Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

[cp123]

Quote from the Riot Act website (where this originally came from).


Actual News:

I contacted the ACT police, and the driver, ‘Jim’, got a Traffic Infringement Notice for ‘fail to give way’.

Anyone know how many points/dollars this is?

[hannos]

is that all he got?


ACT Police are soft

[DavidTomic]

Quote from the Riot Act website (where this originally came from).


Actual News:

I contacted the ACT police, and the driver, ‘Jim’, got a Traffic Infringement Notice for ‘fail to give way’.

Perfect timing. I was just thinking about this and wondering if anything had actually come of it yet.

Anyone know how many points/dollars this is?

3 demerit points ... although I'm not sure about the fine (if any)?

http://www.rego.act.gov.au/infringement ... emerit.htm

EDIT: According to the ACT Police website, it looks like it should be a $291 fine.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/sl/20 ... 005-11.pdf

Interestingly, in Victoria, the fine is less than half of that ($140.81)

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonl ... 201213.pdf

[gururug]

Definitely warranted another fine, maybe wreckless driving if endangering life is not on the cards.

[DavidTomic]

Definitely warranted another fine, maybe wreckless driving if endangering life is not on the cards.

I presume the fact that the cyclist didn't actually come off or get injured probably played a role in that!

[KonaCommuter]

Quote from the Riot Act website (where this originally came from).


Actual News:

I contacted the ACT police, and the driver, ‘Jim’, got a Traffic Infringement Notice for ‘fail to give way’.

Manifestly inadequate. The Police fail again to protect the community.

[jcjordan]

is that all he got?


ACT Police are soft

Its not the cops but the courts. In this case it was probably the best that they could do without going to court.

All you have to do here is give a bit of a sob story, say sorry and you can get away with almost anything.

Hell you cant be found guilty of murder here unless the prosecution can prove that you intention was to kill prior to the event.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

[exadios]

is that all he got?


ACT Police are soft

Its not the cops but the courts. In this case it was probably the best that they could do without going to court.

All you have to do here is give a bit of a sob story, say sorry and you can get away with almost anything.

Hell you cant be found guilty of murder here unless the prosecution can prove that you intention was to kill prior to the event.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

I think that this is one offense that should have gone to court.

[Oxford]

whilst I find the punishment lacking, at least punishment was meted out. I only hope that others do not think that they could possibly get away with similar actions without being accountable for it.

however given the evidence (video), it is arguably an easier prosecution for additional offences that do not need a measure of malice to be successful. offences in addition to the failure to give way such as driving without due care and attention and others that do not have a degree of intent attached would I assume be a good chance of being successful.

[find_bruce]

whilst I find the punishment lacking, at least punishment was meted out. I only hope that others do not think that they could possibly get away with similar actions without being accountable for it.

however given the evidence (video), it is arguably an easier prosecution for additional offences that do not need a measure of malice to be successful. offences in addition to the failure to give way such as driving without due care and attention and others that do not have a degree of intent attached would I assume be a good chance of being successful.

I agree with the sentiment & had drafted a rant about how the driver should have been charged with negligent driving. Then I checked the penalties.

In the ACT a failure to give way to a vehicle involving a left hand turn has a maximum court imposed fine of 20 penalty units ($2,200) , an infringement notice fine of $291 and 3 demerit points. Negligent driving has the same maximum court imposed fine & demerit points but for some peculiar reason the infringement notice fine is only $230.

The problem is that the fines for negligent driving in the ACT (and the NSW legislative scheme they have largely adopted) depend upon the outcome -

• if a person dies (negligent driving occasioning death), you go to court & face a maximum fine of $22,000 and or 2 years in prison & disqualified from driving for at least 3 months
  
• a person is seriously injured (negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm) you go to court & face a maximum fine of $11,000 and or 1 year in prison & disqualified from driving for at least 3 months
  
• in any other case of negligent driving you get a slap on the wrist of $230 and 3 demerit points, unless the prosecutor decides to take you to court for a maximum fine of $2,200

In this case there appears to be just millimetres from the cyclist getting very serious injuries, but the driver only gets a slap on the wrist.

