Police charge woman stranded for two days after crash

[Thumper]

You have GOT to fucken joking.......:gob:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10406462

[bumsex]

I don't know all the details but its probably pretty fair...the police would have to have evidence before a charge was laid.

[sAsLEX]

Some good PR aye, what good does charging someone with careless after they have suffered like that?

I mean most people know they have fucked up if they crash and getting a charge to fuck your insurance etc aint helping the situation

[The Pastor]

careless use is the standerd charge with any acident, after all being careless lead to them crashing. I don't see the point in this case as theres no damage to repay? and if there was how is $130 going to do that?

[sAsLEX]

I don't know all the details but its probably pretty fair...the police would have to have evidence before a charge was laid.

You drink Tui don't you?

[The_Dover]

clumsy bitch

[Maha]

I agree with bumsex...( its an alternative )......:laugh:
I would have thought that the SCU would have done there thing and the police were guided by thier report...a bit harsh i guess, but thats the way it goes...:done:

[Grahameeboy]

Seems to me that without independence evidence how do the Police know it was careless. She had her old dear in car so doubt she was careless in the true sense.........in a Criminal case you have to proove 'Beyond all doubt'...Police talk about consistency, however I had an insurance claim where the driver lost it on a bend and ended up in someone's front garden and the Police just charged them for 'Inconsiderate Parking'!!!
I do not believe that the mere act of having an accident is 'Careless' as there may have been other factors that contributed which have to be taken into account.

[sAsLEX]

Seems to me that without independence evidence how do the Police know it was careless. She had her old dear in car so doubt she was careless in the true sense.........in a Criminal case you have to proove 'Beyond all doubt'...Police talk about consistency, however I had an insurance claim where the driver lost it on a bend and ended up in someone's front garden and the Police just charged them for 'Inconsiderate Parking'!!!
I do not believe that the mere act of having an accident is 'Careless' as there may have been other factors that contributed which have to be taken into account.

Ah but the Police HAVE to charge someone!

[Bussaman]

I could pretty much guarantee in court, that she would be convicted and discharged with no penalty involved.
It is just a way for the incident to be concluded.

[Grahameeboy]

Ah but the Police HAVE to charge someone!

Do they..........I know this is NZ but in the UK they use commonsense.........I mean in UK if you hit someone up the rear you don't get charged like you do here.....

[Grahameeboy]

I could pretty much guarantee in court, that she would be convicted and discharged with no penalty involved.
It is just a way for the incident to be concluded.

Just seems little point......

[smokeyging]

They have already spent 2 days in a ‘SLAMMER”, they have probably lost there motor vehicle, insurance company is probably grinning, they’ll probably be in pain for a few days yet, the driver must have learnt a lesson from this?, whatever happened to turning a blind eye?. Surely if she is fined the only people it will help are those darned thieves in Wellington.

[Lou Girardin]

Good God, you can't allow people to have accidents and not be punished by the full weight of the law. If you did, we might have one of the worst accident rates in the developed world.
Oops, that's right, we already do.

[jtzzr]

oh well, that might explain the look on her face.

[imdying]

I don't know all the details but its probably pretty fair...the police would have to have evidence before a charge was laid.I doubt getting told by a judge to 'f off and stop wasting my time' is a pleasant experience, so this would seem about right.

Some good PR aye, what good does charging someone with careless after they have suffered like that?

I mean most people know they have fucked up if they crash and getting a charge to fuck your insurance etc aint helping the situationBecause they nick everyone else like that, and some people need it drilled into their heads so they actually learn.


She had her old dear in car so doubt she was careless in the true sense.Yep, could've killed the passenger.


Ah but the Police HAVE to charge someone!No, they don't.


oh well, that might explain the look on her face.Priceless :lol:

[Grahameeboy]

I doubt getting told by a judge to 'f off and stop wasting my time' is a pleasant experience, so this would seem about right.
Because they nick everyone else like that, and some people need it drilled into their heads so they actually learn.

Yep, could've killed the passenger.

No, they don't.

Priceless :lol:

My point was that it was unlikely she was careless with her old dear in car....could have been another reason she lost control..........we are all human so I am sure the accident itself was enough of a lesson to learn by eh?

[SPman]

She could've swerved to avoid a turkey ....................:whistle:

[doc]

Pretty typical of our society where "Victimless crime" requires the law to standup for our morales. Usually the offender has more rights than this poor girl didn't even get name suppression, mind you having your mums name and piccy slashed across network news don't help. Someone has to pay for her rescue. Sort of like having volunteer fireman then being sent a bill when you torch some arsehole who deserves it... oh well never mind carry on

[WINJA]

She Deserves To Be Charged Good On The Pigs She Could Just Have Easily Missed A Tight Bend But Instead Of The Plunge Bounced Off A Group Of Innocent Motorcyclists

[WINJA]

My point was that it was unlikely she was careless with her old dear in car....could have been another reason she lost control..........we are all human so I am sure the accident itself was enough of a lesson to learn by eh?

LIKE THE FAMILY OF KOREANS FALLING INTO WAIKINO GORGE , HAHA GOOD LUCK SHOULDNT BE SENDING A TXT MESSAGE OR TALKING ON YOUR PHONE WHILE DRIVING THRU THERE

[Clivoris]

Mmmm.:scratch: Guess she was lucky that there wasn't a murdercyclist in the way when she went over. That wouldn't be careless would it?:wait:

[doc]

Second thoughts whats the charge? It could be "loittering at the scene of an accident" obviously it couldn't be leaving the scene.

[imdying]

My point was that it was unlikely she was careless with her old dear in car....could have been another reason she lost control..........we are all human so I am sure the accident itself was enough of a lesson to learn by eh?Intentional or not is what you're getting hung up on. Driving carelessly by accident doesn't make it any less careless.

[Grahameeboy]

LIKE THE FAMILY OF KOREANS FALLING INTO WAIKINO GORGE , HAHA GOOD LUCK SHOULDNT BE SENDING A TXT MESSAGE OR TALKING ON YOUR PHONE WHILE DRIVING THRU THERE

Each case on it's merits Mr Wubleu..........

[Grahameeboy]

Intentional or not is what you're getting hung up on. Driving carelessly by accident doesn't make it any less careless.

I believe intention is important..............an accident is less careless than if you were driving with intention and full awareness..........human frailty??

[TLDV8]

They showed it on the New's.
Daughter sweet,Mum looked like she had done a fews rounds and was all banged up.
The corner was a medium tight and quite open,bush to the outside,grass on the inner for maybe 20 feet then rolling down into more bush.The car had gone down the bank.
Maybe it was wet or something.
You would feel like a right !@#$ injuring your own folks.That in its self would be enough punishment for most. ??? let alone trapped in the car for two days.
*
They also showed the young C@n$ who was biking to community service and beat an old lady up (82 years old) when he ran into her car and fell off his bike.Broken eye socket etc etc.
She is !@#@$ed and won't drive anymore.
He got two years,no doubt minus what he has done in remand minus parole,which means he will probably be out last week.

Go judicial system.

[The_Dover]

let alone trapped in the car for two days.

yeah, old people smell funny at the best of times, but after two days??:sick:

[imdying]

I believe intention is important..............an accident is less careless than if you were driving with intention and full awareness..........human frailty??And they can (and do) sentence accordingly.

Vitcimless crime? What was the passenger? Chopper liver?

[Grahameeboy]

yeah, old people smell funny at the best of times, but after two days??:sick:

Why have you slept with one Benjy??

[Grahameeboy]

And they can (and do) sentence accordingly.

Vitcimless crime? What was the passenger? Chopper liver?

So no you are saying accident is less then?

[WINJA]

Each case on it's merits Mr Wubleu..........

WHAT EVERS MR COCKGOBBLER

[Paul in NZ]

Well ok - careless use eh?

In that case we should charge the parents of this lot with careless breeding and lock up all blood relatives as a precaution...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3832622a11,00.html

Bastards - I know what I'd recommend...

[Grahameeboy]

WHAT EVERS MR COCKGOBBLER

Still stuck on that one I see.............and they say the only constant is change.......:dodge:

[Grahameeboy]

Well ok - careless use eh?

In that case we should charge the parents of this lot with careless breeding and lock up all blood relatives as a precaution...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3832622a11,00.html

Bastards - I know what I'd recommend...

I just think the charge is pointless that is all..sorry:mellow:

[WINJA]

Still stuck on that one I see.............and they say the only constant is change.......:dodge:

FROM ALL THE PM'S AND RED REP FROM YOU I KNOW ITS THE ONE THAT WORKS , SOMETIMES THE TRUTH HURTS AYE

[Grahameeboy]

FROM ALL THE PM'S AND RED REP FROM YOU I KNOW ITS THE ONE THAT WORKS , SOMETIMES THE TRUTH HURTS AYE

Urr..I have sent you 1 jovial PM and probably 2 red reps you cry baby..geeze

[Indiana_Jones]

Nice to the the NZ police tackling real crime :p

-Indy

[The_Dover]

Nice to the the NZ police tackling real crime :p

-Indy

i'm surprised they had the resources to do the paperwork to be honest

[LilSel]

If she was in the car by herself and crashed and was stuck for two days... would she still have got done with careless?

[98tls]

Glad they have solved the important one and now can move on and deal with the seemingly trivial matters like the death of twin babies with no charges laid months later................

[Grahameeboy]

Glad they have solved the important one and now can move on and deal with the seemingly trivial matters like the death of twin babies with no charges laid months later................

Good point although I guess the babies requires more investigation which says something too eh

[doc]

i'm surprised they had the resources to do the paperwork to be honest

Thats probably her saving grace they will have cocked it up and she will get off, got the day of the crash wrong.

[Motig]

"Look at the beautiful scenery Gran" ."Where Dear?". "Over there Gran". "Where?" "Over on your left Gran.Look,behind you, see where I'm pointiaaaaaiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!" Thumb,bang,crash,somersault,bang.................. ........................ "I still cant see it Dear"
Bugger you'd think a car/motorbike would have done the decent thing wouldnt you and placed themselve in their way. But I'm guessing that could be what happened (or something like it).

[Bussaman]

i'm surprised they had the resources to do the paperwork to be honest



Bunch of slackers eh.
Who needs em!!!:zzzz:

[Wenier]

Come on guys don't be harsh to the cops over this.

1. The babies is traffic so thats a whole separate side of the cops hence they would have the resources to do it.
2. They found no defects with the vehicle so therefore to be consisent they use the lowest charge of careless driving on her as it is her fault. If she had been found to be speeding to go off the road they'd step it up to reckless instead of careless.

Also they were not trapped in the car for the two days, they got out of their seats and on the second day moved down the hill to a stream. Lucky for them some tourists stopped for a photo and they called out to them.

And as for the guy who rode into the old lady and smashed her, i hope someone in the prison he is in deals to him servely. His father even said he was a lost cause and hasnt accepted any help they had tried. he has 18 other convictions and still only got 2 yrs, that really aint good enough.

[dawnrazor]

so if the driver and passenger had been killed, would the police be charging them with reckless drivering posthumously?

[Wenier]

Haha yea, not really anyone to charge if they are dead.

But they just being consistent. They charge the boyracers when crashing so what diff is it when someone else does.

[98tls]

Wonder what they charge the cop that crashed his car and then told everyone that it had been stolen with..........? couldnt be careless if he had forgotten he did it i guess........leaving the scene...na couldnt...wasnt him ....doh.....it was him but he forgot..........:dodge: Maybe they will come up with a new one to suit.........Forgetfulness in charge of a motorvehicle.... ...na..it was stolen....doh...no it wasnt.....:dodge:

[Jantar]

The corner was a medium tight and quite open,bush to the outside,grass on the inner for maybe 20 feet then rolling down into more bush.The car had gone down the bank.
Maybe it was wet or something......

Go judicial system.

Wet or something? F#$%ng oath it was wet. I passed by that very spot on the same day about 2 hours before they crashed. See http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=34560&page=4 and I can tell you it it was pissing down. The roads were quite slippery, and I had to take extra care with every vehicle I tried to pass.

Careless? Inexperienced in the conditions more likely.

[scumdog]

Do they..........I know this is NZ but in the UK they use commonsense.........I mean in UK if you hit someone up the rear you don't get charged like you do here.....


I assume you're talking about vehicles here??

So if you DO run up the rear-end of somebody - whose fault is it??

[The_Dover]

shut up pig (dyna that is, I'm scared of scumdog cos he rides a charley), do they charge everyone who runs off the road with careless driving?

do they fuck. Did that cunt pig that crashed his baconmobile at the targa get a charge? or any of the pigs that have had little accidents in their patrol cars?

arseholes.

