Your comments am speechless

[actungbaby]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/124138932/businessman-escapes-conviction-after-fatal-crash-that-killed-north-canterbury-father?cid=app-android

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

[Bonez]

I don't click on links with out a discription.of the content.

[FJRider]

Your comments am speechless



Your English isn't that flash either ... :shifty:

[george formby]

I don't click on links with out a discription.of the content.

If you hover the cursor over the link the full headline appears. Admittedly it is a short description.

[actungbaby]

Your English isn't that flash either ... :shifty:Wtf are you going on about u
Moron.

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

[Jeeper]

Judge has to consider all facts and evidence, which we don't have access to. We can only speculate.

0.74 seconds and the vehicle would have cleared. But keep in mind the motorcycle was doing 100km/hr in a 80 km/hr speed zone. Could the motorcyclist have braked a little or moved out of the line had he been traveling at speed? We don't know.

[Bonez]

Wtf are you going on about u
Moron.

Sent from my CPH1941 using TapatalkIt's a gay south island FJ1200 rider thing. Probably been on the meths and orange juice with ice.

Just saying....

[actungbaby]

You have got that right.
Must have amazing vibrant.
Personality as well.
As his choice of bikes .i assume
He just loves a bike thats vibrant flickable sets benchmarks in design lol.

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

[actungbaby]

Judge has to consider all facts and evidence, which we don't have access to. We can only speculate.

0.74 seconds and the vehicle would have cleared. But keep in mind the motorcycle was doing 100km/hr in a 80 km/hr speed zone. Could the motorcyclist have braked a little or moved out of the line had he been traveling at speed? We don't know.But my point is how biased,
Reporting.
And no he had ten minutes if he wanted ill logical to say that.
If in dobt wait.so also if he had that time then motorcllist had less time .but in all that.
Isint lady justice blindfolded.
Meaning everone gets same justice.if guy a kkk leader who cares .

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

[Kickaha]

Well obviously as a motorcyclist your life isn't worth as much a businessman's future career

[actungbaby]

I agree there but even in that.
If such great guy.and this is
After all a mistake we can all do them .i have. He still should.be made do comunity work.
His name suppresed even if convicted .25 k nothing to him.
And why would conviction
Mean not like we saying he did.
On purpose i dont I understand.logic. or fact this
Reporter never bothered get diffrent view point .you might as well.just write out word for word.

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

[Bonez]

I bet the driver forgot he had the trailer attached.

The 100kphestimate they say the bike was doing is just a s guess I'd imagine.

Basically we don't know exactly what happened with respect to the bike/ rider other than he collided with the trailer at at least 80kmp. I'm not familiar with the portion of motorway/road it happened at so cannot riders field of veiw etc. so can not comment on that aspect,

Personally when I am on a motorway I do take note of off and on ramps for possible trouble.

The name suppression is off though.

[pritch]

Meaning everone gets same justice.

Nice idea, but it just doesn't work like that.

[pete376403]

The whole story is about the terrible impact that the event would have on the poor businessmans future life. Not a fucking thing about the impact on the victims (lack of) future life, or the impact on his family. The estimated speed (estimated by who?) was (in the initial story) was 83, then its become 100. All of which is shifting the blame onto the victim.

Obviously the police dont give a shit either because they never opposed any of the conditions imposed by the judge.

Someone knows the bastards name. It needs to get out.

[Kickaha]

Basically we don't know exactly what happened with respect to the bike/ rider other than he collided with the trailer at at least 80kmp. I'm not familiar with the portion of motorway/road it happened at so cannot riders field of veiw etc. so can not comment on that aspect,
.

The only place after heading East they can turn onto SH1 from Tram road is only 150 metres from where the motorcyclist could turn onto Tram road and approach from the West, field of view for both people is good

The Judge is a sack of shit

[rastuscat]

Per the OP, I'm pretty gobsmacked too.

I looked into this crash when it happened. The driver made a poor decision. A low level of carelessness, with a massive outcome.

Hard to see how the judges decision was arrived at. Little chance of appeal, Crown Law doesn't appeal much, if anything.

Butt his just appears dead wrong. Clearly, if you want to kill someone, do it with a vehicle.

The fact that there was no intent is the key factor. It was a mistake, but the gravity of the outcome surely is more important than the career of the driver who killed the victim.

[SaferRides]

I thought that the rules around name suppression had been changed to stop judges from doing this?

Obviously the old boys club had this one well covered.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Nice idea, but it just doesn't work like that.

I am very much struggling with this based on the stuff story. I've always said if you want to kill someone in this country with little to no consequence, run them over. It helps to be white, middle class and 50 too. $25k reparation, no conviction, and permanent name suppression. Fuck sakes.

[Dadpole]

"A "significant offer" of emotional harm reparation had been made, the lawyer said, but had not been proffered to buy himself out of the case but rather recognition that he'd worked hard, is a successful businessman, and is in a position to make the offer, especially knowing that with Caldicott-Elwell's passing the situation would've changed within that family."

Too fucking right the situation would've changed within that family! There you have it. Work hard, get money in the bank and you too can kill and maim through carelessness and walk away...

[TheDemonLord]

Suffice to say, I don't agree with the decision.

However -if the person who was killed had been traveling at the Speed Limit, and not riding an evil death machine - then I suspect it wouldn't have been granted and the judges decision would be different.

Looking at the story and the facts available - it seems it's a shit scenario all round.

Someone makes a mistake and due to a number of compounding factors, results in someone's death. I feel the driver has gotten off too lightly, but I'm not sure whether or not they deserve to be pilloried.

[pritch]

I am very much struggling with this based on the stuff story. I've always said if you want to kill someone in this country with little to no consequence, run them over. It helps to be white, middle class and 50 too. $25k reparation, no conviction, and permanent name suppression. Fuck sakes.

Karl Parker was a Harley rider, I didn't know him well, but I did know him. He was riding along on his own side of the road, minding his own business, when a car crossed the double yellow lines and hit him head on.

In court the judge apportioned blame to Karl because he was riding in the outer of the two lanes on his side of the road. Little mention of the woman driver having crossed a double yellow to be on the wrong side of the road. Karl didn't have a good word to say for himself. He was dead.

The woman, a medical doctor, was fined $1000.

[nerrrd]

This makes no sense on many levels.

Surely if the 'low level of carelessness' on display doesn't warrant a conviction, why on earth does it merit name suppression?

What's wrong with his employer that they consider his involvement in a 'blameless' accident 'would cause the organisation undue hardship'?

And why is there no mention of the impact on the victim's family and friends – even if they chose not to comment there should be an acknowledgement in the article to that effect.

Astounding.

[Bonez]

Karl Parker was a Harley rider, I didn't know him well, but I did know him. He was riding along on his own side of the road, minding his own business, when a car crossed the double yellow lines and hit him head on.

In court the judge apportioned blame to Karl because he was riding in the outer of the two lanes on his side of the road. Little mention of the woman driver having crossed a double yellow to be on the wrong side of the road. Karl didn't have a good word to say for himself. He was dead.

The woman, a medical doctor, was fined $1000.Well there are nice big signs before double lanes to the effect stay left unless passing, slow traffic keep left or similar I beleive. I can't imagine a Harley Furgeson going fast.

I dought the riders family would apreciate you draging the riders name, considering you didn't really know the guy, out on a public thread/forum either. The noice gets to you before you get a visual on the the bke.

Just satying....

[Scuba_Steve]

Only thing the "justice system" is blind to is justice & law

[Bonez]

Only thing the "justice system" is blind to is justice & lawDid you get charged or fined by it?:innocent:

[caspernz]

Saw that story and I was surprised, even angry at how lightly the driver of the car got off.

Do we have enough of the facts though?

[rastuscat]

Saw that story and I was surprised, even angry at how lightly the driver of the car got off.

Do we have enough of the facts though?

The summary of facts raised the issue that the rider was in excess of the speed limit. That was the only mitigating factor I could see.

I agree though, perhaps we have not seen the whole story.

[SaferRides]

The summary of facts raised the issue that the rider was in excess of the speed limit. That was the only mitigating factor I could see.

I agree though, perhaps we have not seen the whole story.20 over an 80 limit is not unusual. I always expect motorcyclists to be speeding anyway.

Coming home on the motorway last night the fast lane was moving at about 100. It still wasn't fast enough for a motorbike rider, who was weaving between the fast and middle lanes. Someone didn't see him and changed lanes just as the he was about to pass them on the left...

[Kickaha]

The summary of facts raised the issue that the rider was in excess of the speed limit. That was the only mitigating factor I could see.

I agree though, perhaps we have not seen the whole story.

If he actually was, he would have turned left off old main road after the Challenge station, if the driver saw him about 142m away then he was only about 8 metres onto Tram road after coming around the corner


Well there are nice big signs before double lanes to the effect stay left unless passing, slow traffic keep left or similar
He was still on his side of the road unlike her, you dumb cunt

[Bonez]

If he actually was, he would have turned left off old main road after the Challenge station, if the driver saw him about 142m away then he was only about 8 metres onto Tram road after coming around the corner


He was still on his side of the road unlike her, you dumb cuntOOOh r u a iddy biddy upset? Lighten up:yes:

Thank you very very much for quote young lady. I'm sure you will learn a lot from the other madams in the KB knitting circle.

Just saying.,....

[Moi]

Looking at google maps "streetview", if a driver/rider turns into Tram Rd from Old Main Rd, heading west, there are 3 T-junctions, on the left, within the next 600metres. And yet before reaching the first T-junction there is a speed de-restriction sign...

Who makes the decision to allow a speed limit of 100km/h through a section of road where there are vehicles turning right into a roadway across oncoming traffic [right turn onto southbound on-ramp or turning right onto Greigs Rd] or turning right out of a roadway across a traffic flow [turning right off northbound off-ramp or turning right out of Greigs Rd]?

BTW, was there another crash at this off-ramp/on-ramp more recently involving someone turning right at the end of the off-ramp?

[Bonez]

Looking at google maps "streetview", if a driver/rider turns into Tram Rd from Old Main Rd, heading west, there are 3 T-junctions, on the left, within the next 600metres. And yet before reaching the first T-junction there is a speed de-restriction sign...

Who makes the decision to allow a speed limit of 100km/h through a section of road where there are vehicles turning right into a roadway across oncoming traffic [right turn onto southbound on-ramp or turning right onto Greigs Rd] or turning right out of a roadway across a traffic flow [turning right off northbound off-ramp or turning right out of Greigs Rd]?

BTW, was there another crash at this off-ramp/on-ramp more recently involving someone turning right at the end of the off-ramp?Maybe they have been listening to the usual KB whingers complaining about more and more speed restrictions.

Just saying....

[pete376403]

The summary of facts raised the issue that the rider was in excess of the speed limit. That was the only mitigating factor I could see.

I agree though, perhaps we have not seen the whole story.


Who was the suitably qualified person who determined the speed? Just happened to be a radar trap nearby?

[Hoonicorn]

Neither party were completely blameless, but if the motorcyclist wasn't speeding he might have avoided the crash. It's kinda why they say don't speed because one day someone who forgot to take their trailer into account decides they can make the turn in front of you in time.

What if the roles were reversed and someone speeding hit a turning motorcycle?

[rastuscat]

Who was the suitably qualified person who determined the speed? Just happened to be a radar trap nearby?


There's a bunch of scientific methods to use the scene examination to determine speed. Impact, debris field, surface markings, impact point crush, all that sort of stuff.

I've done a few crash reconstruction courses, and I ain't an expert. The guy in the photo is an eccentric police Sergeant who could tell how high in the air a fly was from the impact damage it had when it hit the floor. I know him, if he says the bike was doing 100, he's probably right.

You probably know more than him though, its the KB way, after all.

[FJRider]

... Who makes the decision to allow a speed limit of 100km/h through a section of road where ...

Look at it this way ... Who makes the decision to travel at 1oo km/hr on any road ... be it fog ... or pissing down rain ... or on heavy traffic areas bumper to bumper .. ??? The drivers of Motor vehicles. But that speed limit isn't a target. Apparently. If the system/layout in the area is working ... because if not enough idiots have proved it's a problem ... there isn't an issue. And NOTHING will change.

High crash areas usually attract a Government sanctioned lower speed limit ... and then EVERYBODY bitches about the few stupid drivers causing lower speed limits imposed in areas that should have the higher speed limits.

And YOU want a lower speed zone ... because YOU think it's dangerous .. ???

Two questions ...

(1) Is the area you described a "High Crash Zone" ... ???

If the answer is yes ... the lower speed limit will be there soon.

(2) If the answer is NO ... then not enough shit drivers have shown it to be a "Dangerous" area/road. And the speed limit will not change.

Look around a bit more at the "Logic" of speed zone changes ... like 100 km/hr signs placed 50 meters before Stop and Give Way signs.

Most idiots don't crash at those either. Have YOU crashed in the area you mentioned .. ??


Are we now breeding smarter idiots ... ??? Perhaps ... Go figure.

[Bonez]

Look at it this way ... Who makes the decision to travel at 1oo km/hr on any road ... be it fog ... or pissing down rain ... or on heavy traffic areas bumper to bumper .. ??? The drivers of Motor vehicles. But that speed limit isn't a target. Apparently. If the system/layout in the area is working ... because if not enough idiots have proved it's a problem ... there isn't an issue. And NOTHING will change.

High crash areas usually attract a Government sanctioned lower speed limit ... and then EVERYBODY bitches about the few stupid drivers causing lower speed limits imposed in areas that should have the higher speed limits.

And YOU want a lower speed zone ... because YOU think it's dangerous .. ???

Two questions ...

(1) Is the area you described a "High Crash Zone" ... ???

If the answer is yes ... the lower speed limit will be there soon.

(2) If the answer is NO ... then not enough shit drivers have shown it to be a "Dangerous" area/road. And the speed limit will not change.

Look around a bit more at the "Logic" of speed zone changes ... like 100 km/hr signs placed 50 meters before Stop and Give Way signs.

Most idiots don't crash at those either. Have YOU crashed in the area you mentioned .. ??


Are we now breeding smarter idiots ... ??? Perhaps ... Go figure.
:niceone: Must spread some rep around unfortunately.

[OddDuck]

Serious question: people are talking a lot about fines / public naming / jail time but nobody seems to be talking about drivers licenses.

What if this businessman loses his license? Totally? Y'know, restart the whole bastard of a process from absolute learner scratch?

What if this becomes a very real penalty if someone gets hurt or killed on our roads?

Would this actually work? (in terms of modifying ordinary kiwi driver behaviour?)

Is this penalty already on the books?

For that matter, is it enforceable?

Would it be counterproductive, in terms of an increase in hit and runs or simply unlicensed drivers not bothering to go through the process in the first place?

I find it surprising that this isn't being discussed, either here or in the very angry posts on FB. I find it even more surprising that the guy is (presumably) still allowed to drive himself around. Kiwi car culture. I reckon we're blinkered by it, we cannot see options outside drive everywhere.

[Kickaha]

There's a bunch of scientific methods to use the scene examination to determine speed. Impact, debris field, surface markings, impact point crush, all that sort of stuff.

I've been to a coroners court from a motorsport fatality and the police at that didn't have clue on estimating the speed

[FJRider]

Serious question: people are talking a lot about fines / public naming / jail time but nobody seems to be talking about drivers licenses.

What if this businessman loses his license? Totally? Y'know, restart the whole bastard of a process from absolute learner scratch?

What if this becomes a very real penalty if someone gets hurt or killed on our roads?

Would this actually work? (in terms of modifying ordinary kiwi driver behaviour?)

Is this penalty already on the books?

For that matter, is it enforceable?

Would it be counterproductive, in terms of an increase in hit and runs or simply unlicensed drivers not bothering to go through the process in the first place?

I find it surprising that this isn't being discussed, either here or in the very angry posts on FB. I find it even more surprising that the guy is (presumably) still allowed to drive himself around. Kiwi car culture. I reckon we're blinkered by it, we cannot see options outside drive everywhere.

It is totally and completely STUPID to consider EVERY driver that is in control of a motor vehicle on the road is actually LICENSED. If they DO NOT ... one might expect they have a conscious if they hurt (OR KILL) somebody ... hope they might actually care about a bad result to their offending ... and change how they live/drive. Will they even start to consider/understand WHY the rules pertaining to driving on OUR roads are in place. Read the Court pages ... apparently not.

You (or anybody else) DO NOT need a valid drivers license to drive a motor vehicle on the roads of New Zealand. Just climb in one and GO. The LAWS are just a "Technicality" that many just ignore. (If YOU do [or have done] ... you will neither be the first (or last) to do so)

And do you think THOSE that do ... think it is "Counter Productive" .. ???

And if those that choose to reply to yours or my post ... may only do so if they have NEVER driven a motor vehicle outside of ALL the LEGAL driving requirements currently in LAW now/then in New Zealand ... how many replies would YOU expect ... ?? I wouldn't expect any from these forums.

My driving was not ALWAYS within the bounds of NZ law. Was YOUR driving always legal .. ??

Cynical maybe ... but closer to fact than many might think.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I've been posting on another forum about this and I am universally slammed and hated. I infer from this that my stance about drivers being homicidal maniacs actively trying to kill me is in fact correct.

[FJRider]

:niceone: Must spread some rep around unfortunately.

One of my favourite speed zone changes.

https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-45.1929866,169.3325625,3a,52.7y,106.66h,90.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREJEcBZcdGKb3XX3DQUdoQ!2e0!6s% 2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DREJEcBZcdGKb3 XX3DQUdoQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_ sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26y aw%3D183.00975%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i1331 2!8i6656

[Bonez]

I've been to a coroners court from a motorsport fatality and the police at that didn't have clue on estimating the speed

A "motor sport event" covers a very wide range of "events" You need to be a bit more specific luv.

[OddDuck]

It is totally and completely STUPID to consider EVERY driver that is in control of a motor vehicle on the road is actually LICENSED. If they DO NOT ... one might expect they have a conscious if they hurt (OR KILL) somebody ... hope they might actually care about a bad result to their offending ... and change how they live/drive. Will they even start to consider/understand WHY the rules pertaining to driving on OUR roads are in place. Read the Court pages ... apparently not.

You (or anybody else) DO NOT need a valid drivers license to drive a motor vehicle on the roads of New Zealand. Just climb in one and GO. The LAWS are just a "Technicality" that many just ignore. (If YOU do [or have done] ... you will neither be the first (or last) to do so)

And do you think THOSE that do ... think it is "Counter Productive" .. ???

And if those that choose to reply to yours or my post ... may only do so if they have NEVER driven a motor vehicle outside of ALL the LEGAL driving requirements currently in LAW now/then in New Zealand ... how many replies would YOU expect ... ?? I wouldn't expect any from these forums.

My driving was not ALWAYS within the bounds of NZ law. Was YOUR driving always legal .. ??

Cynical maybe ... but closer to fact than many might think.

Errr.... yeah. I think maybe I should clarify:

It's an option. We aren't discussing it. I accept that it is a long, long way from a perfect idea. I think that this should be discussed. You're doing that right now.

But damn mate, calm down. It's not about stripping people's licenses because they pushed the law. Or about NZ's problem with illegal drivers or similar... we have penalties for getting caught doing that, it's not risk free. My point ultimately was this: Mr Businessman killed someone. His continued (legal) use of a motor vehicle should at least be questioned. It isn't. That isn't part of our culture.

Get nicked for doing 41 over the limit and that's it, license gone because you might have caused something... actually put someone into the ground and nobody even thinks to ask if you should be allowed to keep driving!! Isn't this fucking bizarre?

[caspernz]

Errr.... yeah. I think maybe I should clarify:

It's an option. We aren't discussing it. I accept that it is a long, long way from a perfect idea. I think that this should be discussed. You're doing that right now.

But damn mate, calm down. It's not about stripping people's licenses because they pushed the law. Or about NZ's problem with illegal drivers or similar... we have penalties for getting caught doing that, it's not risk free. My point ultimately was this: Mr Businessman killed someone. His continued (legal) use of a motor vehicle should at least be questioned. It isn't. That isn't part of our culture.

Get nicked for doing 41 over the limit and that's it, license gone because you might have caused something... actually put someone into the ground and nobody even thinks to ask if you should be allowed to keep driving!! Isn't this fucking bizarre?

The basic premise is that operating a motor vehicle is a right, and until it goes back to being a privilege, and is treated that way...nothing much will change :facepalm::innocent:

Got no issue with someone losing their licence, and having to start from scratch after a fatal at fault accident. Not like the victim can push a reset button :shit:

[FJRider]

It's an option. We aren't discussing it. I accept that it is a long, long way from a perfect idea. I think that this should be discussed. You're doing that right now.

And if EVERY driver on the road (Licensed or not) gave a shit about anybody other than themselves on those same roads ... there would be no need for "Discussion". We don't have that luxury.



But damn mate, calm down. It's not about stripping people's licenses because they pushed the law. Or about NZ's problem with illegal drivers or similar... we have penalties for getting caught doing that, it's not risk free. My point ultimately was this: Mr Businessman killed someone. His continued (legal) use of a motor vehicle should at least be questioned. It isn't. That isn't part of our culture.

