 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / May 2006Drink Driving doesn't pay
Oh wait a minute, it does now: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rocker-gets-330000-for-drunken-crash/2006/05 /25/1148519306191.html > Oh wait a minute, it does now: > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rocker-gets-330000-for-drunken-crash/2006/05 /25/1148519306191.html What an idiot! He should pay over $330,000 instead of getting it. Drunking fool.  SignatureRegards Dan Yes I drive a V8 and I have been spoilt by HP and Torque. Don't like it? Then f.ck off and have a sook! :-)> >> Oh wait a minute, it does now: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Drunking fool. "Drunking" is where you don't use any euphemisms, you are getting drunk! Signatureant > Oh wait a minute, it does now: > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rocker-gets-330000-for-drunken-crash/2006/05 /25/1148519306191.html It's a shame the crash didn't kill him. Fraser > Oh wait a minute, it does now: > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rocker-gets-330000-for-drunken-cra > sh/2006/05/25/1148519306191.html If that had been someone non-famous it would not have even made it to court.. Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting a crime, you cannot sue for damages? Obviously those laws didnt come in, or they dont work. Drink driving is criminal. Why should he get 5 cents. > Oh wait a minute, it does now: > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rocker-gets-330000-for-drunken-crash/2006/05 /25/1148519306191.html > Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting a > crime, you cannot sue for damages? Obviously those laws didnt come in, or > they dont work. > > Drink driving is criminal. Why should he get 5 cents. Good point. And populist, too.... The RealDeal is that the council managed to confuse the pissant. And they didn't NEED to do that. Remember the pissant had managed to get some considerabe distance through what could be described as hazadous territory (especially for someone pissed) unscathed prior to happening upon the obstacle course set up by the council. The salient point is that snippet about not doing whatever they did properly, which as you'll recall was never denied insofar as that they were well ABLE to do it properly. And therefore it's no bad thing that the council gets a kick up th'arse. In effect it's a judgement against the council for not giving a rats arse about the users of the road it controlled. As usual. Pity it's public money that's apparently been or will be pissed up against the wall all-round. As usual. In the face of all that, the council is showing simply astonishing arrogance after the event, no doubt hoping for populist responses to the matter to justify their negligence and indirectly justify their wasting yet more public money appealing the judgement. So, good on ya. SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur > The RealDeal is that the council managed to confuse the pissant. > And they didn't NEED to do that. So council should design the roadworks for the lowest common denominator, right down to a pissed driver? And if so, what level of "pissed" should be accomodated? And if they do, there's always someone who's even more pissed, who will just crash at a clearly marked intersection...... I can see it now... Pissed drivers who slam into the rear of a stationary vehicle at an intersection, suing the car manufacturer because the crashed vehicle wasnt "visible enough". "Oh no, it wasn't the fact the driver was pissed, it's the fact the car in front was too hard to see..... " I have seen drivers crashing into fully marked Police vehicles (with their emergency lights activated, no less), and the driver getting out of the vehicle saying "Oh, I didn't see you there......" Should we design our roads to accomodate drivers like this? (There's an idea... cushioned power poles, and feather-lined freeway barriers!). > Remember the pissant had managed to get some considerabe distance > through what could be described as hazadous territory (especially for > someone pissed) unscathed prior to happening upon the obstacle course > set up by the council. So, if you're skillful enough to manage to make it out of the pub carpark whilst pissed, then it's someone else's fault when you come unstuck down the road? Take some f.cking responsibility. I wonder how many sober drivers made it through said "obstacle course" unscathed, prior to Binks crashing his vehicle. I'd be willing to bet that his wasn't the first car to drive through the roadworks that night... but I guess it was purely a coincidence that he crashed AND was pissed, right? > The salient point is that snippet about not doing whatever they did > properly, which as you'll recall was never denied insofar as that they > were well ABLE to do it properly. But there is no such thing as a guarantee. What works for the majority of road users obeying the law, cannot be said for people driving beyond their capabilities, or with insufficient control of their vehicles. > And therefore it's no bad thing that the council gets a kick up > th'arse. Oh well, the money is well justified in your opinion then, eh? > In effect it's a judgement against the council for not giving a rats > arse about the users of the road it controlled. > As usual. In this day of "duty of care", I think you'll find that they do give a rats. But they simply should not accomodate people who are operating outside the law. > Pity it's public money that's apparently been or will be pissed up > against the wall all-round. > As usual. What else would you expect? The council had every right to defend itself... or should it lie down and take a kicking, even if it felt it had a case? (Be mindful in answering that.. you might be critisised for defending yourself one day too) > In the face of all that, the council is showing simply astonishing > arrogance after the event, no doubt hoping for populist responses to > the matter to justify their negligence and indirectly justify their > wasting yet more public money appealing the judgement. > So, good on ya. You are truly bewildering..... g GK Wrote: > * So council should design the roadworks for the lowest common > denominator, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > JP > Mot Adv-NSW SignatureMot Adv-NSW Should not have been on the road drunk. Just another case of a drunk blaming someone for their own irresponsible actions (driving when drunk) >> Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting a >> crime, you cannot sue for damages? Obviously those laws didnt come in, or [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > wasting yet more public money appealing the judgement. > So, good on ya. You already said that. > Should not have been on the road drunk. Just another case of a drunk blaming > someone for their own irresponsible actions (driving when drunk) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> wasting yet more public money appealing the judgement. >> So, good on ya. SignatureToby. Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top posting frowned upon? > Should not have been on the road drunk. Just another case of a drunk blaming > someone for their own irresponsible actions (driving when drunk) Agreed that he should not have been driving but there is another issue and that is the councils negligence as proven in court. IMO being drunk does not relieve the council of their obligations. There are far too many incidents of council negligence which cause car accidents so IMO its good that council shared some of the blame, it might get them to pay more attention to their job. Being drunk cost the bloke $600,000 in compensation plus a permanent injury which is a very significant penalty for his part in the crash. Daryl "D Walford" <walford@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:447aeed0$0$492$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com .au... > Agreed that he should not have been driving but there is another issue > and that is the councils negligence as proven in court. I have never been able to understand how negligence is attributed in percentages. If a sober person had crashed prior to Binks crashing, then yes... the council should be held responsible for both. But considering the number of people who (probably) successfully made their way through the roadworks without incident, Binks doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, IMO. > IMO being drunk does not relieve the council of their obligations. It should do. If I was walking along the the middle of a road, absolutely hammered, and got cleaned up by a car, (despite adequate walkway facilities being provided, which many people had utilised prior to me walking down the road), who would I sue? Would the council be liable? > There are far too many incidents of council negligence which cause car > accidents so IMO its good that council shared some of the blame, it > might get them to pay more attention to their job. I have never seen any *really* bad roadworks here in WA. If you just slow down, obey they signs, and relax, you will get through.... Also, I have never seen a car accident at a roadworks... which is interesting. The only dodgy thing I've seen is ATM (Advanced Traffic Management), the most unprofessional government contractor in Australian history... (Perthies, ya'll know what I mean...). > Being drunk cost the bloke $600,000 in compensation plus a permanent > injury which is a very significant penalty for his part in the crash. Yes, but would the injury have occurred in the first place, if he had been driving sober? We will never know.. g > "D Walford" <walford@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message > news:447aeed0$0$492$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It should do. Why? No one can know if the accident would have still occured if he was 100% sober. I know of several cases where poorly signed roadworks have caused accidents, my cousins husband came of his bike because there was gravel left all over the road from roadworks, they paid all his medical bills (broken arm) and the cost of repairing his bike. > If I was walking along the the middle of a road, absolutely hammered, and > got cleaned up by a car, (despite adequate walkway facilities being > provided, which many people had utilised prior to me walking down the road), > who would I sue? Would the council be liable? No. >>There are far too many incidents of council negligence which cause car >>accidents so IMO its good that council shared some of the blame, it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Also, I have never seen a car accident at a roadworks... which is > interesting. Lots of people in Vic seem to ignore roadwork speed limits and IMO thats due to the poor way roadworks are managed, they put a 40k limit a long way before and after the works unneccessarily inconveniencing drivers, they seem to go out of their way to piss drivers off, if they put a lot more thought into managing traffic in road work zones people might actually take some notice. > The only dodgy thing I've seen is ATM (Advanced Traffic Management), the > most unprofessional government contractor in Australian history... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, but would the injury have occurred in the first place, if he had been > driving sober? We will never know.. True. Daryl On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:03:46 +0800, "GK" <polo12antispammo@westnet.com.au>, after considering some belly-button fluf, wrote: >"D Walford" <walford@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message >news:447aeed0$0$492$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I have never been able to understand how negligence is attributed in >percentages. There is no formula, they are treated on a case by case basis. As it should be. >If a sober person had crashed prior to Binks crashing, then yes... the >council should be held responsible for both. But considering the number of >people who (probably) successfully made their way through the roadworks >without incident, Binks doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, IMO. The bit that puts me off is that it's no longer possible to claim against anothers negligence if you are drunk. I certainly understand (and even support) the idea that being under the influence of alcohol puts the onus on you (the one that's drunk) to show that a reasonable person who was *not* under the influence would act in the same way (the way that got you injured), but to say that *me* being drunk means that *you* no longer have a duty of care is plainly stupid, IMO. This begs the question: can the publican continue to serve you alcohol once you get drunk because his duty of care to you is absolved since you're drunk? >> IMO being drunk does not relieve the council of their obligations. > >It should do. Bullshit. >If I was walking along the the middle of a road, absolutely hammered, and >got cleaned up by a car, (despite adequate walkway facilities being >provided, which many people had utilised prior to me walking down the road), >who would I sue? Would the council be liable? It might clear things up if instead I ask you if I should be able to sue council because I tripped over on the (misaligned) footpath while drunk. If a sober person can sue council for this (and they most certainly can and have), then surely whether I'm drunk or not is hardly relevent. Instead, what's relevent is whether or not a reasonable and prudent person (who's NOT drunk) would have tripped under otherwise identical circumstances. If the answer is yes, then council is liable, IMO. [...] >> Being drunk cost the bloke $600,000 in compensation plus a permanent >> injury which is a very significant penalty for his part in the crash. > >Yes, but would the injury have occurred in the first place, if he had been >driving sober? We will never know.. Nor will we ever know just how close other drivers came to crashing at this spot - would you change your mind if you found out that 237 people came within a gnats whisker of crashing at this spot while sober and came out the other side with heart pounding and thinking "Faaaark, that's bloody dangerous, they should fix that up, I could have crashed!"? Neil --- Neil Fisher / Bob Young Thundercords personal opinion unless otherwise noted. Looking for spark plug leads? Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au >> Should not have been on the road drunk. Just another case of a drunk >> blaming someone for their own irresponsible actions (driving when drunk) > > Agreed that he should not have been driving but there is another issue and > that is the councils negligence as proven in court. He should not have been on the road . The court should have ended it there. > IMO being drunk does not relieve the council of their obligations. > There are far too many incidents of council negligence which cause car [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Daryl >>>Should not have been on the road drunk. Just another case of a drunk >>>blaming someone for their own irresponsible actions (driving when drunk) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > He should not have been on the road . The court should have ended it there. So its ok for the council to be negligent? Daryl >Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting a >crime, you cannot sue for damages? Obviously those laws didnt come in, or >they dont work. He didn't commit any crime. >Drink driving is criminal. Why should he get 5 cents. Drink driving is a traffic offence. SignatureJohn H >>Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting a >>crime, you cannot sue for damages? Obviously those laws didnt come in, or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Drink driving is a traffic offence. Right up until you kill someone. Fraser >>> Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting a >>> crime, you cannot sue for damages? Obviously those laws didnt come in, or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Fraser which is a separate criminal offence >>>Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting a >>>crime, you cannot sue for damages? Obviously those laws didnt come in, or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Right up until you kill someone. Nope, drink driving is a traffic offence. If you kill someone the criminal offence is homicide (drinking or not). SignatureJohn H >>>>Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting >>>>a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you kill someone the criminal offence is homicide (drinking or > not). I think you'll find it's manslaughter. You've been watching too much American TV. Fraser >>>>>Werent they looking at laws that if you are in the process of commiting >>>>>a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I think you'll find it's manslaughter. You've been watching too much >American TV. Manslaughter is but one form of homicide. Like murder, it's dependant upon intent --ie it requires proof that the accused intended to cause bodily injury. You'd be awfully hard put to find a drink driver who's ever been convicted of manslaughter as a result of a road death in Australia. The traffic related homicide offence is called culpable driving (whether you're drunk or sober). I almost never watch American court room dramas BTW -- you obviously do. :) SignatureJohn H > Nope, drink driving is a traffic offence. In WA, DUI (ie, 0.150% BAC and above) is a criminal offence, straight-up. > If you kill someone the criminal offence is homicide (drinking or > not). No, most (if not all) states have provision for "Dangerous driving causing death"-type offences. Manslaughter (ie, comitting an act where there was good probability that somone would die, and indeed, someone did die) may be preferred in extreme cases, but a charge of murder would never be preferred, unless investigators could prove that you specifically intented to kill the person.... g >> Nope, drink driving is a traffic offence. > >In WA, DUI (ie, 0.150% BAC and above) is a criminal offence, straight-up. DUI is a separate offence to drink driving (a fact which seems to evade many). The offender in the case cited was less than 0.150. As I previously stated... he committed no crime. >> If you kill someone the criminal offence is homicide (drinking or >> not). > >No, most (if not all) states have provision for "Dangerous driving causing >death"-type offences. The homicide offence comes under the broad category of culpable driving. Source: The Australian Legal Dictionary. >Manslaughter (ie, comitting an act where there was good probability that >somone would die, and indeed, someone did die) may be preferred in extreme >cases, but a charge of murder would never be preferred, unless investigators >could prove that you specifically intented to kill the person.... Manslaughter would require proof of the intent to cause bodily harm in the case of a traffic related homicide. There are also other forms of manslaughter SignatureJohn H > Oh wait a minute, it does now: > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rocker-gets-330000-for-drunken-crash/2006/05 /25/1148519306191.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Three hundred grand won't fix brain damage caused by the crash. -- MoneyAin'tEverythang >> Oh wait a minute, it does now: >> >> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rocker-gets-330000-for-drunken-crash/2006/05 /25/1148519306191.html > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Three hundred grand won't fix brain damage caused by the crash. That was entirely his own fault. Even if the council set out a live minefield they should be immune from any action form drunk drivers. One question I have is, if the signs/road were dangerous, how come no sober drivers crashed at the same spot? > That was entirely his own fault. Even if the council set out a live > minefield they should be immune from any action form drunk drivers. > One question I have is, if the signs/road were dangerous, how come no sober > drivers crashed at the same spot? Must be purely a coincidence that he was pissed..... It's correctness gone mad. Kind of like when a burglar slips and falls, breaking his neck, whilst trying to break through your roof..... and is then awarded damages! g >> That was entirely his own fault. Even if the council set out a live >> minefield they should be immune from any action form drunk drivers. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > g nah - that's Urban Legends gone mad;-) SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur >>> That was entirely his own fault. Even if the council set out a live >>> minefield they should be immune from any action form drunk drivers. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > nah - that's Urban Legends gone mad;-) I read in a paper a few years ago that a buy while escaping jail (or Gaol, whatever) and broke his hip, was awarded huge dollars, fricken idiot shouldve just been shot. >>>Oh wait a minute, it does now: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > One question I have is, if the signs/road were dangerous, how come no sober > drivers crashed at the same spot? It seems the court disagrees, why do you think that because someone had too much to drink that it makes the council exempt from being negligent? His payout was reduced by 65% (about $600,000) which is a significant penalty for his part of the blame. The argument that no one else crashed is bullshit, the court found the council to be negligent and the huge number of poorly signed road works all over the place that I see every day makes that very easy to believe. I have no sympathy for drink drivers but councils need to get their arse into gear and stop adding more danger to already dangerous roads, they should be heavily fined for their negligence. Daryl >>>> Oh wait a minute, it does now: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Daryl My father has had to spend the last 30 years on a pension due to the local council not having any roadwork signs out when they decided to rip up the bitumen and left the road overnight with a deep layer of 50mm roadbase, which was hazard enough in a car but my father came along on his motorcycle just after dark and found himself in the table drain with his left foot crushed between the bike and a culvert edge Kev >>> Oh wait a minute, it does now: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > One question I have is, if the signs/road were dangerous, how come no sober > drivers crashed at the same spot? Get a grip!! That's the same as not bothering to put an 'advisory speed' sign on a corner that's dangerous at 100 Kms/Hr simply because GovCo figures anyone doing more than that deserves to die. And yes, that's been done here in QLD for years. More enlightened states with perhaps a less corrupt group of lawyers at the public tit actually print up and place 90 and 95 Km/Hr signs, because even though slowing 5 or 10 Kms/Hr wouldn't really make a difference, GovCo is aware that some complete bastards out there treat their stupid arbitrary speed limits with the contempt they thoroughly deserve. You see, they reason that since those same bastards don't necessarily want to kill all GovCo personnel, why should GovCo personnel want to kill them? SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.