It reminds me very much of the Workcover prosecutions of the 90s and early naughties - near miss nothing much happens, fatality then they threw the book. It is only more recently they have understood that reducing the near misses reduces the number of fatalities.

So in short, keep the pressure on the cops to prosecute near misses & just maybe we might start seeing a reduction in serious injuries & fatalities.

[Oxford]

...

So in short, keep the pressure on the cops to prosecute near misses & just maybe we might start seeing a reduction in serious injuries & fatalities.

absolutely agree. look after the pennies, the pounds look after themselves.

[zero]

whilst I find the punishment lacking, at least punishment was meted out. I only hope that others do not think that they could possibly get away with similar actions without being accountable for it.

however given the evidence (video), it is arguably an easier prosecution for additional offences that do not need a measure of malice to be successful. offences in addition to the failure to give way such as driving without due care and attention and others that do not have a degree of intent attached would I assume be a good chance of being successful.

I agree with the sentiment & had drafted a rant about how the driver should have been charged with negligent driving. Then I checked the penalties.

In the ACT a failure to give way to a vehicle involving a left hand turn has a maximum court imposed fine of 20 penalty units ($2,200) , an infringement notice fine of $291 and 3 demerit points. Negligent driving has the same maximum court imposed fine & demerit points but for some peculiar reason the infringement notice fine is only $230.

Negligence can involve incidents were there was no actual other person or vehicle present. Fail to giveway automatically implies the presence of another person or vehicle. Hence negligence has a lower penalty at the bottom end of the scale.

The problem is that the fines for negligent driving in the ACT (and the NSW legislative scheme they have largely adopted) depend upon the outcome -

• if a person dies (negligent driving occasioning death), you go to court & face a maximum fine of $22,000 and or 2 years in prison & disqualified from driving for at least 3 months
  
• a person is seriously injured (negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm) you go to court & face a maximum fine of $11,000 and or 1 year in prison & disqualified from driving for at least 3 months
  
• in any other case of negligent driving you get a slap on the wrist of $230 and 3 demerit points, unless the prosecutor decides to take you to court for a maximum fine of $2,200

In this case there appears to be just millimetres from the cyclist getting very serious injuries, but the driver only gets a slap on the wrist.

It reminds me very much of the Workcover prosecutions of the 90s and early naughties - near miss nothing much happens, fatality then they threw the book. It is only more recently they have understood that reducing the near misses reduces the number of fatalities.

So in short, keep the pressure on the cops to prosecute near misses & just maybe we might start seeing a reduction in serious injuries & fatalities.

I agree the world is slowly changing, in that in the future, most transport collisions may well be captured on digital video, and therefore many more close calls/poor behavior/at fault parties will be dealt with.

The other end IMO is to put a dirty great carrot and stick into the CTP system. As it stands, a driver can do $500,000 damage to a person (ie lifetime permanent disability support), and not pay anything for it, because its a feature of CTP that the driver is indemnified. IMO that should be changed to a means tested ratio, such that part of cost recovery comes from the at fault party. Insurers actuaries are perfectly experienced with the task of setting overall rates given that some drivers will take considerable effort to extract their contribution from.

The net effect would be to transfer some burden from people registering cars that never have collisions, and never injure anyone, to those that do. ie CTP is good, it just needs to be adjusted so as to not to indemnify the driver entirely out of their duty to make good in a civil situation, and not just throw that burden out over the entire driving public.

Consider that if I caused a permanent disability injury to a pedestrian with my bicycle, I'd almost certainly lose my house (asides from the fact that I don't ever want to injure someone just because I like transport), its certainly a useful motivator in terms of riding past pedestrians on sharepaths much more slowly.

[ColinOldnCranky]

is that all he got?


ACT Police are soft

Hell you cant be found guilty of murder here unless the prosecution can prove that you intention was to kill prior to the event.

Well, yes. That is what murder is - intentionally killing someone. Generally although many governments have been chipping away so the unintentional death can be treated as murder.

