Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Philistine
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby Philistine » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:27 pm

Thoglette wrote:
Philistine wrote:
find_bruce wrote:a bloke shouldn't be lying down drunk in the middle of the road, but that doesn't mean you can run over him.

But if you don't see him there and you do run over him, you don't find yourself facing charges.

Really? Got some case history or cites for that? (As opposed to just dumb-arsed-cop-can't-be-bothered - see close passes in NSW/QLD threads)


Fair go. If what I said was correct (and I don't claim to be omniscient) there aren't going to be any case histories.

Scott_C has linked to an Adelaide case that, at first blush, appears to contradict my statement. A more careful reading indicates that the driver is really being whacked for leaving the scene of the accident instead of remaining to render assistance.

Find_Bruce cites a case, R v Whyte, that should give all road users food for thought. I have cut and pasted the first part of the case notes.

[18-310] The statutory scheme
Section 52A Crimes Act 1900 sets out the following offences:

52A Dangerous driving: substantive matters

(1)
Dangerous driving occasioning death

A person is guilty of the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death if the vehicle driven by the person is involved in an impact occasioning the death of another person and the driver was, at the time of the impact, driving the vehicle:

(a)
under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a drug, or

(b)
at a speed dangerous to another person or persons, or

(c)
in a manner dangerous to another person or persons.

A person convicted of an offence under this subsection is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.


If you drive at a speed dangerous to another person and you end up killing him, you are guilty of the offence of dangerous driving causing death. If you kill someone in your car, you have necessarily driven at a speed dangerous to another person- even if that speed is 5 km/hour or less.

I think we can all work out what the legislation is trying to achieve, but it is so badly drafted that, if you are driving a car and you kill someone, you have committed a crime - regardless of the circumstances!

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7475
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby find_bruce » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:11 am

Hmmm, not sure what is going on in WA. This case, a cyclists lapse of judgement, reportedly traveling at 20 kmh seriously injures a woman, 12 months suspended sentence.

Case 2 - this moron - towing a caravan that was modified to tow a trailer and the trailer was 1.5 tonnes over its rated weight. Trailer breaks free & wills a truck driver - but because he believed it was safe, 18 month suspended sentence
Last edited by find_bruce on Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fix error in sentence length

uart
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby uart » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:52 am

fat and old wrote:I’d prepared a post on this very subject earlier, and pointed out that the most vocal of supporters (or apologists, depending on your POV) of this cyclist are also among the most vocal supporters of strict liability as well as generally critical of motor vehicles running people down after blasting a red light. Then I realised that it was a waste of time. :lol:


Most people here are not excusing this guy's shocking inattention so much as pointing to this as yet another example of the inequity between how cyclists are seen by the courts (and the general community) compared with motorist. Please point me to one single case of a motorist legally using a roadway at 20 km/h, injuring a pedestrian (not at a crossing), where the judge has accused him of using his car like a weapon - no matter how much inattention was involved.

The real problem is that this same attitude (by the judge) very much carries over to lenient sentencing of motorists who injure cyclists. The basic problem here is that we are seen as "outsiders", part of some underclass who deserve what we get - even when killed or maimed.

fat and old
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:06 pm

Cyclist wouldn’t have hit her...wouldn’t have been anywhere near her....if he’d acted legally, so don’t be throwing the “poor law abiding cyclist” speil around.

One of my issues with this thread is what appears to be a misrepresentation of what the judge said. Reading the article you originally linked sure looks cut and dried....but why not link the original article in the same paper?

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/ ... b88732030z

A DISTRICT Court judge yesterday described bicycles as potentially dangerous weapons ........

Judge Linda Petrusa told the court bicycles were capable of being used as weapons and said riders had to realise they were carrying great responsibility.........

Bicycles ride on the road and keep up with cars, so the suggestion that they can’t do harm and are somehow an innocuous instrument I find difficult to accept,” Judge Petrusa said..........

Whilst there are occasions when you as the cyclist are the one in the disadvantaged position, in comparison to pedestrians it is cyclists that represent the danger.

