Moron Motorists #3

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Lukeyboy » Wed May 01, 2013 9:33 pm

If you want to datestamp the footage on your gopro it will be in the settings menu under the extras section.
Image
User avatar
Lukeyboy
 
Posts: 2266
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am
Location: Brisbane

by BNA » Wed May 01, 2013 10:15 pm

BNA
 

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby trailgumby » Wed May 01, 2013 10:15 pm

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. Furthermore, exact time of offence (eg to the minute) is unlikely to be material to the offence being proven.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Aushiker » Wed May 01, 2013 10:23 pm

Lukeyboy wrote:If you want to datestamp the footage on your gopro it will be in the settings menu under the extras section.


Have you actually done this? If so would be interested in where you found the setting.

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
"Pedal-pounding pounce" - D. Fluellen - West Australian 13/1/14
Image
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20144
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby jules21 » Wed May 01, 2013 10:25 pm

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.

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: Furthermore, exact time of offence (eg to the minute) is unlikely to be material to the offence being proven.

i agree. hard to see why establishing precise time is necessary.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8701
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed May 01, 2013 11:07 pm

jules21 wrote:
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.

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: Furthermore, exact time of offence (eg to the minute) is unlikely to be material to the offence being proven.

i agree. hard to see why establishing precise time is necessary.


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.

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).
Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Wed May 01, 2013 11:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby herzog » Wed May 01, 2013 11:08 pm

The Jim's mowing bloke was charged off a video without a timestamp.
User avatar
herzog
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Lukeyboy » Thu May 02, 2013 12:01 am

Aushiker wrote:
Lukeyboy wrote:If you want to datestamp the footage on your gopro it will be in the settings menu under the extras section.


Have you actually done this? If so would be interested in where you found the setting.

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


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.
Image
User avatar
Lukeyboy
 
Posts: 2266
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby trailgumby » Thu May 02, 2013 6:29 am

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 :oops:

"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby find_bruce » Thu May 02, 2013 7:43 am

Jules21 I seriously doubt that a "real lawyer" would be able to clear up the confusion about criminal v civil proceedings because, in the words of the then Chief Justice of the High Court "the distinction between civil and criminal cases has never been rigid, and the dividing line between them is becoming increasingly blurred".

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
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.

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.
Last edited by find_bruce on Thu May 02, 2013 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby find_bruce » Thu May 02, 2013 7:45 am

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 :oops:


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 ?
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby jules21 » Thu May 02, 2013 10:11 am

trailgumby wrote:Purpose of the "conversation" afterwards was to ID the driver.

what did he say TG? it's not quite audible to me on video.

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.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8701
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby trailgumby » Thu May 02, 2013 10:29 am

I couldn't quite make it out either. Something about should be riding on the road, or not riding on the road.

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.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby trailgumby » Thu May 02, 2013 10:34 am

Report has been drafted and will be sent via 131500.com feedback page at lunchtime.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby elantra » Thu May 02, 2013 3:34 pm

find_bruce wrote:
hannos wrote:I was neither offered nor given an event number. Seems I really was being fobbed off.

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.

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).

Or are they too busy fining cyclists for riding without a ding ding bell on their bars. :shock: (they do that in Qld at least, if not NSW)
"Technology gives us much more information but Education is never be able to give us the skill to evaluate it"
User avatar
elantra
 
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:01 am
Location: Trying to avoid the Brisbane traffic.

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby familyguy » Thu May 02, 2013 4:12 pm

elantra wrote:
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.

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).


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.

Jim
User avatar
familyguy
 
Posts: 5067
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:30 pm
Location: Cromer, NSW

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby rogan » Thu May 02, 2013 4:44 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
jules21 wrote:
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.

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: Furthermore, exact time of offence (eg to the minute) is unlikely to be material to the offence being proven.

i agree. hard to see why establishing precise time is necessary.


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.

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).


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.

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/maintop/view/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+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.
Image
rogan
 
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Saturnstarzz » Thu May 02, 2013 6:22 pm

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 :oops:



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.
Image
User avatar
Saturnstarzz
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby FXST01 » Thu May 02, 2013 8:09 pm

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?


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


So the next question is, how do I time / date stamp my GoPro Hero 2?


Why would you need a time stamp, was this type of driving once legal?
FXST01
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: Perth WA

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?




:lol:


That's seriously funny. Thanks for making me laugh
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby trailgumby » Fri May 03, 2013 8:38 pm

Saturnstarzz wrote:
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 :oops:



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.

Gemini's? Sorry, I'm confused. :oops: :)

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 :wink:
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Saturnstarzz » Sat May 04, 2013 9:49 am

trailgumby wrote:
Saturnstarzz wrote:
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 :oops:



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.

Gemini's? Sorry, I'm confused. :oops: :)

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 :wink:


Your front Light looks like a Gemini olypmia?
Image
User avatar
Saturnstarzz
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby dungee » Sat May 04, 2013 9:56 am

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 :-)
Image
User avatar
dungee
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Red Rider » Sat May 04, 2013 10:52 am

dungee, obviously another driver who thinks bikes shouldn't be on the road at all. But it's clear he shouldn't have a drivers licence.
Image
User avatar
Red Rider
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:44 pm
Location: Dianella, WA

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby Big_Red » Sat May 04, 2013 11:12 am

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 :-)


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...
Image
User avatar
Big_Red
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Brisbane East

Re: Moron Motorists #3

Postby trailgumby » Sat May 04, 2013 11:54 am

Saturnstarzz wrote:Your front Light looks like a Gemini olypmia?

Interesting, I'll have to take a look at those.

Actually, it's this one, running on half power: http://www.bicycles.net.au/2013/04/heat ... part-ii-2/
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beanbiken, bychosis, dalai47, silentC



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit