Justice for Motorcyclists Protest Ride

....but I never said either of them were _not_ damn fine poeple...

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

Dale Porter wrote in message ...

Ha ha Dale; if you "give up" you give up. (You don't make sooky additional
posts).

C'mon; I'm still waiting to hear why the judge/magistrate said "the helmet
failed to protect and in fact the helmet failed to protect" like you've
insisted for ten posts or so.
BoredDoodle

 

Manning wrote in message ...

Ha ha sooky sooky little sooky boy who got so hurt last time that he's now
standing behind paulh and trying to pick up some crumbs.
I was wondering when you'd come snivelling back...
BoredDoodle

 

Oh, so you know what he really meant, and I'm just wrong wrong wrong!
I don't believe you keep repeating yourself! Why do you keep
arguing! I don't believe you keep repeating yourself! Why do you
keep arguing! Waaa!

-----shlem.

 

There seems to be several types of Neg Driving offenses (In NSW). The
difference between them seems to be the result.

<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/penalties/serioustrafficoffences/otherdrivoffences.html>

On it they have different possible punishes depending on if this is the
first or second (or more) time you have comitted the offense.

Just clarifying: Are you saying the RTA is wrong here, and should have
same max punishment no matter how many times you have comitted the offense?

Mike

 

So it's illogical. People are like that. My point wasn't that they
were doing something smart, rather, that they were not doing something
reprehensible... like stringing the offender up.

 

----------

Yeah, but he's kinda furry and cute usually, so we don't mind him. His
medications levels are just a bit out of whack at the moment.

Stick around Manning, you might even learn something, you might even learn
to like Clem (or you could just make the normal arrogant newbie and abuse
Zeebee for being an overly opinionated bloke)

Stuart Thyer

 

No. Because driving offences such as this are not necessarily committed with
malicious intent, there is no logical reason why the penalty for a first
offence should be any greater or less than the penalty for subsequent similar
offences. As has been said throughout this thread, people display negligent
acts of driving constantly. Something as simple as failing to indicate a lane
change has the scope to escalate to a charge of "negligent driving where death
is occasioned" given the same act and intent but different circumstances. Any
increase or decrease in the penalty for first or subsequent offences should be
based on the consequences of the act.

I do not agree with Moike's view that the consequences of an action should not
be considered. If that were the case there would be no charge of culpable
driving, which is a charge based solely on the consequences rather than the
intent, and described by Inspector Peter Dinan of the VicPol Major Collisions
Investigation Unit, as often involving "...a stupid mistake with diabolical
consequences".

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

I like opinionated, I even like argumentative. I've got more than a few
unpopular opinions of my own, (won't cite them here for flame reasons) so I
have to accept all the rest. From what I've read Zeebee seems like a quite
knowledgable fella, anyway. Well at least he thinks so...

As far as Clem, well he just flames me no matter what I say, so obviously my
impression is pretty negative. *However* so far I've had two people assure
me that Clem is not the total arsehole he comes across as, so I'm keen to
see if he can snap out of it and behave in a civilised fashion at some
point.

Cheers
Manning

 

I think we are saying the same thing here. Or talking about different
things, or something like that.

I think we both agree that the consequence matters. Neg driving itself
doesn't deserve up to 2 years in prison. But Neg driving where death is
occasioned may. You'll notice the difference in a "Neg driving causeing
death" in punishment between first and second offense is 6 months diff
in max gaol time.

Just another question: To you, the question of if offenses should carry
a bigger punishment if repeated hangs on intent?

So a thief caught for the 10th time should get a few years behind bars,
and not just a warning, while someone who gets a parking ticket for the
10th time should get the standard penalty? I think I agree with you.

I wonder if it is more complex. What if the parking offender offends 68
times? They are probably doing the offense deliberately. What if they
keep parking in handicap spaces? Back to the Neg Driving. Assuming
that a Neg driver is regularly caught and punished..if someone keeps
offending surely their punishments should get harsher? Possibly forcing
them to do a driver training course or stay off the road? Wouldn't the
fact that someone keep offending suggest they are not fit to drive? Or
aren't taking the nessesary care and aren't learning?

mmmm...perhaps I should do some work today

 

I like the boy....

Make that three.

Not a hope. Is that a problem for you?


Moike

 

*bigger grin*

Clem is actually a decent bloke (for a XXXX drinking banana bender

Now Zebee... well Zebee's just not a decent bloke at all!



Geoff and Jodie

 

I'll give you a list then
Nev
Pisshead Pete
Clem
Paulh
Me<-----wtf ismee?
Hamish
Postman pat
conehead
vinyl
bvr
aaron& kylie
Shitloads of others as well
All trollworty
but all very decent folks and a pleasure to know.

Now the dickhead trolls.
CAV.Dott.ing.dickhead.hhhhhhatzolahfuckwit
Kimbo
meggadobber
Cliffy

 

The judge hasn't been quoted as saying "contributory factor"; I think that was one of paulh's inventions!

The judge/magistrate (allegedly) said that the helmet "did not properly protect" him (which is what you're
talking about) but then added that it "in fact had contributed to Mr Clarke's injuries".
So, by his statement, it did something else; something MORE than just not-protecting him, and that "something"
actively injured him further.

 

~
Horseshit! I only flame you when you make stupid sooky posts siding with someone I'm having an argument with
or when you criticise me (by criticising members of aus.moto as a whole).
I've never flamed you when you haven't attacked me first.
Yet.

 

*SHOCK*
You've said something that wasn't lame!

Maybe you're not a fuckwit after all.

Time will tell.

 

Let's get this straight once and for all. _Nev.._ is the fuckwit,
_Conehead_ is the Arsehole and _you're_ Manning.

-----sharks

 

Fuckin' BULLSHIT!!

 

Yeah - I fit right in

 

pot... kettle...

Moike
;-)
'night Smee.