Philistine wrote:
If someone is in a public place, performing an activity that, if improperly performed, can result in death or serious injury to innocent people, you would have to be a moron (not you TG - the minister) to blather on about "privacy issues".
well put, I'd add .......
is in a public place, breaking the law whilst performing an activity that, if improperly performed, can result in death or serious injury to innocent people...
Privacy argument looks very similar to claims that speed cameras are a Tax on motorists - no problem if don't break law.
back to OP last week the driver appealed sentence following the severe injury of a Ballarat cyclist:
A DRUG-affected Victorian woman who crashed into a cyclist and left him for dead wants a shorter sentence because her victim didn’t die.
Rebekah Stewart’s lawyer argued in the Victorian Court of Appeal on Tuesday that her victim, Christian Ashby, didn’t die, so her sentence should be reduced.............
http://www.news.com.au/national/victori ... c0502900cb
somewhere mixed up in all this is how charging and sentencing works and I've always been a bit puzzled by some of the arguments around cycling - in that a lot of traffic offences are what I'd call absolute and don't depend on the outcome of the action (pretty sure if I went looking for sentencing philosophy articles there would be a more correct term) - Red light running, Speeding, Using a mobile, Ignoring a traffic sign - doesn't matter what the consequence is or if there isn't any consequence then they are still an offence
When it comes to Dangerous Driving and for those that have it Close Passing of Cyclists then the focus seems entirely on the outcome - no injury = no offence?
Sometimes this even seems to degrade further to no intent to injure = no offence
All a bit puzzling to me