Ripsaw Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I could walk down the street waving around a running chainsaw and say that if anyone got cut by it that it was an accident A reckless action which has no comparison whatsoever to driving a car. You may have grounds to compare it to a car that is swerving in and out of other trafic with disregard as that too is reckless. Are you implying that I condone stupid actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 What if Galka had collided with another car on the mountain road instead of the one he did? A car in which everyone was correctly wearing seatbelts, as obliged by law, and although people were injured no-one was killed? He's still made the same mistake, the same error of judgement. Should he be punished less, the same or more? Well we will never know for sure about that will we? What we do know (as Ripsaw has pointed out) is that a court has had the full facts and information of the incident and seatbelt or no seatbelt he was still convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I could walk down the street waving around a running chainsaw and say that if anyone got cut by it that it was an accident A reckless action which has no comparison whatsoever to driving a car. You may have grounds to compare it to a car that is swerving in and out of other trafic with disregard as that too is reckless. Are you implying that I condone stupid actions? I think it is a fair comparison, a chainsaw and a car are both potentially lethal pieces of machinery but if properly used will not cause harm to others. Yet what if I take the chainsaw down the street and wave it around in a wreckless or dangerous fashion and kill someone can I claim innocence of my actions and expect to get away with it, of course not. You seem to be suggesting that the actions of this fellow albeit dangerous and or wreckless were somehow innocent and not pre-meditated so he was justified in walking free. So in response to your question (if this is the case) then yes I suppose I am implying that you condone stupid actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Well we will never know for sure about that will we? The accident was survivable. Three people survived, albeit with serious injuries, and one died from a broken neck caused by an unbelted rear seat passenger. What we do know (as Ripsaw has pointed out) is that a court has had the full facts and information of the incident and seatbelt or no seatbelt he was still convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Did he plead innocent and was proved guilty, or did he just plead guilty to the biggest charge that the police thought they could present? As you say, the court had the full facts and didn't imprison him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I think it is a fair comparison, a chainsaw and a car are both potentially lethal pieces of machinery but if properly used will not cause harm to others. Yet what if I take the chainsaw down the street and wave it around in a wreckless or dangerous fashion Tell you what, try walking down Strand St with a running chainsaw and then try overtaking a car on the mountain. You'll see from people and the police's reactions if they're similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I think it is a fair comparison, a chainsaw and a car are both potentially lethal pieces of machinery but if properly used will not cause harm to others. Yet what if I take the chainsaw down the street and wave it around in a wreckless or dangerous fashion Tell you what, try walking down Strand St with a running chainsaw and then try overtaking a car on the mountain. You'll see from people and the police's reactions if they're similar To overtake on a clear stretch of road with nothing approaching is a perfectly legal manouvre which will not result in you being convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. To overtake in a dangerous fashion resulting in a crash and the subsequent death of another will i.e. dangerous use of machinery as per my example. Of course if I walk down the street and kill soemone with a chainsaw I will be arrested. This guy was arrested and he was also convicted of the offence but he walked free. An 'accident' would be if there was something like a mechanical failure, something out of the hands of the operator and then there would be no conviction and no sentence. Accidents can and do happen but this was not an accident nor would my chainsaw scenario be considered an accident, the guy was convicted of causing death by 'dangerous driving' not safe overtaking - do you see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Accidents can and do happen but this was not an accident. Of course it was an accident. Are you saying he did it deliberately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Accidents can and do happen but this was not an accident nor would my chainsaw scenario be considered an accident, the guy was convicted of causing death by 'dangerous driving' not safe overtaking - do you see the difference? The difference is that one was almost certainly attributed to poor judgement while the other is simply reckless behaviour. I'll leave you to decide which is which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 You seem to be suggesting that the actions of this fellow albeit dangerous and or wreckless were somehow innocent and not pre-meditated so he was justified in walking free. You appear to have a few ounces of intelligence, so you are no doubt aware of the difference between "probability" and "possibility". In the vast majority of overtaking manouvers that are undertaken on an hourly basis, 365 days per year, there is always a