Cyclist Hit Kings Park this morning

[Scott_C]

OutnAbout states that her recent crash into a tree was not accompanied with any signs of braking. Has she got an issue with trees? Did she deliberately crash into a random tree to make a point to all other trees? Sound reasonable and likely to anyone?

Some may not want to hear this but the prosecutor only made an allegation on intent. He did not even attempt to PROVE it. I despair that reasonable people then argue as though it is the fact. "Seemingly" or otherwise.

As I understand it the prosecutor can be penalised for making false statements about the facts so while there has been no finding with regards to the alleged deliberate crash into a tree the lack of braking and gravel should be factually correct. A possible motive for crashing into the tree is that she has avoided the court ordered psychiatric assessment and has, as a direct consequence, delayed her sentencing until January so she now gets to spend Christmas with her family instead of in jail where I believe she belongs.

With the exception of mechanical failure or avoiding a greater danger, which she apparently did not claim occurred, any scenario which results in a driver striking a fixed object indicates that they are a potential danger to other road users.

I was not in attendance but AFAIK there was no hint of prior interaction between the driver and the victim. No one finger salute, no abuse, no tooting someone to get out of the way. Given that, any deliberate act would have been on a par with the actions of Edgar Eric Cooke, a thrill seeking sociopath of the highest magnitude. And Edgar Eric Cookes are still, thankfully, very rare. (Google him if you are under 60 and do not know the nature of his killings.)

Deliberately running him down? The evidence for that is about the same as presented by the defence for gravel being on the road. Totally plausible is inattention, texting and so forth and there is ample evidence to support that.

I don't think anyone suggested that the accident with the cyclist (who was female so I don't know who the 'him' is that you are talking about being run down) was deliberate, the allegation is that the crash into the tree was deliberate.

Let's just accept that the court found her guilty, which seemed the most plausible at the start and more so as the process ran. We do not need to compound the crime or find fault with judges and others that require little more than an allegation sans evidence of any sort by the prosecutor.

She wasn't found guilty, she pleaded guilty, there was no testing of the facts of the case in court.

I too am a little surprised about the interim driving privileges, especially in view of her recent unexplained crash. Not convinced that her kids are anhy better off because of it either. I guess the defense got some small victory.

This is the bit that is of concern to me, we have someone who has admitted to driving dangerously causing the death of another road user and, as a result of a fortuitously timed accident, has avoided the commencement of her penalty for causing this death. In the meantime she is allowed to continue driving within certain limits.

Allowing her to continue driving now suggests that any suspension to her license will make up a large portion of her eventual sentence because it makes little sense to allow her to continue driving for her convenience and the convenience of her children if you were planning on taking her away from her children entirely in a couple of months.

[ColinOldnCranky]

As I understand it the prosecutor can be penalised for making false statements about the facts

The point is he presented no facts. He just made an argument. Actually I think it woudl have been an allegation.

I don't think anyone suggested that the accident with the cyclist (who was female so I don't know who the 'him' is that you are talking about being run down) was deliberate, the allegation is that the crash into the tree was deliberate.

Rereading you may be right. In which case my whole rant was misdirected.

Allowing her to continue driving now suggests that any suspension to her license will make up a large portion of her eventual sentence because it makes little sense to allow her to continue driving for her convenience and the convenience of her children if you were planning on taking her away from her children entirely in a couple of months.

I'd be loathe to explain the reasoning. These things are decided on a complex range of things including risk to the public, options available or unavailable to the driver, how essential it is etc etc. Suffice to say though that, even where a person has a pure mind but is heavily risky to the rest of society we generally are happy to remove their right to drive. It doesn't matter greatly whether it is psychological, physiological, habitual (drink driving). An epileptic with a history of seizures will have to satisfy the court that the risk is no longer there with, say, two years of no seizures and a supporting medical clearance. Mini-sleep conditions, etc. In view of the recent tree crash I am somewhat amazed that the judge dd not see her driving for the time being as being an unacceptable risk to the rest of the public.