[scumdog]

If she was in the car by herself and crashed and was stuck for two days... would she still have got done with careless?

Yes - but not Careless Causing Injury.

[scumdog]

shut up pig (dyna that is, I'm scared of scumdog cos he rides a charley), do they charge everyone who runs off the road with careless driving?

do they fuck. Did that cunt pig that crashed his baconmobile at the targa get a charge? or any of the pigs that have had little accidents in their patrol cars?

arseholes.

Not ALL the time, often if the car runs off the road, there's no injury and it does not cross the centre-line it is treated a bit more leniently.

[The_Dover]

good, I'll let you off then.

[The_Dover]

Not ALL the time, often if the car runs off the road, there's no injury and it does not cross the centre-line it is treated a bit more leniently.

that's a bit fucked up then really.

it still went off the road, it's not like you choose where you're gonna run off the road is it?

[scumdog]

that's a bit fucked up then really.

it still went off the road, it's not like you choose where you're gonna run off the road is it?

Meh, it kinds lessens the seriousness if you don't cross the road 'cos there is less chance of a head-on it you stay on your own side of the road but that's not all that it taken into account.

[The_Dover]

Meh, it kinds lessens the seriousness if you don't cross the road 'cos there is less chance of a head-on it you stay on your own side of the road but that's not all that it taken into account.

are you drunk again Rab?

[GIXser]

Most cops are Cunts,!! thats why they are cops, the ones that are not cunts are generally confused and cant get a real job.!

another fine example of "our fine police force" doing their job!!!!

[scumdog]

Most cops are Cunts,!! thats why they are cops, the ones that are not cunts are generally confused and cant get a real job.!

another fine example of "our fine police force" doing their job!!!!

In best Maxwell Smart voice: "and loving it!!"

[paturoa]

Most cops are Cunts

so does that means 49.9 some % aren't?

[Grahameeboy]

Most cops are Cunts,!! thats why they are cops, the ones that are not cunts are generally confused and cant get a real job.!

another fine example of "our fine police force" doing their job!!!!

Geeze........................

[Grahameeboy]

I assume you're talking about vehicles here??

So if you DO run up the rear-end of somebody - whose fault is it??

Fault still with rear vehicle but Police do not charge....just rear driver at fault for Insurance.

[98tls]

Fault still with rear vehicle but Police do not charge....just rear driver at fault for Insurance. Yep...the poms are famous for there rear end hi jinks.........:shutup:

[Grahameeboy]

Yep...the poms are famous for there rear end hi jinks.........:shutup:

In de Engalish pleasey

[scumdog]

Fault still with rear vehicle but Police do not charge....just rear driver at fault for Insurance.

Insurance often use the charge of 'whatever' as proof of liability, that's why it pays to get police along if you can if you crash and are the innocent party - a ticket to the guilty part can save a lot of court time when it comes to who is at fault and liable for paying for damage.

The "we'll sort it out ourselves" has back-fired badly (in a lot of cases I know of) when the guilty part suddenly decides they're not guilty.

[Crazy Steve]

With the Police on this one..

She should be charged...

Nice work...NZPD..

Now go get Winja...Hes been speeding..:scooter:

Crazy Steve..

[Grahameeboy]

Insurance often use the charge of 'whatever' as proof of liability, that's why it pays to get police along if you can if you crash and are the innocent party - a ticket to the guilty part can save a lot of court time when it comes to who is at fault and liable for paying for damage.

The "we'll sort it out ourselves" has back-fired badly (in a lot of cases I know of) when the guilty part suddenly decides they're not guilty.

Not quite..hit in rear is prima facea so no arguments and sometimes the Police have made liability worse.......had a claim where a car reversed out of driveway..driver on road..who reversing driver failed to see, just happened to look down to turn radio on and Police did him for lack of attention to road and the other geezer got nothing.....

[The_Dover]

stop making out that you're innocent for being the catcher gayameboy.

it's the man in the back that ain't gay. ok?

[Grahameeboy]

stop making out that you're innocent for being the catcher gayameboy.

it's the man in the back that ain't gay. ok?

Well at least my KB name did not come from Ben Dover......urhum

[scumdog]

Not quite..hit in rear is prima facea so no arguments and sometimes the Police have made liability worse.......had a claim where a car reversed out of driveway..driver on road..who reversing driver failed to see, just happened to look down to turn radio on and Police did him for lack of attention to road and the other geezer got nothing.....

Not getting into a niggle about "I know of this case......." stuff.

I know what I see in my job on a REGULAR basis, not one offs.

[Grahameeboy]

Not getting into a niggle about "I know of this case......." stuff.

I know what I see in my job on a REGULAR basis, not one offs.

Fair enough.........dealing with Claims last 20 odd years so probably similar experiences.......certainly seen some goodens and some nasty Police pics.....aftermaths that is

[jonbuoy]

Christ - one look at the poor bitches face in that picture says it all. No need to punish her further.

[Skyryder]

The woman has suffered enough pain and misery. Some discretion from the Police would assist in her recovery.

[The_Dover]

yeah, look at the size of her.

and she went two whole days without food....

[Bandit Rider]

No commonsense anymore - might have to stand up and take responsibility for a good judgment call, much easier to quote the rule book.

[Mom]

My point was that it was unlikely she was careless with her old dear in car....could have been another reason she lost control..........we are all human so I am sure the accident itself was enough of a lesson to learn by eh?

The saddest thing about this is........it does not matter what the extenuating circumstances were.......the cops dont seem to use any discretion at all.......apparently they cant in this PC world.......well only when it suits them eh? What a double shame for this woman and her Mom.......like I say to my kids....Sometimes life is not fair!

[98tls]

bet theres a few cops say the same thing eh..................

[Swoop]

There is no quota.

There is no quota.

There is no quota.:innocent:

[rok-the-boat]

Shit - the system must be bloody stupid. Accidents happen - get real. Shit (again), all a smart copper has to do now to get his brownie points for promotion is to hang around a hospital and book people when they show up. I could do that - gis a job!

[spudchucka]

..the police would have to have evidence before a charge was laid.

The fact that the car left the road and slid down a huge cliff could be a clue.

[spudchucka]

Do they..........I know this is NZ but in the UK they use commonsense.........I mean in UK if you hit someone up the rear you don't get charged like you do here.....

They should, following too close is a real problem.

[spudchucka]

My point was that it was unlikely she was careless with her old dear in car....could have been another reason she lost control..........we are all human so I am sure the accident itself was enough of a lesson to learn by eh?

