Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

Six Addict wrote:"overmaintained" there is no such thing... thats done it for me... truly a joke...

Pffft they will just make it up as they go along, WTF..... yes his new tyres caused her to perform an illegal U turn kill him
this is a joke

I'm kinda on the fence with this one....This is not a story I usually tell but when I was 17 and on my P's I t boned a bike turning into a driveway was right on dusk and on a crest an I honestly did not see the guy all I remember was a thud and seeing a white smudge across the windscreen....I got out of the car in shock and could not fint the guy for the life of me (small county town no gutter etc) for about 5min's felt like an eternity he was 15+ meter's up the road in a ditch.....He was ok and in ok I mean conciouse few broken rib's graze's etc....By this time a few car's had stopped to help as I was useless as I couldn't believe what happend.....I honestly didn't see the guy....But from this I have learned a hell of a lot since then I am VERY weary that bike's are hard to spot and check twice while driving and as a rider alway's suspect that THAT driver hasn't seen me....

This is a incident which has lived with me for the past 15year's and one of the reason's I left it so long to get my bike liscence....But has made me a better rider.....If I had killed the guy that I hit I don't know how I would have been able to live with myself....I did follow up the guy's recovering at the time by going to hospital and from his daughter who was in my year at school...

What I'm trying to get at is that it is not a good situation for either party...

Disco wrote:What I'm trying to get at is that it is not a good situation for either party...

Thanks for sharing and your spot on, it's not going to change the end result.

This particular incident can not be classified as an accident because it had a cause. An illegal driving manoeuvre over unbroken white lines caused the death of an innocent motorcyclist. BLACK AND WHITE.
For what, a laps of judgement for FARKING CUPCAKES

Disgusted and for the most speachless. There is nothing JUST in JUSTICE in Victoria.
I cant see this being shoved under the carpet.

Straight off the bat, the driver should be held accountable for their actions. On the surface it seems incredibly unjust. But the system is running it's course. It's our sysytem, yours and mine. As Jase said, a good solicitor makes a BIG difference. If peole bothered to look (i know a couple of you guys have), they would realise that the system is transparent. And it needs to be. We'll just have see how this pans out.

BUT, what disappoints me is that I have ridden with many many of you, and none of you are angles. None!!!! Even Smitty speeds. That's myself included. Any for anyone who thinks that the legal system sides with the Police, you clearly hav no idea of how the system works.

Jase, your first post on this thread i think is probably the best thing you've ever written on here. Having said all that, I undrstand the emotions involved.

Again, a very uncomfortable end to a very sad storey.

Matty your first line is the very point many don't look at, "the driver should be held accountable for their actions". Unfortunately we judge on results not actions and believe punishment should reflect the result not the action. If we were to judge on actions then we should be round at Disco's house burning it to the ground would we not, or is it because he is a motorcycle rider that he will be spared such a fate. (Disco, this is not to flame you in anyway)

Personally I like just about everyone who has lived beyond the age of 18 has done things that could have have had similar outcomes, only luck or good management has kept the many from having to deal with similar such situations.

Look she should face some punishment but take out the fact she is a copper and ask yourself how would you want your mates/ friends to judge you in a similar circumstance. Empathy is all of sudden evident

Nick

Ok I went a bit far insinuating non-transparency and borderline corruption and I appologise to those who feel offended.
Let me soften the language for you without emotion.

You cant take away she is a copper because she should have known better than the rest of us with her training, 10 years of experience and knowledge of that road she travelled daily to and from work, and probably has booked dozens for crossing solid double lines. (assumption)
The police did the right thing right up to the court room door, what happened from there is what this is all about IMO.

It is hard to accept the result of this case at this stage when for years Victorians have had to swallow a hard line on road trauma advertising and massive dragnet style road operations and mostly for good reason, then on the other hand we have seen many cases of police and high profile people getting off very lightly for serious offences when the general public dont for the same offence and there have been many similar occurrences over decades.
To be fair I am sure there are plenty that do that dont make it to the media.
Like I mentioned earlier you have to have lived and breathed the decades of Victorian justice to understand the irony.

