Justice for Motorcyclists Protest Ride

Of course; what the Judge actually MEANT was that the helmet turned into a left-handed chicken.

Thats just the terminology they use in legal terms (when describing left-handed-chicken-morphosis). They don't
mean the chicken literally caused the injuries. Just that it's chickeness contributed to the
injuries that occurred. In the same way that employer negligence can 'contribute' to an employees death,
(assuming the employer is Colonel Sanders or somesuch) they don't literally mean that the employee died
directly from pining about the lack of care they were getting.. that may have been caused by the sudden stop
after a 30m fall (well; chickens can't fly you know)... but that it was contributing factor. Ergo a chicken
that that is 40feet from where it should be, on an egg, can contribute to the injuries by its absence.

(And if you need MORE proof; apparently "sinister" means left-handed!!)

clemh

 

Makes perfect sense to mke

 

OK so why didnt he get charged with "negligent driving (causing death)" if I
remember the term correctly ?

Failing to give way is only one of several charges that could have been laid and
quite frankly on those facts he SHOULD have been charged with one of the more
serious offences.

I'm not in favour of lynch mobs but if someone "jaywalks" (is there a non
american term for this) on the way across the street before shooting someone, I
think they should be charged for all their offences, not just the lesser one -
do you think someone should get off on murder against the lesser charge of
jaywalking ?

JL

 

Failing to sufficiently to check for oncoming traffic is hardly a spilt second
misjudgement, it's a negligent error.

Sure and consequences matter *as well as* poor decision making. It's always been
an accepted principle of law that negligence which does lead to injury is more
serious than if the potential injury never occurred. You've got about 600 years
of common law behind that one. (yes I know the tort of negligence is only about
300 years, but the cases they built the logic out of go back to Magna Carta
times)

Yup, and by choosing not to sufficiently examine for traffic (which must be the
case given he failed to observe the deceased), he displayed a wilful lack of
care. That's a culpable choice, which should lead to him being punished for his
poor choice.

Moike let me put it this way, if there is no punishment for carelessness that
leads to the death of others there is no incentive for people to take care.

Go back to the old chestnut about how carefully people would drive if there was
an armed shotgun cartridge in the steering column of the car set to go off if
they hit something.

It's all about consequences. As safety devices have been added to cars people
are more likely to drive recklessly - the consequences of a fuckup are smaller.
Similarly if they know they aren't going to get hurt if they run down a bike and
they aren't going to go to gaol then the disincentive to watch out for them is
small. I'm sure you have a very high respect for human life, unfortunately that
viewpoint is NOT universal, and it is unfortunately an invalid assumption to
assume that ALL drivers will try to avoid bikes out of a respect for human life.
There are too many instances of "not my fault" registered on this group to not
know that this true.

Fear of punishment is a preventative to a lot of actions, and the same way as
people are now far more likely to choose to leave the car behind and take a cab
if they're pissed, if you make the penalties for running down pushbikes and
motorbikes a bit more than $500 then people will be more careful for fear of the
consequences. Penalties certainly changed the cultural attitude towards drunk
driving (along with plenty of ads), I'll bet the ads wouldn't have worked
without the penalties though.


JL

 

A mistake which has the potential to kill someone should be taken seriously
mate, if he's not paying attention he shouldn't be on the road.

JL

 

Yes and no, not a victorian or a lawyer but I think you'll find that just
because they have to sue the TAC for the actions of the negligent driver doesnt
mean that the riders non compliant helmet totally removes liability, just that
the family would get 60% of the payout for example instead of 100K

JL

 

Dale with all due respect Clem's reading of the wording *is* consistent with the
way lawyers **** with the language, "contributing to" means make a quantifianble
addition, as opposed to "fail to protect" which is a passive lack of action

JL

 

Legal opinions (assuming this is a direct quote from the judgement) ARE intended
to be read literally - they strive to ensure the wordings mean exactly what
twisted lawyer speak means those words to mean

JL

 

Momentarily - it won't last ....