And if she was driving along yapping to the old dear instead of concentrating on her driving and subsequently drove off a cliff I guess that would have been considered careless?

None of you know what has or hasn't been disclosed in statements, neither do you know what evidence exists at the scene, (neither do I for that matter).

[spudchucka]

They also showed the young C@n$ who was biking to community service and beat an old lady up (82 years old) when he ran into her car and fell off his bike.Broken eye socket etc etc.
She is !@#@$ed and won't drive anymore.
He got two years,no doubt minus what he has done in remand minus parole,which means he will probably be out last week.

Go judicial system.

What a piece of shit he was.

[Squeak the Rat]

They should, following too close is a real problem.

Not many people get charged for following too closely UNLESS they have an nose to tail. If it's a serious problem then the focus should be on prevention.

[spudchucka]

Glad they have solved the important one and now can move on and deal with the seemingly trivial matters like the death of twin babies with no charges laid months later................

Detectives don't investigate traffic crashes, traffic cops don't investigate murder.

[spudchucka]

so if the driver and passenger had been killed, would the police be charging them with reckless drivering posthumously?

There would still be a full investigation but obviously nobody would be charged, the blame as to who caused the deaths would be determined in the coroners court.

[spudchucka]

Wonder what they charge the cop that crashed his car and then told everyone that it had been stolen with..........?

He was an ex cop and he's already been charged and convicted.

[The_Dover]

hey spud, ever thought about learning to use the "multi quote" facility of the forum?

or are you trying to inflate your post count? ;)

on another note, if she has been stupid enough to incriminate herself in a statement saying that she was stuffing her face with roadkill whilst yapping to uncle mom then :lol:

[Swoop]

...or are you trying to inflate your post count? ;)
Posts close together do not add to the total post count, so the multi-quote is a better option for keeping the place tidy and not using up spank's server space.

[sAsLEX]

its actually a pretty low level offence in the range of driving charges and at most is only likely to get a disq licence and a fine.


It may be a "low level offence" but loosing your license for 6 months and being fined can cost some people a fuck load of money, loosing their job house partner , but yeah keeps charging people.


The fact that the car left the road and slid down a huge cliff could be a clue.

But how do you prove the big Moose wasn't smack bang in the middle of the road and she had to swerve around it causing the accident?

[vifferman]

You have GOT to fucken joking.......:gob:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10406462
It's fair enough - it will stop her doing it again, whereas if they just let her off, she might make a habit of crashing over banks and lying there in pain for two days.
And I *know* what I'm talking about. #1 son was charged with the same thing after wrecking the Subie, and he hasn't wrecked any cars since, so it must work.

[spudchucka]

It may be a "low level offence" but loosing your license for 6 months and being fined can cost some people a fuck load of money, loosing their job house partner , but yeah keeps charging people.



But how do you prove the big Moose wasn't smack bang in the middle of the road and she had to swerve around it causing the accident?

Careless driving is a fine only charge, disqualification is at the discretion of the court and they aren't going to dish it out unless the cops ask for it and have reasonable grounds to request it.

Skid marks, gouges on the road etc etc can paint a pretty clear picture of what happened and who knows what was said to police in statements.

[James Deuce]

If the Police had turned up at my accident down the road from Paul's I would have been charged with Careless. Probably a good warning to work on my skills instead of taking my license for granted.

It's how it works. She was looking at the scenery and drove off the road down a bank. I don't really want her on the road thanks.

[sAsLEX]

If the Police had turned up at my accident down the road from Paul's I would have been charged with Careless. Probably a good warning to work on my skills instead of taking my license for granted.

It's how it works. She was looking at the scenery and drove off the road down a bank. I don't really want her on the road thanks.




But were you careless?! Or was it the road's inherent flaws that were at fault, in that even an experienced and attentive rider crashed putting the blame away from you but to the council, do you think the cops would of charged the council with negligence causing injury since they had been informed of the hazard on numerous occasions but failed to even place a warning sign!?

Oh thats right its easier to charge joe public and keep the quota up.

[spudchucka]

But were you careless?! Or was it the road's inherent flaws that were at fault, in that even an experienced and attentive rider crashed putting the blame away from you but to the council, do you think the cops would of charged the council with negligence causing injury since they had been informed of the hazard on numerous occasions but failed to even place a warning sign!?

Oh thats right its easier to charge joe public and keep the quota up.

There are rules that govern how road works etc are set up and warning signs etc are part of that. If the warning signs aren't deployed correctly then the council or their contractor may be liable if an accident results. There have been cases where contractors have been charge under OSH.

However, if the signs etc are set out correctly and a biker crashes because they lost control in gravel then it is down to their own stupidity / carelessness. (not saying thats the case with you Jim, I don't recall reading about the crash you mention).

[James Deuce]

In my case the road works have been over for months but the surface has been breaking up quite badly ever since. I knew the surface was dodgy and didn't take enough care.

[The Stranger]

The fact that the car left the road and slid down a huge cliff could be a clue.

Yeah, sure, she screwed up. The thing I don't quite get though is this.

What's the point in charging her, or anyone for a mistake?

Now, if I make a mistake, accept it and learn from it, and there is no victim, what purpose is served by further punisment?

We are all human, we all make mistakes, should ALL mistakes be punished?

Contrast this with say our esteemed leader who ilegally spent our money on the election even after being warned, knowingly over spent on the election, denied responsibility and there are real victims (she stole from you and me) and gets off cause the police didn't want to cause a stink.
That really is a case where a punisment is deserved.

[slimjim]

:bleh: :bleh: :doctor: :Oops: :clap: , and all in favor of the police, sick of this fuckass's crashing, getting hospital care, and fucking off out without paying for some thing, and anyway as them been oversear's , it doesn't mean fuck all :angry:

[Pixie]

Some good PR aye, what good does charging someone with careless after they have suffered like that?

I mean most people know they have fucked up if they crash and getting a charge to fuck your insurance etc aint helping the situation

What good?
It's one more contact on a piggies quota

[scumdog]

What good?
It's one more contact on a piggies quota

And don't you forget it!

[scumdog]

Yeah, sure, she screwed up. The thing I don't quite get though is this.

What's the point in charging her, or anyone for a mistake?

Now, if I make a mistake, accept it and learn from it, and there is no victim, what purpose is served by further punisment?


So y'all would be happy that drunk drivers never get charged unless they hurt somebody - after all what's the point of charging them for a mistake??

And if they make a mistake they'll accept and learn from it, right? (Tuis moment) especially if there's no victim, why the need for any punishment??.

[Jantar]

It's how it works. She was looking at the scenery and drove off the road down a bank. I don't really want her on the road thanks.



She wasn't looking at the scenery that day on that road. Visibilty was poor with low cloud and a steady heavy drizzle.

[Ixion]

I guess it'd be a bit hard to say that she *carefully* drove off the road and down a bank.

[WINJA]

She could of killed her mother and another road user. If it was you on your bike coming the other way and she didnt take the corner properly and ended up in a ditch on the other side of the road, taking you out in the process would you be so sure that she wasnt being careless with her driving?

Being Dead or waking up in a hospital bed not able to move anything below your neck or waist would be horrible.

There is no intent on her part, the charge simply means the person did not drive the way a prudent driver would and has been careless.

It's all very well to say shes been through a lot however Police really cant choose to say "well shes had it pretty rough for a couple of days so that will be enough". That is for the Court to decide.

SOME OF THESE GUYS DONT GET IT , THE PIGS ARE ACTUALLY DONIG US A FAVOUR CHARGING HER , IF IT WAS A BOY RACER WAS IN THE DITCH FOR 2 DAYS AND THE PIGS CHRAGED HIM EVERYONE WOULD SAY GREAT , THIS BITCH IS NO DIFFERENT AND IT JUST GOES TO SHOW THE PIGS ARE NOT FAVOURING ONE SECTOR OF SOCIETY THIS COUPLED WITH THE PIG BEING CHARGED WITH DRINK DRIVING AT THAT ACCIDENT AND THE PIG THAT TOOK THE OTHER PIGS LICENCE FOR 28 DAYS JUST SHOWS THE PIGS ARE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT

[Jantar]

I guess it'd be a bit hard to say that she *carefully* drove off the road and down a bank.
So true... :clap:

[Grahameeboy]

So y'all would be happy that drunk drivers never get charged unless they hurt somebody - after all what's the point of charging them for a mistake??

And if they make a mistake they'll accept and learn from it, right? (Tuis moment) especially if there's no victim, why the need for any punishment??.

Drinking is a bit different because there is the 'Intention' or in other words it is not accidental whereas a mistake is not intended....drunk person knowingly gets in car etc..............like a boy racer, he knowingly races around.....this old lady came running down the mountain...geeze I am off again

[scumdog]

Drinking is a bit different because there is the 'Intention' or in other words it is not accidental whereas a mistake is not intended....drunk person knowingly gets in car etc..............like a boy racer, he knowingly races around.....this old lady came running down the mountain...geeze I am off again

No pedantics please - she screwed up, she hurt somebody, she could have killed YOU with her carelessness!

Careless Use: 'Driving in a manner a normal prudent motorist would not'

[James Deuce]

She wasn't looking at the scenery that day on that road. Visibilty was poor with low cloud and a steady heavy drizzle.

Not what she said on the radio interview from her hospital bed the day after she was rescued. Whihc may of course have led to the charge.

[Clivoris]

They should, following too close is a real problem.

I couldn't agree more. :yes: This is one of my pet-hates.:angry2: I have never heard of anyone being fined for tailgating. Is there any way to find out whether any tickets are ever given out for this? Cos it certainly fits my definition of careless driving if not downright farking dangerous. :scratch: Why don't I ever see a tailgating blitz down here in Welly?

[DEATH_INC.]

I have never heard of anyone being fined for tailgating. Is there any way to find out whether any tickets are ever given out for this?
I have, in My U.A.V., for tailgating a wanker taxi that was putting along in the rh lane of the motorway holding everyone up.....

[imdying]

So no (sic) you are saying accident is less then?That's for the courts to decide, not the police. The judge of course can reduce or remove the charges if he sees fit.


If she was in the car by herself and crashed and was stuck for two days... would she still have got done with careless?One would hope so.


Glad they have solved the important one and now can move on and deal with the seemingly trivial matters like the death of twin babies with no charges laid months later................So until that matter has been dealt with, all other offences should be ignored? If they would stop mucking about and start shooting that family one by one, we'd have a confession soon enough... no surprise that they're all too gutless to own up though, you can tell just by looking at them.


so if the driver and passenger had been killed, would the police be charging them with reckless drivering posthumously?There would be nobody to charge, I would have thought that was obvious.


Wonder what they charge the cop that crashed his car and then told everyone that it had been stolen with..........? Even if he had been a serving officer at the time, it's reasonable to assume that with the amount of retards in NZ, at least some of them must get through police recruiting.


Wet or something? F#$%ng oath it was wet. I passed by that very spot on the same day about 2 hours before they crashed. See http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=34560&page=4 and I can tell you it it was pissing down. The roads were quite slippery, and I had to take extra care with every vehicle I tried to pass.

Careless? Inexperienced in the conditions more likely.Not driving to the conditions is careless by definition.


She has been charged with careless driving causing injury - its actually a pretty low level offence in the range of driving charges and at most is only likely to get a disq licence and a fine.

Her driving caused serious injuries to herself and her mother and could of killed or seriously hurt someone coming the other way.Yep, it's not like they've thrown the book at her....


Christ - one look at the poor bitches face in that picture says it all. No need to punish her further.So if I run your toddler over and sob about it when the cops turn up, I shouldn't be charged?


The woman has suffered enough pain and misery. Some discretion from the Police would assist in her recovery.It's not the job of the police to assist in recovery, there are other departments to do that. There job is merely to investigate crime, like driving offences.


There is no quota.With the standard of driving in New Zealand being what it is, I bet you they don't have to make crap up to fill it either.


Careless driving is a fine only charge, disqualification is at the discretion of the court and they aren't going to dish it out unless the cops ask for it and have reasonable grounds to request it.

Skid marks, gouges on the road etc etc can paint a pretty clear picture of what happened and who knows what was said to police in statements.It's not like SCU haven't seen it all before. But even if they haven't, and can't make objective decisions as to whether or not people should be charged, at least they've got the bleeding hearts to help them.