One rule for some and another for the masses or so it seems, I also made comment on expensive big city mouth pieces with big names and networks, this is where there is some injustice as most punters cant afford them and they can make a huge difference just on reputation and often the case is decided upon before it makes the court room.

However what irks me is what happened to the prosecution and their case on a black and white offence?
Even up against a big name barrister it should have been a conviction recorded for causing death or whatever its term is, the jury can only form an outcome based on the actual evidence and information presented and how it was delivered, am I wrong to suspect deals being done or at least incompetence.

On a personal note: The driver that injured my son is in the courts now, we as a family feel conflicted with what will happen to him, he is a good person who made a bad decision and this will ruin his life as a young man. However he did cause serious injury whilst intoxicated and faces mandatory incarceration, now how would I feel if he pleaded not guilty and got off on some circumstantial evidence, will his barrister pull apart my sons character in the hope for a lessor sentence, what about my son and the life sentence he now lives?

Maybe we could get him the female cops barrister and he will get off free, they could use her case as a precedent considering he didn't actually kill anyone..

Time for a cup of tea

Jonno wrote:Time for a cup of tea

Some far points from all sides. For the record, I'm not a cop, never will be, and have lost several licenses over the years.

It would be very interesting to what precidents have been set prior to this case. They can carry a lot of weight in Criminal matter aposed to simple traffic stuff.
The point of the judge is to ensure that the hearing is conducted fairly by all parties. They are indipendant of the defence, the prosicution and the jury. The legal system, and the police who enforce it are always at logger heads, something the general public doesn't see. Thinking about this makes me even more intrigued as to how the hearing went.

But you're right Jonno, time for a cuppa. I actually weaken and gave into the adds on the tellie. Dilmar really is good

dilligaf wrote:Apparently dangerous driving is a difficult thing to prove. ............

I think yes, that is the case in Vic...the cops who charged the guy who hit me (doing a uturn across a single white line ...next to a No uturn sign )
originally charged him with dangerous driving (it put me in hospital) plus other things...like doing an illegal turn etc disobeying a sign not indicating etc etc

they dropped the damgerous driving charge as he agreed to plead guilty to all the other charges..

aardvark wrote:

DaveGPz wrote:Would it have been a police prosecutor? (Genuine question - don't know how these things work).

Over here it would be have been a prosecutor from the Director of Public Prosecutions - an independent prosecution service. I can't comment for Victoria.

in Vic (if I remember what my Snr Constable cousin told me is right) at the Magistrates Court the prosecutor is a Police Prosecutor (ie a Vicpol member)
at all others it is a member of the independant Crown Prosecution service

cheers

I have seen Vicpol in the County as well as DPP together and on separate occasions.

I am unsure as to when and why DPP step in.

Okay here is the details from VIC roads and no wonder people have issues in court finding someone guilty

Under the Road Safety Act 1986 Link http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domin ... orised.pdf
Page 252 (272 if you are in PDF) The definition is 64 Dangerous driving
(1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle at a
speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the
public, having regard to all the circumstances of
the case.

There are some other details but this leaves it very much open to interpretation. Is making a uturn across solid white lines dangerous? Well it depends on the circumstances and the view of those in the jury based on the circumstances of the case. So unfortunately it is anything but black or white.

Jono, the question you have ask yourself/ family, what is a suitable punishment for what happened to your son. Don't you get to write a victims impact statement where you could suggest what you want as a punishment. Based on what you have said here I think that you are reasonable and would be able to suggest a punishment that is fair and just

Jonno wrote:I have seen Vicpol in the County as well as DPP together and on separate occasions.

