Road Rage Moron

terryc

On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:56:06 -0700, Donga wrote:

> the police can be quite good at shaking (metaphorically) the driver's
> identify out of an owner who is less legally aware.

Do you meant that the owner isn't automatically liable unless they
nominate another person?

terryc

On Fri, 09 May 2008 02:17:51 +0000, TimC wrote:

> Because he knows he is known
> (and a description of him has been plastered all over the newspapers),
> you can bet he's gone "missing". So we just have to wait for him to
> turn up in Kalgoolie...

Hardly a "safe" place to hide out. All those abandoned mine shafts around
the place.

David Springthrope

On Thu, 8 May 2008 20:02:08 -0700 (PDT), Donga
<idomybestworkonabike@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'd say the 6-15 cyclists, all sentient beings, would be sufficient
++++++++++
>for the average magistrate.

Especially if he's a Buddhist.....

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 09 May 2008 13:09:52 +1000
terryc <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:56:06 -0700, Donga wrote:
>
>> the police can be quite good at shaking (metaphorically) the driver's
>> identify out of an owner who is less legally aware.
>
> Do you meant that the owner isn't automatically liable unless they
> nominate another person?

I beleive that owner-onus has to be specfically legislated. IT is for
say camera speeding fines, but I don't know about dangerous driving.

Zebee

terryc

On Fri, 09 May 2008 03:05:28 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:


> Not because they would deliberately lie, but because eyewitness
> evidence is inherently difficult, involved (meaning shook up, angry)
> witnesses are more so, witnesses who have ivolvement with others and
> therefore may have had their recollection tainted by stories are also
> difficult. There's a lot of research on that latter, in that most
> people remember a memory not an incident, and that memory can be
> changed by what others say.

Which supports the case for writing out your recollections immediately
after the incident and date time and witness notifications on it to
support your statement.

AndrewJ

On May 9, 12:16 pm, Rory Williams <Rory.Williams.394...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> EuanB Wrote:
>
> > All registration tells the police is who owns the car and the
> > residential address.
>
> > It doesn't tell the police where that person happens to be at a point
> > in time.
>
> > Further the incident has already happened, priority for police
> > resources would porbably have been given to inicidents where the police
> > can make a difference, leaving after the fact policing till quieter
> > times, which is sensible.
>
> There was a fairly extensive story about it on PM on ABC radio national
> yesterday afternoon.
>
> '' (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2239488.htm)
>
> My impression from the story was that Kevin Nichols took the rego
> number and also spoke to the driver of the car.
>
> This makes me think that there should be a good chance of identifying
> the actual driver - particularly if it was the registered owner.
>
> RoryW'transcript' (http://''transcript'
> (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2239488.htm)'
> (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2239488.htm))
>
> --
> Rory Williams

Curiouser and curiouser.

Still, having 50 witnesses should make the whole process a bit more
straightforward.

Scenario 1: driver hassles cyclists, shouts at them, buzzes them, then
stops in front of them.

Scenario 2: driver gets past cyclists, then engine stalls.

Only an eyewitness can distinguish these two.

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 8 May 2008 20:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
AndrewJ <AJenningsFrankston@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Still, having 50 witnesses should make the whole process a bit more
> straightforward.
>

I'm hoping the riders did write things down as soon as possible.

Because many of them will only have seen small portions of it - head down,
not at the front or where the driver was supposed to have swerved - and
with the publicity their recollections could end up being unconvincing
if a decent defence counsel hammers on that enough.

The semi driver and any other uninvolved witnesses are the best bet.

I must admit I don't see how that if it is how the cyclists say, that
the driver thinks he can get away with the "had time to stop and get
out" bit.

Unless the ones at the head of the pack were really not looking where
they were going, and so had some 15-20 seconds of inattention. Which
is presumably what the defence will say - that the head-down bum-up
riders were only looking at the bit of tarmac in front of them.

Zebee

EuanB

No that's not how it works.

Police resources are finite. An accident that has happened has happened, nothing can be done to change that.

Dealing with the aftermath of accidents, dealing with current and happening crimes, that's something police can do something about.

The early morning is a peak period for emergency service activitiy, it drops off as people get to work and gradually ramps up from about 16:00ish.

Picking up a known felon can wait till more pressing matters have been attended to, which is the way it should be.

David Springthrope

On Thu, 8 May 2008 21:42:50 -0700 (PDT), upscaletubes@yahoo.com wrote:


>the donkee pigee was shot that's what i heard on the tube.

Is that supposed to make any sense whatsoever ???

cfsmtb

Someones got to put a restraining order on Roozendaal:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegra...5006009,00.html

Tidy piece of work there Eric, what a useful example to add to the discussion.

cfsmtb

David, it's a.b's pet troll. Badly mutated but still obviously able to connect to internerds.

TimC

On 2008-05-09, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Someones got to put a restraining order on Roozendaal:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4cy4ns
>
> Tidy piece of work there Eric, what a useful example to add to the
> discussion.

I calmed down from this outburst:
http://tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com/126453.html
to write something far less scathing:

Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:50:24 +1000 (EST)
From: MeMeMe
To: Enquiries.roads@roozendaal.minister.nsw.gov.au
Subject: car and bicycle use in peak hour traffic

Honourable Eric Roozendaal,

I would have thought 1.1 people on average in the average 5 person vehicle
(hint: for every 10 cars that means that at least 9 of those cars only
have 1 occupants -- the driver), during peak hour, was not conducive to
peak hour traffic.

May I remind you that you are the minister for *roads* and not minister
for cars, and that bicycle riders often like to use the roads to get to
places such as work? I would suggest you remember this before you almost
condone assault in the media on the basis of us causing a slight delay (if
indeed we do. Given how I kept on overtaking the same vehicle this
morning in Melbourne traffic, I doubt we do slow anyone down) to other
road users.

If I were you, I would be trying to discourage these 1 person vehicles via
congestion charges. It's not a vote winner, but an innovative, far
thinking minister instead of a populist minister, would be a welcome
relief.

Tim Connors
<name and address>

--
TimC
The first time, it's a KLUDGE!
The second, a trick.
Later, it's a well-established technique! -- Mike Broido, Intermetrics

terryc

On Fri, 09 May 2008 03:55:00 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> Because many of them will only have seen small portions of it - head down,
> not at the front or where the driver was supposed to have swerved - and
> with the publicity their recollections could end up being unconvincing
> if a decent defence counsel hammers on that enough.

Maybe a problem if the police call them as witness in criminal matters,but
it they/any pursue civil claim for damages, then there isno "cross
examination"


> Unless the ones at the head of the pack were really not looking where
> they were going, and so had some 15-20 seconds of inattention. Which is
> presumably what the defence will say - that the head-down bum-up riders
> were only looking at the bit of tarmac in front of them.

The goose has already said that some went around him, then a few hit him.
Need to keep him talking as he might just end up self-inflicted.

terryc

On Fri, 09 May 2008 04:27:18 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:


> They have to convince non-cyclists, not cyclists.

If it goes to that sort of level of charge.

> Hence needing someone not involved to say "this is what I saw".

If anyone else on the scene actually witnessed the incident as it occurred
and didn't actually start noticing stuff after the accident.

> Preferably someone who can testify to what seems to be the two important
> things - the behaviour of the car before the driver pulled over, and the
> length of time he was stopped before the pack hit.

Bit of pipe dreaming here isn't it. An alleged action that went on for
some time on a busy road and would have moved a bit. Which could have
safely kept their eyes on the pack for that length of time and had the
clear view.
>
> Zebee