Justice for Motorcyclists Protest Ride

Justice for Motorcyclists Protest Ride

In memory of Graham Clarke of Geelong tragically killed in February
2003. The tin top driver was fined $500.

Protest ride against the lenient punishments handed out in our justice
system for motorcyclists killed by drivers. Punishments should fit the
crime.

So come and support Graham's family and raise awareness and equality for
all motorcycle riders.

WHEN: SATURDAY 2ND AUGUST 2003
WHERE: BP SERVICE STATION
PRINCES HIGHWAY LITTLE RIVER
TIME: 10.00AM

Leave there 11.00AM to ride into Geelong to encircle the Geelong Court
House.

ENQUIRIES: MICKO 0438552093

Cheers
Goaty

 

I don't subscribe to the view that punishment should be measured against
the consequences of the action.

There was no apparent intention to kill or even endanger. Simply a
lapse of judgement that had tragic consequences. If there was evidence
that the driver had been taking extraordinary risks (like being pissed)
I'd be inclined to agree.

In this case, I accept that the court has rightly taken the
circumstances into account.

I've never been fond of knee jerk reactions, and I think this one is
worse than the ill-fated tunnel protest.

Stirring up a mob of motorcyclists with selective 'facts' and having them
"encircle" the
courthouse doesn't seem to me to be something that will achieve anything
useful for anyone, except the warm fuzzy feeling enjoyed by those
participants who have conned themselves into thinking they've done a
good thing.

Moike

 

Good luck with the ride, why not go to the judges home, seems to work in
Sydney.

Boxer

 

----------

But Mike, the driver was engaging in an illegal activity when the accident
occured. It was a little more than your average "sorry I didn't see you",
there was intent in using the mobile phone and to drive simultaneously.

No apparent intention to kill or even endanger would be called manslaughter
if a motor vehicle was not involved. For some reason, wrap a person in a 2
ton metal box at high speed and they allow it to become culpable driving.

Stuart Thyer
...I had 3 friends killed last year by an individuals lapse of judgement so I
might be a little biased.

 

"Stuart Thyer" wrote

driving.

Do you think the driver intended to kill some-one when he answered his
phone?

You need friends with better judgement. Sounds harsh but as some-one
once pointed out "What do you mean you didn't contribute to the
accident? You were there, weren't you?"

Theo

 

Mobile Phone? I haven't seen any reference anywhere else to a mobile phone
in this case.

"Magistrate Jon Klestadt told Cerepinko it was difficult to imagine a
lapse of judgment to have more serious implications.
'It was caused by your negligent driving in that you failed to see
that a motorcycle was on the road or how fast it was travelling,'' he
said."

No, check the meaning of manslaughter. There has to be an intention to
cause harm to the individual.
If someone dies as a result of your lapse of concentration, it isn't
necessarily a manslaughter charge.

The only really odd bit of law here is that if you are committing any sort
of felony (not just a misdemeanour or a traffic offence) and someone dies as
a direct result of that felony, you are guilty. So they didn't have to
prove that Ronald Ryan shot the warder, the warder died in the course of
Walker's felony (escape from custody).

That depends on the degree of neglect, intention etc as well as the
consequences. Sometimes they call it an accident.

Run someone down on purpose and they can call it murder.

Maybe. I had a lapse of judgment a few years ago and no one was even
injured, but the difference in that incident between no injuries and
multiple deaths was a matter of split-second timing beyond my control. I
copped a substantial fine, no loss of licence, and I'm a much safer driver
these days. So maybe I'm biased as well.

I can see these motorcyclists circling the court house howling "an eye for
an eye" and it makes me nervous.

Moike

 

maybe you could have a memorial ride to raise driver awareness or money to
help his family a bit like the ride for morag here in brissy?

 

of judgement that had tragic consequences.

The offender committed an offence of negligence. He received the maximum
penalty.
What part of "Justice" is missing here, unless you are referring to the
"eye for an eye"[1] demands of a lynch mob.

Yes, the outcome was tragic.
Maybe in the circles you move in, every death is the deliberate act of
someone with murderous intent, but such is not, it seems, the case here.

If the victim were my own family, I would be in deep grief, and I suspect my
judgement would be clouded for a time, but I would hope that I would come to
see the offender for what he is. And a murderer he isn't.

There are plenty of cases of people with murderous intent or personal gain
in mind deliberately killing or endangering others (often in the name of
'liberty').

The fact that our chosen form of transport/recreation provides a common bond
with the victim of this tragedy does not give us cause for a redneck
kneejerk response.

Moike
[1] oddly enough, in its original context, the "eye for an eye" thing was a
call for moderation in retribution.

 

----------

Errr, I was kinda assuming it was the woman who was on the phone on the surf
coast highway.... think I'm wrong, I think she ran down a cyclist while
frantically SMS'ing.

Stu

 

What part of "Justice" is missing here, unless you are referring to the "eye for an eye"[1] demands of a lynch mob.
Im talking about a life is worth $500? that seems a fair outcome to
you, even if it is the maximum, do you think that sort of fine is
fair?

Without all the facts, its useless, but if he was on a mobile phone,
then **** him. Thats no defence at all.

I dont see it that way, some poor prick is dead, and his kids have no
dad, and this piece of shit gets $500 fine. In that case, I'd wait up
the road from teh court house, and talk while driving over him.. OOps,
its not a motorcyclist now, tis a pedistrian, so I would go to jail
for 20 yrs.

All laws are too weak in the case of death and rape, how often do we
hear this ? 2 yrs for shooting someone, shit like that..

 

Yes, that was nasty. (although maybe not as wierd as the pommy bloke who
finished off the sms after he'd killed someone...)

