Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

2 year driving ban for killing a rider

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by jd, Dec 13, 2006.

  1. Taken from the local paper link
    I'm not sure what I find most irritating - the fact the driver was let off so light (and in fact couldn't be jailed) or the fact that his lawyer tried to shift the blame onto the rider because they were 10kph over the limit :evil: .

  2. sounds like a tragic set of circumstances indeed. RIP to the rider.

    Perhaps the public prosecutor (or whatever they're called over your way) at the time felt there wasnt enough evidence to support a more serious charge and therefore the driver was charged with lesser charges. That would explain why the judge made those comments.
  3. Yeah the problem is that even though the drivers actions resulted in a death it seems he was only charged with three very minor offences. I think there was talk at one point of Victoria introducing another charge between careless driving and culpable driving (something along the lines of "careless driving causing death") - but not sure what happened with that. I just can't help but wonder if the penalty would have been different had he say run down and killed a child crossing the street instead of a rider.
  4. While it is a relatively light sentence when compared with someone's life.... will putting the driver, who did nothing more than have a momentary lapse in concentration, in jail really accomplish anything? All that does is then destroy his and his family's life as well. Sure if he'd done something stupid like been drunk or speeding or something then throw the book at him but a 'simple' mistake shouldn't require vengence/ revenge by putting the person away. This guy isn't a danger to society and will likely have mental problems for the rest of his life by the sound of it.
  5. If the powers to be put more effort in making rules to allow harsher penalties for numb nuts that cause accidents by not payin attension and killing people,rather than anti hoon laws and speed traps then all would be much better and justice may prevale.2 years suspension is a joke and a bad one at that. 5 years loss of licence and community service to accident victims for 2 years might be at least a start. And if i ever get cleaned up by one and he/she says ( sorry i didnt see you) if i am still able to i would smack them in the head just to see if there eyes were still working
  6. So by your logic the rider was at fault, they were speeding afterall. All the driver did was turn across in front of a bike that was just 20 metres away :roll:. Not saying a jail sentence is necessarily the answer - but how does taking someones licence ensure they'll drive any differently once they get it back - it certainly doesn't stop all drink drivers from re-offending.
  7. RIP to the rider and deepest sympathies to the family.

    My first thought was that the punishment may have been a little light; but in many ways the driver hasn't got off that easy. He has live with the consequences of his actions every day for the rest of his life.

    I don't know what would be worse, going to jail or spending the rest of your life living with the knowledge that you killed someone.

    A tragic event for everyone concerned. :(
  8. is kills me to think that a human life can be taken and it seem to be worth so little when the family is left to deal with it for the rest of there life
  9. I'm not sure jail is appropriate given that the other driver wasn't drunk, on drugs or speeding but 2 years is very light.

    I'd rather see a non-custodial order (community service) and something like a 5 year ban on driving... but it seems the charges meant that a sentence like that wasn't an option.
  10. This stuff makes me furious ... the prosecutor was lazy and had little regard for this family mans life. I wonder if the same light-handnesses and laziness would have occurred had it been the prosecutors life.

    Time for another 'please explain' to the attorney general.

    It will demonstrate a much larger value on the price of human life and the true nature of a weapon that a vehicle can be in the wrong hands.
  11. Inconsistencies in the law are mind boggling. If someone who I am supervising on a worksite suffers a fatal injury due to my negligence its jail time (at a minimum) for me. If I cause a fatality in my car due to negligent driving then I won't go to jail, suffer the inconvenience of not having a licence for a while and get a relatively minimal fine. Huh? I know its "horses for courses" but still.....
  12. I'm not saying he should get off scott free for what cost someone their life but imagine it was you that had the split second lapse in concentration.... its very easy to do and we've all done it just we were fortunate enough not to have serious consequences from it... now say from your lapse someone tragically loses their life. One family is forever affected by your mistake, it wasn't criminal, it was an accident, accidents happen.... so would you then want to go to jail for that thus destroying your life and your family as well? Even when you get out you'll never get insurance, a loan or a job again without a lot of difficulty and if you're the primary wage earner what do your wife and children do? So instead of one family broken apart you now have two.
    Some of the other suggestions like longer suspension, community service etc are a much better option than people calling for jail... saying he deserves to go to jail is about as primitive as an eye for an eye. People carry on as though they've never made a mistake themselves.
  13. IMHO, blame &/or finger pointing shouldnt be directed at either the defence, prosecuting &/or magistrate.

    Each were doing what theyre employed to do.

    With any ill feelings with the sentence imposed, the finger needs to be pointed at Parliament who initiate/create
    law as the magistrate was bound by this & even advising a custodial sentence could have been considered if the
    law permitted this.

    Condolences the the riders family.

    The motorist knew he f*cked up; had shown deep remorse & will have to live the rest of his life with the burden
    of knowing what his actions resulted in.
  14. Or he could just be laughing he's head off at how lightly he got off
  15. But the point about inconsistencies in the law is also valid.

    I run a small business with 15 full time and 10 part time staff, if I was to run into one of those staff at work driving one of the work cars the consequences would be extremely serious (even if I didn't kill them).

    If I was to run into another person outside work hours when I was driving in _exactly_ the same manner then the consequences would be much much lighter.

    This is where part of the problem lies... the law isn't consistent enough.

    And yes I understand all the arguments about 'greater responsibility of care'... I just don't accept that all of them apply :)

    If one is in control of a motor vehicle then that should be regarded as being at (or near) the top of what one might call 'the responsibility ladder' due to the potential to cause death or injury.

    This is why I am in favor of the introduction of a set of offenses that are more serious than the traffic type offenses this person was charged with but less serious than culpable driving and manslaughter.

    And offenses like 'negligent driving causing the death or serious injury of another individual' and 'vehicular manslaughter' (which wouldn't apply in this case anyway) would go some way to meeting that need.

    The lower level offenses should not be a custodial sentences, but vehicular manslaughter (maybe used where the person is seriously under the influence of drugs or alcohol or driving in a manner totally inapropriate for the circumstances... say 200 in a 60) probably should be.
  16. Read the last bit of the article again. The crash was the direct result of the driver not paying attention to what he was doing. The courts need to be sending the message that this sort of relaxed attitude to driving is totally unacceptable in the same way they have drink driving, hooning etc. Lack of attention is the single biggest cause of crashes on the roads, fatal or otherwise, so it infuriates me when people take the attitude of "whoops sorry it was an accident".
  17. RIP to the rider & sympathies to all of the innocent victims!

    Wouldn't a fairer solution have been for the offending driver to replace the deceased rider's income until the time when he would have retired!

    Family then would still suffer emotionally but not financially as well!
  18. This keeps happening - people are getting let off with a slap on the wrist for killing other road users. For comparison, the suspension and fine given to this man is about the same as given to a friend of mine for drink driving: though he hit no-one, just totalled his car and the police happened to drive by at the right time. Equivalent crimes?

    Go figure.

    It would seem the best way to kill someone without going to gaol is use your motor vehicle as the weapon. Such a sorry state of affairs. I really feel for this motorcyclist's family.
  19. The difference is one made a mistake and the other was stupid enough to make a conscious decision to get behind the wheel after drinking and potentially killing more people. Drinking driving laws are far too lenient.
  20. I guess there are two sorts of people. Yep, one type would be quietly laughing and would hardly give a second thought about the person they killed. The other sort would be devastated by what they had done and would live with an incredible burden of guilt for the rest of their life. Lets hope this guy is the latter case.

    Like many my initial reaction to this was that the sentence is far too light. As a rider I hate the thought that some cage driver having a brain-fade could end my life and get nothing more than a short licence suspension. However, if the guy is genuinely remorseful, and he wasn't drunk/drugged/speeding etc., then i wonder what a significantly more severe punishment would achieve, other than hurting another family. I find it almost an impossible choice. Part of me says make an example of this idiot and come down hard on him - drivers need to get the message to pay attention. But then part of me says it was a very bad mistake, he will live with it forever, suspend his licence and let the poor guy keep his life and family together (and yes, i know that sounds weak given that the rider's widow has lost her husband). Everyone will have a different opinion on something like this and there probably is no right or wrong answer.

    Condolences to the rider's family and may he rest in peace.