Google sponsored links
I got told about this one today:
Lawyer escapes driving death charge (http://www.news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=9757)
My condolences to the cyclists' family.
It seems no matter what we do, ride predictably, be visible, be courteous, etc we can't escape the truly irresponsible.
How can we get the message through? Critical Mass only seems to get people irrate. Any suggestions?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
That story has raised a few eyebrows in Adelaide. There are so many facts that seem to have been ignored by the jury.
The driver had lunch with his mother and brother. They consumed 3 bottles of wine between them plus a few other drinks. He drove home. He killed a cyclist on a straight stretch of road in full mid-afternoon sunlight. He didn't stop. He continued driving home and promptly called his lawyer mate,but not the police or ambulance. The police caught up with him several hours after the crash. Although they could smell alcohol they never breath tested him. The driver claimed he was trying to pass another vehicle and did not see the cyclist (who was riding in the same direction). The fact he was driving a Toyota Landcruiser would indicate his higher ride height would have given him a good view of the road ahead.
This case has a made a lot of people angry. The government is now going to increase the penalty for “failing to stop after an accident” from 12 months to 10 years, but it’s all too late for Ian Humphries and his family.
At the moment the cycling community in Adelaide is deciding what sort of protest/demonstration would be appropriate to send a message the general public, that we are not going to take this lying down.
Remember this is the same state where a driver dragged a cyclist for 6kms under his car, stopped to dislodge the rider, then continued home. That (drunk) driver received 4 years.:crash:
It should also be mentioned that the driver apart form being a defence lawyer is also an ex-cop.
CHEERS.
Mark
This sucks. If I read this right, it's probable that the car he was "attempting to overtake" was probably slowed to be cautious of the cyclist?
That story has raised a few eyebrows in Adelaide. There are so many facts that seem to have been ignored by the jury.
The driver had lunch with his mother and brother. They consumed 3 bottles of wine between them plus a few other drinks. He drove home. He killed a cyclist on a straight stretch of road in full mid-afternoon sunlight. He didn't stop. He continued driving home and promptly called his lawyer mate,but not the police or ambulance. The police caught up with him several hours after the crash. Although they could smell alcohol they never breath tested him. The driver claimed he was trying to pass another vehicle and did not see the cyclist (who was riding in the same direction). The fact he was driving a Toyota Landcruiser would indicate his higher ride height would have given him a good view of the road ahead.
This case has a made a lot of people angry. The government is now going to increase the penalty for “failing to stop after an accident” from 12 months to 10 years, but it’s all too late for Ian Humphries and his family.
At the moment the cycling community in Adelaide is deciding what sort of protest/demonstration would be appropriate to send a message the general public, that we are not going to take this lying down.
Remember this is the same state where a driver dragged a cyclist for 6kms under his car, stopped to dislodge the rider, then continued home. That (drunk) driver received 4 years.:crash:
It should also be mentioned that the driver apart form being a defence lawyer is also an ex-cop.
CHEERS.
Mark
I wish I could be there to protest with you. Would be good if every capital city holds a protest, might get some action taken.
This sucks. If I read this right, it's probable that the car he was "attempting to overtake" was probably slowed to be cautious of the cyclist?
You would think so, but some people are so impatient they don't think about who's life might be at stake.
Just yesterday afternoon I was riding home and up ahead a car had slowed down and stopped for some kids with their parents to cross at a pedestrian crossing. The car behind braked slightly then flew into the parking lane (also bus stop lane and informal bike lane) to overtake the stopped car, by sheer luck they braked in time to not plough straight through the pedestrians. As soon as the people were out of the car drivers' way he went screeching down the parking lane overtaking the car that had stopped and also another car that had just turned onto the road. I wish I got their number plates but it was getting dark and they had no lights on :mad:
with a name like ...666, why do you care?
destroy.all
From what he said of himself at the trial, it sounds like he's not mentally tough enough to drive a motorized vehicle.
Around here, nobody messes around on the roads with the Harley-Davidson riders, but prior violence is the key to that.
What gets me is the line "McGee then fled the scene, telling his trial he went into a state of shock and was worried about the consequences the crash would have on his career." Not a shred of concern for the person he just hit.
with a name like ...666, why do you care?
destroy.all
Why should I not care?
A person is killed by, effectively, a deadly weapon even though it is not legally defined as one. It's ludicrous that the guy behind the wheel gets off with basically a slap on the wrist. THAT is evil, THAT is unjust of course I'm going to care, his family his KIDS are left without a dad and his "killer" walks free. Why judge me by my name? It's a number, it doesn't mean anything unless you make it mean something.
Stories like this make me angry. Poor man--poor family.
I'm not optimistic that as long as automobiles are a widespread form of personal transportation this sad story won't continue to be told with regularity. Some people will respond by saying cars aren't the problem--selfish, idiot drivers are. I'd like to know what utopia people expect to find where people don't act like selfish idiots. Use of the automobile as personal transportation is the problem--it's a way of getting from A to B that routinely involves death. Stupid--but it's oh so convenient.
Fortunately, geological limits will stop the foolishness sooner or later.
Some people will respond by saying cars aren't the problem--selfish, idiot drivers are. I'd like to know what utopia people expect to find where people don't act like selfish idiots. Use of the automobile as personal transportation is the problem--it's a way of getting from A to B that routinely involves death. Stupid--but it's oh so convenient.
Your alternative? Make sure it's suitable for sub-zero temperatures. Provides adequete protection during heavy rain. Ability to safely transport more than one person, including infants and people with disabilities.
When you have it figured out, let us know. Otherwise you're just flailing your arms around.
The laws in the US have no teeth either... Reckless driving in CA is a $1000 fine and or 90 days. Littering is also a $1000 fine.
So I guess killing a cyclist or a pedestrian is littering?
These laws need some teeth... huge fines for causing a death.
Your alternative? Make sure it's suitable for sub-zero temperatures. Provides adequete protection during heavy rain. Ability to safely transport more than one person, including infants and people with disabilities.
When you have it figured out, let us know. Otherwise you're just flailing your arms around.
Heard of the bus? Subway? Light rail? Pedicab?
Heard of the bus? Subway? Light rail? Pedicab?
Heard of middle-America, small towns, and rural areas???
Your alternative? Make sure it's suitable for sub-zero temperatures. Provides adequete protection during heavy rain. Ability to safely transport more than one person, including infants and people with disabilities.
When you have it figured out, let us know. Otherwise you're just flailing your arms around.
It's not the vehicle, it is the attitude of those using it... part of that attitude comes from ads that push "transportation" as sex machines, as "the ultimate driving machine" and "zoom zoom..." etc. Add in movies like 2 Fast 2 Furious that glamorize street racing and that sub-culture.
This sets up the consumer for a failed love affair situation... their "little red sports car" spends a lot of time idling in traffic. Drivers get frustrated and push the envelope. Cars are made safer, handle better and protect the drivers better than they ever have, so motorists push them harder with a certain "I deserve this" mentality.
The laws that govern the actions of the drivers, such as reckless driving... have no teeth... in CA, it is a $1000 fine, and/or 90 days. That $1000 fine is like two car payments... big deal. Yet reckless driving is the charge that is often used when one "accidently" mows down a cyclist or a pedestrian. Usually there is also talk about how grieved the driver is... too bad they were not concerned enough to look twice, or slow down, or actually stop at the light or sign.
Heard of middle-America, small towns, and rural areas???
Yes, and I don't recommend them. Seriously, though: alternatives ARE workable - my town of 13,000 has regular bus service - but people have to demand them before they become available. And, as has been said before: the fact that it's uncomfortably cold to ride in many places three months out of the year in no way requires using a car during the OTHER nine months! If only the elderly and infirm - or their caretakers - drove on nice days, and everyone else rode, our lives would be vastly better, safer, and more sustainable.
The laws in the US have no teeth either... Reckless driving in CA is a $1000 fine and or 90 days. Littering is also a $1000 fine.
So I guess killing a cyclist or a pedestrian is littering?
The motorcar is the only vehicle that one can kill a police officer, cyclists or even the president of the U.S. without having to spend a day in jail. Since the turn of the century, millions have died around the world due to the motorcar resulting in the courts showing little respect to human life.
The motorcar is the only vehicle that one can kill a police officer, cyclists or even the president of the U.S. without having to spend a day in jail. Since the turn of the century, millions have died around the world due to the motorcar resulting in the courts showing little respect to human life.
It's all about individual accountability, which is SUPPOSED to be the (very reasonable) price we pay for freedom. Unfortunately, as long as the judges and juries are noncycling motorists, the system will remain biased. (Two of us were voir dired off of a vehicular manslaughter jury panel because, and only because, we were bicyclists as well as motorists.) MADD has successfully lobbied for stricter penalties for drunk drivers; if they don't want to expand their charter, perhaps we need another group, to advocate for stricter penalties for aggressive, distracted, inattentive, or somnolent drivers.
Well, I guess I'm going to sound a bit unsympathetic here, but...
Choking back emotion earlier this week, McGee told the trial he had not seen the cyclist before the crash and went into a state of shock immediately after.
He said the accident occurred moments after he returned to the left lane after attempting to overtake another car.
"There was just a sudden flash to my left and I looked to my left and there was a person," McGee said.
"I put my arm up ... I think I ducked.
"The person actually thundered into the cabin part of the car ... (and) hit the car with a tremendous amount of force.
"I couldn't stop, I just continued to drive down the road.
"Just a rush of thoughts came into my head about the fact there had been an accident, the fact that someone had obviously been killed, that I hadn't stopped (and) that I was in serious trouble for not stopping.
"Obviously I was going to be arrested (and) charged by the police.
"I started thinking about the consequences in terms of my profession.
Poor Lawyer McGee!
Translation:
"I was driving normally when all of a sudden, this cyclist came out of nowhere and hit me with such tremendous force, it sounded like thunder. I instinctively held up my arm to protect myself. When I realized that the cyclist was probably killed because of his dangerous actions, I immediately panicked about his actions might affect my career."
Appealing to the jury's feelings of "it could be me next time," the lawyer skillfully (with crocodile tears) used the same technique that helps drunk drivers get reduced charges.
Obviously, there were not enough cyclists in the jury (if any.)
Your alternative? Make sure it's suitable for sub-zero temperatures. Provides adequete protection during heavy rain. Ability to safely transport more than one person, including infants and people with disabilities.
When you have it figured out, let us know. Otherwise you're just flailing your arms around.
Autos have been in use for about 100 years. What do you think people did before that? Somehow they managed to transport babies in the rain. Think outside the cage!
Autos have been in use for about 100 years. What do you think people did before that? Somehow they managed to transport babies in the rain. Think outside the cage!
Folks were generally so busy working to earn a meager living that they didn't have sufficient leisure time. Otherwise history books would be replete with stories about protests over the abuse of horses. :) Today we have the liesure to take up causes, even futile ones like getting rid of cars.
Today we have the liesure to take up causes, even futile ones like getting rid of cars.
You're right - it IS futile, because people just can't comprehend the end results of their actions; nobody believes in personal responsibility, everyone believes in might makes right and/or the rapture. Thank God all we have to do is wait 30 years to see the end of auto traffic... it's just a shame drivers insist on taking down the rest of world civilization along with them!
Folks were generally so busy working to earn a meager living that they didn't have sufficient leisure time. Otherwise history books would be replete with stories about protests over the abuse of horses. :) Today we have the liesure to take up causes, even futile ones like getting rid of cars.
Ever read Black Beauty? That was a protest against cruelty to horses. The Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Britain and the Humane Society in The U.S. were huge protest movements. People had plenty of time for other protest movements too--abolition and women's sufferage, to name just two of dozens.
While we're on the subject, if you were around in 1895, how many people believed that getting rid of horse transportation was a "futile idea"? Probably 99%. And yet, within another 10 years everyone knew that horse transport was doomed and the age of the automobile was fast upon us. Makes you wonder what will happen in the next ten years....
