Surely this can't possibly work?

The same thing is written on most, if not all signs in the park. I haven’t checked them all, but it seems to be around a fair bit. I’ve never read it, mind you.

Seems stupid to have it there, but meh.

The legal position is a lot stronger than if there were no signs.

Signs like this do nothing more than demonstrate that we live in a nanny state.

From the looks of it, that doesn’t even come close to being adequate from a legal standpoint.

GB said :

Why should the government have to warn people that its their own lookout if they fall over?

They don’t. Sign or no sign, anyone suing the government here would have to show that the government was negligent. Recent law reform work has tended to emphasize that you don’t have to warn people about dangers that are bleedingly obvious or inherent in the sort of activity being engaged in. I’m not sure about the exact situation at statute in the ACT, but that’s certainly the case in NSW.

Um where’s the footpath to stand on while you’re reading it?

So, we should change the law.

harvyk1 said :

It would in no way be enforcable.

For goodness sake — its important to figure out what the current legal situation is (and thanks to the legal folks who write in); but surely more important to identify how we should change it? Why should the government have to warn people that its their own lookout if they fall over?

Introduce public injury insurance, get rid of ridiculous payouts and ridiculous court cases.

Or else put up signs everywhere saying “if you trip over and hurt your toe, make sure and tell us because you might be in line for a few hundred thousand.”

Just to point something quite basic out:

Most cyclists and runners understand that injury is a part of their sport. Racing road criteriums means crashing is normal. Riding a MTB anywhere means crashing is inevitable. Running around means a sprained ankle is normal. Horse riders know that they’re riding an animal that can buck if it’s scared. I guess there are a few ‘gucci’ posers who buy the best because they’re compensating (not because they need it) and would sue if they got a scratch… but thankfully it hasn’t come up yet.

Although it seems the greatest risk is with the MTB trails. However good design means that at the start of each trail, it gives the rider a taste of what’s to come further down. Basically it gives you the chance to try out a tiny sampler of the trail’s difficulty and turn around if you’re not comfortable. It’s a normal standard for trail builing (endorsed by the International Mountain Biking Association-IMBA) and has been proven to work well.

PS: Moto’s have many other places to ride, since Stromlo is used so often and so safely gaurded someone would have to be very very very unintelligent to try riding a Moto there.

It would in no way be enforcable. For anything to be enforceable a person needs to do an obvious action which indicates they have read and agreed to a contract or agreement. Simply having a sign (no matter how big) does not cut it. If there was a park entry booth for example, where you had to pay money, then by virtue of paying money it would indicate you agree to be bound by those terms. By simply driving past a sign, one which no reasonable person could read without being a danger to other road uses is completely meaningless.

Yes.

So, they need another sign beside the existing one that says “READ THIS YOU STUPID SONS OF BITCHES!”?

This would be ineffective. Under contract law, one has to take reasonable steps to bring this sort of thing to the attention of the punter. In any case, exclusion clauses are interpreted strictly to limit the benefit to the party which they favour.

Tortious?? What on earth kind of language is that? The Galapagos in spring??

How about we change the law so we can put up a sign at the border saying:

“Accidents happen. Most of them are no-one’s fault.
If you want someone else to cough up because something random happened, please join our comprehensive voluntary insurance plan.

Otherwise, you’re on your own.”

mdme workalot said :

I would suggest that the sign (such as it is now) does not protect the ACT govt from any liability…

So if you prang while circling the roundabout slowly and looking sideways to read the sign, who’s liable?

ant said :

justbands said :

> Does that include motorsport?

It’s a cycling (& running) venue, what’s it got to do with motorsport?

You’ll get trail bikes there for sure, guaranteed. They’ve just destroyed the gate leading into the Cuunbeun nature reserve AGAIN so they can get their trail bikes in more easily; they’ll love this stromolo facility.

Not out there they won’t.

BTW the warning is repeated in multiple places out there IIRC. It’s also repeatedly mentioned on the website http://www.stromloforestpark.com.au/

Overheard said :

poptop said :

Maybe their sign placement is another of the ‘other tortious acts’ referred to.

Interesting use of “maybe” in the first line.

Give that man a cigar and a kewpie doll.

Oops, figure of speech. Being a bit gender-presumptuous there, was I!

poptop said :

Maybe their sign placement is another of the ‘other tortious acts’ referred to.

Interesting use of “maybe” in the first line.

Give that man a cigar and a kewpie doll.

I find it interesting that may be is spelt as one word maybe

It is all explained in this comic by XKCD.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/faust_20.png

johnboy said :

My understanding is that a waiver neither read nor acknowledged does very little waiving.

Happy to be corrected.

My point is they could write ANYTHING there and it’d mean nothing.

I think you’re right aswell – especially if the waiver is not signed verbally or physically or acknowledged.

Maybe it’s to just show that they have tried to do their part in minimising financial risk to the Government.

> You’ll get trail bikes there for sure, guaranteed. They’ve just destroyed the gate leading into the Cuunbeun nature reserve AGAIN so they can get their trail bikes in more easily; they’ll love this stromolo facility.

It’s been running for ages now, I’ve not seen any trail bikes there yet. If & when I do though, I’ll happily throw rocks at them.

Maybe their sign placement is another of the ‘other tortious acts’ referred to.

Interesting use of “maybe” in the first line.

justbands said :

> Does that include motorsport?

It’s a cycling (& running) venue, what’s it got to do with motorsport?

You’ll get trail bikes there for sure, guaranteed. They’ve just destroyed the gate leading into the Cuunbeun nature reserve AGAIN so they can get their trail bikes in more easily; they’ll love this stromolo facility.

You’re kind of right JB – for any kind of liability waiver to be halfway effective, it needs to be of appropriate size and location that the sign is read, understood and acknowledged. Funnily enough, the principles for that lay within the bounds of contract law and tort law.

However – depending on the injury and circumstances, the govt could be liable anyway as it all centres on the foreseeability of the injury, the cause of the injury and action taken to mitigate risk (ie use of warning signs). There is no hard and fast rule, it needs to be considered on a case by case basis.

I would suggest that the sign (such as it is now) does not protect the ACT govt from any liability…

> Does that include motorsport?

It’s a cycling (& running) venue, what’s it got to do with motorsport?

Does that include motorsport?

On the bright side, you wouldn’t get time to pick up the one spelling mistake and the three or four incorrect applications of the use of an ampersand. (Disclaimer: I’m a board member of the federally-funded Association For The Eradication Of The Ampersand & Other Pointless Characters In All But Very Small Signs Where Room Is An Issue.)

L8r.

> My understanding is that a waiver neither read nor acknowledged does very little waiving.

OK, cool. I guess that’s why they say “To the extent permitted by law…”.

Guess you could always do six or eight laps of the roundabout to be firmly apprised of one’s rights.

My understanding is that a waiver neither read nor acknowledged does very little waiving.

Happy to be corrected.

My point is they could write ANYTHING there and it’d mean nothing.

I don’t get what your problem with it is JB….seems a pretty standard thing for venues such as this.