Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

jasonc wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2024 9:57 am

and with the poor sentences given to perpetrators:

1. they are not being adequately punished ,
2. others are not being deterred from committing similar offences
3. the poor sentences, and inadequate driving bans means they are out driving again very soon after committing the initial offence
4. no rehabilitation has occurred
5. the media helps them think it's the cyclist's fault, so they don't feel to blame
6. the media's portrayal of car crashes as the fault of the car, rather that the driver, means that no-one has been denounced
7. harm done? how dare you put the perfect citizen in jail? it was only a cyclist

Agreed
Running down and killing a cyclist is seen as an accepted occurence when driving it appears. You do not even need to be obeying laws and paying attention to the task at hand.

Read the deliberation here;
https://www.sbs.com.au/sport/article/dr ... /3yl2saxha

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2024 12:02 pm

The bit that gets me most with the sentencing is not so much the manifestly inadequate prison sentence (often suspended for merely killing a cyclist) it's that they inevitably get their licence back at some point, usually in the medium to short term.

There need to be more people permanently forbidden from ever driving a car again. I fail to see where a 'right to drive' is somehow enshrined in our constitution. Pretty sure negligently killing someone while behind the wheel of a car should stop you from ever getting behind the wheel of a car again.

Not that most of them would listen anyway. And how many of them were actually licensed in the first place?

The 19 year old that killed my two club mates back in 2019 was ultimately cleared of all charges except one - "fail to keep left". He hit the two cyclists head on at 80km/h after he crossed to the wrong side of the road, hit the guard rail and then the two riders who were in the cycle lane.

He was originally charged with a number of offenses and given 200 hours community service, but no prison sentence. He later challenged the driving offenses in the court of appeals and won. Not happy with that, he later went to the supreme court to have the negligent driving charge also removed from his driving record. He won that as well, other than the fail to keep left traffic fine. He got his license back last year I believe.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... 5a6d815d27

queequeg wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2024 1:13 pm

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2024 12:02 pm

The bit that gets me most with the sentencing is not so much the manifestly inadequate prison sentence (often suspended for merely killing a cyclist) it's that they inevitably get their licence back at some point, usually in the medium to short term.

There need to be more people permanently forbidden from ever driving a car again. I fail to see where a 'right to drive' is somehow enshrined in our constitution. Pretty sure negligently killing someone while behind the wheel of a car should stop you from ever getting behind the wheel of a car again.

Not that most of them would listen anyway. And how many of them were actually licensed in the first place?

The 19 year old that killed my two club mates back in 2019 was ultimately cleared of all charges except one - "fail to keep left". He hit the two cyclists head on at 80km/h after he crossed to the wrong side of the road, hit the guard rail and then the two riders who were in the cycle lane.

He was originally charged with a number of offenses and given 200 hours community service, but no prison sentence. He later challenged the driving offenses in the court of appeals and won. Not happy with that, he later went to the supreme court to have the negligent driving charge also removed from his driving record. He won that as well, other than the fail to keep left traffic fine. He got his license back last year I believe.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... 5a6d815d27

W t f?!

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2024 3:38 pm

queequeg wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2024 1:13 pm

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2024 12:02 pm

The bit that gets me most with the sentencing is not so much the manifestly inadequate prison sentence (often suspended for merely killing a cyclist) it's that they inevitably get their licence back at some point, usually in the medium to short term.

There need to be more people permanently forbidden from ever driving a car again. I fail to see where a 'right to drive' is somehow enshrined in our constitution. Pretty sure negligently killing someone while behind the wheel of a car should stop you from ever getting behind the wheel of a car again.

Not that most of them would listen anyway. And how many of them were actually licensed in the first place?

The 19 year old that killed my two club mates back in 2019 was ultimately cleared of all charges except one - "fail to keep left". He hit the two cyclists head on at 80km/h after he crossed to the wrong side of the road, hit the guard rail and then the two riders who were in the cycle lane.

He was originally charged with a number of offenses and given 200 hours community service, but no prison sentence. He later challenged the driving offenses in the court of appeals and won. Not happy with that, he later went to the supreme court to have the negligent driving charge also removed from his driving record. He won that as well, other than the fail to keep left traffic fine. He got his license back last year I believe.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... 5a6d815d27

W t f?!

Here's another article

https://7news.com.au/news/nsw/p-plater- ... c-12017961


and here is a fairly detailed explanation of the decisions..

https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-d ... e-conduct/

queequeg wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:22 am

and here is a fairly detailed explanation of the decisions..

https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-d ... e-conduct/

In the technology-centric world that we live in now, with all sorts of (sometimes frivolous) electronic gizmos appearing in motor cars
— surely it is time (over over-time) that cars were mandated to have black-box style self monitoring systems (such as aeroplanes)
Then some of the guesswork would be removed from accident (crash) investigations

elantra wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:10 pm

queequeg wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:22 am

and here is a fairly detailed explanation of the decisions..

https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-d ... e-conduct/

In the technology-centric world that we live in now, with all sorts of (sometimes frivolous) electronic gizmos appearing in motor cars
— surely it is time (over over-time) that cars were mandated to have black-box style self monitoring systems (such as aeroplanes)
Then some of the guesswork would be removed from accident (crash) investigations

Would have to be an ADR as it really isn't feasible to mandate back fitting that to old cars such as ones with minimal electronics. At which point why would manufacturers bother with this market if they have to fit (and maintain) something that expensive? That's what they'd say anyway.

Plus the hack your box black market would be instant. Also you'd need a rego inspection setup in every place that does checks (including states that don't eg SA) to test this box works.

It would be easier to mandate dashcams. Might be harder to sort out how long the footage has to be kept before being overwritten, as the simplest way to deal would be to drive a lot before the cops came for you. That would have to be a presumption of guilt, a good lawyer could probably find a way to deal with that.