In this case, depending on who you ask, he either didn't see the oncoming
bike, or he misjudged it's speed.
He got the max. penalty for careless driving. (or whatever the charge was)

Moike

 

Could someone please post wtf happened before this goes any further? What
was the bike doing, what was the driver doing, where was this... until then,
everyone, please, just leave it alone...

 

"eye for an eye"[1] demands of a lynch mob.

Where in any western justice system does it say that the size of the fine
should reflect the value of the life lost?

The fine should reflect the seriousness of the offence, not the tragedy of
the outcome.

This is a case where the driver either did not notice the oncoming
motorcycle or misjudged his speed.

You ever make a mistake, Biggus?
someone with murderous intent, but such is not, it seems, the case here.

There has been no suggestion that he was using a phone.
my judgement would be clouded for a time, but I would hope that I would come
to see the offender for what he is. And a murderer he isn't.

So you would advocate a death penalty for erors of judgment while driving?

Never made a mistake eh?

Tell me honestly that you've never caused someone else to have to brake
sharply when you made an error.

The difference between you and him is that when he made a mistake, someone
died.

No, that's unfair. He might have been an otherwise good and respected
person, with a real contribution to make to society.

Moike

 

I have a feeling the best (so to speak) is yet to come.

Now that he has been convicted of negligent driving, it'd pave the way for
lawsuits to be brought against him.Suing him would be far easier when he has
already been accused and found guilty of negligence.

Dale Porter

 

have a read
afaiks the rider may have been wearing an inappropriate helmet which may
have contributed to his death.
though the fine does seem trivial.

FATAL ERROR: Graham Clarke was killed when a driver failed to give
way.

Thursday, July 24
GEELONG ADVERTISER

AN accident which claimed the life of a well-known Geelong motorcycle
mechanic ended with a Norlane man yesterday being fined $500 for
failing to give way.
Andrija Cerepinko, 57, of Tolson Court, pleaded guilty to the single
charge.

Police prosecutor, Sergeant Geoff Balchin, said that on February 4,
this year, Graham Clarke, 39, was test riding a Harley Davidson
motorcycle after its owner complained of engine noise.

As he was riding west along North Shore Road, Cerepinko, driving a
Ford Telstra in the opposite direction, turned right into the Ford
car park in front of Mr Clarke.

Sgt Balchin said a witness told police he saw Cerepinko do a sweeping
turn into the car park, changing down from third to second gears but
not stopping.

The witness told police he saw Mr Clarke try to wrestle with the
motorcycle before being catapulted off the bike.

Sgt Balchin said Mr Clarke hit the gutter, his motorcylcle helmet
flew off and his body travelled 40 metres along the pavement before
coming to rest.

Mr Clarke died at the scene from extensive head injuries.

Sgt Balchin said investigations showed Mr Clarke's motorcycle helmet
did not conform to Australian Safety Standards.

Cerepinko told police he had been stationary waiting to turn at the
time of the accident.

But Gerard Healy, for Cerepinko, said clearly that statement was
impossible and had been made when his client was still in shock over
what had happened.

Mr Healy said Cerepinko had worked at the Ford Motor Company since
1969, had no prior convictions and had not driven to, or from work
since.

Magistrate Jon Klestadt told Cerepinko it was difficult to imagine a
lapse of judgment to have more serious implications.

``It was caused by your negligent driving in that you failed to see
that a motorcycle was on the road or how fast it was travelling,'' he
said.

Mr Klestadt said it was tragedy for Mr Clarke's family but
acknowledged that Cerepinko's family had also suffered as a result.

He described the helmet Mr Clarke was wearing as being one which did
not conform with Australian Safety Standards, did not properly
protect the rider from impact and in fact had contributed to Mr
Clarke's injuries.

Mr Klestadt told Cerepinko taking his licence from him would not make
anyone else less likely to have a lapse of judgment, but convicted
him, fining him the maximum $500 and ordering him to pay $35
statutory costs.

 

I'd love to know the details of "(the helmet) ..had contributed to Mr Clarke's injuries."

 

it fell off him
either it was not strapped on or lose
judge said it was not aussie standard.

 

Any idea as to why?

either.

An interesting point.

Dale Porter

 

"Moike" wrote

So there was no collision?

Theo

 

Moike said....

Mo> Mr Klestadt told Cerepinko taking his licence from him would
Mo> not make
Mo> anyone else less likely to have a lapse of judgment, but
Mo> convicted
Mo> him, fining him the maximum $500 and ordering him to pay $35
Mo> statutory costs.

(please ignore the poorly formatted *original* post).

I wonder then, if we're talking about the level of fines being imposed,
being commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

Perhaps we should look at other offences that attract a $500 fine. eg:
loud exhaust (or one that exceeds X dba). I wonder how serious that is,
and what determines that level of seriousness. Is it the impact that it
can have on people's lives, perhaps? And why is it no worse than driving
in a manner to put other lives at risk, and to ultimately cause loss of
life?

Another angle, perhaps:

Failing to give way results in a death. Cause - lapse of judgement.
Failing to give way results in a death. Cause - alcohol impairment.

One attracts a $500 fine. The other, a few years in the klink.

In either case, someone's dead. Someone's family suffers as a result.
The driver, it seems, took a risk that didn't come off. He puts it down
to a "lapse in judgement". In the other case, the driver also took a
risk that didn't pay off. The result's still the same, as was the
intent. (neither driver intended to go out and kill someone).

I think that the folks who want to protest this may be looking more at
the consequences side of things, rather than points of law. A protest is
one way to get bad laws changed, is it not? As long as the right message
is being put across, then the protest should not be a bad thing.