Lawyer (only) fined for fatal hit-run

hippy Wrote:
LotteBum wrote:
snip Lotterant

Bring back capital punishment!!

hippy

Is that when they force you to live in Canberra? :rolleyes

--
jazmo

On Tue, 03 May 2005 at 02:50 GMT, jazmo (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

hippy Wrote:
LotteBum wrote:
snip Lotterant

Bring back capital punishment!!

hippy

Is that when they force you to live in Canberra?

Dude! No wonder the UN banned it.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
21/06/01: * It's a solar eclipse.
* Mars is really close to the Earth.
* It's the winter solstice.
and * 42'nd death day of late Douglas Adams

jazmo wrote:
hippy Wrote:
LotteBum wrote:
snip Lotterant

Bring back capital punishment!!

Is that when they force you to live in Canberra?

NOPE! THIS IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!!

hippy
"Yeah, I AM the bloody comedian!" :P

Unfortunately if Ian's family don't (somehow) find effective lega
representation within the next four days - future irresponsible driver
just like McGee will continue to get away with murder.

I've put a request out for assistance on 'bicycle justice.
(http://bicyclejustice.blogspot.com) The more I research this case, th
more it becomes increasingly convoluted - like why such a short timelin
to commencement of the SA Royal Commission?

'May 8 : No lawyer for family of McGee victim
(http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1246,00.html)
THE family of hit-run victim Ian Humphrey is without lega
representation for the royal commission into the case - four day
before the first sitting. Mr Humphrey's brother Graham said the famil
were yet to receive funding for their legal costs from the Government
He raised concerns about the family's ability to find a lawyer - loca
or interstate - before the first sitting of the commission.

"You can't get to see a dentist in four days, how are we supposed t
find a lawyer for a royal commission in four days?" he said yesterday

--
cfsmtb

cfsmtb wrote:

F ing pathetic!

I just sent a letter regarding this case to my local MP. I'd like to
encourage everyone in this newsgroup to do the same. Any action that is
taken to redress the lack of penalties for hit and run drivers should be
consistent across the nation.

My letter follows, feel free to make use of it.

Peter

Peter McCallum
26 Hinton St
Mackay Q 4740

10 May 2005

Tim Mulherin
MLA for Mackay
1st Floor, Mackay Day & Night Building
Sydney Street, Mackay Q 4740

Dear Tim
As you know, I am a keen cyclist. I ride for fitness, to save money, to
reduce my impact on environmental pollution and because it is fun. My
wife and children also cycle for similar reasons. As such, I was
dismayed to read news reports about the court case in South Australia in
recent weeks concerning a hit-and-run accident that resulted in the
death of a cyclist.

In case you are not aware of this incident, the story is that a cyclist,
father-of-two Ian Humphrey, was hit by a four wheel drive vehicle in the
Barossa Valley in November 2003. The driver was a prominent lawyer and
former police prosecutor, Eugene McGee. In his trial, McGee admitted to
drinking five or six glasses of red wine prior to the accident, but
could not be charged with drink driving because he had not been breath
tested within the time limit. Last month, McGee was acquitted by a jury
of the charge of dangerous driving but convicted of driving without due
care. He was fined $3100 and had his license suspended for 12 months.

To me this is a very major failing of the justice system. It appears
that someone who acts with callous disregard for another person while in
a motor vehicle can expect nothing more than a slap on the wrist, even
if they take the other person's life. For him to drive off, leaving an
injured man to die on the roadside, was a very cowardly act. He should
have served some time in jail. However, the judge in the case stated
that the maximum penalty for the offence was insufficient for him to be
able to impose a custodial sentence.

I would like to ask you whether, in similar circumstances, a driver in
Queensland could expect such a lenient penalty. Does our law impose
strong criminal sanctions against people who are involved in hit-and-run
cases? If it doesn't, it may be appropriate to investigate whether such
action should constitute a crime in itself and be subject to a very
strong penalty.

The second issue that arises from this case is whether our road laws are
designed to protect those who are unprotected, such as cyclists and
pedestrians. I am concerned that as a result of this case is that it
appears that cyclists are now fair game for any motorist who, for
whatever reason, acts with disregard to their welfare. Over the past
twenty-five years or so that I have been using a bicycle, I have been
subject to countless incidents of intimidation, assault, harassment and
carelessness by drivers of motor vehicles. Some people on our roads seem
to feel that the larger the vehicle they are driving, the greater their
rights.

I would like to suggest that there should be a fundamental change in the
road law. The onus to give way to others should be changed so that less
protected road users should have right of way over more protected users.
I am not sure exactly how such a law could be formulated, but I feel
that there should be strong sanctions against anyone who is convicted of
a breach. I am sure that it would result in greater respect for
cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians.

This year there appears to have been a spate of cyclists killed in
collisions with heavy vehicles. I have been hit by several motor
vehicles over the years and the drivers invariably offer the same
excuse, "sorry, I didn't see you." However, drivers have little trouble
identifying the blue checks on a police officer's uniform, especially
when they are holding a radar gun. I think that the blind spot drivers
have for cyclists comes about because they not looking for them. Perhaps
the human brain functions in such a way as to filter out extraneous
objects and only identify objects of importance.

By making cyclists, pedestrians and motor cyclists important to
motorists, they may become more aware of their presence as part of the
traffic stream. It appears to me that the most important things to
motorists are the things that they can be penalised for doing or failing
to do. So a change in the law that puts cyclists and pedestrians, or for
that matter the drivers of motor cars, higher in the mind of drivers of
larger vehicles, may lead to far fewer serious accidents occurring.

Regards

Peter McCallum
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA