Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

The guy has pleaded gulty to manslaughter - I'm guessing it is involuntary manslaughter, and a negligent act is a key part of this crime.

Making a mistake is completely different to a deliberate act of violence against a weaker older person. Completely different!

I have never and would never, ever, hit someone's grandma, not in a million billion years. It is conceivable however that I could in a terrible moment of thoughtfulness kill a cyclist opening my car door, not so much now that I am a cyclist but defiantly prior when the existence of the risk of open doors to cyclists never really dawned on me.

So I understand the 'there go I but for the grace' comment on the car door death, however I can't help thinking if you can identify with the hitting granny out of rage incident then perhaps help would be in order to understand and control that temper and rage. Because that's not normal and quite scary.

I think I'm with Il padrone - having smacked the bus driver, it is thin edge of the wedge and there but for the grace of god for me-

I don't think I would ever hit a granny but then again I never thought I would hit anyone in anger/fright/rage/hysteria...whatever you want to call my brain snap.

I'm bothered by his comment about her getting in his way - maybe that is the key issue - the guy was just a bully - cyclist/driver/ped - he was just a bully.

just my 2c worth as a recent assaulter......fiona

Alien27 wrote:I have never and would never, ever, hit someone's grandma, not in a million billion years.

But according to the reports there was a dispute, a "heated argument". Well, what if she was going at you, maybe like Granny Timson??




BTW, it is not alleged that the cyclist hit her, rather he pushed her. Subtle difference.

il padrone wrote:The guy has pleaded gulty to manslaughter - I'm guessing it is involuntary manslaughter, and a negligent act is a key part of this crime.

Guessing is just not good enough, especially when your guess of involuntary could equally be this:-

...Constructive manslaughter: An unreasonable or unlawful conduct or a dangerous act that exposed another person to a high risk of serious injury or death. It is not an accidental act but must have been intended...

Fiona I think your incident was quite a bit different. The bus driver was the aggressor. You're the granny in this scenario :lol but instead of trying to push you, the driver intimidated you with a buss. If the granny had got back up and slapped the cyclist that pushed her over saying 'I have every right to be on the footpath (or crossing the road etc)' then the comparison would be complete.

You were not the aggressor in your situation and are beating yourself up to much about it. Quite frankly I think you should be very proud of how you handled yourself. You were threatened, intimidated and put in a potentially life threatening situation. Yet you didn't crack, you held your ground made your point and and when pushed harder your natural reaction was not to flee but instead strike back. Hold your head high after that, I would have you beside me in a crisis any day!

blkmcs wrote:

il padrone wrote:The guy has pleaded gulty to manslaughter - I'm guessing it is involuntary manslaughter, and a negligent act is a key part of this crime.

Guessing is just not good enough, especially when your guess of involuntary could equally be this:-

...Constructive manslaughter: An unreasonable or unlawful conduct or a dangerous act that exposed another person to a high risk of serious injury or death. It is not an accidental act but must have been intended...

Yes, that's correct. And read the rest of it....

and which conduct or breach is gross negligence but not a criminal act.

What I said. Negligence is a key part of this offence I believe - not an accident, intentional, negligent. All apply, however IANAL. It may be that his offence is the more serious 'criminally negligent manslaughter', where some degree of malice or crime has been involved in the death.

thanks Tom- - I am indeed a granny - thanks for reminding me - NOT

The whole situation regarding the death of the woman is very sad - I guess I am trying not to judge the guys intentions without knowing the facts but the outcome is just awful - for everyone involved.

il padrone wrote:

Alien27 wrote:I have never and would never, ever, hit someone's grandma, not in a million billion years.

But according to the reports there was a dispute, a "heated argument". Well, what if she was going at you, maybe like Granny Timson??




BTW, it is not alleged that the cyclist hit her, rather he pushed her. Subtle difference.

Go Ann Timson!

I don't know all the details however this is not an alleged offence pre or mid trial, he was found guilty and the quote of 'that will teach her' or the like, seems to suggest he was the aggressor.

The reported facts are a long way short of criminal negligence. Just for starters there is nothing to suggest a duty of care or breach thereof.

Manslaughter has the biggest range in criminal culpability of any crime & punishment can be a slap on the wrist through to 25 years in gaol.

Jerk's lucky it wasn't one of my nanas.

Crucifixion's too good for 'im.

blkmcs wrote:This guy was not negligent.
He committed a deliberate act of violence against an old lady, he may not have intended to kill her or even to cause her serious harm but he did intend to push her.

Just like some motorists did intend to open their door...

human909 wrote:

blkmcs wrote:This guy was not negligent.
He committed a deliberate act of violence against an old lady, he may not have intended to kill her or even to cause her serious harm but he did intend to push her.

Just like some motorists did intend to open their door...

Intending to open your door and step out of your car, is very different to opening your door with the intent of knocking someone off their bike. Which are you referring to?

Alien27 wrote:

human909 wrote:

blkmcs wrote:This guy was not negligent.
He committed a deliberate act of violence against an old lady, he may not have intended to kill her or even to cause her serious harm but he did intend to push her.

Just like some motorists did intend to open their door...

Intending to open your door and step out of your car, is very different to opening your door with the intent of knocking someone off their bike. Which are you referring to?

I'm referring to intending to open your door and stepping out of your car. Doing so negligently isn't much better that giving somebody a push. Both are usually harmless actions. In the wrong circumstances both can kill.

One is assault, a deliberate act of violence, the other is making a terrible mistake. There should be vastly different punishment consequences for each, even if they both resulted in the same outcome.

Otherwise a hit man running over his target gets a similar punishment to Mr Jones a otherwise top law abiding and valued member of society who accidentally kills someone in a moment of inattentiveness.

Intent has to be a major factor in guilt and sentencing.

Pushing someone is exactly the same stage of intent as pushing open the car door.

If you can't see the incrediblely close parallel, it saddens me that your life and the lives of other cyclists is so trivial to you.

On first glance they don't seem to be the same - but on reasoned argument, it is clear that deliberately ignoring the risk to other road users is no better. Tragic accident? Well, the cyclist pushing over nana isn't any different. Yes, he wanted to shove her. He has broken the law by his first action and desire. But did he expect to kill her, and take it to another level? Unlikely.
Yes, they wanted to exit their car. They broke the law by their first action (failing to open their door with care and give way to traffic) and their desire. But did they expect to kill the cyclist, and take it to the next level? We can only hope not.

Our society is just not able to cope with these grey areas. Human life is either priority 1, or it isn't. We no longer have a strict religious compass to guide us... but the value of life cannot be evaluated based on the circumstance it is found in. Our commitment to welfare implies that human life and liberty to live as we choose is more important than we might realise.

Xplora wrote:Pushing someone is exactly the same stage of intent as pushing open the car door.

WRONG...........One is done WITH INTENT to cause harm.........the other was done WITHOUT INTENT to cause harm.

Xplora wrote:If you can't see the incrediblely close parallel, it saddens me that your life and the lives of other cyclists is so trivial to you.

Talk about screwing a point of view in order to try and get a point across

il padrone wrote:BTW, it is not alleged that the cyclist hit her, rather he pushed her. Subtle difference.

Subtle differences you're good with but considerable differences seem a struggle.

blkmcs wrote:

il padrone wrote:

greyhoundtom wrote:How does a temporary loss of attention that costs someone their life become equal to a deliberate violent act that costs someone their life?

Two offenders were negligent. Two people were killed. In my opinion the consequences should be pretty similar - some dispensation for the lady who was just totally thoughtless, rather than aggressive - however one person has been let off with not even a fine, not even a case prosecuted.

This guy was not negligent.
He committed a deliberate act of violence against an old lady, he may not have intended to kill her or even to cause her serious harm but he did intend to push her.

This.

Opening a door without checking is careless, negligent, and irresponsible. But by opening a door without looking, you most certainly have no intent to harm anyone. You're opening a door carelessly. It's pretty simple.