SOME OF THESE GUYS DONT GET IT , THE PIGS ARE ACTUALLY DONIG US A FAVOUR CHARGING HER , IF IT WAS A BOY RACER WAS IN THE DITCH FOR 2 DAYS AND THE PIGS CHRAGED HIM EVERYONE WOULD SAY GREAT , THIS BITCH IS NO DIFFERENT AND IT JUST GOES TO SHOW THE PIGS ARE NOT FAVOURING ONE SECTOR OF SOCIETY THIS COUPLED WITH THE PIG BEING CHARGED WITH DRINK DRIVING AT THAT ACCIDENT AND THE PIG THAT TOOK THE OTHER PIGS LICENCE FOR 28 DAYS JUST SHOWS THE PIGS ARE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENTEssentially, yes.


No pedantics please - she screwed up, she hurt somebody, she could have killed YOU with her carelessness!

Careless Use: 'Driving in a manner a normal prudent motorist would not'I think one can safely assume that driving off the road into a ditch isn't the actions of a prudent motorist. If the judge who looks at all the evidence doesn't agree, he can let her off.

[Clivoris]

SOME OF THESE GUYS DONT GET IT , THE PIGS ARE ACTUALLY DONIG US A FAVOUR CHARGING HER , IF IT WAS A BOY RACER WAS IN THE DITCH FOR 2 DAYS AND THE PIGS CHRAGED HIM EVERYONE WOULD SAY GREAT , THIS BITCH IS NO DIFFERENT AND IT JUST GOES TO SHOW THE PIGS ARE NOT FAVOURING ONE SECTOR OF SOCIETY THIS COUPLED WITH THE PIG BEING CHARGED WITH DRINK DRIVING AT THAT ACCIDENT AND THE PIG THAT TOOK THE OTHER PIGS LICENCE FOR 28 DAYS JUST SHOWS THE PIGS ARE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT

Cut it out WINJA. If you post too much shit I agree with I get a pain behind my eyeball. Some things just arent natural.

[Meekey_Mouse]

I couldn't agree more. :yes: This is one of my pet-hates.:angry2: I have never heard of anyone being fined for tailgating. Is there any way to find out whether any tickets are ever given out for this? Cos it certainly fits my definition of careless driving if not downright farking dangerous. :scratch: Why don't I ever see a tailgating blitz down here in Welly?

ARGH!!! Tailgaters:mad: There are so many of them!!! NZ'ers are chronic for this, But I agree.... Why don't they get charged??? Thinking about it... MOST (not all... but close) NZ'ers are chronic for being allround bad drivers :dodge:

[jonbuoy]

That's for the courts to decide, not the police. The judge of course can reduce or remove the charges if he sees fit.

One would hope so.

So until that matter has been dealt with, all other offences should be ignored? If they would stop mucking about and start shooting that family one by one, we'd have a confession soon enough... no surprise that they're all too gutless to own up though, you can tell just by looking at them.

There would be nobody to charge, I would have thought that was obvious.

Even if he had been a serving officer at the time, it's reasonable to assume that with the amount of retards in NZ, at least some of them must get through police recruiting.

Not driving to the conditions is careless by definition.

Yep, it's not like they've thrown the book at her....

So if I run your toddler over and sob about it when the cops turn up, I shouldn't be charged?

It's not the job of the police to assist in recovery, there are other departments to do that. There job is merely to investigate crime, like driving offences.

With the standard of driving in New Zealand being what it is, I bet you they don't have to make crap up to fill it either.

It's not like SCU haven't seen it all before. But even if they haven't, and can't make objective decisions as to whether or not people should be charged, at least they've got the bleeding hearts to help them.

Essentially, yes.

I think one can safely assume that driving off the road into a ditch isn't the actions of a prudent motorist. If the judge who looks at all the evidence doesn't agree, he can let her off.


Bad day mate? - But she didn't run over a toddler.

[scumdog]

Bad day mate? - But she didn't run over a toddler.


Arrgh!
And the drunk driver never crashed into anybody,
And the speeding driver never hit a small child
And the guy that did a runner never hit a motorcyclist
And the gut that ran the orange light never T-boned the mum in a mini.
And they kid not wearing his seatbelt never crashed
And the guy tailgating never run up the rear of another car
And the girl txting never hit anyone on the pedestrian crossing
And the girl never caused anybody to crash when she failed to indicate..

and so on ad neauseum, ad infinitum

So none deserved a ticket, none needed summonsed to Court????

[The Stranger]

So y'all would be happy that drunk drivers never get charged unless they hurt somebody - after all what's the point of charging them for a mistake??

And if they make a mistake they'll accept and learn from it, right? (Tuis moment) especially if there's no victim, why the need for any punishment??.

Yeah, perhaps a poor choice of words when I asked "What's the point in charging her, or anyone for a mistake?" however I did clarify my intent in the next sentence, which you also quote.

So in a case such as this, what purpose is served by further punisment?

[The Stranger]

No pedantics please - she screwed up, she hurt somebody, she could have killed YOU with her carelessness!

Careless Use: 'Driving in a manner a normal prudent motorist would not'

Yeah she could have, so please enlighten me, how will charging her with careless change that? Either for the past, present or the future?

She has had a far bigger wakeup call than a careless charge will give her, all charging her will do is rub salt into the wound.

Go get Klark if you want to do something constructive, she obviously hasn't learnt the error of her ways.

[The_Dover]

she was fat, she deserved it.

the 2 days probably did her good and added a few days to her life.

[Brett]

Sounds like the strong arm of the law strikes again...

[imdying]

Bad day mate? - But she didn't run over a toddler.Not at all, I spent last night putting a bike together and didn't have a chance to reply till then... by that time, quite a collection of dribble needed answering.

[imdying]

Yeah, perhaps a poor choice of words when I asked "What's the point in charging her, or anyone for a mistake?" however I did clarify my intent in the next sentence, which you also quote.

So in a case such as this, what purpose is served by further punisment?Your next sentence makes an assumption (that she'd learn from the experience) that has been proven unreliable in the past, Which is how we got to the law, charge, prosecuting deal in the first place. The police are obliged to charge someone driving negligently (and as they've investigated and come to that conclusion, we have no real cause to doubt the product of that investigation). That's their job, that's what we pay them to do. Judges decide whether she's guilty or not, that's we pay them to do.

Regardless,

The bleeding hearts should wait for the verdict, and bitch about the conviction then if it doesn't suit their romantic sympathies. Those same people should probably consider how much they contributed to building a society that would on the other hand slay those same policeman if she hadn't have been charged, and later went on to commit an even worse driving offence, possibly killing or injuring someone seriously.

Society wants a police force that's accountable to every tiny mistake they make, fine, but don't bitch about it when they do their jobs exactly as they're supposed to.