We cant "Strip Licenses" off people that never had one. The bleeding heart types ... "it was an accident .. they never meant to hurt any one" response from some to those in court for killing somebody on the road ... beggars belief. Public opinion matters ... and if enough public actually think THEY might find THEMSELVES in the same position (And MANY do) .. that opinion will continue to be held.


Get nicked for doing 41 over the limit and that's it, license gone because you might have caused something... actually put someone into the ground and nobody even thinks to ask if you should be allowed to keep driving!! Isn't this fucking bizarre?

Those people that repeatedly offend on the roads .... don't give a toss. It is a well known fact ... the easiest way to murder somebody ... is to kill them (or pay someone to kill then) on the roads. A few years in jail ... done and dusted.

A law CHANGE ... :killingme

[pete376403]

There's a bunch of scientific methods to use the scene examination to determine speed. Impact, debris field, surface markings, impact point crush, all that sort of stuff.

I've done a few crash reconstruction courses, and I ain't an expert. The guy in the photo is an eccentric police Sergeant who could tell how high in the air a fly was from the impact damage it had when it hit the floor. I know him, if he says the bike was doing 100, he's probably right.

You probably know more than him though, its the KB way, after all.
Not saying that at all, but the Stuff reports (which are all that I have read) suggest the speed was estimated by the drivers wife.

[rastuscat]

One of my favourite speed zone changes.

https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-45.1929866,169.3325625,3a,52.7y,106.66h,90.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREJEcBZcdGKb3XX3DQUdoQ!2e0!6s% 2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DREJEcBZcdGKb3 XX3DQUdoQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_ sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26y aw%3D183.00975%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i1331 2!8i6656

If they didn't put the signs there, they would have had to put them on the main road.

Which would have created even worse problems. Like, where does the 50 start?

[rastuscat]

Not saying that at all, but the Stuff reports (which are all that I have read) suggest the speed was estimated by the drivers wife.

No cop would ever have written a witnesses estimate of speed of an oncoming vehicle into a Summary of Facts.

[scumdog]

Per the OP, I'm pretty gobsmacked too.

I looked into this crash when it happened. The driver made a poor decision. A low level of carelessness, with a massive outcome.

Hard to see how the judges decision was arrived at. Little chance of appeal, Crown Law doesn't appeal much, if anything.

Butt his just appears dead wrong. Clearly, if you want to kill someone, do it with a vehicle.

The fact that there was no intent is the key factor. It was a mistake, but the gravity of the outcome surely is more important than the career of the driver who killed the victim.


Must spread rep...yadda yaddda yadda...

[rastuscat]

Seems it's anyone on two wheels who doesn't matter.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/124297746/distracted-driver-who-killed-cyclist-gets-licence-back

[Jeeper]

Initial suspension of 18 months was not enough to start with, IMHO. License should be revoked for life. Use a cycle to commute or use public transport instead.

[rastuscat]

Initial suspension of 18 months was not enough to start with, IMHO. License should be revoked for life. Use a cycle to commute or use public transport instead.

I get that no punishment will bring the deceased back.

But surely the life of somneone is more important than the job of the offender.

[Kickaha]

But surely the life of somneone is more important than the job of the offender.

Not in NZ, I've always said if you want to murder someone in NZ use a car

[FJRider]

I get that no punishment will bring the deceased back.

But surely the life of somneone is more important than the job of the offender.

The thing is ... there are people that either have never HAD a drivers license ... and those that Have had a drivers license (and have lost it a few times) ... and BOTH groups STILL drive on the road. Such people really don't give a fuck if they get caught ... or even if they kill somebody. At worst ... a few months in jail (at worst) ... and then THEY get on with their lives.

And after all that ... they get caught again ... and (often) ... again.

For THAT group ... no punishment will change their attitude to the "System's Rules and Laws" ...


Go figure ... :scratch:

[FJRider]

... But surely the life of somneone is more important than the job of the offender.

Which would you prefer ... them being on a Benefit with the tax-payer funded lifestyle that follows ... or out earning a living and looking after their own families with a restricted movement (outside work times) regime ... ??

[eldog]

For THAT group ... no punishment will change their attitude to the "System's Rules and Laws" ...


Go figure ... :scratch:

There is punishment which may not change their attitude, but will stop them permanently.

time to start getting less lenient on repeat offenders. Or people who did give a toss.

[rastuscat]

I'm the first to say that punishment is almost purely out of a sense of vengeance.

Punishment has several intended functions.