I am unsure as to when and why DPP step in.

according to the OPP and other references -

The DPP has responsibility for prosecuting on behalf of the Crown in the High Court, the. Supreme Court of Victoria and the County Court


sources - http://www.opp.vic.gov.au/
http://www.secasa.com.au/infosheet/offi ... utions.pdf

Naked Twin wrote:There are some other details but this leaves it very much open to interpretation. Is making a uturn across solid white lines dangerous? Well it depends on the circumstances and the view of those in the jury based on the circumstances of the case. So unfortunately it is anything but black or white.

I suggest that if hanging a u turn over double white lines is NOT dangerous, then why have the fucking lines there at all? It absolutely is 100% illegal and given we are the nanny state that must make it much more dangerous than in any other state even.

First off, some of the comments that have come up hinting to favoritism or corruption because this woman is a cop have simply managed to just piss me off. I am glad some people have managed to take a step back after their initial (more emotional) post's and take a less judgmental stance that is no longer simply based on the person's profession. I'm not saying disregard it completely, it's obviously fairly relevant.

If any of you think that this accident would have simply gone down the road of her workmates showing up to the accident and going "oh don't worry, we’ll sort this out", well you couldn't be further from the truth. Here's the deal.......

In any event where a Vicpol member either seriously injuries or kills another person in a road accident MCIU are notified and investigate. Major Collision Investigative Unit. This isn't taken lightly. These are the people that are only called to investigate serious accidents where multiple fatalities are involved and they get contacted as soon as there is even a sniff of police involvement either on OR off duty. They would have done the full investigation. No holds barred.

Vicpol's Ethical Standards will probably also be monitoring the investigation through the court process. Another set of eyes watching aswell as having possible input on the investigation. Ethics also aren't restrained by normal statutes like the normal law system. If they are investigating then they can have a member suspended for any length of time, months or years before they even initiate proceedings at court, let alone the court hearings themselves. I'm not sure thats relevent in this case.

Once that is over and done with she will probably have her fate heard and judged AGAIN by Vicpol disciplinary review to decide how they are going to deal with her situation. This could end in many different actions likely to include review, suspension or "resignation".

I'm willing there aren't too many people on this forum that will understand the stress created in having your employer responsible for your legal prosecution. I'd go so far as to suggest that a person involved in this situation may go off work due to the pressure involved in the investigation itself let alone compounded by the emotional effects of being invloved in a fatality.

In regards to the charges. Who do you think initiated the charges in the first place? It was the police, they filed for the driving charges relating to the death, probably along with a series of other charges that a: you haven't been told about by the media, and b: she HAS been found guilty of. Try to realize there is a big fucking difference between what you or have been told by the media, and what has happened.

YOU people decided this result, NOT the police, NOT the Magistrate. It was the jury/public. As a side point I can almost guarantee you there would not have been a single motorcyclist on the jury, they would have been biased.

The main points of my post are that she's done the wrong thing and there have been tragic consequences, there's no doubt about it. If you think she's getting special treatment for being a copper your right, but it's more the opposite to what your all thinking.........WAY more the opposite. In regards to her prosecution, you all only know what you've been told. You haven't even heard the full court results, and you have no idea what is going to happen to her after this.

Some of you are going to look at me thinking the same thing, I have no doubt. "Look at him defending that cop". Have another read of the post and see if you can differentiate between my post being biased, or if i'm simply better informed of the situation?

I think there are a lot of us that are very concerned with the results so far. What annoys me about what appears to have happened so far is that...
1. The driver performed an illegal turn.
2. The result was a collision that killed someone.
3. (It seems that she says) that she did not think it was dangerous at the time.
4. (I think the reasonable conclusion is that) her judgement was incorrect.
5. She has not been convicted for killing someone.

I think we should try to find out what has happened and what charges are still to be heard rather than depend on what has been reported in the media.

Another aspect of this is...
She is a senior trained person who fines and testifies in court (presumably) about the actions of road users based on her training and experience. If her judgement was incorrect in her case then surely those that have been convicted have a case to have their convictions reassessed.