[imdying]

Yeah she could have, so please enlighten me, how will charging her with careless change that? Either for the past, present or the future?If nothing else, it gives a judge the chance to force a retest of her license. If she can drive sufficiently well to get it back, that's fine, at least some attempt at removing a possibly unsuitable driver from the roads was made.

[Biff]

she was fat, she deserved it.

the 2 days probably did her good and added a few days to her life.

Ever seen the filum Alive ?

They could have lasted for months. They may have struggled for fries though. And Diet Coke,

[sAsLEX]

No pedantics please - she screwed up, she hurt somebody, she could have killed YOU with her carelessness!

Careless Use: 'Driving in a manner a normal prudent motorist would not'

News just to hand.

The accused finding the idea of being charged not to her taste has taken the law back to parliament to have it changed to make her actions legal!

[Edbear]

I think one can safely assume that driving off the road into a ditch isn't the actions of a prudent motorist.




'Cept when one comes around a blind corner and there's some dumb bunny stopped in the middle of the road! Had nowhere else to go that day!:gob:

PS. Good post!

[Grahameeboy]

No pedantics please - she screwed up, she hurt somebody, she could have killed YOU with her carelessness!

Careless Use: 'Driving in a manner a normal prudent motorist would not'

Okay....................:sunny:.....nut 'normal prudent' in NZ..!!

[inlinefour]

You have GOT to fucken joking.......:gob:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10406462

The woman was driving outside the conditions and caused the accident, pretty easy to see careless driving there. Cannot see why you have a problem with it eh. :whocares:

[Grahameeboy]

The woman was driving outside the conditions and caused the accident, pretty easy to see careless driving there. Cannot see why you have a problem with it eh. :whocares:

I know where yah coming from, just my way of thinking is that it is the intention, like you know you are driving in a careless manner and continue as oppose to human error..............

[imdying]

'Cept when one comes around a blind corner and there's some dumb bunny stopped in the middle of the road! Had nowhere else to go that day!:gob:Over top of the bunny ;) I've done a couple of cats on smaller bikes, I figure the SV can stomp a bunny. Some of those big hares down south might knacker me though :lol:

[Grahameeboy]

Over top of the bunny ;) I've done a couple of cats on smaller bikes, I figure the SV can stomp a bunny. Some of those big hares down south might knacker me though :lol:

SV's rule.................:yes:

[Grahameeboy]

'Cept when one comes around a blind corner and there's some dumb bunny stopped in the middle of the road! Had nowhere else to go that day!:gob:

PS. Good post!

Intresting point..what would the Police do in that situation?

[inlinefour]

I know where yah coming from, just my way of thinking is that it is the intention, like you know you are driving in a careless manner and continue as oppose to human error..............

my way of thinking is that human error is careless...

[Grahameeboy]

my way of thinking is that human error is careless...

Your a 'ard man IL4................but respect your view............:rockon:

[Ixion]

Intresting point..what would the Police do in that situation?

Prolly crash.

But the correct answer is "Always drive so as to be able to stop safely in the clear hazard free road visible ahead"

So , if you can't see what's around the bend - slow down.

[The Stranger]

Your next sentence makes an assumption (that she'd learn from the experience) that has been proven unreliable in the past, Which is how we got to the law, charge, prosecuting deal in the first place. The police are obliged to charge someone driving negligently (and as they've investigated and come to that conclusion, we have no real cause to doubt the product of that investigation). That's their job, that's what we pay them to do. Judges decide whether she's guilty or not, that's we pay them to do.



I heard of research the other day which suggests that a warning from the Police has a greater impact on road safety than ticketing. You get a ticket and you slow down for a short while whilst the shock sinks in, but shortly thereafter think screw it and are back speeding. If you get a warning you think, damn that was lucky and respect it rather than resent it.

However some are quite capable of learning. It is the ones whom aren't that are the cause of the problem and time spent on the distinction would be time well spent.

But assuming you are correct on the need to prosecute all mistakes, why then do the Police not apply this principal to Klark, even when she has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated an inability to learn respect for the law or the Police force.

As to the bleeding hearts screwing up society, the failure to prosecute and remove Klark has done far more harm to society than any bleeding heart could ever do.

[scracha]

Do they..........I know this is NZ but in the UK they use commonsense.........I mean in UK if you hit someone up the rear you don't get charged like you do here.....

Wanna bet? Fully insured, well below speed limit (35mph on a 60 limit), fully MOT'd etc etc. Blind bend, road narrowed a little and result was a head on. Nobody injured, both cars written off but cops charged me with careless (she wasn't charged as she wasn't Scottish and had a daddy in the local Rotary club). Try 8 points (12 points in UK = bye bye license for 6 months), 650 pounds fine plus 240 pounds court costs? The UK traffic cops are complete bastards too and are charging everyone with whatever they can.

[The Stranger]

If nothing else, it gives a judge the chance to force a retest of her license. If she can drive sufficiently well to get it back, that's fine, at least some attempt at removing a possibly unsuitable driver from the roads was made.

You don't think that maybe after 2 days wondering if she was going to die alone in some fucked up country at the bottom of the world she has that one figured out?

[Grahameeboy]

Wanna bet? Fully insured, well below speed limit (35mph on a 60 limit), fully MOT'd etc etc. Blind bend, road narrowed a little and result was a head on. Nobody injured, both cars written off but cops charged me with careless (she wasn't charged as she wasn't Scottish and had a daddy in the local Rotary club). Try 8 points (12 points in UK = bye bye license for 6 months), 650 pounds fine plus 240 pounds court costs? The UK traffic cops are complete bastards too and are charging everyone with whatever they can.

Sorry to hear that but I was talking about rear end shunts.

I guess we have to remember that the speed limit is a maximum and both cars were written off.

[Grahameeboy]

Prolly crash.

But the correct answer is "Always drive so as to be able to stop safely in the clear hazard free road visible ahead"

So , if you can't see what's around the bend - slow down.

If only life was that simple Ixion...............so if your doing 50kph so have 45 feet to brake and you can only see 10 feet in front you should be doing 15kph......

[spudchucka]

What's the point in charging her, or anyone for a mistake?


The entire internet isn't big enough to host that discussion.

[Grahameeboy]

The entire internet isn't big enough to host that discussion.

Surely Spank Me just has to upgrade site..............??

[spudchucka]

Intresting point..what would the Police do in that situation?

Sudden emergence of animals onto the roadway can be a defence against a careless driving charge.

