/2020 - 17:06

    I've always wondered this myself, thank you for the post.

    In another hypothetical situation, you're driving a bomb of a car, someone hits you (their fault) but you don't care… Are legally obligated to stop?

  • Hargain Bunter on 11/10/2020 - 17:51
    +1

    OP, the scenario seems oddly specific; Is this actually a hypothetical?

    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 17:53
      +2

      Believe it or not, the entire thing is hypothetically. A bit of it is somewhat true and other bits taken from a movie or TV. In reality there was no crash. The whole thing put together was in a dream once and I was itching to ask the question. I think it was sparked by some dash cam australia clip I saw the other day.

      • Hargain Bunter on 11/10/2020 - 18:05
        +1

        I’m glad there was no crash!

        • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 18:08
          +1

          yeah so in the past I would have encountered some dkhead behaving like a ct on the road and then I watched this clip and I put 2 and 2 together, so if the person then did something like this would I need to stop or anything.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlcwGF_9-Gw

          so yeah the crash was hypothetical

          • Hargain Bunter on 11/10/2020 - 18:17
            -1

            @jsrz18: So in both your original scenario and that clip, morally you should still stop and call for assistance. In that clip especially the other driver is driving extremely reprehensibly with what appears to be little regard for the safety of other drivers. Even despite that they shouldn’t be sentenced to death through your inaction. In the event that dashcam has captured it, let the legal system judge them instead.

  • akashra on 11/10/2020 - 18:10
    -1

    It depends on the state. If this is in Victoria then the Road Safety Act 1985 Sect 61 applies which has been amended a few times over the last few decades. The short version is if you witness an accident occur, you must stop.

    This is also one of the basic questions that appears on your test(s) when you apply for a drivers license, and people should be expected to know this.

  • Hansi on 11/10/2020 - 18:37
    +1

    "What happened Mr Drifter?"

  • ChristopherJack on 11/10/2020 - 18:49
    +2

    I take it that you believe in the death penalty too & that people can't be rehabilitated. Consider that the person may aslo have others in their car who may be decent people.

    At the very least, pull over- call 000, tell them what & where, let them know that you are concerned with your safety as they seemed potentially dangerous, then follow simple instructions.

    • jsrz18 on 11/10/2020 - 19:54
      +1

      I would believe in the death penalty, but I don't due to the slight chance that an innocent person would be killed.

      • Sammy2000 on 12/10/2020 - 07:27

        Like the (profanity) driver?
        Just because they act like an (profanity) towards you, doesn't mean they are unemployed, on drugs and a wife beater so deserves to die.
        Maybe you cut them off without realising? Maybe your speedometer is inaccurate? Maybe your car exhaust smells bad as you are driving an old diesel and he wanted to enjoy the fresh air? Maybe your break lights are out?
        I say call 000 as you are unable to render assistance.

  • field1985 on 11/10/2020 - 19:01
    +6

    It's not illegal, but it is ethically and morally bankrupt. Also, you're whole question boils down to: Should I render assistance to save a human life in an emergency?
    Everything else, is your opinion and conjecture, about things you can't possibly know.
    If you want to be a soulless psychopath with no regard for human life, that's your prerogative, but it's not going to win you any friends.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join