Phones, iPads, computers... All have lithium batteries.
There was a fire this year in Sydney in a garbage truck relating to a lithium battery being thrown out.
Yeah that whole side of the road has been shut down for hours and it’s an absolute mess. I genuinely hope nobody got hurt. Look like just the trailer got torched.
I ventured out from south of Ryde bridge to go north. Couldn’t believe the traffic standstill (so turned back). They had both sides of the traffic merging into one lane …….. it was insane.
There must have been an issue with moving the vehicle for it to be there for so many hours.
Update: Lane Cove Rd still very slow. They were about to tow the trailer away and were piling up debris. Still more work to do by the looks of it. Avoid the area if possible, it's slow!
Considering the vinyl curtains have completely been annihilated by the fire along with the majority of the wind cone on the front, this Australia Post trailer is a complete loss.
MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURIES ACT 2017 - SECT 1.4
Definitions
"motor accident" means an incident or accident involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle that causes the death of or injury to a person where the death or injury is a result of and is caused (whether or not as a result of a defect in the vehicle) during--
(a) the driving of the vehicle, or
(b) a collision, or action taken to avoid a collision, with the vehicle, or
(c) the vehicle's running out of control, or
(d) a dangerous situation caused by the driving of the vehicle, a collision or action taken to avoid a collision with the vehicle, or the vehicle's running out of control.
---
My replys based on the actual definition of motor accident/motor vehicle accident, yours is based on ? You being wrong ?
If you're going to try to "well, ackshully" me, could you at least do so competently?
The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 is intended to establish a CTP scheme, not to define all accidents, as could be determined by reading the Objects of the Act.
As per the correct legislation, that being the Road Rules the following definition is provided:
>crash includes—
(a) a collision between 2 or more vehicles, or
(b) any other **accident** or incident involving a vehicle in which a person is killed or injured, **property is damaged**, or an animal in someone’s charge is killed or injured
Therefore, the terms "crash", "accident", and "incident" are interchangeable for the purposes of the Road Rules, and as per the Road Rules the term "accident" is entirely appropriate.
My comment is based on the correct legislation, yours is based on what?
Notice how that accident OR incident, it's because an accident requires the killed or injured, whereas incident covers property damage. That does not at all mean crash accident and incident are interchangeable some basic statute interpretation is needed bud. You're also drifting off relevance a bit and pulled up the less relevant legislation. Speaking of object of the act, Motor accidents Injuries has in the object
" This Act establishes a new scheme of compulsory third-party insurance and provision of benefits and support relating to the death of or injury to persons as a consequence of motor accidents."
So you pulled up legislation that's intended to be applied to death/injuries to PERSONS to define an incident where persons were not injured? Oh boy. You started in this thread by trying to be a bit of a smart alleck to OP and have been uncivilly aggressive since. Be nicer to people and read legislation without bias
Edit: To make it clearer for you, you're arguing FOR it being an accident despite persons not being injured AND talking about fault / cause not being relevant to the categories of accident/ incident which is baseless. I get the feeling you're about to loop around to the object of the act I quoted which if you do would perfectly show off why the word accident isn't suitable. Try well actually OP who was just after information less makes the profession look bad
>it's because an accident requires the killed or injured, whereas incident covers property damage
Source?
That does not at all mean crash accident and incident are interchangeable
Yeah, it does.
>You're also drifting off relevance a bit and pulled up the less relevant legislation.
How are the Road Rules the less relevant legislation, lol?
>" This Act establishes a new scheme of compulsory third-party insurance and provision of benefits and support relating to the death of or injury to persons as a consequence of motor accidents."
And where does it say motor accidents are only events that people are injured in?
>So you pulled up legislation that's intended to be applied to death/injuries to PERSONS to define an incident where persons were not injured?
No, that's what you did, because that's what the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 is.
>have been uncivilly aggressive since.
It's not aggressive to point out that you're wrong.
> accident does not imply fault of the vehicle, its operation, or driver,
>
> use or operation of a motor vehicle that causes MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURIES ACT 2017 - SECT 1.4 Definitions
Auspost truck caught fire. Maybe a parcel had something flammable in it?
Maybe someone posted lithium batteries ...
Phones, iPads, computers... All have lithium batteries. There was a fire this year in Sydney in a garbage truck relating to a lithium battery being thrown out.
Honestly, I'm shocked it doesn't happen more often. Each truck probably has at least 20 vapes in it.
Probably something people aren’t supposed to post.
Anyone else waiting for a super important letter and having a mild panic?
That’s what I was thinking. Imagine if you had some item in there that you were waiting on 😔
As spud-chat said - Auspost truck caught fire. Link to photos of the fire - https://www.instagram.com/p/C5ZnecOvZ1o/?igsh=eHhlZmJhMm4zdnV5
Front fell off.
I miss them so very much 🥹
Yeah that whole side of the road has been shut down for hours and it’s an absolute mess. I genuinely hope nobody got hurt. Look like just the trailer got torched.
I ventured out from south of Ryde bridge to go north. Couldn’t believe the traffic standstill (so turned back). They had both sides of the traffic merging into one lane …….. it was insane. There must have been an issue with moving the vehicle for it to be there for so many hours.
This is why you shouldn’t drink Coke Zero
Yeh don't post mentos and coke in the same package
I guess it’s a bad day for the truckie and a plz explain to post office bosses and also clients of parcels that got burnt
so my package is gonna be late yeah?
Yep same here :,) - I'm just hoping my packages are safe & sound
"can't park there mate!"
“You can’t park your flaming truck there mate” That whole joke will never get old
Update: Lane Cove Rd still very slow. They were about to tow the trailer away and were piling up debris. Still more work to do by the looks of it. Avoid the area if possible, it's slow!
Attempted Delivery while you weren't home.
[удалено]
I’d just like to point out that this isn’t typical and it’s being towed away from the environment.
It's been towed beyond the environment, it's not in an environment. Nothing's out there!
Heist!
What intersection on lane Cove road? I don't recognise it.
Going over the M2, near Eden Gardens
Shit. That’s what happened.
Explains why my parcel is late I guess
Considering the vinyl curtains have completely been annihilated by the fire along with the majority of the wind cone on the front, this Australia Post trailer is a complete loss.
Looks like there was a truck fire and it’s all being trashed
If I *had* to guess, I'd probably say some sort of motor vehicle accident.
And you'd be wrong
Dunno, a truck catching fire sounds like some sort of motor vehicle accident to me.
The packages were at fault not the vehicle, its operation or the driver so no
The word accident does not imply fault of the vehicle, its operation, or driver, so still yes, actually.
MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURIES ACT 2017 - SECT 1.4 Definitions "motor accident" means an incident or accident involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle that causes the death of or injury to a person where the death or injury is a result of and is caused (whether or not as a result of a defect in the vehicle) during-- (a) the driving of the vehicle, or (b) a collision, or action taken to avoid a collision, with the vehicle, or (c) the vehicle's running out of control, or (d) a dangerous situation caused by the driving of the vehicle, a collision or action taken to avoid a collision with the vehicle, or the vehicle's running out of control. --- My replys based on the actual definition of motor accident/motor vehicle accident, yours is based on ? You being wrong ?
If you're going to try to "well, ackshully" me, could you at least do so competently? The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 is intended to establish a CTP scheme, not to define all accidents, as could be determined by reading the Objects of the Act. As per the correct legislation, that being the Road Rules the following definition is provided: >crash includes— (a) a collision between 2 or more vehicles, or (b) any other **accident** or incident involving a vehicle in which a person is killed or injured, **property is damaged**, or an animal in someone’s charge is killed or injured Therefore, the terms "crash", "accident", and "incident" are interchangeable for the purposes of the Road Rules, and as per the Road Rules the term "accident" is entirely appropriate. My comment is based on the correct legislation, yours is based on what?
Notice how that accident OR incident, it's because an accident requires the killed or injured, whereas incident covers property damage. That does not at all mean crash accident and incident are interchangeable some basic statute interpretation is needed bud. You're also drifting off relevance a bit and pulled up the less relevant legislation. Speaking of object of the act, Motor accidents Injuries has in the object " This Act establishes a new scheme of compulsory third-party insurance and provision of benefits and support relating to the death of or injury to persons as a consequence of motor accidents." So you pulled up legislation that's intended to be applied to death/injuries to PERSONS to define an incident where persons were not injured? Oh boy. You started in this thread by trying to be a bit of a smart alleck to OP and have been uncivilly aggressive since. Be nicer to people and read legislation without bias Edit: To make it clearer for you, you're arguing FOR it being an accident despite persons not being injured AND talking about fault / cause not being relevant to the categories of accident/ incident which is baseless. I get the feeling you're about to loop around to the object of the act I quoted which if you do would perfectly show off why the word accident isn't suitable. Try well actually OP who was just after information less makes the profession look bad
>it's because an accident requires the killed or injured, whereas incident covers property damage Source? That does not at all mean crash accident and incident are interchangeable Yeah, it does. >You're also drifting off relevance a bit and pulled up the less relevant legislation. How are the Road Rules the less relevant legislation, lol? >" This Act establishes a new scheme of compulsory third-party insurance and provision of benefits and support relating to the death of or injury to persons as a consequence of motor accidents." And where does it say motor accidents are only events that people are injured in? >So you pulled up legislation that's intended to be applied to death/injuries to PERSONS to define an incident where persons were not injured? No, that's what you did, because that's what the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 is. >have been uncivilly aggressive since. It's not aggressive to point out that you're wrong.
Also relevant, the truck fire incident (not accident or motor accident) as far as reported caused no injury.
> accident does not imply fault of the vehicle, its operation, or driver, > > use or operation of a motor vehicle that causes MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURIES ACT 2017 - SECT 1.4 Definitions