"Scream" wrote in message
news:FgTXj.2127$IK1.1273@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "regn.pickford" wrote in message
> news:482e1557@news.comindico.com.au...
>>
>> "scream" wrote in message
>> news:xIbXj.1517$IK1.1055@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
>>> news:4826e11c$0$13944$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> Phil Allison wrote:
>>>>> ** Hi to all,
>>>>>
>>>>> The recent incident in Sydney involving some 50 bicyclists brought
>>>>> down on the highway by the deliberate act of a motorist seems very
>>>>> much a criminal matter - but what criminal charge can the NSW police
>>>>> use ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Driving offences have been mentioned by the police, eg failing to
>>>>> stop after an accident - but what happened is way more serious than
>>>>> that. I see two possibilities in the NSW Crimes Act: Sections 51A and
>>>>> 52AB.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first is called "Predatory driving" and the second is " Offence
>>>>> of failing to stop and assist after vehicle impact causing death or
>>>>> grievous bodily harm ". Far as we know, by great luck no rider was
>>>>> seriously injured, so the second is out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Predatory driving is shown here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s51a.html
>>>>
>>>> 51A(1)(b) might be difficult to prove, particularly if the distances
>>>> involved were such that he could reasonably expect the bicycles to stop
>>>> if they'd had braking ability similar to vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Well this really irks me, that he could reasonably expect the bycycles
>>> to be able to stop.
>>> The action if not caused by a fault in the car/vehicle, the only intent
>>> possible to be read from the action is intention to cause tje bycycles
>>> persons to run into the back of his car, or at the least cause them to
>>> fall and injure themselves in attempts to stop.
>>>
>>> And courts should be able to diseminate between actions that would
>>> appear to be deliberate attempts to injure as against accidental damage.
>>> Presumably why we support such high incomes for our judges and law
>>> makers.
>>
>> If bikes can't stop as well as cars they shouldn't travel `at speed'
>> where they have high exposure to automobiles with better safety features.
>>
>> If some goose pulls up in front of me while driving and I slam into
>> his/her
>> arse, it is _Reg_ that receives the ticket and liability, not the goose
>> up front who pulls over to answer a mobile phone call.
>>
> Obviously you have missed the whole point.
> If some idiot pulls up in front of your car you are expected to keep
> enough distance between you and vehicles in front of you to stop before
> hitting them.
> Here we are talking about some idiot who slammed his brakes on in front of
> a group of people who whether walking or cycling were not equipped to deal
> with a better equipped vehicle for this type of action.
>
[quote stt regn]
If bikes can't stop as well as cars they shouldn't travel `at speed'
where they have high exposure to automobiles with better safety features
[quote fin regn]
> So whether it was a group of runners, kids on tricycles or roller bladers,
> the intent is obvious and has succeeded.
> Now all that has to be decided is what penalty to discourage any repeat of
> this type of behavior on our roads.
Test and register bikes, test and license riders, put speed limits, distance
limits,
limit number of riders in a group, fluourescent safety clothing and
flashing lights
on riders helmets,clothing, bikes and restrict their use of main roads at
peak
traffic volumes.
These riders failed to respect the dangers of bunching up, their equipment's
safety features unsuitability to the conditions and this neglect contributed
to
their accident.
Fine the bikeriders; perhaps it'll teach them they _share_ the road
and ride according to the conditions.
> SCREAM
>
|