How do I join your club??

[Hodge]

Just got asked how to join our 4x4 club and where to download an application form. Are we insured and do we have a club property?
Bloke obviously saw the forum stickers on my car and assumed it's a club. Had a very neat GQ, might see him join up soon. He said hes a part of nissan 4x4 club but its full of grandpas and grandmas so hes over it. lol

Come to think of it's almost like a club isnt it?

[MudRunnerTD]

Yes it is but its not. This place is a great social outlet where there is no membership.

If you go for a drive with others from here its as friends. No "Trip Leaders" onus on yourself.

The Forum Administration has no say or involvement in the management of trips or meetups.

The forum has No Property. The Forum offers No Insurance and accepts No Liability for any damage or injury to any person or property.

The Forum attempts to leave the Club Politics at the gate and we all have a great time, just likes mates should.

Happy Days ;)

[AB]

I know nothing....lol

[the evil twin]

I know nothing....lol

We already know that... Daddy

[Hodge]

Pro reply by Mudrunner. lol
I just told him it's an online community with a common interest. No liabilities and even with organized runs, each to their own.

[Bloodyaussie]

I actually forgot to mention that for the next Tallarook trip.... normally do for any novice meet up.

[NP99]

Just got asked how to join our 4x4 club and where to download an application form. Are we insured and do we have a club property?
Bloke obviously saw the forum stickers on my car and assumed it's a club. Had a very neat GQ, might see him join up soon. He said hes a part of nissan 4x4 club but its full of grandpas and grandmas so hes over it. lol

Come to think of it's almost like a club isnt it?

Damn those old people, who let them out of the salt mine???

[MEGOMONSTER]

But if we attend church enough times .................................................. !!!!!!!!!!!!

[my third 256]

I know nothing....lol
we will have to change your name to shultzee if you keep this up

[threedogs]

@ BA you should always state in writing that you or the Forum have no
liability for any trip organized by you or even Stropp if a trip in WA.
Only takes one person with no 4x4 experience to tag along and wreck their vehicle,
or flood their motor and seek compensation, I would be getting forms printed.
You say it wont happen but one day it will, I've seen it happen elsewhere in Vic

[Winnie]

No shit!!!! Jonathan knows that...

[Bloodyaussie]

@ BA you should always state in writing that you or the Forum have no
liability for any trip organized by you or even Stropp if a trip in WA.
Only takes one person with no 4x4 experience to tag along and wreck their vehicle,
or flood their motor and seek compensation, I would be getting forms printed.
You say it wont happen but one day it will, I've seen it happen elsewhere in Vic

Firstly thanjs for pointing out the obvious. .. that drives me nuts!!!

And 2nd I am not printing shit... you dont make 3 mates going out for a drive or ride sign f%=king documents before they leave the house.... I am sick of protecting the weak.. many of us have suffered damage on trips we have been on and some even while recovering others and no one with any intelligence would think to sue..

I normally do post up before any novice meet but its been so long since I have done one and our normal trips dont warrant it because we are all mates who know what it is all about.

I have hosted and helped out heaps of novices and had nothing but praise from these guys....!!!!!!!

[Clunk]

No shit!!!! Jonathan knows that...




Firstly thanjs for pointing out the obvious. .. that drives me nuts!!!

And 2nd I am not printing shit... you dont make 3 mates going out for a drive or ride sign f%=king documents before they leave the house.... I am sick of protecting the weak.. many of us have suffered damage on trips we have been on and some even while recovering others and no one with any intelligence would think to sue..

I normally do post up before any novice meet but its been so long since I have done one and our normal trips dont warrant it because we are all mates who know what it is all about.

I have hosted and helped out heaps of novices and had nothing but praise from these guys....!!!!!!!

