Your comments am speechless

[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 ...

[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/@-45.1...7i13312!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/cri...s-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 ...

[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 ...

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.