Moron Motorists #3
- Lukeyboy
- Posts: 3621
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby Lukeyboy » Wed May 01, 2013 9:33 pm
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby trailgumby » Wed May 01, 2013 10:15 pm
- Aushiker
- Posts: 22395
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
- Location: Walyalup land
- Contact:
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby Aushiker » Wed May 01, 2013 10:23 pm
Have you actually done this? If so would be interested in where you found the setting.Lukeyboy wrote:If you want to datestamp the footage on your gopro it will be in the settings menu under the extras section.
I have just rechecked the GoPro Hero3 Black Edition manual and cannot find anything about date stamping videos. All I have found is where to set the date and time to ensure the videos are stored with the correct date/time. Not quite the same thing.
Andrew
Aushiker.com
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby jules21 » Wed May 01, 2013 10:25 pm
it's still a criminal matter and subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt, i'm fairly sure. there's a funny distinction between criminal matters (which are all of those with offences attached to them), which include those which don't result in a criminal record, and civil matters - which are for damages arising from negligence. one of the real lawyers can explain it more good.trailgumby wrote:Senior Constable David Hayes is certainly displaying his lack of legal training. This is a traffic offence, not a criminal offence. Unless I'm very much mistaken, beyond reasonable doubt does not apply.
i agree. hard to see why establishing precise time is necessary.trailgumby wrote: Furthermore, exact time of offence (eg to the minute) is unlikely to be material to the offence being proven.
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed May 01, 2013 11:07 pm
Agree that anything that is an "offence" is not a civil matter. Offences are against the people/the state/the crown etc, not an individual.jules21 wrote:it's still a criminal matter and subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt, i'm fairly sure. there's a funny distinction between criminal matters (which are all of those with offences attached to them), which include those which don't result in a criminal record, and civil matters - which are for damages arising from negligence. one of the real lawyers can explain it more good.trailgumby wrote:Senior Constable David Hayes is certainly displaying his lack of legal training. This is a traffic offence, not a criminal offence. Unless I'm very much mistaken, beyond reasonable doubt does not apply.i agree. hard to see why establishing precise time is necessary.trailgumby wrote: Furthermore, exact time of offence (eg to the minute) is unlikely to be material to the offence being proven.
However my understanding of whether an offence is criminal or not depends on the severity of the offence, usually determined by whether it is a custodial sentence and the length thereof.
There CAN be an offence that is not criminal. Most traffic offences would not carry any possibility of a custodial sentence and so would not be a criminal offence. Of course, sometimes there is an option on what the prosecutor charges so, for two of the same silly actions one could be criminal and one could not.
I THINK it makes no difference on whether or not it is an offence as defined in the Criminal Code (or the jurisdictional equivalent) btw. Unless there are some charges that do not carry a custodial sentence but which are defined under the crimes act. I recall that section 54B of the WA Crimes Act was of this nature (enacted to stop people from grouping together, a reaction to wholesale demonstrations against conscription or the Vietnam war or industrial actions). Ditto moderate marijuana usage in the 60's were in the various crimes acts of some states which did not carry a custodial sentence. The purpose was to give them a "criminal" record that would have downstream adverse affects on the person such as employment. Perhaps someone can enlighten me here (though I am cautious about hijacking the thread).
- herzog
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby herzog » Wed May 01, 2013 11:08 pm
- Lukeyboy
- Posts: 3621
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby Lukeyboy » Thu May 02, 2013 12:01 am
Pretty sure you could on the GoPro Hero HD..... unless I'm just thinking about my digital camera.... it's too late to be sure haha. I'llcheck in the morning.Aushiker wrote:Have you actually done this? If so would be interested in where you found the setting.Lukeyboy wrote:If you want to datestamp the footage on your gopro it will be in the settings menu under the extras section.
I have just rechecked the GoPro Hero3 Black Edition manual and cannot find anything about date stamping videos. All I have found is where to set the date and time to ensure the videos are stored with the correct date/time. Not quite the same thing.
Andrew
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby trailgumby » Thu May 02, 2013 6:29 am
Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.
I startled a disembarking passenger in the process
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10581
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby find_bruce » Thu May 02, 2013 7:43 am
I can tell you where we are, in eg a $300 fine for speeding is a criminal matter, being ordered to pay the government a $30,000 "civil penalty" is not. I can tell you how we got here, through the long, detailed and tedious march of history. But unfortunately the answer to why certain matters fall one way or the other is largely based on that history.
In relation to traffic offences, these are as Jules21 says criminal proceedings that need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The distinction is important in terms of process and what needs to be proven. Gleeson CJ gave a good example of that
A couple of other concepts have also become confused - the difference between felonies (ie punishable by serious goal time) and misdemeanors (punishable by a fine or a short stint in goal) and whether an ofence is summary or indictable. Unless someone has a particular interest, I don't propose to go into this murky water.If the police charge a surgeon with the offence of negligently driving a motor car, the surgeon may be facing only a moderate fine, but the police will have to prove the negligence beyond reasonable doubt. If a patient accuses the surgeon of negligently conducting an operation, the surgeon, or the surgeon's insurers, may be facing a claim for huge damages, and for the surgeon the possible outcome might be humiliation and professional disgrace. Yet in such a case the negligence need only be proved on the balance of probabilities.
- find_bruce
- Moderator
- Posts: 10581
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby find_bruce » Thu May 02, 2013 7:45 am
That's amazingly clear for a night time video trailgumby - much better than I can get on my jumbo 808 or go-pro HD Hero. What cameras are you using ?trailgumby wrote:Last night's effort by a Sydney Buses driver.
Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.
I startled a disembarking passenger in the process
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby jules21 » Thu May 02, 2013 10:11 am
what did he say TG? it's not quite audible to me on video.trailgumby wrote:Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.
while i'm not particularly fussed about riding on the footpath, the shame is it means you probably couldn't submit the footage to the cops.
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby trailgumby » Thu May 02, 2013 10:29 am
I don't think the cops would be too fussed about the footpath riding, they're pretty relaxed usually, but the startling of the ped is embarassing, I agree, and I apologised to him (hope you can hear).
Cameras: Hero3 Black Edition on Chesty mount, and Hero2 on seatpost. I was pleasantly surprised at clarity as well - lighting at that intersection is quite good.
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby trailgumby » Thu May 02, 2013 10:34 am
- elantra
- Posts: 3156
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:01 am
- Location: NSW and QLD
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby elantra » Thu May 02, 2013 3:34 pm
Or show video to your State Member of Parliament and ask him what his Police Force are doing about it. (Public safety is at risk).find_bruce wrote:Call the Police Assistance Line: 131 444. Tell them that you saw Constable Atkinson at Burwood police station but it appears you weren't given an event number & were hoping that they could assist. If there is no event number, at least you will then have an event number for the "please explain" heading Constable Atkinson's way.hannos wrote:I was neither offered nor given an event number. Seems I really was being fobbed off.
Or are they too busy fining cyclists for riding without a ding ding bell on their bars. (they do that in Qld at least, if not NSW)
- familyguy
- Posts: 8367
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:30 pm
- Location: Willoughby, NSW
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby familyguy » Thu May 02, 2013 4:12 pm
Please don't encourage politicians to 'interact' with police. Why do yo think the force is in such a shambles in the first place? 131444 is the way to go. You never know, maybe they did enter an incident and just didnt give you a number.elantra wrote:Or show video to your State Member of Parliament and ask him what his Police Force are doing about it. (Public safety is at risk).find_bruce wrote: Call the Police Assistance Line: 131 444. Tell them that you saw Constable Atkinson at Burwood police station but it appears you weren't given an event number & were hoping that they could assist. If there is no event number, at least you will then have an event number for the "please explain" heading Constable Atkinson's way.
Jim
-
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:31 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby rogan » Thu May 02, 2013 4:44 pm
I note find bruce's response above and add to that. In short, breaches of the Road Rules would generally be criminal in nature, and would require proof beyond reasonable doubt. All offences are criminal in nature.ColinOldnCranky wrote:Agree that anything that is an "offence" is not a civil matter. Offences are against the people/the state/the crown etc, not an individual.jules21 wrote:it's still a criminal matter and subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt, i'm fairly sure. there's a funny distinction between criminal matters (which are all of those with offences attached to them), which include those which don't result in a criminal record, and civil matters - which are for damages arising from negligence. one of the real lawyers can explain it more good.trailgumby wrote:Senior Constable David Hayes is certainly displaying his lack of legal training. This is a traffic offence, not a criminal offence. Unless I'm very much mistaken, beyond reasonable doubt does not apply.i agree. hard to see why establishing precise time is necessary.trailgumby wrote: Furthermore, exact time of offence (eg to the minute) is unlikely to be material to the offence being proven.
However my understanding of whether an offence is criminal or not depends on the severity of the offence, usually determined by whether it is a custodial sentence and the length thereof.
There CAN be an offence that is not criminal. Most traffic offences would not carry any possibility of a custodial sentence and so would not be a criminal offence. Of course, sometimes there is an option on what the prosecutor charges so, for two of the same silly actions one could be criminal and one could not.
I THINK it makes no difference on whether or not it is an offence as defined in the Criminal Code (or the jurisdictional equivalent) btw. Unless there are some charges that do not carry a custodial sentence but which are defined under the crimes act. I recall that section 54B of the WA Crimes Act was of this nature (enacted to stop people from grouping together, a reaction to wholesale demonstrations against conscription or the Vietnam war or industrial actions). Ditto moderate marijuana usage in the 60's were in the various crimes acts of some states which did not carry a custodial sentence. The purpose was to give them a "criminal" record that would have downstream adverse affects on the person such as employment. Perhaps someone can enlighten me here (though I am cautious about hijacking the thread).
BUT, the defences available to standard driving offences are minimal. "Normal" driving offences are either strict liability offences or absolute liability offences The only defence really is - it wasn't me driving - there are one or two specific defences in real emergency situations - such as where you broke a Road Rule to make room for an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens going or where it was caused by an accident. The other defence is where the driver using reasonable efforts could not have avoided the breach of the road rules.
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maint ... 008+cd+0+N
The point is, the prosecution has to prove it was you driving, and the offence was committed, and very little else. The available defences, generally, will not apply. It is much easier to get a conviction for such offences.
NB. If there are extenuating circumstances, the classic one being husband driving wife in labour to hospital, feel free to tell the magistrate, who may well let you off, but you are still technically guilty in an strict liability situation.
Keeping it simple, as this is for guidance purpses only, the above applies to offences for which prison is totally out of the question, such as compliance with stop signs, speed limits, roundabout rules, staying within your lane, indicating, use of lights and horn, etc.
The above would not apply to the offences relating to negligent/dangerous driving causing damage, injury or death, leaving scenes of accident, anything to do with driving under the influence (drugs, alcohol), racing on the road, intimidating driving, anything with the words "reckless", "dangerous" or "furious" in the name of the offence. Such offences are genuinely considered serious, and would be dealt with either summarily or on indictment (as find_bruce says). Indictments are serious stuff.
- Saturnstarzz
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:06 pm
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby Saturnstarzz » Thu May 02, 2013 6:22 pm
I would have plonked my self in front of the bus and waited for the bus driver to have a chat. Nice Gemini's btw.trailgumby wrote:Last night's effort by a Sydney Buses driver.
Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.
I startled a disembarking passenger in the process
- FXST01
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:16 pm
- Location: Perth WA
- Contact:
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby FXST01 » Thu May 02, 2013 8:09 pm
Why would you need a time stamp, was this type of driving once legal?hannos wrote:Sutherland LAC posted something about the 10 most mis-understood rules on their FB site.
So I replied with my youtube clip. The response?
So the next question is, how do I time / date stamp my GoPro Hero 2?Senior Constable Dave Hayes
Thank you for sharing this footage Sean. I will make further enquiries with Traffic & Highway Patrol Command. however, the advice you received may be correct.
I'm not trained as a legal practitioner, however, there may be difficulty introducing this footage in evidence at Court, as the video is not time/date stamped. Without that stamp, it can create doubt.
Criminal Court requires the Magistrate to reach a decision of "Beyond reasonable doubt".
Regards,
Senior Constable Dave Hayes
- KonaCommuter
- Posts: 978
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:28 pm
- Location: Brisbane Northside
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby KonaCommuter » Thu May 02, 2013 8:20 pm
FXST01 wrote:
Why would you need a time stamp, was this type of driving once legal?
That's seriously funny. Thanks for making me laugh
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby trailgumby » Fri May 03, 2013 8:38 pm
Gemini's? Sorry, I'm confused.Saturnstarzz wrote:I would have plonked my self in front of the bus and waited for the bus driver to have a chat. Nice Gemini's btw.trailgumby wrote:Last night's effort by a Sydney Buses driver.
Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.
I startled a disembarking passenger in the process
Some news: I received today an acknowledgement of my complaint lodged via the 131500.com feedback page yesterday. I've received an incident number and an undertaking to respond within 5 business days.
I made the observation in the complaint that the frequency with which this kind of incident seems to occur strongly implies a gap exists in their driver training and continuous professional development. Will see what they say to that
- Saturnstarzz
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:06 pm
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby Saturnstarzz » Sat May 04, 2013 9:49 am
Your front Light looks like a Gemini olypmia?trailgumby wrote:Gemini's? Sorry, I'm confused.Saturnstarzz wrote:I would have plonked my self in front of the bus and waited for the bus driver to have a chat. Nice Gemini's btw.trailgumby wrote:Last night's effort by a Sydney Buses driver.
Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.
I startled a disembarking passenger in the process
Some news: I received today an acknowledgement of my complaint lodged via the 131500.com feedback page yesterday. I've received an incident number and an undertaking to respond within 5 business days.
I made the observation in the complaint that the frequency with which this kind of incident seems to occur strongly implies a gap exists in their driver training and continuous professional development. Will see what they say to that
- HiChris
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:14 pm
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby HiChris » Sat May 04, 2013 9:56 am
I try hard to keep my cool with drivers but failed miserably this time and gave him a gob full back through the passengers window, my bad and I should just shut up and get on with it. However this guy was a complete drongo, he finally shifted into the right lane and gave me the bird, I may have said something back...
Traffic slows at the bottom of the hill and I disappear in the distance leaving him behind. I can't work out some people.
I'm not been a fan of all the cameras on bikes but I'm tempted to get one after that. Maybe I can detach it and throw it at him next time
- Red Rider
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:44 pm
- Location: Perth
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby Red Rider » Sat May 04, 2013 10:52 am
-
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:00 pm
- Location: Brisbane East
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby Big_Red » Sat May 04, 2013 11:12 am
Unfortunately you'll find that there are some nutjobs out there that believe they own the road, but thankfully they are in a small minority. Nothing you do will change their views about cyclists and they just aren't worth the time of day. Shame you don't have a camera, as it sounds like that tosser could do with a visit from the boys in blue to receive an instructive TIN. You could always carry a bidon with brake fluid in it to squirt over their side panels as they squeeze you too...dungee wrote:Heading down Camp Hill near Brisbane on my commute to work, 2 lanes each way. Travelling at 58kmh, aprox 1.5 car lengths behind a car and near the center of the left lane, the shoulder is quite rough and at that speed I'll take the lane. Bozo behind starts on the horn, then forces his way between me and the car in the adjacent lane, at this stage he's occupying part of both lanes and is a few mm from my right arm, still honking furiously! Not sure where he as wanting to go but there was no room between me and the car in front for him to safely fit. Incredibly dangerous move on his part.
I try hard to keep my cool with drivers but failed miserably this time and gave him a gob full back through the passengers window, my bad and I should just shut up and get on with it. However this guy was a complete drongo, he finally shifted into the right lane and gave me the bird, I may have said something back...
Traffic slows at the bottom of the hill and I disappear in the distance leaving him behind. I can't work out some people.
I'm not been a fan of all the cameras on bikes but I'm tempted to get one after that. Maybe I can detach it and throw it at him next time
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Moron Motorists #3
Postby trailgumby » Sat May 04, 2013 11:54 am
Interesting, I'll have to take a look at those.Saturnstarzz wrote:Your front Light looks like a Gemini olypmia?
Actually, it's this one, running on half power: http://www.bicycles.net.au/2013/04/heat ... part-ii-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.