Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:59 pm
That's hilarious. You need a forklift .... just to see into the back tray
BNA - For the Australian Cycling Community
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/
Dealing with young people who often have done something that contravenes the rules, I am absolutely stunned and amazed how they will argue black is white and deny any responsibility, lying bare-faced, even when the evidence against them is blatantly clear..... even when I have seen the misdemeanour.rogan wrote: Jim is of poor character. Persons of poor character, the ones who will not stop, will generally also be willing to lie, prevaricate, delay and avoid, and otherwise only ever own up to the most inconceivable but theoretically possible version of events that provides the best outcome for themselves.
I would think that if you lack the situational awareness to know when you are exceeding the speed limit then you are probably missing a number of other things as well. If you are having trouble keeping below the speed limit and keeping a good lookout then you should slow down. Simple really.SmellyTofu wrote:ldrcycles wrote: But if I spent more time looking at the road than worry about 3kmh, I'd be a safer driver. Driving/riding safety is way bigger than a fraction over the already low limit.
But meh, I'll continue to swerve erratically under the limit because "I'm safe under the speed limit"
That is good news. WRT the debate over who was in the right I would think that would be clear from the video.cp123 wrote:holy bloody cow... http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist
ACT Police confirmed to ninemsn they have made contact with the motorist and are considering whether to press charges. c'mon fellas - slap him with a neg driving charge!!!!!
Oops... started reading the comments. I must be a masochist.exadios wrote:That is good news. WRT the debate over was in the right I would think that would be clear from the video.cp123 wrote:holy bloody cow... http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist
ACT Police confirmed to ninemsn they have made contact with the motorist and are considering whether to press charges. c'mon fellas - slap him with a neg driving charge!!!!!
Similar, but more to the point.Mulger bill wrote:You forgot the "might is right" argument posed quite often.
Who said "they" actually finished school at all ?elStado wrote:
How can these people be allowed to finish school without understanding such basic laws and principles?
Don't read these comments then...elStado wrote:Oops... started reading the comments. I must be a masochist.exadios wrote:That is good news. WRT the debate over was in the right I would think that would be clear from the video.cp123 wrote:holy bloody cow... http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist
ACT Police confirmed to ninemsn they have made contact with the motorist and are considering whether to press charges. c'mon fellas - slap him with a neg driving charge!!!!!
Honestly though, all this constant chatter about rego/road tax, rights to be on the road etc makes you think that people have NFI what they are talking about? How can these people be allowed to finish school without understanding such basic laws and principles? We need to have a massive and ongoing public awareness campaign to drive the point home to these people.
othy wrote:Looks like someone from Jims has gone into damage control. Much different attitude to what was displayed on their facebook page:
Can't confirm is its legitimate, as its just in the comments section of the newsAndrew Kelly21 minutes ago
Good afternoon,
It is with some disappointment to find this one-sided story.
The headline, Cyclist Catches Hit & Run, suggests that the driver of the vehicle, a Jim’s Mowing franchisee, was aware that he made contact with the cyclist and failed to stop. This is in fact, not the case.
Jim's Group has gone to great lengths to make contact with the cyclist.
Unfortunately, the franchisee was totally unaware that he made any contact.
Jim’s Group first became aware of the accident when it was posted on YouTube.
Obviously, when made aware of the accident, Jim’s Group acted immediately. We located and spoke with the franchisee, who was unaware that the accident even occurred.
We also made immediate contact with police and reported the accident to them. We believe we were the first to do so.
Finally, we e-mailed the cyclist, offering our sincerist apologies and offered in writing to pay for any damage that the accident may have caused to the bicycle. We are yet to hear back from the cyclist, despite three separate e-mails being sent to him.
We are hoping to obtain the footage of the accident to show to new franchisees in training, highlighting the challenges of towing a trailer and to ensure that this kind of accident does not occur again. We also want to utilise it internally to educate more of our 3000 Jim’s franchisees.
As a group, we are deeply upset that the accident took place and we care for the wellbing of the cyclist. Fortunately, he appears to have escaped any injury.
Kind regards, Jim Penman, Jim's Group Founder
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/849 ... by-cyclist
Whilst the driver says that he did not know that he hit the cyclist, one alternative explanation is that he did not CARE if he hit the cyclist, nor indeed whether the cyclist lived or died.stanevelyn wrote:VERY INTERESTING: That the driver did not know that he hit the cyclist.. It begs the question... Was the driver aware that he was towing a trailer?
another is that he realised that he had hit the cyclist, then quickly determined that his "best" option was to drive off and deny knowledge of hitting him if he got found out. this is pretty obviously at least a possibility, and Jim Penman's purported defense of his franchisee, asserting that he didn't know he'd hit the cyclist, if really posted by him, is self serving.find_bruce wrote:Whilst the driver says that he did not know that he hit the cyclist, one alternative explanation is that he did not CARE if he hit the cyclist, nor indeed whether the cyclist lived or died.
Classicfind_bruce wrote:I mean the only other explanation is that you have no recollection or comprehension of what you said less than 12 hours before.exadios wrote:You will note that I did not say that corporations can sue for defamation. I said they can sue for a "type of defamation" - under different legislation.
Perfect timing. I was just thinking about this and wondering if anything had actually come of it yet.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’.
3 demerit points ... although I'm not sure about the fine (if any)?Anyone know how many points/dollars this is?
I presume the fact that the cyclist didn't actually come off or get injured probably played a role in that!gururug wrote:Definitely warranted another fine, maybe wreckless driving if endangering life is not on the cards.
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’.
hannos wrote:is that all he got?
ACT Police are soft
I think that this is one offense that should have gone to court.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 agree with the sentiment & had drafted a rant about how the driver should have been charged with negligent driving. Then I checked the penalties.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.
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.find_bruce wrote: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.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.
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.
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 problem is that the fines for negligent driving in the ACT (and the NSW legislative scheme they have largely adopted) depend upon the outcome -
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.
- 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
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.
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.jcjordan wrote:Hell you cant be found guilty of murder here unless the prosecution can prove that you intention was to kill prior to the event.hannos wrote:is that all he got?
ACT Police are soft
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 opperatesColinOldnCranky wrote:There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.