The other side is pushing an elderly woman. I for one would never get physical with a woman, let alone an elderly one.

I'm the type of person who asks 'what for' when riding my bike and someone impinges on my right to be on the road, whether out of negligence or intentional. There have been times where elderly individuals have done so. In those instances I pretty much write them off as being old enough to not know better, consider myself lucky for still being alive, and move on.

Xplora wrote:Pushing someone is exactly the same stage of intent as pushing open the car door.

If you can't see the incrediblely close parallel, it saddens me that your life and the lives of other cyclists is so trivial to you.

I can see that the two aren't even close. The consequences of the dooring are at least arguably an unwilled act. You can't say say that of the pushing. The legal and ethical distinction is obvious.

this cyclist will forever have the death of this lady on his conscience for the rest of his life. Reliving the incident and perhaps thinking 'what if' or 'could I have approached it in another less violent way'. He will never know and will forever be cursed with taking a life indirectly on his mind. That in itself is punishment in my opinion.

rpmspinman wrote: forever be cursed with taking a life indirectly on his mind. That in itself is punishment in my opinion.

For you and I yes that would be a horrible thing to have on ones conscience. Some people are sociopaths though, and don't appear to have a conscience.

The guy deserves some quality time in the dog house. The mark of a person or a society is how they treat the most vunerable, clearly this guy fails miserably and needs time to think that over.

Do we know how the lady slowed him down? Was she crossing a road on foot? Driving slowly? I would be interested to know what led to this terrible incident. Nothing can excuse the guys actions.

JM

Xplora wrote:Pushing someone is exactly the same stage of intent as pushing open the car door.

If you can't see the incrediblely close parallel, it saddens me that your life and the lives of other cyclists is so trivial to you.

On first glance they don't seem to be the same - but on reasoned argument, it is clear that deliberately ignoring the risk to other road users is no better. Tragic accident? Well, the cyclist pushing over nana isn't any different. Yes, he wanted to shove her. He has broken the law by his first action and desire. But did he expect to kill her, and take it to another level? Unlikely.
Yes, they wanted to exit their car. They broke the law by their first action (failing to open their door with care and give way to traffic) and their desire. But did they expect to kill the cyclist, and take it to the next level? We can only hope not.

Our society is just not able to cope with these grey areas. Human life is either priority 1, or it isn't. We no longer have a strict religious compass to guide us... but the value of life cannot be evaluated based on the circumstance it is found in. Our commitment to welfare implies that human life and liberty to live as we choose is more important than we might realise.

mmm... taking your argument to its logical conclusion you see very little difference between someone forgetting themselves and carelessly opening their car door and someone lying in ambush and flinging the car door open, just as a cyclist passes, with deliberate intent to wipe them out.

Our society is able to cope with grey areas, not perfectly but it makes a good fist of it. There is a reason why intent is important in law. Its a pretty basic moral principal that is taught and understood from a very early age. Every parent does it pretty much instinctively; 'Mummy Jack dropped his car on my toe' 'your all right honey, jack is just a baby he didn't mean to drop it on your toe'. To ignore intent is not 'fair' and fairness is an instinct built in to us.

Don't think that my life and the life of other cyclists is trivial to me.

Alien27 wrote: mmm... taking your argument to its logical conclusion you see very little difference between someone forgetting themselves and carelessly opening their car door and someone lying in ambush and flinging the car door open, just as a cyclist passes, with deliberate intent to wipe them out.

Don't think that my life and the life of other cyclists is trivial to me.

This is indeed the problem though - deliberate doorings and accidental doorings have the same result, and you have absolutely no way of ever knowing which is the real intent. Unfortunately, you've drawn the line in the sand and it exposes the riding population to possible death because your attitude towards door opening isn't anywhere near serious enough.

I think you'd treat gun handling, knife use, and driving at speed much more seriously than door opening, even though there is a very real chance that they can all result in the same thing. There are no accidental doorings, just negligent car users. There are laws against such door use already... the only problem is that few seem to appreciate they can kill people by being a deadbeat who doesn't care about their actions.