I feel like a poser quoting song lyrics from has-been artists, but:
BLOWING IN THE WIND
Bob Dylan
"How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand
How many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they are forever banned
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
The answer is blowing in the wind
How many years can a mountain exist
Before it is washed to the sea
How many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free
How many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
The answer is blowing in the wind
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky
How many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry
How many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
The answer is blowing in the wind"
Too bad most of Dylan's words/ideas were filched from others who really did pick the crops, ride the rails, etc live the hard life. "Dylan" just raked in the cash.
Too bad most of Dylan's words/ideas were filched from others who really did pick the crops, ride the rails, etc live the hard life. "Dylan" just raked in the cash.
Because dylan "stole" some hippie ideas, the song lyrics don't apply to this thread?
Bob Dylan is not a has-been. He is still, if memory serves, the 3rd or 4th highest earner of all musical performers. But anyhoo, back to the topic...
If the guy is only going to spend a few months in jail then the penalties definitely need to be harsher to act as a deterent to future careless drivers.
If the police smelled alcohol but failed to do a test then I reckon there should be a call for an investigation into the police handling of the case.
If the guy is only going to spend a few months in jail then the penalties definitely need to be harsher to act as a deterent to future careless drivers.
If the police smelled alcohol but failed to do a test then I reckon there should be a call for an investigation into the police handling of the case.
The Premier, Mike Rann has asked for "a report on some aspects of the McGee case in terms of police involvement". That is from today’s paper.
I'll keep everyone updated as news happens.
CHEERS.
Mark
Your alternative? Make sure it's suitable for sub-zero temperatures. Provides adequete protection during heavy rain. Ability to safely transport more than one person, including infants and people with disabilities.
When you have it figured out, let us know. Otherwise you're just flailing your arms around.
Get some historical perspective brother, we did fine without them for all but the last 100-120 years. It is but one of many manufactured, sham "needs." Good things can be done with automobiles, personal transportation is not one of them.
What do you mean flailing my arms about? I'm not waiting for the day everybody will wise up and stop using cars because they'd be better off and I don't lose sleep over it. I'm just stating the plain truth--as long as the majority of people in an society use cars as their personal transport, juries in that society will accept car-related deaths as part of the trade off. "It's something that just happens." they think to themselves, because they have accepted the inherent destructive side-effects of riding a two-ton hunk of metal around town as their personal transport. It's a mad, mad way to get around, but it is normative for a great number of people. There is often popular consensus supporting foolish practices, it is nothing new. Thousands and thousands of people die every year because of a particular way of getting from point A to point B. "We" have accepted this as a-ok.
It is moral impotence and paralysis to say that because a majority of people accepts a practice and are unlikely to stop the practice it is futile to speak the truth about it and/or go along.
We need to put the Taleban in charge of traffic policing. If there was a no-questions-asked beheading for anyone causing death on the roads, with no wiggle room for lawyers, people might start paying attention.
We need to put the Taleban in charge of traffic policing. If there was a no-questions-asked beheading for anyone causing death on the roads, with no wiggle room for lawyers, people might start paying attention.
I know you're joking, but I'd be awfully careful about encouraging the wackos who want religious rule in my country and yours... and I'm not talking about Muslims! ;)
We need to put the Taleban in charge of traffic policing. If there was a no-questions-asked beheading for anyone causing death on the roads, with no wiggle room for lawyers, people might start paying attention.
Well perhaps not the Taliban... but I do think other penalities should be invoked for anyone causing a death with their vehicle... Of course all situtation need to be considered... such as some persons wanting death and intentionally walking in front of a bus...
Currenly the only charges I know of against a driver killing a human with their vehicle are reckless driving and involuntary manslaughter. Reckless driving typically carries a fine of $1000 and/or 90 days. Perhaps more prosecutors need to consider involuntary manslaughter for cases of poor driving situatuations resulting in the deaths of others.
"How many have to die before something is done?"
Oops, I thought this thread was about the war in Iraq.
Enjoy
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.