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.

VIC Careless driving after an accident

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by akaluke, Jan 27, 2011.

  1. So...

    Single vehicle car accident.
    Car hits street pole.
    Police attend.

    Driver apperently is going to get a notice for "careless driving". 3 points.

    No witnesses.

    What's the odds of beating it in court?

    Best approach?

    • Like Like x 1
  2. Don't see how you could carefully run into a pole, unless deliberately trying to run it down (but then it just becomes criminal damage).
  3. Not much, I suspect. The driver hit the pole, so obviously something didn't go right.

    Unless it can be proved that there was some external influence (oil on road, pole ridiculously placed by council etc) over which the driver could not reasonably be expected to have control, it's very hard to argue that the driver was not in some way careless.
  4. I can think of a few scenarios where it wouldn't be careless.

    Swerving to avoid a giant, radioactive asteroid for example.

    Something breaking on the vehincle would be another one.
  5. gravel and oil on road.

    dog on road.

    bee in car.

  6. browsing Netrider while driving??

    the possibilities are endless

    but seriously, zero chance
  7. The pole jumped out in front of me,
    Then jumped back in again,
  8. Are all drivers and riders involved in single vehicle accidents in Victoria now being issued with careless driving notices? Is the TAC behind this?
  9. That's how it's been in NSW for a while now. It's a c*nt of a charge though, just to add salt to the wound of dealing with a smashed vehicle and possible personal injury. Nothing like kicking people in the guts when they're down. All the gangs are doing it nowadays, so possibly no different if the govt mandated bodies also get in on the act. Also helps to pay for the call-out charges for the police to attend too, I guess.
  10. Is this question theoretical, or related to an actual event (somewhere unknown)?

    In any fair jurisdiction, the possibilities for a strong defense are endless, since the victim/perpetrator is the only available witness. My understanding of the TAC move was that it was for cases of provable criminal conduct.
  11. No not all drivers are given Careless Driving notices some are given Fail to have proper control of vehicle notices, it depends on the circumstances of each incident. And TAC have nothing to do with it they can't tell the Police what to charge someone with.
  12. Is this the TAC / Vicroads strategy of charging drivers in all collisions at play? WTF?? This forces a shit load of financial stress on everyday people for what???

    A forum discussion about a very similar scenario: http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4339&sid=623ea07c82ac002a6d2ca878ce57da76

    What the legislation says:

    = = = = =
    65 Careless driving
    s. 65

    (1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway carelessly is guilty of an offence and liable for a first offence to a penalty of not more than 12 penalty units and for a subsequent offence to a penalty of not more than 25 penalty units.
    S. 65(2) inserted by No. 28/2009 s. 19.

    (2) A person must not drive a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, on a highway carelessly.
    Penalty:For a first offence, 6 penalty units;
    For a subsequent offence, 12 penalty units.
    S. 65(3) inserted by No. 28/2009 s. 19.

    (3) In this section—
    vehicle does not include—
    (a) a non-motorised wheel-chair; or
    (b) a motorised wheel-chair that is not capable of a speed of more than 10km per hour.
    = = = = =

    WTF is with sub clause 2??

    Seems to me that the burden of proof is on the police. The summons should have a statement and point to the evidence. Should be an open and shut case for a good lawyer if the evidence can be doubted.

    Actually, this makes me very very annoyed. It's the camera legislation bullshit all over again. Make it financially difficult to object and fight a camera fine or speeding TIN, and the bulk will go through.

    What a farce.
  13. Yes they can, through Vicroads. This was discussed recently in detail. The Vic roads charter has a specific aspect to it about this.
  14. Do not underestimate the might and power of this organisation or the motoring authority of any other state. The two work hand in hand.

    It's impossible to answer the question until you know what the brief of evidence has. The odds depends on the ability to find the charge proven. The best approach depends on the evidence they have which a lawyer will then advise on.

    It would seem this is a new trend in Victoria taking the lead from current practices of NSW Police.

    The number of witnesses is not relevant if the charge can be proven and the possibilities for defence are not endless either. There are (4) defences available:

    (a) Duress
    (b) Factual dispute
    (c) Identification dispute
    (f) Necessity

    The plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses (see above). Keep in mind though that the standard of proof is low - balance of probabilities, so they only have to show that it is more probable than not that the vehicle have not been driven in the way that is expected from a reasonable and prudent driver. Can you quote exactly which part are you referring to?


  15. I've never found any reason to doubt your posts before 665, but the times are a changing mate.

    Now that's a funny old thing to be saying on an open forum. The TAC may soon insist that every rider be considered for charges of careless driving.

    I realise you've got a bit of a legal mind and you may want to split some hairs over some of the wording. That's ok, I don't want to quibble about the wording. I'm far more interested in the message.

    I don't think I'm the person who could just pick up the phone and call Leading Senior Constable Dwight and ask him about his wording, or his message. I don't think he'll be interested in telling me what he knows that would lead him to say what he did.

    But you could :)

    [EDIT] oh one more thing. I currently know of a rider who is about to go to court to contest a charge of careless driving. Their crime was to have a single vehicle accident at the posted speed limit of 80ks while carefully attempting to navigate a corner that is good for about a buck sixty. They don't know why the bike went down, but I can assure you it wasn't because of their actions or inactions. The attending officer didn't want to lay charges, but has anyway.
  16. Mate from whats been posted after my comment they do seem to a changing and its a sad state of affairs if it is/has. There used to be a time when the informant (the guy in charge of the case(No tongue icon avail)) was the only one who could lay charges or issue a TIN and no one could tell them to. IE, not the public or another officer and thats the way it should be.

    By reading what he has said it seems that he is putting the worst out there as to scare the trail bike riders off, but agree the sentiment is crap.
    I'll send you a PM about some stuff.

  17. Thanks for the PM mate :)

    My read on it is, he's requesting people to be a bit smarter about their riding for their sakes. Because his discretion that he's been using is about to be taken out if his hands.

    i believe he has a genuine heart for the riders he's talking to, but he's seen some writing on a wall somewhere and he's alerting them to it.

    The OP's case, the case I mentioned, the matter I PM'd and the case that was linked to on Sean Hardy's site now makes four. It's no longer a coincidence it's now a trend.
  18. As far as I can tell, in the OP case...

    It's a 'penalty notice'. Not a 'charge'. No requirement to turn up to court. I think the driver can simply pay the fine and cop the points OR contest.

    As far as I can tell.

    It's the fine and the points that are the issue - and we were wondering if it would be worthwhile to simply turn up to court and try to convince the magistrate it wasn't careless driving.
  19. I laughed at this. I'm going to take extra care with poles and trees too cause they may do the same as well.