JL

 

[snip]

Closer to 800 years then, Magna Carta being in 1215. (I've got my pedant
shoes on today)

[snip]

Aint that the truth. After passing my P plate test, I was returning to the
Melbourne along Rosanna Rd and this dude comes screaming up behind me
flashing his lights and beeping his horn and waving his arms. There was
nowhere I could go, as the left lane was crawling much slower than the right
lane, which I was in, and I was already within three seconds of the guy in
front of me. I figured he'd seen the L plate that I had not yet removed
from the back of the bike and decided to harass me a bit.

At the next intersection, the guy pulls up next to me (in the oncoming
traffic lane), winds down his window and screams at me: "don't think I
won't run into you, coz you'll be the one that's dead, not me."

I killed the engine and dropped the kickstand, got off the bike and made for
him, figuring I had a nicely padded leather jacket, gloves and helmet on, so
I had the upper edge, but the guy tore off down the road. I followed him
for about 20 minutes into the city, and then he ran a red light to get away
from me.


[snip]

JP
2003 VN250 (stolen & found) --> 2003 FLSTFI (soon)

 

b or c. why do you ask "two dogs" ?

 

Well to me it does, as I have all of the previous posts threaded together.
But I see your point

Cheers
Manning

 

Clem - actually no, you're completely spot on in this case. Clark was a
known communist sympathiser and received some award or other from the
Breshnev Soviet Government.

But being named Manning wasn't my idea, blame my parents. A lifetime of
saying "Yes, that IS my first name".

Manning

 

According to Media Watch that was all a bullshit smear-him-when-he's-too-dead-to-defend-himself beat-up by the
Courier-Mail and there was no actual evidence that he'd ever received the Order of Lenin.
Hence my tongue-in-cheek comment.

 

smear-him-when-he's-too-dead-to-defend-himself beat-up by the

Egads, you're turning into a wealth of information. Start being a jerk
again, I really don't know how to cope.

 

Definitely. The number one rule should be 'don't **** up'. It still
amazes me how they fine people substantially more (and disqualify
them) for _potentially_ fucking up. Wouldn't it make more sense to cop
a thousand dollar fine and six months disqualification if you _do_
**** up, perhaps double it if you **** up while speeding, pissed,
talking on the phone, getting a head job, etc.? Meanwhile the rest of
us who _don't_ **** up can cop a couple of hundred fine! Oh, and we
get credits for loud pipes saving lives! Seeing as they're trying to
make criminals out of road users then the road laws should be brought
more into line with criminal law!

It's about time people were truly held accountable for there actions.

 

It was in Queensland actually.

It's called a gerrymander - you redistribute the electoral boundaries so
that 3 farmers in Outer Woop Woop have the same effective voting power as
150,000 city dwellers. The farmers get to send a member to State
Parliament, the city dwellers get to send a member. You end up with a
situation where the govt can get in on a very small minority vote.

Another hidden Joh strategy was to remove people from the electoral roll
that had voted against him - postal votes have your name/address on the
envelope. You are away from home, vote against the old bastard, next
election you are no longer a voter. Trust me, I know, it happened to me.

J

 

Yeah, I know it was Queensland, and I know what a gerrymander is. I'm not a
complete idiot. Almost, but not complete.

The original post was an attack on Victorians for supporting old Joh, mine
was a tongue in cheek counter-attack at the banana benders for continuing to
re-elect him, and I figured I should just point out that I'm not Victorian.

Maybe next time you should read the whole thread first?

JP
2003 VN250 (stolen & found) --> 2003 FLSTFI (soon)

 

That's funny it's the misconception my first year law text book has as well*...

Yes common law is as the name suggests the "generally accepted law", and hence
is as old as the cavemen if you want to "reducto ad absurdum" (sp?) but the
basic rules and rights for UK/England begin at the Magna Carta, before that it
was fundamentally fiat law**

JL
*Give me a couple of hours to move the junk and I can look up some quotes if you
like***
**As in "I'm the king, I make the rules" nothing to do with rusty Italian cars
*** Of course I could be Knobdoodle's long lost brother and be getting wronger
by the post as well. But I doubt it.

 

No I'm not!

I'm a free man!