The trouble with lowering the bar like that is that someone who GENUINELY went out of their way to kill someone (to inherit anothers persons wealth, to avenge some insult or stake a claim on some gangland turf for example) would be no worse than an act of gross stupidity which is what things like Jims mowing incident fits very well.

Though I certainly find that "failing to give way" is an outright joke if that is what was the outcome. There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.

[human909]

There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.

Unfortunately there really isn't much else. There is dangerous driving, but given the driver wasn't speeding that is unlikely to stick the way our approach to road justice opperates

If that had been a car rather than a cyclists there really wouldn't be much more demand for more punishment. And currently the notion that vulnerable road users should be protected on our roads isn't really in existence. Unless you are drunk or speeding you can get away with pretty any "accident" on our roads except if it results in death.

That is the sad situation.

[ColinOldnCranky]

There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.

Unfortunately there really isn't much else. There is dangerous driving, but given the driver wasn't speeding that is unlikely to stick the way our approach to road justice opperates

You may be right though I find that relying on speed as a prerequisite for dangerous driving to be problem too. Driving through South Terrace Freo on a Saturday evening at the legal speed limit would hopefully be considered to be at least dangerous. Though after the Jim's incident, if it is as reported by cp123, one would wonder.

cp123, are you the one who contacted the police? Or did you see this somewhere? And was the charge dangerous driving or were there more serious charges also laid and the court chose to go with failing to give way?

[Oxford]

speeding is not necessarily exceeding the speed limit, it can also be defined as exceeding a speed that is reasonable under the circumstances. and in this situation I would argue the driver was "speeding" ie exceeding a speed that was reasonable under the circumstances. if he were not "speeding", then the situation that unfolded could and should have been avoided.

[ColinOldnCranky]

speeding is not necessarily exceeding the speed limit, it can also be defined as exceeding a speed that is reasonable under the circumstances. and in this situation I would argue the driver was "speeding" ie exceeding a speed that was reasonable under the circumstances. if he were not "speeding", then the situation that unfolded could and should have been avoided.

And that would be a reasonable way to apply the term. Wouldn't it be great if that was indeed how the system works?

I suspect that in some places it does and others it doesn't. The NT for example, would still be allowing the cannonball run as a lawful activity if it wasn't for the publics disquiet that some retiree died as a result of the event's stupid concept.

[jcjordan]

is that all he got?


ACT Police are soft

Hell you cant be found guilty of murder here unless the prosecution can prove that you intention was to kill prior to the event.

Well, yes. That is what murder is - intentionally killing someone. Generally although many governments have been chipping away so the unintentional death can be treated as murder.

The trouble with lowering the bar like that is that someone who GENUINELY went out of their way to kill someone (to inherit anothers persons wealth, to avenge some insult or stake a claim on some gangland turf for example) would be no worse than an act of gross stupidity which is what things like Jims mowing incident fits very well.

Though I certainly find that "failing to give way" is an outright joke if that is what was the outcome. There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.

The way its interprited here is that if you should get into a fight or something and kill the person it cant be murder as you did not arrive with that intent. Even i you decided to kill them due to the argument or what ever its not murder.

We are the only State/Territory that interprets it that way, got to love our Human Rights ACT. Takes away more then it gives.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

[jindydiver]

speeding is not necessarily exceeding the speed limit, it can also be defined as exceeding a speed that is reasonable under the circumstances. and in this situation I would argue the driver was "speeding" ie exceeding a speed that was reasonable under the circumstances. if he were not "speeding", then the situation that unfolded could and should have been avoided.

They were speeding for sure. The speed limit on that piece of road is only 40kph

[MikeyD360]

Having melted my brain by reading the ninemsn comments (and dying a little inside at how completely neanderthal most of the population is) all I can say is.

You are all Stupid Mouths.

[cp123]

Colin - no - it's not me in that film, nor the videoer nor anything. I first saw this on the Riot Act website (A canberra local goss rag). I know Ross is another local and he brought it here.


I guess I was just fairly appalled when I saw the comment on the RA website that outlined what the police action was.



You'd hate to have to be splattered before they really slap someone on the wrist.