The person who has volunteered their time, their vehicle and their safety, or the person who crashed the vehicle? The legal system is based on morality.
Why would they be two separate issues? Speaking from teenage ignorance. HeartFeltAxe: Firstly, even though the two are separate it does not mean our legal system is broken. Morality is subjective. Philosophers debate morals and depending on their philosophy, the morality of any given situation may be different.
A popular example would be the train and the diverging track - one would run over a few elderly people, and the other would go over a perfectly healthy teen. It is an ethical dilemma. The legal system's primary goal is to be uniformly applied, to be unambiguous it it's application, and absolute it's judgement. This means it cannot bend to the situation for if it does, it is no longer absolute. If the legal system is the train, it would not change course as it is not interested in who it hits, it is already looking for who to blame and what the plaintiff would be charged with.
So, the legal system is based on morality but morality should never be based on legalities. I disagree. Just because philosophers debate morals, doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. Concerning the train and diverging track example: although we may not all agree on the answer, I still think there is a right answer to be found.
The correct moral choice comes from reasoning the effects of a decision. I think you are right, and this is a good thing. However, if morality is subjective, and the legal system is based on morality, then that means the legal system is at least partly subjective!
This means the legal system is based on someone's moral preference which is no more valid than anybody else's preference. Therefore, our mostly good and righteous legal system in Australia is, in reality, no different to a legal system which is bent on benefiting the evil.
If morality is subjective then the world turns upside down. Murder is morally no different as kindness, love indistinguishable from hate. I sincerely hope you read this one day and cringe. The worst kind of evil is the one that can continue it's horrors with a clear conscience. Not many people based their morals on it because they base their morals on emotions. Emotions change. Principles must not conflict and should never be pliable to the situation, no matter how inconvenient.
The track dilemma - my principles is I do not choose who gets to live or die. No exception. I'll pull the brakes but which track it goes over is no longer my concern. It is not the correct answer but it is one that fits my principles. For all we know this was the learner's first time behind the wheel and they were taken into a complex busy inner-city environment, or a high-speed motorway, or the Simpson Desert!
Drivers learner or otherwise do not magically get taken to a complex inner-city environment. They themselves drive into those environments, or at the very least, agree to drive in those conditions. If they are uncomfortable driving in such conditions then they should pull over and stop driving. Yes, they should. But due to many psychological factors, people don't always do the optimal thing. Maybe they're being pressured into something they don't really feel comfortable with, maybe they don't know enough to understand the risks, maybe you're not allowed to pull over due to clearways, etc.
This is going to sound harsh, but that means that you are not ready to drive. All drivers including learners need to understand that driving is by far the most dangerous activity most people engage in on a daily basis. You will encounter many situations on the road that will make you feel uncomfortable, it is up to YOU, the person behind the wheel, to make sure that you can continue to make optimal decisions even when under pressure.
That means understanding where your limits currently are and pulling over. I've driven interstate many times and made the decision to pull over to have a nap because I understand if I keep going, I am a danger to myself and other drivers.
This is at the insistence of other people in the car who urged me to keep going. Before you even think about driving, you should understand that if ANYTHING comes up where you feel even remotely uncomfortable to continue driving, you should pull over and remove yourself from harm's way. Or the VicRoads because they are responsible for maintaining safe roads. Someone crashed, the roads must therefore be unsafe. Pretty sure, that if someone is a supervisor for a learner, and he is on the phone, then he is doing something illegal.
That is completely false. It's quite possible that if the supervisor was supervising the driving, rather than their instagram points, they would have been able to issue an instruction that would have avoided the crash. There's a reason L-platers are required to have a supervisor. Part of it is to "teach and guide", but mostly it's so they can use their experience to keep everyone safe - learner and public at large.
OP is talking about morals and blame between friends. It is very ingrained into us that road laws are above all considerations but people can drive in the absence of jurisdiction, ie private roads and paddocks, do so while stone cold drunk and without a license.
Between friends, I would be arguing purely morality and absolutely in disregard of the law. Would you still find the supervisor to blame if the law didn't dictate that driving with a mobile phone is illegal? I don't know enough to assign blame in this case - it mainly depends on how much experience the learner has, IMO. If I'm doing a risky activity with a friend, I expect them to explain the safety rules and observe me until I've demonstrated competence, I do that when I'm the teacher.
Legalities are not my concern, it's just the right thing to do. Do you mean that the supervising driver only had insurance to cover people over the age of 25? Thus the damage caused by the learner is not covered because the learner is under the age of 25? I would imagine that the supervising driver is legally responsible to pay for the damage and should not have been supervising if they did not have the appropriate insurance to cover the learner.
Having said that, I would think that regardless of what the law says, the learner would want to contribute some money to pay for the damage too because they would feel bad about it. The driver is still the only one driving. This seems like it was a minor accident, so best case you prevent this - at the risk of causing a much bigger accident because the car spins out or the driver panics. No YOU I mean the learner driver…. In fact, the supervisor should also be making clear to as many people as possible that the learner driver is a cheating low-life who should under no circumstances be allowed anywhere near their car.
Is your friend paying the "Supervisor" for the lesson? If not, it's more like the learner is being a bad friend and can't accept her responsibility.
If you can't drive, go learn from a professional instructor. At that time of the accident, the supervisor was on their phone not paying attention to the learner, their name was also on the VicRoads learner logbook. You haven't said what happened. Did the learner rear end someone? Fail to give way? Regardless the supervisor should not have been on their phone.
Why were they on the phone? How experienced was the learner? The supervisor is considered to be at fault. They are the ones supervising the driving. Even if the learner was relatively experienced….
HighAndDry: What about handbrake? Yummy: You want a passenger to pull the handbrake to a car driven by someone else? Yeah - THEN he'd definitely be liable for any crash that happens. Learner drivers under 25 years of age must gain hours of certified supervised driving experience recorded in a learner logbook or logbook app before being eligible to apply for a provisional licence.
L plates a black L on a yellow background and P plates a red P plate for P1 and green P plate for P2 are compulsory when driving. The learner licence period is a minimum of 1 year. Mobile phone use , including hands-free, blue-tooth accessories and loud-speaker functions, is restricted for learner and P1 licence holders under 25 years of age. Supervisors and passengers of learner and P1 licence holders under 25 years of age can't use a phone that is on loudspeaker but can use a hand held or hands-free mobile phone where the conversation can not distract the driver.
Learner drivers must pass a practical driving test to progress from a learner licence to either a P1 or a P2 licence dependant on age. A 2-phased P1 and P2 licence system applies if you are under 25 years of age. If you are over 25 you will progress to a P2 after the learner phase. Dido License Driving School offers professional, dedicated and friendly driving instructors, ready to assist you in getting your license.
We can pick you up from a convenient location of your choosing, such as home, school or work. It is our goal to ensure that our students complete their training with the knowledge, skill and confidence to go on to become smart, safe and responsible road users. We offer a relaxed and enjoyable learning environment, and our instructors are very patient and understanding, allowing students to learn at their own pace and to get the most out of their training. Car Advice. Follow this list to cover all bases.
Tags: driving skills. Newsletter Signup First Name: Email address:. Notify of. Oldest Newest Most Voted. Inline Feedbacks. Greta James. Zachary Tomlinson. Gilberto Holloway. I want to learn car diving in a week. Is it possible? Ali AB. Learning To Drive Sydney. Last edited 4 months ago by Learning To Drive Sydney. Dido Driving School.
0コメント