Separate names with a comma.
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.
Discussion in 'The Pub' started by js_gtr, Oct 23, 2009.
I have a personal interest in this as I knew the poor girl and her family.
It's sad and it can't bring her back.
So what do you make of the sentence?
While the judge being mindful of a speed LOWER than the limit not equating instantly to safe driving, while the state governments pound into us that 1km over = murder, is proof of the truth we all already know.
The circumstances surrounding the case mean he can't really be made a great example of in the road safety campaign.
Politics are removed... maybe the sentence is fair? Any normal bloke with his own kids would be in danger of topping himself anyway over being the cause of such a tragic accident.
I'd bet his chances of reoffending are bugger all, and he wouldn't be a danger to the community.
... and FFS The Age, it's "goal" not "jail". Go put the aluminum trashcan out on the sidewalk, why don'tcha.
I am failing to understand what point of view you are holding in your OP
Should he have had no charges upheld or do you think he should have been dealt with more harshly?
Reading the article I don’t understand why he was charged
“Michael Tinney, SC, prosecuting, said Beckett was driving appropriately at the time”
So not only was he under the speed limit but is defined as “driving appropriately”
The article doesn’t say he failed to give way, it doesn’t say he was on the wrong side of the road, in fact it doesn’t say much at all.
So far it is sounding like a “Tragic Accident”
Without knowing something about it, what more can we say?
He was on the wrong side of the road unfortunately negotiating a bend and ran wide. Why the family didn't want him charged is because the weight of the truck etc had some bearing and it was an unfortunate accident. Closing speed of truck 50, closing speed of van 60 so a collision speed of 90 kmh aprox not saying anymore now it's over afaiac
Thanks for the info Smee.
I couldn’t find it in the article.
Consider it left.
So does he have to go to jail in twelve months for a year?
It's a suspended sentence so he only goes to jail if he re-offends during this 12 month period in which case this 12 months jail period is added to the new sentence.
I was reading that report and trying to understand what important part of the story was not relayed in the article. The prosecutor, of all people, was saying that the guy was driving appropriately. So why was he being prosecuted?
Obviously something had gone wrong for a head-on to occur, and Smee has explained that.
Something still worries me about this, and it's that there seems to be a view that for every terrible thing that happens, there has to be someone held culpable. I, and the public, don't know enough about this event to judge (nor need we).
But the lingering general question remains, whether the lack of ability to avoid a tragic outcome should equal culpability.
Condolences to all affected, regardless.
Circumstances are discussed in this article
Culpabilty normally only applies when someones actions were such that they caused the death / injury, and those actions were wrongful.
I obviously don't know the circumstances or the facts, and won't comment on the Court itself, but it does seem like a "strange" judgement.
Normally if the prosecution recommend a sentence it's followed.
On the facts I've seen in this case speed was (at best) a minor factor if at all.
He can of course appeal.
Ahh, based upon the further info in the Age article, I think I get it now. There were road law issues involved. Based upon that I don't think it's very questionable.
Looks like the driving was only dangerous because an accident happened.
Same as if you were only riding "negligently" if you come off your bike.
It went to trial and he got a suspended sentence because the second something happens out of the ordinary with registered vehicles SOMEONE has to pay SOMETHING for SOME REASON.
I read it as "ran wide, too late to swerve back, so attempted to pass on the opposing shoulder." It reads as everyone appreciates the severity of this accident, and the suspended sentence was imposed because a sentence had to be imposed... Anything more then (what reads as) these facts is speculation and not my place, at least, to comment on.
Keep tabs on the County Court website over the next week to find out the full story.
Or even "gaol"... :-$
I wasn't commenting on the case specifically more on the reporting and portrayal of speed in the media.
For someone to even be in court, let alone be in the middle of debate over jail time, then you have to assume that something else has to have happened.
I'd just like to be able to read what had happened rather than having to guess.
Ahhh… so your beef is with the article burning page space to tell us he wasn’t speeding yet still fail to actually tell us what happened, is this correct?
Partially yes... (from a personal annoyance standpoint)
The other part is that there are people in this world who don't seek to understand what has actually happened, and as motorcyclists I think we see more than our fair share of opinions from these types of people.
How many times do you find yourself in conversation with someone telling you about something they had read to do with motorcycles or speed, only to find that they were massively misinformed?
That's how I read it from the article. Ran wide and tried a last ditch attempt to run completely off the wrong side of the road to miss the car, but it wasn't to be. Tankers are a bugger of a thing to steer because of the water sloshing around in the back too. I'm not going to speculate though.
A truly tragic event.