Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby cp123 » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:20 pm

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?



:evil: :roll:
cp123
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

by BNA » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:21 pm

BNA
 

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby hannos » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:21 pm

is that all he got?


ACT Police are soft
2010 BMC SLC01
Image
User avatar
hannos
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby DavidTomic » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:25 pm

cp123 wrote: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
Last edited by DavidTomic on Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
DavidTomic
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Caroline Springs, VIC

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby gururug » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:32 pm

Definitely warranted another fine, maybe wreckless driving if endangering life is not on the cards.
User avatar
gururug
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:05 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby DavidTomic » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:48 pm

gururug wrote: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!
User avatar
DavidTomic
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Caroline Springs, VIC

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby KonaCommuter » Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:13 pm

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.
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby jcjordan » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:33 pm

hannos wrote: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
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby exadios » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:14 am

jcjordan wrote:
hannos wrote: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.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Oxford » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:34 am

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.
Life is not about waiting for the rain to pass.....it's about learning to dance (or ride) in the rain.
- anonymous
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 4739
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby find_bruce » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:36 pm

Oxford wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Oxford » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:47 pm

find_bruce wrote:...

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.
Life is not about waiting for the rain to pass.....it's about learning to dance (or ride) in the rain.
- anonymous
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 4739
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby zero » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:14 pm

find_bruce wrote:
Oxford wrote: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.
zero
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:01 pm

jcjordan wrote:
hannos wrote: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.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby human909 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:49 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote: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 :roll:

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.
human909
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:59 pm

human909 wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote: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 :roll:


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?
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Oxford » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:06 pm

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.
Life is not about waiting for the rain to pass.....it's about learning to dance (or ride) in the rain.
- anonymous
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 4739
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:36 pm

Oxford wrote: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.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby jcjordan » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:21 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
jcjordan wrote:
hannos wrote: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
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby jindydiver » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:20 am

Oxford wrote: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
jindydiver
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby MikeyD360 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:35 pm

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.
Image
2012 Fuji SST1.0 stealth (full Ultegra)
2010 Merida TFS400D Hybrid
MikeyD360
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:56 am

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby cp123 » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:18 pm

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 :lol: 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.
cp123
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Ross » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:16 pm

I saw a cyclist today wearing full Jim's Mowing kit!
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3675
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby mikedufty » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:39 pm

jcjordan wrote: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.

Wow, I didn't realise murder was defined differently between states/territories. In WA the criteria is that you intended to cause grevious bodily harm at the time the murder was committed. Still hard to get a jury to agree it is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a jury when noone can define what is reasonable doubt.
User avatar
mikedufty
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Western Australia, Bull Creek

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby skull » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:24 pm

Ross wrote:I saw a cyclist today wearing full Jim's Mowing kit!


There is a cyclist that has his own jims mowing franchise here in canberra.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
User avatar
skull
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:30 pm

I find it interesting that the driver was not aware that he made contact with the cyclist. I occasionally drive a vehicle with a trailer and take extra care not to wipe out other road users with the trailer. You can drive with your brain switched on, where your actions have consequences or drive with your brain switched off, where your only priority is to get where you are going, take no consideration of other road users and where your actions don't affect others.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter