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.

Two fatals, same corner, same driver [SA]

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Minderbinder, Sep 1, 2009.

  1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/01/2673210.htm

    Also see "Woman avoids jail over second fatal":
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/04/2589774.htm?site=news


    Apparently it's OK to kill as many motorists and motorcyclists as you want, as long as you're an "outstanding contributor to [the] community". Once is an unfortunate accident - twice is manslaughter.



    I don't see how killing two people makes this woman a model citizen. Perhaps the two people that she killed were so evil that she was actually performing a public service? Or is she so awesome that her contribution to society outweighs that of the two dead men?

    At any rate, model citizen or no, the fact that she's killed twice at the same intersection says much more about her driving than the state of the intersection.
     
     Top
  2. Oh wow, one month in jail and she still appeals against that.

    She will probably appeal the fine next, maybe even sue the victims family.
     
     Top
  3. It's not like the woman was speeding, give her a break!
     
     Top
  4. The mind boggles! speeders are jailed for what could have happened and a woman kills 2 people and is free :evil:
     
     Top
  5. Unless we know the intersection layout we cant really comment on how much it or the driver contributed to the collisions.

    Anyone know the intersection in question that can comment rather than speculate.
     
     Top
  6. That is absolutely ridiculous :(
     
     Top
  7. It was in South Australia... NOTHING goes fast there... ever... :LOL:
     
     Top
  8. This thread will be killed too.
     
     Top
  9. OK, but why?

    Reviewing the Terms and Conditions I see two possible issues:
    -- addressed by moderator moving thread from General Discussion to Off Topic, which is reasonable given that the article is arguably on the fuzzy edge of "BIKE RELATED".

    -- my understanding was that the spirit of this rule was to stop endless "rider down" discussions. I think though that this article offers a bit more scope for discussion, given the Coroner's decision to focus on the state of the intersection as opposed to the driver at fault.
     
     Top
  10. http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&...noid=RIj2GfYAOirB9PGv4LTHCQ&cbp=12,10.41,,0,1

    That's the intersection (I believe [edit: confirmed]), facing the way he was coming from (i believe)... How the f*%k is that a difficult intersection to navigate?

    Once, I can understand... but twice? She shouldn't be allowed to drive, full stop. She'll be back in her 4WD Rodeo in no time though, 2 kids in the back while she sails through giveway signs then appealing the entire sentence :roll:

    (interesting that the road name and her surname are the same...? [edit: read more - she lives/farms on that road])
     
     Top
  11. It's an interesting case.
    She's guilty, but then she admits that much herself.
    Imprisonment isn't going to help anyone so I can understand that being taken out of the equation.
    But I feel a stronger punishment is required. Possibly something like an ongoing financial obligation to the family of the dead man.
    It's not much, but it's something and it might help them out in a material way.

    I think the most important thing to take from this is the enormous variance in penalties between "hoon" driving and merely incompetent driving.
    That's what I'd really like to see addressed as a result of this.
    What REAL difference is there between someone deliberately breaking the law and thereby endangering themselves (and others) and those that create the same dangerous situations by driving legally yet beyond their own capabilities or without the care due other road users?

    It's all stupid.
     
     Top
  12. Read that court summary!

    Great.
    'It was the rider's fault for not wearing a fluro vest.'

    Tripe.
    The dozy slag didn't look properly.
    If she had looked properly, she would have seen the shiny Yamaha naked bike covered in crome and equipped with a headlight that is always on.

    This 'looked but didn't see' is a bullshit excuse.
     
     Top
  13. I had someone look and didn't see me the other day. She looked me right in the eye and then chose not to see me.

    I don't think the woman in this article should automatically go to jail, but I sure as hell hope she sleeps poorly at night. :evil:
     
     Top
  14. Where I lived in Shepparton, one of the familes that lived a few houses down form us had two sons.

    In a nearby court there was this guy who not only had the mis-fortune of hitting one child, but in two seperate incidents actually hit each of these two brothers. The incidents were about 3-4 years apart and fortunately with hte first child, it resulted in a broken leg however with the second child it reuslted in permanent brain damage.

    This guy was so distraught he ended up packing up his stuff and moving to the other side of town.

    In neither case was either accident his fault. In both cases the child ran onto the road in front of him.

    Highly unfortunate incidents.
     
     Top
  15. All irrelevant - she wasn't speeding, don't you understand?!
     
     Top
  16. This magistrate Tom Gray seems to rely heavily on the fact that the deceased was riding a black motorcycle and wearing black clothing. There is not one mention of the headlight in the entire of that judgement. It would appear in his efforts to be lenient due to the defendant being a mother and a farmer's wife, he has decided to overlook the fact that if the defendant did not see the headlight, she was unlikely to see a coloured motorcycle or coloured clothing.

    I doubt this magistrate would have reached the same conclusion had the deceased been a female member of parliament driving a black Mercedes E350. He is one of the many people that seem to think, either consciously or subconsciously, that because motorcyclists accept a higher risk of injury by riding a motorcycle, they are owed a lower standard of care by other motorists.

    I would also have thought that if a motorist came to an intersection where they had to give way to a road obscured by shadow, that they would be required to exercise a far higher standard of care than otherwise. The magistrate has decided to overlook this as well.

    This case disgusts me. Just because a person has suffered personally due to their actions does not mean that they have learnt their lesson and no longer pose an unacceptable risk to society. The fact that this woman has killed two people at the same intersection proves this.
     
     Top
  17. and still the judge forgot that motorbikes have headlights that cant be turned off.


    what was the excuse for the first one. she looked carefully but the car was black, the driver was wearing black against a dark shadowy background? nah, she got away with it because the driver was black.
     
     Top
  18. That appeals ruling is offensive. Even the first sentence was offensive. A two year good behaviour bond? So in as little as three years she can do it again, and again get off completely.

    Looking at that intersection in Google Maps, I can't see how anyone paying any attention could miss seeing a motorcycle. The dark bike and trees would be irrelevant at the time of the accident, 10:55 am on a clear day. The shadow of the bike on the road alone would have been clearly visible.

    She may have slowed, but she also just sailed through the intersection without her brain turned on, because she has done it so many times before without incident, completely forgetting seven years ago, and therefore didn't see anything coming. Who knows, maybe she was turned around and yelling at the kids. She certainly wouldn't tell anyone that, and there are no other viable witnesses.

    Whatever the reason, her failure to perceive the motorcyclist is a major flaw in her driving capabilities, and it has occurred twice. She should never be allowed to drive again, and to hell with the affect on her mental health, husband, kids, and the family business. Consider the affect she has already had on two men's lives!
     
     Top
  19. As far as I'm concerned if you've killed two people in separate accidents, you've forfeited your driving priveliges, for life. This woman should never be allowed to drive again. There's other means of transport available to her, she's clearly not capable of operating a vehicle safely.
     
     Top