[Grahameeboy]

Sudden emergence of animals onto the roadway can be a defence against a careless driving charge.

Mmmm sudden lapse of concentration......................doya think??

[Ixion]

If only life was that simple Ixion...............so if your doing 50kph so have 45 feet to brake and you can only see 10 feet in front you should be doing 15kph......

Yep. In fact if I could only see 10 feet in front of me I'd slow to less than 15kph.

Never can figure why people have so much of a problem with this. Is very simple really. What you can't see is dangerous. Works for me.

[Grahameeboy]

Yep. In fact if I could only see 10 feet in front of me I'd slow to less than 15kph.

Never can figure why people have so much of a problem with this. Is very simple really. What you can't see is dangerous. Works for me.

Well we are both alive and kicking so guess we have both managed eh?

[spudchucka]

Mmmm sudden lapse of concentration......................doya think??

Sudden emergence of animals, as in you are cruising along and "suddenly" an animal bolts across your path from the side of the road and you have no way of avoiding it or you swerve and end up leaving the road.

It wouldn't be a defence if you came flying around a corner on a country road and smacked into farmer Brown's cows because in a rural setting you should be anticipating such hazards.

[Skyryder]

Sudden emergence of animals, as in you are cruising along and "suddenly" an animal bolts across your path from the side of the road and you have no way of avoiding it or you swerve and end up leaving the road.

It wouldn't be a defence if you came flying around a corner on a country road and smacked into farmer Brown's cows because in a rural setting you should be anticipating such hazards.

I may be wrong Spud but I was under the impression that their is some legal responsibilty for farmers to ensure that their stock, does not/can not, wander on the road. What's the law on this??

Skyryder

[scracha]

Sorry to hear that but I was talking about rear end shunts.
I guess we have to remember that the speed limit is a maximum and both cars were written off.

Were both well below speed limit and we both couldn't stop in time. Nobody injured. My insurance paid for her car (wouldn't have been a 50/50 if the cops hadn't put their oar in), loss of wages and inconvenience so why the @#$ck did the prick coppers charge? And likewise with rear end shunts, if nobody is injured and the damage gets paid for by the "guilty" party then why lay charges? Paying 100's more in insurance is as good a deterrant as any.

Anyways...putting all of these "careless" crashes into perspective. Should the cops charge us whenever we drop our motorcycles? $hit happens, road surfaces differ etc etc. Careless driving charges should only be lain when people are driving like arseholes, leaving 1s braking distances etc etc.

[mooks]

so does that means 49.9 some % aren't?


the nice cop that pinged me for "leaning over a bit in the wind there missy..."
He was nice enough to let me off with a smile and a caution - when I was going a bit quick round the pauatahanui inlet on my 900.
That man deserves a DB.:niceone:

Some of them are ok.
:niceone:

[spudchucka]

I may be wrong Spud but I was under the impression that their is some legal responsibilty for farmers to ensure that their stock, does not/can not, wander on the road. What's the law on this??

Skyryder

Not 100% sure sorry.

As I understand it they have to take reasonable steps to ensure animals don't wander onto roads, (maintain fencing etc to a reasonable standard, cattle stops at open gateways etc).

From a drivers perspective though you need to be aware that stock on roads isn't uncommon on rural roads and drive to those conditions.

There may be some liability for vehicle damage on a farmer that allows stock to wander on a road but it wouldn't necessarily excuse the driver from a careless driving charge if they crashed as a result of livestock wandering on a road.

[Patrick]

I have never heard of anyone being fined for tailgating. Is there any way to find out whether any tickets are ever given out for this?

It happens... $150 fine "Follows too closely at .... kmph."

[Patrick]

I know where yah coming from, just my way of thinking is that it is the intention, like you know you are driving in a careless manner and continue as oppose to human error..............

The difference is the intention to continue makes it dangerous or reckless.
Careless is simply "not the actions of a prudent driver"... ie:... everyone else makes it around that corner, why didn't you?

[Patrick]

Intresting point..what would the Police do in that situation?

Run the vermin over... bloody rabbits!!!

[Patrick]

I heard of research the other day which suggests that a warning from the Police has a greater impact on road safety than ticketing. You get a ticket and you slow down for a short while whilst the shock sinks in, but shortly thereafter think screw it and are back speeding. If you get a warning you think, damn that was lucky and respect it rather than resent it.


Depends on who you speak to... others think it is the other way around...

[SPman]

Yep. In fact if I could only see 10 feet in front of me I'd slow to less than 15kph.

Never can figure why people have so much of a problem with this. Is very simple really. What you can't see is dangerous. Works for me.
Had this problem on the Desert Road once - clagged down,wet, slippery - I was going 60-70k and thinking it was as dangerous as all hell and should slow down even more.....the cars were still sitting on 120 plus ...appearing from the mist 20m behind the bike and vanishing into the ethereal tendrils 20m ahead.........

Scary.......

[Patrick]

Had this problem on the Desert Road once - clagged down,wet, slippery - I was going 60-70k and thinking it was as dangerous as all hell and should slow down even more.....the cars were still sitting on 120 plus ...appearing from the mist 20m behind the bike and vanishing into the ethereal tendrils 20m ahead.........

Scary.......

Thats where I am working at the moment (just an 8 week stint...) you should see them in the sleet and snow... can't see for shit but still roaring through at 120 plus.

I'm the one that shakes the "tut tut" finger (not the middle one!) at the bikers speeding through there... up to 7 at last count. Spoke to a few, just to check out the bikes before sending em on their way... Colleagues may not be so "obliging" though..

[Lou Girardin]

There may be some liability for vehicle damage on a farmer that allows stock to wander on a road but it wouldn't necessarily excuse the driver from a careless driving charge if they crashed as a result of livestock wandering on a road.

That's a bit of a stretch Spudly.
Does it also apply if you hit a bunny and binned your bike? Or if a pheasant flew into your face?
Why shouldn't we just call it an accident and then you guys can concentrate on catching criminals.

[spudchucka]

That's a bit of a stretch Spudly.
Does it also apply if you hit a bunny and binned your bike? Or if a pheasant flew into your face?
Why shouldn't we just call it an accident and then you guys can concentrate on catching criminals.
I hit a dead wombat in Aussie once at about 120 k's, nearly ended up spiked on a farm fence, but all I was talking about there was defences for a careless charge.

Shit happens and there is plenty of shit on our roads, its just a matter of time before most folk have an "accident".