[Scott_C]

And on it goes:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/d ... ld/7125710" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lawrence's lawyer, Gary Massey, said his client accepted she had used her mobile phone while driving, but maintained at the time of the collision she had been looking at rosebushes on the median strip and not reading a text message.

"We concede she was inattentive while driving from Bullsbrook to the crash site ... but we say the State can't prove she was looking at a message at the time of the collision," he said.

"We say at the relevant time she was looking at the flowers"

Lawrence will be sentenced later today.

[방구 똥]

And on it goes:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/d ... ld/7125710" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lawrence's lawyer, Gary Massey, said his client accepted she had used her mobile phone while driving, but maintained at the time of the collision she had been looking at rosebushes on the median strip and not reading a text message.

"We concede she was inattentive while driving from Bullsbrook to the crash site ... but we say the State can't prove she was looking at a message at the time of the collision," he said.

"We say at the relevant time she was looking at the flowers"

Lawrence will be sentenced later today.

Does is matter whether she was looking at flowers, or her phone? Can this affect the sentence?

[방구 똥]

3 years jail.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... d678133d1c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Judge Richard Keen found that the story about the roses was an attempt to minimise her culpability."

"She also had her driver’s licence disqualified for three years."
License won't be much use in jail anyway right?

[Scott_C]

"She also had her driver’s licence disqualified for three years."
License won't be much use in jail anyway right?

She will be eligible for parole in 18 months so will probably be out of jail mid next year.

Whilst it is impossible to say what is enough punishment in a case like this the punishment was more severe than I was expecting to be handed down.

[cj7hawk]

There's a difference between someone who intentionally goes out and murders another, and someone who just carelessly does something that people do all the time, for which there is a fatal outcome. 3 years is a pretty harsh sentence.

Sentences aren't supposed to be a form of compensation to the victim - that's just human nature. Even if they got 10 years, does anyone honestly believe that this will mean less people check their phones or text while driving? Cars have radios and other distractions too - and I can't recall how many people said they were changing channels on the radio when they ran someone down.

I'd rather a light sentence for those who stop and accept responsibility and apply first aid - then those who run would be less likely to do so - And likewise, those who run should be given far larger sentences.

After all, if a person tries to help the victim and gets 5 years, but a person who runs gets only 7-9, then where's the incentive to stop at all?

Three years for someone who stopped and plead guilty is a pretty long sentence IMO. Makes me wonder if there were other factors... Like the roses story.

There is never a winning side in an automobile accident of any kind. Both sides always lose.

David.

[trailgumby]

There's no such thing as an automobile "accident".

That phraseology is well documented as being placed by the automobile industry into the public lexicon through the media to downplay the seriousness of the calamity that is the motor vehicle death toll.

Don't believe me? Wonder how they did it?

I suggest you have a read of "Roads Were Not Built for Cars" available here Also available as a free downloadable text-only PDF

[Thoglette]

Sentences aren't supposed to be a form of compensation to the victim - that's just human nature. Even if they got 10 years, does anyone honestly believe that this will mean less people check their phones or text while driving?

Oh yeah. Especially if coupled with losing your house through an associated civil negligence claim.

At the moment, negligence use of a vehicle resulting in death of an innocent is considered to be "an accident" for which there should be no consequences beyond "I feel really bad for their family." Of course, those who subscribe to the "cockroaches on wheels" view think the cyclist had it coming and all the fuss is just a damn'd inconvenience.

Meanwhile, it is no longer considered appropriate for me to sit on the front porch and cycle rounds through the .303 any more (speaking of accidents). Indeed, I'd wager that if I did, Mr Plod would arrive within minutes of someone seeing me.

Really want to change behaviour? Add some serious enforcement of the existing fines; coupled with a mandatory six month "no signal while moving" App on the i-thing.

[ColinOldnCranky]

There's a difference between someone who intentionally goes out and murders another, and someone who just carelessly does something that people do all the time, for which there is a fatal outcome. 3 years is a pretty harsh sentence.

Sentences aren't supposed to be a form of compensation to the victim - that's just human nature. Even if they got 10 years, does anyone honestly believe that this will mean less people check their phones or text while driving? Cars have radios and other distractions too - and I can't recall how many people said they were changing channels on the radio when they ran someone down.

I'd rather a light sentence for those who stop and accept responsibility and apply first aid - then those who run would be less likely to do so - And likewise, those who run should be given far larger sentences.

After all, if a person tries to help the victim and gets 5 years, but a person who runs gets only 7-9, then where's the incentive to stop at all?

Three years for someone who stopped and plead guilty is a pretty long sentence IMO. Makes me wonder if there were other factors... Like the roses story.

There is never a winning side in an automobile accident of any kind. Both sides always lose.

David.

Agree, there is no sentence that compensates the victims family. It is unfortunate that in recent times victims have been led to believe otherwise since the recent introduction of the term "closure". That stupid term has given rise to much failed expectations for victims that, paradoxically, it works against victims getting back their life.

I know that if I were sentenced to three years then, regardless of what for, it would be a horrendous time for me, every bit as much as if it was for ten years. And that sentence would be unlikley to change other peoples behaviour when we so easily fall into the error of thinking that it won't happen to me at this particular time.

As I recall from this case this woman has had a lifetime of poor choices and actions, so I wonder if the sentence will result in a less dangerous and more concerned citizen at the other end. If my recollection is correct then I am not sure that the woman does not deserve more. But I have reasonable faith in the judgement of the judiciary so...

[cj7hawk]

Meanwhile, it is no longer considered appropriate for me to sit on the front porch and cycle rounds through the .303 any more (speaking of accidents). Indeed, I'd wager that if I did, Mr Plod would arrive within minutes of someone seeing me.

Some days I do that... I guess my front porch is probably a bit different from yours though, because mr Plod is fine with me doing it.

Anyway, the only thing that will change the danger to cyclists is when politicians show leadership and drive forward messages that it's not acceptable to drive the way many people do, but most politicians only focus on hoon culture because that's the only aspect of vehicles they don't personally like. Just like alcohol abuse, driving distracted is something they do too, and many feel they have a right to the roads. In my state I recall a particular police minister who had a series of drunk-driving incidents and even got busted driving while on a handheld mobile. In fact, she's not alone -http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/10/dri ... arliament/

We don't need to blame people for doing what their politicians do - we need to focus on the politicians. Actually, we need to get the media focusing on the politicians. And when significant people are involved, they need to be brought down, not allowed to progress through the justice system, because as we all know, the justice system tends to protect the guilty if they are of a higher class than us. Troy Buswell's infamous drink-driving-crash-leaving-the-scene-of-an-accident is one, but Eugene McGee is perhaps the best example.

Unfortunately, there's not enough cyclists to do anything, and people in power don't cycle. In fact, they are some of the worst offenders - eg, Colin Barnett ( https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/ ... r-cyclist/ )

But, if we're ever able to hold politicians accountable, and perhaps destroy a career or two, then you can be absolutely sure they're retaliate and make sure no one is allowed to do things they can't get away with.

Which probably explains this: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-police-ac ... mg2tb.html

Regards
David

[Aushiker]

From the West Australian today (not online as yet) ... "Driver blames texts for deaths" is the headline.

Three years is more than appropriate in my view. My only positive is that at least she apparently phoned 000 before her hair salon as Professor Ferroni lay on the road seriously injured, critically injured as we now know. At least some sense of priority ...

Also note that the driver behind her had seen Professor Ferroni and as Justice Keen noted all the talk about "roses" (note the story changed in the statement after sentencing) in Court was as the "an attempt to minimise culpability ..."

In my view she only pleaded guilty as she thought it would get her a suspended sentence as argued for by her defence lawyer.

Andrew

[rolandp]

Have these new laws been implemented which include:
Raft of changes to Road Traffic Act introduced to State Parliament
New Careless Driving Causing Death, Grievous Bodily Harm and Bodily Harm offence created
Licence disqualification will now begin after prison term is served
Blood alcohol limit imposed on supervisors of L-plate drivers

Appreciate that the change in laws occurred after the death of the cyclists, but maybe, the disqualified licence starts on the day she leaves prison. And maybe, the 'new careless driving causing death' law was applied in this case.

[Thoglette]

We don't need to blame people for doing what their politicians do - we need to focus on the politicians. Actually, we need to get the media focusing on the politicians.

Absolutely agree.

[Scott_C]

Have these new laws been implemented

Not implemented yet.

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliam ... F9002A4F75" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They have had a second reading in the lower house but haven't been subject to a vote or gone to the upper house yet.

[ColinOldnCranky]

From the West Australian today (not online as yet) ... "Driver blames texts for deaths" is the headline.

Three years is more than appropriate in my view. My only positive is that at least she apparently phoned 000 before her hair salon as Professor Ferroni lay on the road seriously injured, critically injured as we now know. At least some sense of priority ...

Also note that the driver behind her had seen Professor Ferroni and as Justice Keen noted all the talk about "roses" (note the story changed in the statement after sentencing) in Court was as the "an attempt to minimise culpability ..."

In my view she only pleaded guilty as she thought it would get her a suspended sentence as argued for by her defence lawyer.

Andrew

While it is never easy to know what people are really thinking and feeling, I think your assessment is not far off the mark Her pleadings to the court and now another set for the public make it easy to view any contrition or commitment to be better in future with a large dose of salt.

[Thoglette]

Perth mum Janet Kirby jailed over drunken Merriwa crash that killed teenage daughter

A Perth drunk driver who crashed her car after trying to scare a moped rider, killing her teenage daughter who was in the boot, and injuring three others, has been sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail.

Janet Kirby, 48, was twice the legal alcohol limit when she lost control of her car in the northern suburb of Merriwa in March last year.

She had been playing drinking games with her daughter Lois, 15, before driving the teenager and four friends to a party in Perth's northern suburbs.

However Kirby lost control of the vehicle after swerving across the road to try to scare the moped rider and his pillion passenger.

[cj7hawk]

Perth mum Janet Kirby jailed over drunken Merriwa crash that killed teenage daughter

A Perth drunk driver who crashed her car after trying to scare a moped rider, killing her teenage daughter who was in the boot, and injuring three others, has been sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail.

Janet Kirby, 48, was twice the legal alcohol limit when she lost control of her car in the northern suburb of Merriwa in March last year.

She had been playing drinking games with her daughter Lois, 15, before driving the teenager and four friends to a party in Perth's northern suburbs.

However Kirby lost control of the vehicle after swerving across the road to try to scare the moped rider and his pillion passenger.

There was just so much wrong about this story...

[wellington_street]

Jesus Christ!
About the only thing not wrong about that story was that the moped rider wasn't hit

[NASHIE]

Had she only made any one correct decision out of the 4/5 incorrect ones it could of not ended so tragically

[방구 똥]

There was just so much wrong about this story...

I just re-read it and saw what you meant!

A Perth drunk driver wrong
who crashed her car wrong
after trying to scare a moped rider,wrong
killing her teenage daughter wrong
who was in the boot, wrong
and injuring three others, wrong
has been sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail.ok

Janet Kirby, 48, was twice the legal alcohol limit wrong
when she lost control of her car wrong
in the northern suburb of Merriwa in March last year.nothing wrong with Merriwa, is there?

She had been playing drinking games with her daughter Lois, 15, wrong
before driving the teenager and four friends to a party in Perth's northern suburbs.wrong

However Kirby lost control of the vehicle wrong
after swerving across the road wrong
to try to scare the moped rider and his pillion passenger.wrong

So many wrongs I'm glad the moped and pillion were ok.
The teenagers would have thought she was a cool-mum if she succeeded.