Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
Colin a minor but important correction - the driver did not plead guilty - the court found he was so mentally disordered so as not to be able to plead guilty or not guilty or to go through the process of a trial
He has the knowledge to be able to disable an interlock but he isn't fit to stand trial?
Somebody, anybody please explain the logic in this?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
From re-reading the ABC's coverage I am guessing that the prosecution offered the family the option of having him face a lesser charge to which he would agree to plead guilty. And that they were not satisfied with the level of punishment that would have involved. Seeking revenge, is neither smart nor necessarily noble, though perfectly understandable.
I don't see any reference to appealing the outcome so I guess that that is that. No winners, all losers.
Hmmm. The more I read the more confusing it becomes. It looks like it may have made no difference whatsoever to what the family did or did not do, the outcome would seem to be constrained to about what it was anyway.
Reading media reports on court action is a lost cause.
Go extra light - lose what's forward of the seat
It was his car, he installed the interlock & he was given the pin. Fitness to stand trial usually comes down to knowing the difference between right and wrong
Because different parts of the brain look after different functions, a brain injury can be very debilitating in one area while leaving another completly functional. Pretty much every cyclist can relate to the difference between the physical ability to aim a car in the general direction you want to go & the judgement required to drive safely.
It is easy to explain the difference between the ability to carry out a function & knowing the difference between right and wrong.
The driver has carers who are meant to be looking after him. Given the driver has been found to have so little judgement that he can't comprehend the difference between right and wrong, I can't even begin to understand why those carers thought it was appropriate for him to have access to a motor vehicle, especially when he has 4 drink driving convictions in 10 years.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users