“You are the person who was in control of the weapon on this occasion and you must, and should be, as concerned for the safety of pedestrians as you would want those driving cars and vehicles to be.”


When read without selectively cherry picking sentences as in the linked article or has been presented here it seems reasonable to me.

Exactly what we as cyclists say about motor vehicles. Exactly how strict liability works.

Further, it seems to me that the judges comments were in answer to Mr Watts ( or possibly his mouthpiece’s) contention (either in court or elsewhere ref. “Watt, an avid cyclist who has been vocal about irresponsible road users”) that motor vehicles are used as weapons. She used his own argument against him. I’d like to see a full, accurate transcript of the case and any social media content produced by Watts.

Edit: one other issue I have. A number of outlets have had similar tangents :

The incident has sparked debate over whether riders should have to take out third party insurance, with cycling groups and councils calling for better separation between road users.


If everybody involved in this incident had used the existing infrastructure sensibly and legally there’d be no need.
Last edited by fat and old on Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uart
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby uart » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:01 pm

fat and old wrote:Cyclist wouldn’t have hit her...wouldn’t have been anywhere near her....if he’d acted legally, so don’t be throwing the “poor law abiding cyclist” speil around.

Oh seriously, he crossed at some pedestrian lights without pressing the frickin' button. Yeah chuck him in jail for that. I do that at least three times a day every day when the traffic is light, both as a ped and as a cyclist.

fat and old
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:19 pm

uart wrote:
fat and old wrote:Cyclist wouldn’t have hit her...wouldn’t have been anywhere near her....if he’d acted legally, so don’t be throwing the “poor law abiding cyclist” speil around.

Oh seriously, he crossed at some pedestrian lights without pressing the frickin' button. Yeah chuck him in jail for that. I do that at least three times a day every day when the traffic is light, both as a ped and as a cyclist.


How many people you put in hospital each day as a result?

Thought so. Stop apologising for every stupid thing cyclists do and apply some fair, rational thought.

fat and old
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:22 pm

Anyway, can you see the difference when looking at the article I linked? Does it seem possible that the judge used the weapon reference as a result of it being raised by someone else?

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby biker jk » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:22 pm

uart wrote:
fat and old wrote:Cyclist wouldn’t have hit her...wouldn’t have been anywhere near her....if he’d acted legally, so don’t be throwing the “poor law abiding cyclist” speil around.

Oh seriously, he crossed at some pedestrian lights without pressing the frickin' button. Yeah chuck him in jail for that. I do that at least three times a day every day when the traffic is light, both as a ped and as a cyclist.


I would have thought that failure to keep a proper lookout by the cyclist was the major illegality.

Philistine
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby Philistine » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:24 pm

fat and old wrote:Cyclist wouldn’t have hit her...wouldn’t have been anywhere near her....if he’d acted legally, so don’t be throwing the “poor law abiding cyclist” speil around.

One of my issues with this thread is what appears to be a misrepresentation of what the judge said. Reading the article you originally linked sure looks cut and dried....but why not link the original article in the same paper?



You seem to have been able to extract an enormous amount of information from three seconds of blurry video. Do you see him breaking the law? The report say that he likely crossed on a red light. If it was known that he crossed on a red there would be no "likely". In any case, he has left the lights behind as he proceeds along the road (apparently legally) where the accident took place.

I agree that the judge sounds a lot more measured in her remarks in the extended transcript you supplied. But what is this gibberish about bikes keeping up with cars?

fat and old
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:39 pm

Inner city commuting means usually passing cars. Reasonable comment by her, especially if she reads these forums and pays attention.

fat and old
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:11 pm

    Philistine wrote:
    You seem to have been able to extract an enormous amount of information from three seconds of blurry video.



    What I see, using the timer on the vid. Starts at 39 seconds, he hits cyclist at 23 seconds. 16 seconds of what was he up to?

    36 sec. starts looking around. Left then right. It could be said that he was looking for peds. in the mall. I don’t believe that. He was 5 metres from the crossing.

    35 sec. the first cars start moving across his direction of travel, from his left.

    34 - 30 sec. he’s clear of any peds. Looks left, right, left, right again.

    28 secs. he takes off hard. Looks left and right as he does. It’s worth looking at the other people waiting to cross. A sure sign that the lights have gone green is ped movement. Anywhere. No peds are moving. Vid changes at this point to the second POV.

    27 secs. first time we see traffic from the other direction. Bus is at speed, not taking off. Also see peds crossing both directions. Not from a standing start, just continuing their walk. Cyclist has cleared the far ped crossing by now.

    25 secs. Cyclist hits ped.

    No, I wasn’t there and cannot supply any “proof” beyond that. I’m making an assumption based on what I see, rationally and fairly in my opinion. 7 seconds before he crosses the intersection cars are crossing from his left. 1 second after he starts buses are crossing from his right.

    Edit. I’m doing this on a phone. I’m sure it’s clearer on a computer screen.
    Last edited by fat and old on Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

    uart
    Posts: 1320
    Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
    Location: Newcastle

    Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

    Postby uart » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:16 pm

    fat and old wrote:How many people you put in hospital each day as a result?
    Thought so. Stop apologising for every stupid thing cyclists do and apply some fair, rational thought.

    If you read my previous comments you will see that I have said (multiple times) that I think that the rider is guilty of some shockingly bad inattention to run straight into the woman like that. What I don't see however, is any evidence that the rider is otherwise riding recklessly - and yes, that includes him crossing at the pedestrian lights without pressing the button.

    fat and old wrote:Cyclist wouldn’t have hit her...wouldn’t have been anywhere near her....if he’d acted legally, so don’t be throwing the “poor law abiding cyclist” speil around.

    Look, once you start going down that path of "he never would have even been anywhere near her if", you might as well say that the whole incident never would have happened if he had driven his car that day, like any "normal" person, instead of being a lycra clad, tour de France wannabe, f-tard cyclist.

    The irony is however, if you did go down that particular rabbit hole, then you'd actually be a lot closer to the truth of why the judge thought him deserving of heavier penalties than a motorist under similar circumstances.

    fat and old
    Posts: 3212
    Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
    Location: Mill Park

    Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

    Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:39 pm

    uart wrote:
    fat and old wrote:Cyclist wouldn’t have hit her...wouldn’t have been anywhere near her....if he’d acted legally, so don’t be throwing the “poor law abiding cyclist” speil around.

    Look, once you start going down that path of "he never would have been anywhere near her if", you might as well say that the whole incident never would have happened if he had driven his car that day, like any "normal" person, instead of being a lycra clad, tour de France wannabe, f-tard cyclist.


    No. You may well say that.

    I’d say that if he’d behaved the same way driving his car through a red light into an unsuspecting (if idiotic) pedestrian he’d likely have killed her.

    It’s simple really. Apply the strict liability hierarchy of danger, act responsibly and that will get you through.

    And stop acting the victim. Too much of that around here. Enjoy your bike :D

    human909
    Posts: 8552
    Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

    Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

    Postby human909 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:12 pm

    fat and old wrote:I’d say that if he’d behaved the same way driving his car through a red light into an unsuspecting (if idiotic) pedestrian he’d likely have killed her.

    Huh!? But he wasn't going through a red light and he wasn't going through an intersection. But what does that have to do with anything?

    He was negligently innantentive. In the normal course of event motorists don't even get a ticket for such mistakes. Injure a bunch and you might get a minor infringement notice.
    EG:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-25/c ... sh/9084438

    Philistine
    Posts: 208
    Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

    Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

    Postby Philistine » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:16 pm

    fat and old wrote:
      Philistine wrote:
      You seem to have been able to extract an enormous amount of information from three seconds of blurry video.



      What I see, using the timer on the vid. Starts at 39 seconds, he hits cyclist at 23 seconds. 16 seconds of what was he up to?

      36 sec. starts looking around. Left then right. It could be said that he was looking for peds. in the mall. I don’t believe that. He was 5 metres from the crossing.

      35 sec. the first cars start moving across his direction of travel, from his left.

      34 - 30 sec. he’s clear of any peds. Looks left, right, left, right again.

      28 secs. he takes off hard. Looks left and right as he does. It’s worth looking at the other people waiting to cross. A sure sign that the lights have gone green is ped movement. Anywhere. No peds are moving. Vid changes at this point to the second POV.

      27 secs. first time we see traffic from the other direction. Bus is at speed, not taking off. Also see peds crossing both directions. Not from a standing start, just continuing their walk. Cyclist has cleared the far ped crossing by now.

      25 secs. Cyclist hits ped.



      When I first read this, I thought we were talking about 2 different videos, and then I realized you were counting backwards, but for what reason I have no idea.

      The first POV runs from time 0 to 10 seconds and gives us virtually no useful information, only a rich vein of speculation, in which you seem to specialize. The second POV runs from time 11 seconds to about 19 1/2 seconds then repeats twice, for reasons that escape me. And we assume that POV 2 begins in real time as soon as POV 1 ends, which is probably correct but by no means certain. The cyclist appears about the twelve second mark and the accident happens at about the sixteen second mark - hence my comment about 3 seconds (let's call it four) of blurry video.

      fat and old
      Posts: 3212
      Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
      Location: Mill Park

      Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

      Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:31 pm

      human909 wrote:
      fat and old wrote:I’d say that if he’d behaved the same way driving his car through a red light into an unsuspecting (if idiotic) pedestrian he’d likely have killed her.

      Huh!? But he wasn't going through a red light and he wasn't going through an intersection. But what does that have to do with anything?

      He was negligently innantentive. In the normal course of event motorists don't even get a ticket for such mistakes. Injure a bunch and you might get a minor infringement notice.
      EG:
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-25/c ... sh/9084438


      Have it your way on how it happened Human, a car doing the same thing would have had worse consequences, and given the victim I’d guess that the penalty would have been similar.

      I haven’t addressed the grossly inadequate penalties handed out to motor vehicles when cycles are the victims. I agree with you on the apparent disparities.

      fat and old
      Posts: 3212
      Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
      Location: Mill Park

      Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

      Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:44 pm

      Philistine wrote:
      fat and old wrote:
        Philistine wrote:
        You seem to have been able to extract an enormous amount of information from three seconds of blurry video.



        What I see, using the timer on the vid. Starts at 39 seconds, he hits cyclist at 23 seconds. 16 seconds of what was he up to?

        36 sec. starts looking around. Left then right. It could be said that he was looking for peds. in the mall. I don’t believe that. He was 5 metres from the crossing.

        35 sec. the first cars start moving across his direction of travel, from his left.

        34 - 30 sec. he’s clear of any peds. Looks left, right, left, right again.

        28 secs. he takes off hard. Looks left and right as he does. It’s worth looking at the other people waiting to cross. A sure sign that the lights have gone green is ped movement. Anywhere. No peds are moving. Vid changes at this point to the second POV.

        27 secs. first time we see traffic from the other direction. Bus is at speed, not taking off. Also see peds crossing both directions. Not from a standing start, just continuing their walk. Cyclist has cleared the far ped crossing by now.

        25 secs. Cyclist hits ped.



        When I first read this, I thought we were talking about 2 different videos, and then I realized you were counting backwards, but for what reason I have no idea.

        The first POV runs from time 0 to 10 seconds and gives us virtually no useful information, only a rich vein of speculation, in which you seem to specialize. The second POV runs from time 11 seconds to about 19 1/2 seconds then repeats twice, for reasons that escape me. And we assume that POV 2 begins in real time as soon as POV 1 ends, which is probably correct but by no means certain. The cyclist appears about the twelve second mark and the accident happens at about the sixteen second mark - hence my comment about 3 seconds (let's call it four) of blurry video.


        I was using the second counter on the right of the video; that’s why the backwards count.

        The cyclist was in 16 seconds of uninterrupted video, from 3 different cameras (not two as I indicated, sorry for that); from when it picked him up riding through the mall until he hit the ped. The last bit was repeated, dunno why.

        Apart from speculating on what he was looking at I see no other reason for claiming I was speculating on anything else? The amounts of time he looked each direction, the vehicle and ped movements; they’re all there, timed. Pretty clearly too. If you can’t see the cars driving across the intersection, the peds waiting to walk the same direction he crosses, the bus driving across the intersection or the peds walking across on the side he hit the girl in the same direction as the cars and buses then ok, you can’t. But they’re there. Filmed and timed.

        fat and old
        Posts: 3212
        Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
        Location: Mill Park

        Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

        Postby fat and old » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:54 pm

        Actually, I have a question on the red light point.

        IF this bloke was shown to have run a red light, when does that offence and it’s consequences cease? There’s a few people who appear to be saying that it doesn’t matter if he ran the light as after that he was riding legally.

        Is that really the case? Can I run a red in my car (yeah, let’s put a different vehicle in place now) then run a ped down 50 metres after the intersection and be considered to have been driving “legally”?

        I’m genuinely curious about this aspect as I had thought that hitting someone that soon after running a light would be seen as connected if that makes sense?

        eeksll
        Posts: 2448
        Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm

        Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

        Postby eeksll » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:08 pm

        fat and old wrote:Actually, I have a question on the red light point.

        IF this bloke was shown to have run a red light, when does that offence and it’s consequences cease? There’s a few people who appear to be saying that it doesn’t matter if he ran the light as after that he was riding legally.

        Is that really the case? Can I run a red in my car (yeah, let’s put a different vehicle in place now) then run a ped down 50 metres after the intersection and be considered to have been driving “legally”?

        I’m genuinely curious about this aspect as I had thought that hitting someone that soon after running a light would be seen as connected if that makes sense?


        I think just discussing that running the red light didn't increase the impact of the collision. Had the cyclist turned right onto that street (e.g in a legal maneuver) and done the same thing, the force of the impact would have been the same.

        But I agree, the running of the red light can't be ignored. In much the same way the impact on the victim can not be ignored even though such severe injuries in such a collision would be extremely rare.

        eeksll
        Posts: 2448
        Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm

        Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

        Postby eeksll » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:12 pm

        fat and old wrote:Anyway, can you see the difference when looking at the article I linked? Does it seem possible that the judge used the weapon reference as a result of it being raised by someone else?


        Good pickup, usually I read these news articles with a fair amount of skepticism knowing they cherry pick comments. However, I did not even consider it in this case for whatever reason.

        uart
        Posts: 1320
        Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
        Location: Newcastle

        Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

        Postby uart » Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:13 pm

        fat and old wrote:Actually, I have a question on the red light point.
        IF this bloke was shown to have run a red light, when does that offence and it’s consequences cease?


        FAO, do you have any shared paths around where you ride which have pedestrian/bike lights at some road crossing points? This one for example is on the Fernleigh track (Newcastle) fairly close to where I live.
        Image

        https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-32.9620619,151.7183392,3a,75y,183.45h,65.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDYPWvYSgm7IO5dlChEWD7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

        Myself, and 90% of other adult riders, usually just stop or slow here before crossing (without pressing the button). My question is this. Say that I stop here and then cross (without using the button) and I then collide with a pedestrian stepping out in front of me from the seat area ahead. How much did me not pressing the button contribute to this? How far up the track do I have to ride before it's not a contributing factor. As I say, 90% of adult riders (hundreds of riders) cross like this every day. Are they opening themselves up to a potential jail sentence should a pedestrian step out in front of them after crossing? Do you think that they should be liable to a jail sentence for this?
        Last edited by uart on Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

        Scott_C
        Posts: 671
        Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
        Location: Perth, WA

        Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

        Postby Scott_C » Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:01 am

        uart wrote:Are they opening themselves up to a potential jail sentence should a pedestrian step out in front of them after crossing? Do you think that they should be liable to a jail sentence for this?