possibility of causing an accident, but a low probability. This is borne out by the overtaking to accident ratio being substantially less than 50%. Now tell me again how this compares to waving a running chainsaw around in a densely packed public area. I understand exactly where you are coming from with your comparrison but they are not comparing like with like. As a person who was certified to give chainsaw training, has been involved with Risk Assesment and a person who drives and occasionally overtakes, I don't condone acts of stupidity, I never have and never will. Edit: Post #68 appeared whilst I was composing and I agree with most of its contents. Something that I concede, and Ringwraith is completely correct, is that the plea was Guilty to "Dangerous Driving". In the absense of witnesses or police giving evidence that the car was being driven in a reckless manner upto and including the time of the accident, I would have expected a charge of "Lack of due care and attention". I put my hand up to the fact that this discrepancy goes in the face of some of my coments as Ringwraith is correct that how can recklessness be denied if he admited a "dangerous" charge. There does appear to be an inconsistancy in evidence and charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Accidents can and do happen but this was not an accident. Of course it was an accident. Are you saying he did it deliberately? His decision to overtake was his alone and yes someone is now dead. Yes he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. The court did not say (or did they) oh well accidents happen off you go and don't do it again. You ask me to try the chainsaw in the street scenario and see what happens but I say to you to try overtaking dangerously and see what happens. Have you been overtaken wrecklessy, what do you say at the time - never mind acccidents will happen? I don't think so and neither do the police if they witness it or have it reported to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 So he was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving but I'm not sure what you are saying in the rest of the above post. Are you saying this was an innocent act, an accident and that the fact he 'walked' was just? What if Galka had collided with another car on the mountain road instead of the one he did? A car in which everyone was correctly wearing seatbelts, as obliged by law, and although people were injured no-one was killed? He's still made the same mistake, the same error of judgement. Should he be punished less, the same or more? And to re-iterate, what if he had hit three people not in a car but on motorbikes (and of course with no seatbelts). Your argument would follow on to say the people on bikes were actually at fault. Now, in which similar case have I come across that argument before? There are laws. Someone needs to learn how to apply them and not make emotive judgments based on 'nice-boy' - 'bad-boy' or 'I like him' - 'I don't like him'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 In two recent cases, this one and the Ballamodha one, I agree 100% with the court's decision One was travelling very fast with no licence or insurance and showed a disregard for the law and others' safety, The other made a single bad error on a section of road where another forum member said - "there is a blind spot on the other side of the road where you cannot briefly see any oncoming traffic, where I have personally witnessed cars begin to overtake believing it was clear ahead, only to move swiftly back into their own lane when a car appeared coming from Ramsey out of this 'kink' in the road." The accident that Galka caused could have happened to other drivers. I don't have a problem with the court's decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 The difference being you legally have to wear a seatbelt, That is just as important as someone wearig a helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 what if he had hit three people not in a car but on motorbikes (and of course with no seatbelts). Your argument would follow on to say the people on bikes were actually at fault. Bikes don't have seat belts. Cars do, and it's a legal requirement to use them for a very good reason If there was a monetary claim against Galka then it would likely be reduced because the rear seat passenger was not correctly belted up and evidence was given that this passenger beign thrown forward into the driver was the cause of the drivers broken neck and her instant death. Can we just stick to what actually happened rather than bring bikers and chain saw wielding maniacs into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 In two recent cases, this one and the Ballamodha one, I agree 100% with the court's decision One was travelling very fast with no licence or insurance and showed a disregard for the law and others' safety, The other made a single bad error on a section of road where another forum member said - "there is a blind spot on the other side of the road where you cannot briefly see any oncoming traffic, where I have personally witnessed cars begin to overtake believing it was clear ahead, only to move swiftly back into their own lane when a car appeared coming from Ramsey out of this 'kink' in the road." The accident that Galka caused could have happened to other drivers. I don't have a problem with the court's decision If that is the case then surely this will happen again. If so then the stretch of road should be marked up as a no overtaking zone and surely the DOT are at fault for not doing so already, surely that is so isn't it, if it is the roads fault and not the drivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.