Keep your wigs on chaps, no need to get tetchy

[Bloodyaussie]

Keep your wigs on chaps, no need to get tetchy

I'll give you techy right up the bot bot with my special techy tool!!!!!! :D

[mudski]

Which reminds me I need to get my two solicitors notices out for blowing a tyre on my first trip a couple of years back and then destroying a clutch at Tallarook. What about the bush pinstripes? Can I claim on them too?:hpfredgeorge1:

[the evil twin]

@ BA you should always state in writing that you or the Forum have no
liability for any trip organized by you or even Stropp if a trip in WA.
Only takes one person with no 4x4 experience to tag along and wreck their vehicle,
or flood their motor and seek compensation, I would be getting forms printed.
You say it wont happen but one day it will, I've seen it happen elsewhere in Vic

The problem with that approach is that you have then formally identified that there is an organised structure and that the activity involves risks.
99% of liability waivers aren't worth a pinch of poo in protection and exist purely so the insurers have a starting point for their machinations.
Sadly, there is no "easy way" around rrsholes and legalities these days when you involve 3rd parties.

[SonOf]

The problem with that approach is that you have then formally identified that there is an organised structure and that the activity involves risks.
99% of liability waivers aren't worth a pinch of poo in protection and exist purely so the insurers have a starting point for their machinations.
Sadly, there is no "easy way" around rrsholes and legalities these days when you involve 3rd parties.

Sadly Evil is only too correct but the same is now applying for not advising people that there is an inherent risk. I work in the industry and it is a mine field of legal loop holes and gambits.

What to most of us on here is common sense or lust plain logical is going by the by these days. We are becoming a very litigious country with people looking to blame their stupidity etc on someone else and take no personal responsibility

A recent Supreme court ruling as noted below is a prime example. (sorry this is a bit long)

The State of Queensland requires commercial tour operators to show a video to visitors to Fraser Island which include warnings about the danger of diving into swimming places. Signs on Fraser Island warn visitors of the risk of diving into Lake Wabby and other popular swimming places.

In light of those warnings, many visitors to Lake Wabby enjoy running down the sand dune and jumping, feet first, into the lake. However, this activity also poses risks, including the risk of tripping or slipping on the sand in such a way that the intended feet first jump turns into an unexpected, awkward and dangerous dive into the water. Is that risk 'obvious' or should the State of Queensland warn visitors of the risk, just as it warns visitors of the risk of diving?

State of Queensland v Evan Kelly required a consideration of that very scenario. At first instance, McMeekin J concluded that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care to Kelly, a visitor to the island, by failing to warn him of that specific risk. In particular, he found that:

* the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' as defined by s13 of the CLA;
* the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate and specific warnings about the danger of running down the dunes by way of the safety video and signs; and
* the plaintiff's loss and damage ought to be reduced by 15 percent to account for his contributory negligence.

Court of Appeal

The State of Queensland appealed the decision on the basis that the trial judge:

* erred in finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk'; and
* made an insufficient reduction of damages for contributory negligence.

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the trial judge was correct in concluding that the risk of injury that materialised was not an 'obvious risk'.

In deciding whether the risk was 'obvious' and whether there was a breach of duty, the Court of Appeal considered the following:

Whether the warning signs erected by the State of Queensland were relevant in assessing what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances;
Whether there ought to have been more warning signs and the content of the warning signs and video were inadequate because:
* they warned of a risk of injury from 'running and diving' but failed to warn of the risk of simply running down the sand dune;
* they did not effectively communicate the risk of serious injury that materialised; and
* they did not communicate the magnitude of the risk, which was unusually high considering the number of previous serious injuries sustained in that way at Lake Wabby.

Whether the risk was 'obvious' might be influenced by factors including:
* the person's own experience in relation to the activity; in this case, Kelly had run down the sand dune on nine or ten prior occasions without mishap.

The above circumstances justified the trial judge's finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' and that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care.

In relation to contributory negligence, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was open to the trial judge to make a finding on apportionment and a finding of 15 percent was not so unreasonable or unjust as to justify the Court of Appeal substituting a different decision.

[liftlid]

@ BA you should always state in writing that you or the Forum have no
liability for any trip organized by you or even Stropp if a trip in WA.
Only takes one person with no 4x4 experience to tag along and wreck their vehicle,
or flood their motor and seek compensation, I would be getting forms printed.
You say it wont happen but one day it will, I've seen it happen elsewhere in Vic

That's possibly something that needs to be handled when a forum member puts their name down on a post for the particular meetup.
That way it gives the person the ability to back away gracefully and not feel pressured into doing something they are not ready for.
it would also be evidence that they were told of any risks/dangers and given time to decline.
The last thing you want in a tricky situation is somebody who doesn't want to be there.

