Driver doesn't give way and almost kills cyclist - $400 fine

[high_tea]

As far as I am aware, failing to give way is a traffic offence, not a criminal one.

Crminal offenses usually accrue when the ante is upped in terms of personal damage/injury etc

What statute creates this distinction? And what does it mean anyway? I infer from the quoted article that you can be tried and convicted of a beach of the Road Rules. Gaol isn't an option, but that's true of quite a few criminal offences.

I'm no legal eagle but traffic offenses are summary (?)
IOW all a guilty verdict requires is the proof that you performed the action (and its usually given a standard penalty - like for instance failing to stop at a stop sign = $x fine). There is no capacity for such offenses to bleed through into moral correctiveness (such as in the case of damage to property or individuals ... or even prolonged incidences of traffic offenses for that matter - eg history of speeding, unpaid fines etc).

On account of this distinction, criminal offenses tend to stick while traffic offfenses don't

Thats why many employers generally ask their potential employees about any criminal history they have and also why certain professional fields straight out prohibit persons with a specific criminal history from practicing in certain fields

Okay, it's now clear to me that you're talking through your hat. Please stop spreading misinformation.

[Cheesewheel]

What statute creates this distinction? And what does it mean anyway? I infer from the quoted article that you can be tried and convicted of a beach of the Road Rules. Gaol isn't an option, but that's true of quite a few criminal offences.

I'm no legal eagle but traffic offenses are summary (?)
IOW all a guilty verdict requires is the proof that you performed the action (and its usually given a standard penalty - like for instance failing to stop at a stop sign = $x fine). There is no capacity for such offenses to bleed through into moral correctiveness (such as in the case of damage to property or individuals ... or even prolonged incidences of traffic offenses for that matter - eg history of speeding, unpaid fines etc).

On account of this distinction, criminal offenses tend to stick while traffic offfenses don't

Thats why many employers generally ask their potential employees about any criminal history they have and also why certain professional fields straight out prohibit persons with a specific criminal history from practicing in certain fields

Okay, it's now clear to me that you're talking through your hat. Please stop spreading misinformation.

errr ... okay. Hopefully if you ever need to understand the distinction your lawyer or the cop that nabs you can help you out

[il padrone]

Not so sure about that HT. Crimes go onto a person's criminal record - things like assault, theft, fraud etc. Traffic offences generally do not - certainly not simple traffic fines (TINs). A dangerous driving charge, or certainly a culpable driving charge would be recorded as a crime.

[high_tea]

Not so sure about that HT. Crimes go onto a person's criminal record - things like assault, theft, fraud etc. Traffic offences generally do not - certainly not simple traffic fines (TINs). A dangerous driving charge, or certainly a culpable driving charge would be recorded as a crime.

The driver didn't get issued with a TIN. They got charged, albeit with a tupenny-hapenny criminal offence. They could have been issued with a "ticket" for the same offence, which seems to be causing some confusion. The police reckoned going to court reflected the gravity of the situation That's how I understand the news report anyway.

[il padrone]

Uhuh. I think we got well away from the OP. I was not thinking about the specifics of this case when distinguishing criminal from non-criminal offences.

[high_tea]

Uhuh. I think we got well away from the OP. I was not thinking about the specifics of this case when distinguishing criminal from non-criminal offences.

Well, the claim that "As far as I am aware, failing to give way is ... not a criminal one." is demonstrably untrue. The case described in the OP illustrates this.

There was a flap up here awhile ago about all these teachers with criminal records. It turned out that some non-trivial number of them were just people who had got a TIN, court-elected and lost.

I'm uneasy with the way TINs trivialise something that is already taken far too lightly - operating a motor vehicle responsibly. But the legal mechanism by which they work is simple: the state takes your money and, in return, agrees not to charge you. Everybody's happy - the motorist keeps a clean criminal record and the State's courts keep working. I wouldn't call this a bribe, not exactly, but there are some mighty uncomfortable parallels.