It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6621
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

Postby Thoglette » Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:59 pm

..but if you kill car occupants it's manslaughter.
Drug-driver Raymond Lomas jailed for 17 years over deadly Sydney crash

The difference between this and the journalist in the McLaren is that a) the Plod hadn't been chasing her b) no ice c) no criminal history (should affect sentencing only)
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

Postby AdelaidePeter » Fri May 03, 2019 3:13 pm

Here's another one, this time the victim killed was a child in another car. Driver was at fault, but not guilty of dangerous driving: https://twitter.com/SeanFewster/status/ ... 9240783872

EDIT: wait, maybe he was guilty and it's a soft sentence. I'll comment more when the case is formally reported.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7010
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

Postby biker jk » Fri May 03, 2019 4:00 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:Here's another one, this time the victim killed was a child in another car. Driver was at fault, but not guilty of dangerous driving: https://twitter.com/SeanFewster/status/ ... 9240783872

EDIT: wait, maybe he was guilty and it's a soft sentence. I'll comment more when the case is formally reported.
How is driving on the wrong side of the road not dangerous? :shock:

Hopefully he's not granted citizenship.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

Postby AdelaidePeter » Fri May 03, 2019 5:02 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:Here's another one, this time the victim killed was a child in another car. Driver was at fault, but not guilty of dangerous driving: https://twitter.com/SeanFewster/status/ ... 9240783872

EDIT: wait, maybe he was guilty and it's a soft sentence. I'll comment more when the case is formally reported.
OK, a bit more detail from https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrim ... 8a6a38a1cf : prosecutors dropped the charge of causing death by dangerous driving in a plea deal, in exchange for a guilty plea to driving without due care, causing death. So either the penalty for "driving without due care, causing death" is too light, or the burden of proof for "causing death by dangerous driving" is too high; take your pick.

I realise this is not a cyclist case, but just a general reminder of how weak our laws are on fatally dangerous driving.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7010
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

Postby biker jk » Fri May 03, 2019 5:47 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:Here's another one, this time the victim killed was a child in another car. Driver was at fault, but not guilty of dangerous driving: https://twitter.com/SeanFewster/status/ ... 9240783872

EDIT: wait, maybe he was guilty and it's a soft sentence. I'll comment more when the case is formally reported.
OK, a bit more detail from https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrim ... 8a6a38a1cf : prosecutors dropped the charge of causing death by dangerous driving in a plea deal, in exchange for a guilty plea to driving without due care, causing death. So either the penalty for "driving without due care, causing death" is too light, or the burden of proof for "causing death by dangerous driving" is too high; take your pick.

I realise this is not a cyclist case, but just a general reminder of how weak our laws are on fatally dangerous driving.
Well here's an example of a driver found guilty of dangerous driving causing death and the sentence was just 12 months. :shock:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... spartandhp

cogs19
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:35 pm

Re: It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

Postby cogs19 » Fri May 03, 2019 6:07 pm

biker jk wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:Here's another one, this time the victim killed was a child in another car. Driver was at fault, but not guilty of dangerous driving: https://twitter.com/SeanFewster/status/ ... 9240783872

EDIT: wait, maybe he was guilty and it's a soft sentence. I'll comment more when the case is formally reported.
OK, a bit more detail from https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrim ... 8a6a38a1cf : prosecutors dropped the charge of causing death by dangerous driving in a plea deal, in exchange for a guilty plea to driving without due care, causing death. So either the penalty for "driving without due care, causing death" is too light, or the burden of proof for "causing death by dangerous driving" is too high; take your pick.

I realise this is not a cyclist case, but just a general reminder of how weak our laws are on fatally dangerous driving.
Well here's an example of a driver found guilty of dangerous driving causing death and the sentence was just 12 months. :shock:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... spartandhp
The judge took into account his remorse, hence the lenient sentence. Of course, attempting to flee the country two days after killing someone is a clear indication of heartfelt remorse.

warthog1
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

Postby warthog1 » Sun May 05, 2019 12:10 am

^^That is grossly inadequate and appalling.

The bloke has packed his house up, shipped his belongings and attempted to flee.
He needn't have bothered.
If that is the penalty he gets after attempting to flee "justice", he'd have probably got a payout or citation otherwise.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: It is not "dangerous" to drive into a cyclist

Postby human909 » Sun May 05, 2019 11:12 am

Like everybody else I am appalled by our lenient sentencing and seeming to trivialise deaths of road users, especially vulnerable road users.

However any change to the status quo must incorporate FAR FAR more than changes to sentencing. Even in reckless and idiotic cases, society gains little locking people away for reckless mistakes. The gains are to be had by PREVENTING them. So 95% of the work needs to happen before it gets to that point.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users