It is intended to discourage certain behaviours. "If you touch that chocolate cake I'll smack your hand" is a classic example. Intended to prevent damage to the chocolate cake.

So, it is proposed as a deterrent. In order to be an effective deterrent, there has to be swiftness of application, certainty of detection, and proportionality of the punishment to the offence.

The ticket for a breach of licence conditions used to be $400. So many kids just didn't give a toss as they could never pay that fine, it didn't work. It was disproportional to the offence. So they reduced the fine to $100, which is more proportional, but still doesn't work well because the certainty of detection is minimal.

As regards to the penalty and apparent flexibility in the cases we have discussed, nobody ever thinks they will make a mistake and kill someone, so there is nil deterrent value in a penalty. Nobody ever thinks "I won't kill someone with my car because the penalty is too harsh", as they don't think it'll happen anyway.

The penalty for such offences isn't going to bring the deceased back, so there is almost no point in punishing someone for something they didn't intend to do. It's no deterrent.

However, the rights of the victim to feel a sense of justice also have to be considered. And in the cases quoted above, the sense of injustice is strong.

I'm really conflicted at this. No point in punishing someone for something they didn't intend to do, but surely there has to be some penalty for the loss of a life.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm really conflicted at this. No point in punishing someone for something they didn't intend to do, but surely there has to be some penalty for the loss of a life.

This is pretty much where I sit.

I can only hope that the person responsible feels the appropriate amount of Guilt over this and that will be his punishment - not a Fine, not walls and bars, not one that he can be paroled from, but his own consciousness reminding daily if only he'd been a bit more careful someone innocent would still be alive.

[Jeeper]

To me it's about influencing future behavior of the offender. Punishment is wrong word here.

[Scuba_Steve]

Just crush the car, it was the homicide weapon so dispose of it

[Jeeper]

Just crush the car, it was the homicide weapon so dispose of itWhat if it was a company car? Which would be someone else's property.

[pritch]

What if it was a company car? Which would be someone else's property.

They'd probably have to prove he was a boy racer 'cause that's the only cars that get crushed to my (limited) knowledge.

[pete376403]

They'd probably have to prove he was a boy racer 'cause that's the only cars that get crushed to my (limited) knowledge.
AFAIK, only three boy racer cars were crushed, and even though collins takes the moniker "crusher", it was Anne Tolley who oversaw the events.
The first crushing was delayed so long that by the time the car got to the crusher it was a bare shell, everything of value had been removed
(and no doubt transplanted to another 'racer')

[pritch]

AFAIK, only three boy racer cars were crushed, and even though collins takes the moniker "crusher", it was Anne Tolley who oversaw the events.
The first crushing was delayed so long that by the time the car got to the crusher it was a bare shell, everything of value had been removed
(and no doubt transplanted to another 'racer')

I remember the first one well. Trying to pass off total humiliation as some sort of victory, Tolley tottering in the flattened shell in heels. Farcical.

[baffa]

My thoughts?

Ideally our first priority must be the focus on preventing losses like this, including more driver training.

However, since when were livelihoods and future employment considered more valuable than human life?
The low level carelessness argument absolutely sh!ts me.
If it was a situation that could result in severe injury or death, that was not low level.
The gas fitter in Christchurch who forgot to disconnect a gas pipe and blew up a house was fined almost $100,000 and had his name over the press, and rightly so. By the same logic that could be argued low level.
Realistically if you are merging on to a 80-100 Kph road, and by your 50s you do not know how to gauge speed, I don't see that as low level.

I don't really care that his future employment prospects may be harmed. Set an example, and make it fair.
A 25 year old maori kid who made the exact same accident would also have his future prospects hampered, but what is the chance the court would give him the same grace? To be honest the the verdict is disgusting.

If the Judge had simply removed his license, forcing him to start again, and fined him heavily to cover emotional harm and lost earnings to the victim (not a paltry $25,000) then maybe i could stomach it.

[Scuba_Steve]

Meanwhile on the other end of the pay scale
Former NZTA employee sentenced for careless driving causing death (https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300241781/former-nzta-employee-sentenced-for-careless-driving-causing-death)
Brown was sentenced to 200 hours’ community work, disqualified from driving for nine months and ordered to pay $9000 reparation.

Similar situation yet she was named, had some sort of penalty, and lost her job apparently (tho given her job was NZTA that should be a given).