[Bob]

Sadly Evil is only too correct but the same is now applying for not advising people that there is an inherent risk. I work in the industry and it is a mine field of legal loop holes and gambits.

What to most of us on here is common sense or lust plain logical is going by the by these days. We are becoming a very litigious country with people looking to blame their stupidity etc on someone else and take no personal responsibility

A recent Supreme court ruling as noted below is a prime example. (sorry this is a bit long)

The State of Queensland requires commercial tour operators to show a video to visitors to Fraser Island which include warnings about the danger of diving into swimming places. Signs on Fraser Island warn visitors of the risk of diving into Lake Wabby and other popular swimming places.

In light of those warnings, many visitors to Lake Wabby enjoy running down the sand dune and jumping, feet first, into the lake. However, this activity also poses risks, including the risk of tripping or slipping on the sand in such a way that the intended feet first jump turns into an unexpected, awkward and dangerous dive into the water. Is that risk 'obvious' or should the State of Queensland warn visitors of the risk, just as it warns visitors of the risk of diving?

State of Queensland v Evan Kelly required a consideration of that very scenario. At first instance, McMeekin J concluded that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care to Kelly, a visitor to the island, by failing to warn him of that specific risk. In particular, he found that:

* the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' as defined by s13 of the CLA;
* the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate and specific warnings about the danger of running down the dunes by way of the safety video and signs; and
* the plaintiff's loss and damage ought to be reduced by 15 percent to account for his contributory negligence.

Court of Appeal

The State of Queensland appealed the decision on the basis that the trial judge:

* erred in finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk'; and
* made an insufficient reduction of damages for contributory negligence.

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the trial judge was correct in concluding that the risk of injury that materialised was not an 'obvious risk'.

In deciding whether the risk was 'obvious' and whether there was a breach of duty, the Court of Appeal considered the following:

Whether the warning signs erected by the State of Queensland were relevant in assessing what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances;
Whether there ought to have been more warning signs and the content of the warning signs and video were inadequate because:
* they warned of a risk of injury from 'running and diving' but failed to warn of the risk of simply running down the sand dune;
* they did not effectively communicate the risk of serious injury that materialised; and
* they did not communicate the magnitude of the risk, which was unusually high considering the number of previous serious injuries sustained in that way at Lake Wabby.

Whether the risk was 'obvious' might be influenced by factors including:
* the person's own experience in relation to the activity; in this case, Kelly had run down the sand dune on nine or ten prior occasions without mishap.

The above circumstances justified the trial judge's finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' and that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care.

In relation to contributory negligence, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was open to the trial judge to make a finding on apportionment and a finding of 15 percent was not so unreasonable or unjust as to justify the Court of Appeal substituting a different decision.

All members should read the above in Detail

The above just illustrates what a Minefield this is . Unless your Disclaimer takes into account all possibilities you will be liable to damages no
matter whose fault the incident is.

As ET said you cannot obsolve yourself of Public & Private Liability

[Hodge]

Fkn hell. Need a beer after that read.
All I'd like to do is go out do a few tracks get the trol a bit dirty and have a few laughs . too much to ask for ? LOL

[Winnie]

Fkn hell. Need a beer after that read.
All I'd like to do is go out do a few tracks get the trol a bit dirty and have a few laughs . too much to ask for ? LOL

Apparently!

[Avo]

My had hurts,who would have thought a thread topic could be turned into this.Thats easy we just hang out with who we know.
Come to think of it I burnt myself on the first meetup...can't even blame doggy cause he's wood wouldn't burn.

[Winnie]

I bent my sill while Mudrunner was guiding me over a log, should I sue him? FARK NO! He was 10x more upset about it than I was.
If I did not want to damage my car I should not have been driving over that log, no way can I try and blame Darren for that.

[Sir Roofy]

all members should read the above in detail

the above just illustrates what a minefield this is . Unless your disclaimer takes into account all possibilities you will be liable to damages no
matter whose fault the incident is.

As et said you cannot obsolve yourself of public & private liability

f,f,s might as well just wrap your self in cotten wool and stay home
he already ran down the dune 9times its his own stupid fault and had no
right to take them to court bloody soft c%%ks

[Irish]

AB dropped a tree branch on my hand, I DEMAND REPARATIONS!!!!

[MEGOMONSTER]

AB dropped a tree branch on my hand, I DEMAND REPARATIONS!!!!

Here's a plane ticket, Malaysian airlines. Lol

[Clunk]

I'll give you techy right up the bot bot with my special techy tool!!!!!! :D

Always ready and waiting for you princess lol

[Bloodyaussie]

Always ready and waiting for you princess lol

I would but you might sue me!!!!

[Clunk]

I would but you might sue me!!!!

Only if it didn't hurt lol

[93patrol]

na Clunk understands he has no rights over there

[Bloodyaussie]

na Clunk understands he has no rights over there

Adrian wouldn't sue me as he is not a soft c0ck d!ck head..... makes my blood boil when I see people trying it on.

Australia is now leading the way in suing people.

[Irish]

Here's a plane ticket, Malaysian airlines. Lol

Cool, I've been wanting to disappear for a few weeks:-)

[93patrol]

money for nothing,


can't even accomodate for the low common idiot anymore, i am writing up work instructions and every step has to be written like i am talking to a toddler so if they stuff up they can't blame the work blame the overly simplified 100 step instruction on how to wipe your OWN ar$e. world is full of people that refuse to responsible for anything and its just going to get worse

[liftlid]

money for nothing,


can't even accomodate for the low common idiot anymore, i am writing up work instructions and every step has to be written like i am talking to a toddler so if they stuff up they can't blame the work blame the overly simplified 100 step instruction on how to wipe your OWN ar$e. world is full of people that refuse to responsible for anything and its just going to get worse

Make sure you say put paper on hand not the other way around otherwise you'll really be in the ship!

[MudRunnerTD]

Sadly Evil is only too correct but the same is now applying for not advising people that there is an inherent risk. I work in the industry and it is a mine field of legal loop holes and gambits.

What to most of us on here is common sense or lust plain logical is going by the by these days. We are becoming a very litigious country with people looking to blame their stupidity etc on someone else and take no personal responsibility

A recent Supreme court ruling as noted below is a prime example. (sorry this is a bit long)

The State of Queensland requires commercial tour operators to show a video to visitors to Fraser Island which include warnings about the danger of diving into swimming places. Signs on Fraser Island warn visitors of the risk of diving into Lake Wabby and other popular swimming places.

In light of those warnings, many visitors to Lake Wabby enjoy running down the sand dune and jumping, feet first, into the lake. However, this activity also poses risks, including the risk of tripping or slipping on the sand in such a way that the intended feet first jump turns into an unexpected, awkward and dangerous dive into the water. Is that risk 'obvious' or should the State of Queensland warn visitors of the risk, just as it warns visitors of the risk of diving?

State of Queensland v Evan Kelly required a consideration of that very scenario. At first instance, McMeekin J concluded that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care to Kelly, a visitor to the island, by failing to warn him of that specific risk. In particular, he found that:

* the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' as defined by s13 of the CLA;
* the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate and specific warnings about the danger of running down the dunes by way of the safety video and signs; and
* the plaintiff's loss and damage ought to be reduced by 15 percent to account for his contributory negligence.

Court of Appeal

The State of Queensland appealed the decision on the basis that the trial judge:

* erred in finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk'; and
* made an insufficient reduction of damages for contributory negligence.

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the trial judge was correct in concluding that the risk of injury that materialised was not an 'obvious risk'.

In deciding whether the risk was 'obvious' and whether there was a breach of duty, the Court of Appeal considered the following:

Whether the warning signs erected by the State of Queensland were relevant in assessing what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances;
Whether there ought to have been more warning signs and the content of the warning signs and video were inadequate because:
* they warned of a risk of injury from 'running and diving' but failed to warn of the risk of simply running down the sand dune;
* they did not effectively communicate the risk of serious injury that materialised; and
* they did not communicate the magnitude of the risk, which was unusually high considering the number of previous serious injuries sustained in that way at Lake Wabby.

Whether the risk was 'obvious' might be influenced by factors including:
* the person's own experience in relation to the activity; in this case, Kelly had run down the sand dune on nine or ten prior occasions without mishap.

The above circumstances justified the trial judge's finding that the risk of injury was not an 'obvious risk' and that the State of Queensland had breached its duty of care.

In relation to contributory negligence, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was open to the trial judge to make a finding on apportionment and a finding of 15 percent was not so unreasonable or unjust as to justify the Court of Appeal substituting a different decision.


interesting but i read this and the glaring difference for me is that the Queensland Govt is the Managing Owner of the of a tourist park being the Fraser Island National Park reserve. They manage it and they must therefore manage the risk.

The same could be argued in Victoria with the Track Classification system, Classify it and the risk should be clearly visible and distinguishable via the signage. FAIL.

If i start a thread here about a meetup its a meetup of friends. Its Not a Trip that i am running IMO. Its an announcement that (for example) i will be at Daulhousie on 1st July 2014, anyone interested in meeting up for a social there your welcome. I will be leaving there to drive across the Simpson Desert, If your interested in driving the Simpson also and want some company your welcome to drive with me. That would be great. If i get stuck it will be great to have a friend there that i can ask for help and visa versa. When we get to the other end we can have a beer at the pub.

If you crash your car going there, while travelling the desert or driving home then that is very unfortunate and disappointing, Make sure you have your vehicle Insurance up to date and your RACV Roadside Assist and Ambulance Cover paid. I pray it will never be needed.

If you hit a big pot hole in the road that does damage to your car then you have an Insurance Claim against the Roads manager and your Insurance will sort it out.

If you think that as the person that originally mentioned the trip that i have some level of Guidance or Liability over you or for you then you should stay at home. Please.

Look forward to having a beer with everyone else though.

Stay safe, Drive safe. Have fun.

ARE WE CLEAR??

[Hodge]

Clear as mud MudRunner.

[Chris79]

No wonder I'm broke, I dont think there has been a trip I have lead where someone hasnt seriously damaged their car lol.

I always drive on marked tracks, which are public access. If someone choses to follow me its their problem.

[Hodge]

No wonder I'm broke, I dont think there has been a trip I have lead where someone hasnt seriously damaged their car lol.

I always drive on marked tracks, which are public access. If someone choses to follow me its their problem.

It's the nature of this hobby. Anyone who's anyone with common sense wouldn't even think to blame let alone think about suing someone for damages in this game.

Many years ago on a day trip with a club my mate was in, every single car broke something. I didn't have a fourby back then so I was a passenger. I noticed a lot of the damage was caused by peer pressure. Inexperienced poor sod with a fresh new hi lux egged on over the UHF into deep end. Didn't wanna feel demoralised and next thing ... snap snap see ya later CVs.

Now he took it well no blames even though it took them good half of a day to get the car to a tow truck accessible spot.
Did he hate him self for caving in to pressure? I bet.

And no he didn't sue.

[Chris79]

One thing I always did do was publish my car setup and give a guide for min setups recommended for the trip.
This would generally give people an idea of what sort of trip it was likely to be and if vehicle damage was possible.

Once out on the tracks I'd give clear indication of any tracks that were likely to cause issues, it was then up to them if they want to continue or go around a different way and meet us at the other end. This happened quite often and with no ridicule from any of the other guys, they just missed out on the fun lol.

[Wizard52]

This is what happens when the media and governments dumb down society to the lowest level.
If you need instructions to even do the most basic of things in life, you should stay at home.

[clivelm]

It reminds me of the label on the power cord of a toaster we had where I used to work.
"Warning May Burn Bread"

[Wizard52]

It reminds me of the label on the power cord of a toaster we had where I used to work.
"Warning May Burn Bread"
That about sums up the whole debate we are having.

I really wonder some times how the human race survives