        As it appears to be a shared path then regardless of what you do before hand you are facing a potential jail sentence. In the eyes of the Road Rules pedestrians on or crossing a shared path have the same unfettered right of way that they have walking across a zebra crossing on a road. Basically, if it is at all possible for the bike to have avoided them (including by riding slower on approach) then the bike rider is at fault for the collision and could be prosecuted if the pedestrian is seriously injured in the collision.

        human909
        Posts: 8552
        Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

        Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

        Postby human909 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:51 am

        fat and old wrote:Have it your way on how it happened Human, a car doing the same thing would have had worse consequences, and given the victim I’d guess that the penalty would have been similar.

        From my reading of past situations the penalty certainly isn't similar for motor vehicles. In fact much of the time there are no consequences at all.

        Take for example this:
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-17/p ... on/6125980

        We even have a good dose of victim blaming on the same day of her death. :evil:
        "Police said it appeared to be an unfortunate reminder of the "ultimate sacrifice" pedestrians can pay by disobeying road rules."

        I could dig up dozens of pedestrian incidents. Most don't make it to court as when pedestrians are crossing illegally the police generally rule it their fault and case close. Not charges come of it.
        http://www.news.com.au/national/victori ... 1ddf646893

        Philistine
        Posts: 208
        Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

        Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

        Postby Philistine » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:24 am

        Not totally on topic but relevant in respect to where the discussion has sometimes drifted.

        About six months ago, I had just crossed the railway bridge at Casula (Sydney SW) and was heading south at the start of the Leacock Park bike path. I was going slowly, having just clipped in, when I saw what appeared to be a bundle of rags strewn across the path. I might have ridden over it if I had been on my MTB, but I was on my roadie so I stopped. It turned out to be a sleeping drunk, who was lying transverse to my direction of travel, and managing to cover the full width of the path. Maybe I don't get around enough, but I'm not used to seeing drunks sleeping on bike paths at 11.00 in the morning, and I thought he was sick. Once I realized my error, I was sorely tempted to help him on his way with my foot - but I contented myself with a few well-chosen words of character assessment.

        If I had ridden into him, could I have been charged?

        fat and old
        Posts: 3212
        Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
        Location: Mill Park

        Re: Judges comments about using a bicycle as a weapon?

        Postby fat and old » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:24 am

        human909 wrote:
        fat and old wrote:Have it your way on how it happened Human, a car doing the same thing would have had worse consequences, and given the victim I’d guess that the penalty would have been similar.

        From my reading of past situations the penalty certainly isn't similar for motor vehicles. In fact much of the time there are no consequences at all.

        Take for example this:
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-17/p ... on/6125980

        We even have a good dose of victim blaming on the same day of her death. :evil:
        "Police said it appeared to be an unfortunate reminder of the "ultimate sacrifice" pedestrians can pay by disobeying road rules."

        I could dig up dozens of pedestrian incidents. Most don't make it to court as when pedestrians are crossing illegally the police generally rule it their fault and case close. Not charges come of it.
        http://www.news.com.au/national/victori ... 1ddf646893


        Then dig one up where the motor vehicle was being driven in an illegal manner just before they hit the ped.

        The problem here Human is that the cyclist was clearly shown to have been so self absorbed in his task of getting across the road without being run over he didn’t look and see the ped who was on her own, in the middle of the road right in front of him. He took a second to get between oncoming traffic across 4 lanes coming from both directions. There were peds just clearing the crossing in front of him on his left. He dealt with all of it, but missed the one in the middle and hit her. Maybe he did see her and thought she’d move...although that scenario was not reported on and it seems wasn’t raised?

        I know you think that running the red (yeah, I have no doubt he did) has nothing to do with it, but it does. It shows a person in a hurry, who is prepared to cut corners to get where he’s going. Like it or not it goes to character.

        None of the incidents you linked indicated that the trucks were being driven dangerously prior to hitting the ped.

        We disagree on the idea of responsibility and consequences of actions. That’s ok, I’ll live with that. :)

        Edit. TBH in consideration of the thread title this is a bit O/T. I’m wondering what your and uart’s view is on the “weapon” side? I really see it differently reading her comments a second time.

        Who is online

        Users browsing this forum: No registered users