Gidday there team.
Has anyone driven the 4wd track to forbes hut by the Clarence River?
Any tips and/or tricks much appreciated.
Elliott
Printable View
Gidday there team.
Has anyone driven the 4wd track to forbes hut by the Clarence River?
Any tips and/or tricks much appreciated.
Elliott
Is that the one off the inland road? Of so yes, got permission from the station there ($50 iirc) drove in to quail flat and down to the clearance for a look around.
Hairpins are pretty steep and I wouldn't want to to do it in the wet but low range and good tyres you should be OK. Depends on how it has been maintained
2-3hrs... Don't really remember, was planning on staying the night at the doc hut near the top of the saddle but it started raining and I had had a good look round so came home early.
Goats seen at the saddle on way in and in the clearance riverbed
Wonder if they realise by charging ppl for the track they are liable if someone comes un stuck
Push comes to shove form ain't worth paper it printed on bloke down this way had argument with it and lost
I feel like acting on that (as the person paying for access) is a sure fire way to never be granted access again?
I'm happy to pay my money as I have plenty of mates who are farmers and I know how much they spend on track maintenance. I also understand how disruptive it must be when people do get into trouble using those tracks.
The second u pay to use a track the farm then becomes liable for it as it is like hiring the use of the track I would have to look into how it was worded but it happened down these ways last year
As soon as $ change hands it's been a business deal so work safe get involved but if you don't pay it's recreational so work safe don't get involved
Exactly my point
No.. it has to become a workplace before it is subject to health & safety regulation.
If the farm is not deriving "genuine income" from the receipt of compensation for use and compensation for damage, then it is unlikely to be considered a workplace for the recipe of minor funds to go towards costs.
If however the nature of the business is to generate genuine income from recreational use, that may become an issue.
But either way liability will be a long bow for a simple fee to gain access for self authored recreational purposes.
A property down these ways charged a 4wd group to use his tracks long story short 1 fell of track he finds himself being prosecuted over it
A farm is a workplace from the time u drive in the gate till the time u leave.
Wrong..
Do u run a farm and deal with health and safety everyday? Or a lawyer dealing with health and safety
A workplace under current legislation is where normal work for said business is carried out, at that time. In farming that would occur where farming activities are happening, eg moving stock, cultivation etc.
But it is limited to the immediate locale, ie the paddock in question not the next door paddock.
If you are an employee, driving your ute doing stock checks, it moves with you.
Been both chap
On any given day I could go through every block with stock or tractor so would that not make the whole place a work place certen times of the year ie lambing we have stock in every block
And the second someone pays a fee it becomes an active work place not a recreation event
Having stock in a paddock doesn't make it a workplace, I clearing indicated the working with stock requirement..
Tractors have to be operating.
Keep saying the same thing chap, you are simply wrong
What ever mate do u homework
Love getting educated on the law by farmboys... makes those years of study seem wasteful... :D
Ain't no farm boy mate and the fact u said use to b states that u are no longer up with the times regs have changed 3 times in last 2 years
Always hear this from the lawyers! "Year sure you will win"!
Its not there money there putting in the game!
Come back with some cases law on the subject and we might have the answer. Till then health and saftey have you the farmer by the balls.
You can argue the rights and wrongs all day long, but in this case if you don't pay ya money, you dont go
Simple as that
I said that "I have been both" but I didn't say I had finished either, did I now chap? Given that there appears no evidence of legal capacity in yourself, with the struggling to read and not being no farm boy, one wonders at your value to either end of this discussion. So how about you show me the money mate... by the way the word you are looking for is legislation and/or case law, not regulation.
The case law is old... Berryman .. where the court determined the following...
(1) "Place of work" involves a degree of frequency in the activity and involves something more than working in a transitory sense. Therefore farm tracks and access ways will generally not be "places of work" for visitors.
Sort of what I said twernt it.....
The "workplace" has not been redefined by changes in legislation, nor by other case law so far as I am aware. Regulation is subject to legislation so unless the law has changed, or recent case law has specified that we change the way it is applied, then the definition of workplace is still the same as in Berryman.
Perhaps a more recent commentary via Duncan Cotterill will clarify the position that you argue as being incorrect... and this even extends to commercial operators on otherwise farmer owned land. The farmer is unaffected by the activities of other businesses unless the work that the farm carries out has direct effect on the incident in question.
http://https://duncancotterill.com/p...lth-and-safety
It also reinforces that the critical issue is always going to be whether the incident happens in the "workplace" which is clearly related to whether work is occurring in it at the time, or whether the work done has material effect on the incident.
Again the act of granting access with or, does not turn the whole farm into a place of work for those intending to use it for unsupervised personal recreational access. With or without a fee paid for such access. That interpretation is consistent with the opinion that I previously outlined..
But what the heck, its only the law and not some second hand anectdote from some distant neighbour of a cousin who actually merited responsibility because they actually had done something that caused the event in the course of their normal work..... and nothing to do with an access fee at all - and you would know the difference ... right?
Formerly called the Seymour Hut. No real problem getting into unless heavy rain occurs, the clay in places on the sticks to everything and clogs up the best of tyres, very slippery.Just keep your wits about you, it's a reasonable way down to the bottom in places if go over the side.
@Sidney. All the time I’ve seen your handle pop up, it seems you’re anti rural, or just anti (insert appropriate issue)
I’ll take a page out of your book, and make a wild assumption and make it a fact. You were jilted at the alter by a rich farmers solo daughter and been anti farmer since.
We banged heads in the other pub many moons ago. You were spouting BS about a subject with quotes and your own opinion. I bantered for abit, and many times had quotes which totally contradicted your “facts”. Before I posted, I remembered a saying my late grandfather used to say, and then deleted the posts.
Never argue with idiots, they’ll only drag you down to their level.
When money changes hands for a service or any such thing, a contract is entered, and a whole new set of rules and regs come into play.
While the farmer may technically be in the right, if something happens, someone’s arse is going to get nailed. The crown have a much bigger piggy bank than the average person, so right or wrong they normally win.
The property we recently sold had a creek running through it. We had a number of people walking across private property and doing whatever they did in amongst the trees at all hours of the day and night. I asked Worksafe what are the consequences if something happened, even though they were trespassing. I was liable, so should put a big fence up to stop them. A word with my lawyer about it and he said off the record if I found anyone there dispose of the body or remove from property.
Another quote from my grandfather which is probably appropriate here as well.
When discussing something you’re not 100% sure about, it’s better to keep mouth shut, and be thought an idiot.
Rather than opening it and proving it beyond doubt.
Interesting conflicting debate ?
Who is responsible if there is a accident on this road if money changes hands ?
Jeez fellas - sounds like you need to get out for a hunt. Preferably somewhere you don't have to pay for vehicle access.
I was pretty keen to hear about that track. For the most part, I did. Sounds like it's a goer as long as there isn't too much rain. Of course, I'll be taking chains in case. Thanks to all those who have provided advice - has definitely helped.
I'll try my best to not fall off the track so we don't have to find out who of @Padox and @Sidney is correct.
Oh looks like your the one talking horse shit now chap:XD:
Why so anti? I only ask for you to back up your point with some case law and you come out with me talking horse shit?
Touch a nerve? Think so chap:P
Enjoy your trip. Admire the scenery that is on offer while crossing over, as its a great drive. The trip down the river to the Clarence has a few huts worth stopping at, especially the Poplars. You sound well prepared and clever enough not to get yourself in the shit ;)