Penalties from non-fatal accidents

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4033
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby Thoglette » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:52 pm

From the flogged-with-a-wet-lettuce-leaf files
Cyclist paralysed by distracted driver misses 'the simple things in life'
Ellie Sibson ABC online wrote:A cyclist who was paralysed when a distracted driver hit him while reaching for her ringing mobile phone says his life has "irreversibly changed forever".

Katherine Roche was trying to put the phone on speaker and her children were in the car when she hit Graham Walters at Burpengary in August 2016.

The mother was today given a wholly suspended two-and-half-year sentence for dangerous driving and was also disqualified from getting behind the wheel for two years.
....
Mr Walters said he accepted the sentence imposed by the court and wants to be the face of a campaign against the use of mobile phones while driving.


He's a much better man than I.

Perhaps this'd be a good place to track the penalties for non-fatalities. (The moderators may wish to move this to Advocacy)
Last edited by Thoglette on Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13085
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Flogged with a wet lettuce leaf

Postby AUbicycles » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:21 am

I have moved as it makes sense and for a more permanent (or less abstract) title, can we change the title of the first post?

Philistine
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Flogged with a wet lettuce leaf

Postby Philistine » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:09 pm

Thoglette wrote:
He's a much better man than I.


Is he though? You know what turning the other cheek gets you? - both cheeks belted!

This poor man has had his life changed for ever because of someone's totally irresponsible behaviour behind the wheel of a car. This case is crying out for a hefty jail sentence - partly to punish the offender, and partly to discourage others from behaving in a similar manner.

As I write, there is a flashing sign operating on the main road about a kilometre from my door, asking motorists not to use their mobile phones while driving. Do the geniuses responsible for this sign (probably RMS) believe for one moment that putting up signs like this will change even one person's behaviour? If the authorities are serious then they should try implementing $1000 fine for a first offence, 12 months jail for a second, and five years for a third.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4033
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Renaming the salad

Postby Thoglette » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:59 pm

AUbicycles wrote:I have moved as it makes sense and for a more permanent (or less abstract) title, can we change the title of the first post?

Thanks and done. If you'd like anything different, let me know.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

g-boaf
Posts: 9657
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Renaming the salad

Postby g-boaf » Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:48 pm

Thoglette wrote:
AUbicycles wrote:I have moved as it makes sense and for a more permanent (or less abstract) title, can we change the title of the first post?

Thanks and done. If you'd like anything different, let me know.


Renaming the salad? :?: :lol: Looked a bit funny seeing that on the forum list as the title.

I agree with the person earlier saying that fines/penalties for mobile phone use in cars by drivers needs to be increased dramatically. Make it very, very expensive, thousands of dollars and or loss of licence for a few years.

User avatar
Bunged Knee
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:29 pm
Location: Not drowning in Parramatta river yet

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby Bunged Knee » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:18 pm

g-boaf wrote:I agree with the person earlier saying that fines/penalties for mobile phone use in cars by drivers needs to be increased dramatically. Make it very, very expensive, thousands of dollars and or loss of licence for a few years.


Would be better to include the automatic confiscation of mobile phones???
Bad luck to someone who have those on contracts and if they buy another phone,then another confiscation again if used illegally.
Stupid drivers still don't care about it and won't listen about the dangers of using it while driving.
ID please? What ID? My seat tube ID is 27.2mm or 31.6mm depending on what bikes I ride today.thanks...

User avatar
Cheesewheel
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby Cheesewheel » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:53 pm

Re. Mobile phones .... I think its been mentioned elsewhere that a major contributing factor to deterring crime is the risk assessment of being caught as opposed to heavy penalties (that are unlikely to be uniformly enforced).
Go!Run!GAH!

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 13148
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby trailgumby » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:19 pm

Cheesewheel wrote:Re. Mobile phones .... I think its been mentioned elsewhere that a major contributing factor to deterring crime is the risk assessment of being caught as opposed to heavy penalties (that are unlikely to be uniformly enforced).

Yep, with Melinda Pavey playing the "privacy issues" card I am not holding my breath for meaningful action anytime soon.

This is the new drink driving, along with drug and disqualified driving.The inaction on any of the three let alone all of them is reprehensible.

madmacca
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby madmacca » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:53 pm

Cheesewheel wrote:Re. Mobile phones .... I think its been mentioned elsewhere that a major contributing factor to deterring crime is the risk assessment of being caught as opposed to heavy penalties (that are unlikely to be uniformly enforced).


I agree - heavy penalties have little dissausive effect in you think your chances of being caught are close to zero.

A better approach would be for police to routinely check phone records for activity if called to any accident, just as they breath test anyone involved in an accident. Accompanied by an ad campaign that this is routine proceduce, this may change perceptions of the probability of being caught.

I think at the moment police only check call & text records. As people can still be distracted checking FAcebook or what'sapp, ideally it would be combined with a Commonwealth communications law requiring any phone sold in Australia to retain the last 30 minutes (to allow for delays in police arriving on scene) of screen activity, with access keys to this history available to police. To get around privacy and security issues, it would only need to retain summary info like "17 screen swipes" and "12 button presses", not which app was being used or what part of the screen was being swiped.

Philistine
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby Philistine » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:56 am

trailgumby wrote:Yep, with Melinda Pavey playing the "privacy issues" card I am not holding my breath for meaningful action anytime soon.



If someone is in a public place, performing an activity that, if improperly performed, can result in death or serious injury to innocent people, you would have to be a moron (not you TG - the minister) to blather on about "privacy issues".

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby antigee » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:45 pm

Philistine wrote:
If someone is in a public place, performing an activity that, if improperly performed, can result in death or serious injury to innocent people, you would have to be a moron (not you TG - the minister) to blather on about "privacy issues".


well put, I'd add .......is in a public place, breaking the law whilst performing an activity that, if improperly performed, can result in death or serious injury to innocent people...

Privacy argument looks very similar to claims that speed cameras are a Tax on motorists - no problem if don't break law.

back to OP last week the driver appealed sentence following the severe injury of a Ballarat cyclist:

A DRUG-affected Victorian woman who crashed into a cyclist and left him for dead wants a shorter sentence because her victim didn’t die.
Rebekah Stewart’s lawyer argued in the Victorian Court of Appeal on Tuesday that her victim, Christian Ashby, didn’t die, so her sentence should be reduced.............


http://www.news.com.au/national/victori ... c0502900cb

somewhere mixed up in all this is how charging and sentencing works and I've always been a bit puzzled by some of the arguments around cycling - in that a lot of traffic offences are what I'd call absolute and don't depend on the outcome of the action (pretty sure if I went looking for sentencing philosophy articles there would be a more correct term) - Red light running, Speeding, Using a mobile, Ignoring a traffic sign - doesn't matter what the consequence is or if there isn't any consequence then they are still an offence

When it comes to Dangerous Driving and for those that have it Close Passing of Cyclists then the focus seems entirely on the outcome - no injury = no offence?
Sometimes this even seems to degrade further to no intent to injure = no offence
All a bit puzzling to me :(

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28999
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:29 pm

Philistine wrote:
trailgumby wrote:Yep, with Melinda Pavey playing the "privacy issues" card I am not holding my breath for meaningful action anytime soon.



If someone is in a public place, performing an activity that, if improperly performed, can result in death or serious injury to innocent people, you would have to be a moron (not you TG - the minister) to blather on about "privacy issues".

Does the minister drive much?
Is she issued with a taxpayer funded phone?
Am I being overly cynical by thinking that the minister may be part of the problem?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 13148
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby trailgumby » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:20 pm

Philistine wrote:
trailgumby wrote:Yep, with Melinda Pavey playing the "privacy issues" card I am not holding my breath for meaningful action anytime soon.



If someone is in a public place, performing an activity that, if improperly performed, can result in death or serious injury to innocent people, you would have to be a moron (not you TG - the minister) to blather on about "privacy issues".

Indeed. It's not like front windscreens - which *must* be clear - have blinds.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7691
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby find_bruce » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:34 pm

As I recall when speeding cameras were first introduced in the early 90s the NSW privacy council were concerned that if you were caught speeding then your wife might find out about your girlfriend sitting in the passenger seat.

Fast forward to 2006 when Marcus Einfeld said his dead friend was driving his car, some of the many nails in his coffin were that Police were able to track his movements from the restaurant to his home via traffic cameras, his mobile phone and where he stopped for petrol. Remarkable what the Police can achieve when sufficiently motivated.

Since then there are cameras installed all over town in the name of terrorist prevention.

Privacy has always taken 2nd place to public safety, and yet somehow motorists should be a protected species.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7691
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby find_bruce » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:45 pm

find_bruce wrote:Privacy has always taken 2nd place to public safety, and yet somehow motorists should be a protected species.

Or perhaps not

madmacca
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby madmacca » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:17 pm

antigee wrote:
back to OP last week the driver appealed sentence following the severe injury of a Ballarat cyclist:

A DRUG-affected Victorian woman who crashed into a cyclist and left him for dead wants a shorter sentence because her victim didn’t die.
Rebekah Stewart’s lawyer argued in the Victorian Court of Appeal on Tuesday that her victim, Christian Ashby, didn’t die, so her sentence should be reduced.............


http://www.news.com.au/national/victori ... c0502900cb

somewhere mixed up in all this is how charging and sentencing works and I've always been a bit puzzled by some of the arguments around cycling - in that a lot of traffic offences are what I'd call absolute and don't depend on the outcome of the action (pretty sure if I went looking for sentencing philosophy articles there would be a more correct term) - Red light running, Speeding, Using a mobile, Ignoring a traffic sign - doesn't matter what the consequence is or if there isn't any consequence then they are still an offence

When it comes to Dangerous Driving and for those that have it Close Passing of Cyclists then the focus seems entirely on the outcome - no injury = no offence?
Sometimes this even seems to degrade further to no intent to injure = no offence
All a bit puzzling to me :(


I don't know - as a society, we punish murder more heavily than attempted murder.

However, in this case, she drove off and left him to die. The fact that he lived is no thanks to her. If she had stopped and rendered first aid until the paramedics turned up, then her argument might have more merit. But merit and justice have little to do with outcomes in our legal system.

I'm just annoyed that the Court of Appeal is wasting tax dollars on even hearing such a flimsy appeal.

User avatar
Cheesewheel
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby Cheesewheel » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:45 am

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-1 ... fmredir=sm

Driver charged with using mobile phone after two police hit at RBT in Sydney

Will be interesting to see how the outcome of this compares to hitting a cyclist under similar circumstances
Go!Run!GAH!

User avatar
Mububban
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:19 pm

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby Mububban » Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:28 pm

The victims are cops so I expect the full weight of the law to be applied.

Terrible that one of them lost part of his leg :(
When you are driving your car, you are not stuck IN traffic - you ARE the traffic!!!

Scott_C
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Penalties from non-fatal accidents

Postby Scott_C » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:57 pm

On the topic of cops as victims:
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/ ... b88751053z

A MAN who had never held a driver’s licence and was affected by illicit drugs when he mowed down two cyclists during a charity bike ride in Esperance – and then drove away – has been jailed for [three years and two months].

Sergeant Roberta Richardson and Carla Martella were riding in the Tour De Freedom 1000, a five-day ride from Esperance to Perth, when they were hit by a car driven by 51-year-old Kevin Anthony Barton in October 2015.


Seems to be one of the harshest sentences I have seen for a non-fatal cyclist accident (higher than many fatal accidents) but the perpetrator seems to have hit the jackpot for- two victims, unlicensed, drug-affected, hit-and-run with continued efforts to hide the vehicle involved, a long prior criminal history as a bikie and an off-duty cop as a victim.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users