[rastuscat]

Interesting similarities.




https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300275318/fatal-crash-would-have-been-avoided-if-motorcyclist-wasnt-speeding--coroner

[Racing Dave]

Interesting similarities.

It's not clear to me if the van was turning into or out of the driveway. Either way, it intersected the rider's path.

The speed limit on that stretch of road is arbitrary; not too many years ago it was 100km/h, then down to 80km/h and now to 60km/h. In the 'olden days', the unfortunate rider would have been below the speed limit, but just as fatally injured.

When I ride up from Governor's Bay, if there's no oncoming traffic I choose to cross to the wrong side of the road, at each driveway, to give me and anyone emerging the greatest chance of seeing/being seen. If there's oncoming, then slow down...

[rastuscat]

It's not clear to me if the van was turning into or out of the driveway. Either way, it intersected the rider's path.

The speed limit on that stretch of road is arbitrary; not too many years ago it was 100km/h, then down to 80km/h and now to 60km/h. In the 'olden days', the unfortunate rider would have been below the speed limit, but just as fatally injured.

When I ride up from Governor's Bay, if there's no oncoming traffic I choose to cross to the wrong side of the road, at each driveway, to give me and anyone emerging the greatest chance of seeing/being seen. If there's oncoming, then slow down...

Van coming downhill, turning right into driveway.

As the law is interpreted, a driver is able to assume that oncoming raffic is doing the speed limit. The van driver lived there, so knew it was 60.

Clearly he misjudged the bike speed, but that happens at all speeds, in lots of places, every day.

This was a combination of things that all coincided to lead to that outcome. Heard of the Swiss Cheese model? This was it.

[Berries]

As the law is interpreted, a driver is able to assume that oncoming raffic is doing the speed limit. The van driver lived there, so knew it was 60.

Clearly he misjudged the bike speed, but that happens at all speeds, in lots of places, every day.
And will only get much worse as NZTA start forcing lower speed limits on rural roads that look like 100km/h roads but could be 60 or 80 depending how much they want to push it. The speed variance is just going to go up and I know you know the result of that.

[rastuscat]

And will only get much worse as NZTA start forcing lower speed limits on rural roads that look like 100km/h roads but could be 60 or 80 depending how much they want to push it. The speed variance is just going to go up and I know you know the result of that.

Indeed. Those who don't understand the need for the speed reductions, or do understand but disagree, will continue to conflict with those who do.

I'm on the fence. Some are justified, some appear to be unjustified. Mainly due to me not knowing the justification.

An example is the high street of Rangiora, the town I live in. The speed limit is 50 kmh, but only a nutter would drive through at that speed. It surely must become 30, as that's what most sane people do anyway. Then there's the ones that I don't see the justification for.

But at least I have an open mind on it.

[FROSTY]

And yet a guy on a totally different motorcycle gets done for manslaughter. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/124819705/man-admits-manslaughter-after-motorbike-race-turns-to-tragedy

[FJRider]

Indeed. Those who don't understand the need for the speed reductions, or do understand but disagree, will continue to conflict with those who do.

I'm on the fence. Some are justified, some appear to be unjustified. Mainly due to me not knowing the justification.

An example is the high street of Rangiora, the town I live in. The speed limit is 50 kmh, but only a nutter would drive through at that speed. It surely must become 30, as that's what most sane people do anyway. Then there's the ones that I don't see the justification for.

But at least I have an open mind on it.

There is a corner on the Cadrona valley road ... a few km's on the Queenstown side of the Cadrona Pub. Not a particularly dangerous corner ... but too fast (or cut the corner) and you can get into bother. A few did. The speed limit was reduced for that part of the road. And some time later ... another motorist died at that same corner.

Justifications are all well and good ... just as good intentions are.

[R650R]

And yet a guy on a totally different motorcycle gets done for manslaughter. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/124819705/man-admits-manslaughter-after-motorbike-race-turns-to-tragedy

He needs a better lawyer.
Although a similar result was gained on teenage passengers in boyracer car that were actually having a proper race side by side in cars on road.
Several bikes going to cafe travelling in close proximity even if at speed is not a race.

So what happens if two people are running across road to get last taxi and one falls and cracks their head, is that manslaughter too?

All he needed to do was table evidence of fleeing driver fatal crashes cause that’s prob the formula one of all illegal street races ( I don’t blame cops just using for the illustration of hypocracy of justice system)