Bicycle crash - what charge ?
Phil Allison
The recent incident in Sydney involving some 50 bicyclists brought down on
the highway by the deliberate act of a motorist seems very much a criminal
matter - but what criminal charge can the NSW police use ?
Driving offences have been mentioned by the police, eg failing to stop
after an accident - but what happened is way more serious than that. I see
two possibilities in the NSW Crimes Act: Sections 51A and 52AB.
The first is called "Predatory driving" and the second is " Offence of
failing to stop and assist after vehicle impact causing death or grievous
bodily harm ". Far as we know, by great luck no rider was seriously
injured, so the second is out.
Predatory driving is shown here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s51a.html
Part 3 defines the meaning of impact with a "vehicle" plus section 52A
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s52a.html
defines a "vehicle" as being other than human powered.
But 51A part 3 (a) also says: " an impact with any other vehicle or with a
person or object," so is " predatory driving " available when the victim
of the crime is a bicyclist ??
It appears that the exclusion on human powered vehicles prevents a charge of
" Predatory driving " being laid against a bicyclist - but does not
prevent the charge being laid against a motorist when a bicyclist is the
victim in the event.
So will 51A be the likely charge ?
Or maybe " attempted murder " would be closer to the mark.
..... Phil
Peter Jason
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote
in message
news:68hj77F...@mid.individual.net...
Is it that time of the month, Phillip?
Do you wear those tights and ride a bike too,
Phillip?
Ray Murphy
RM: It seems unlikely that it the driver intended to murder, but it
looks
pretty obvious the driver intended to cause grievous bodily harm plus
damage to many bicycles. What else would any person EXPECT to
happen if they jammed on their brakes in front of ONE cyclist - let
alone 50 of them at 60 kph?
The driver indicated on radio that his car malfunctioned and stopped
suddenly of its own accord, but hordes of expert witnesses can testify
that a motor vehicle, because of momentum at 60 kph, cannot stop
suddenly unless their is a lock-up of such things as brakes or
transmission, so it couldn't have happened that way at all.
> ..... Phil
Ray
Phil Allison
"Ray Murphy"
> The driver indicated on radio that his car malfunctioned and stopped
> suddenly of its own accord, but hordes of expert witnesses can testify
> that a motor vehicle, because of momentum at 60 kph, cannot stop
> suddenly unless their is a lock-up of such things as brakes or
> transmission, so it couldn't have happened that way at all.
** The story is still evolving - all bets are off until the cops make a
report and decide who if anyone to charge.
My original Q still stands as to the actual intention of the odd wording of
section 51A.
..... Phil
Ray Murphy
RM: Bicycles are not treated as vehicles in that section of the
Act, so section 51 couldn't be used.
It's weird to see in S51A how BOTH (a) and (b) must exist for
the offence of "predatory driving" can be committed. It's not an
offence (in that section of the Act) to deliberately damage another
vehicle without harming an occupant, but it IS an offence to cause
bodily harm.
=============
51A Predatory driving
(1) The driver of a vehicle who, while in pursuit of or travelling
near another vehicle:
(a) engages in a course of conduct that causes or threatens an
impact involving the other vehicle, AND
(b) intends by that course of conduct to cause a person in the
other vehicle actual bodily harm,
=================
> ..... Phil
Ray
Phil Allison
"Ray Murphy"
>
>> My original Q still stands as to the actual intention of the odd
>> wording of section 51A.
>
> RM: Bicycles are not treated as vehicles in that section of the
> Act, so section 51 couldn't be used.
** Shame about this bit:
" (3) In this section:
"impact" involving a vehicle includes:
(a) an impact with any other vehicle or with a person or object, "
I pointed *directly* to this but you simply did not bother to read it .
> It's weird to see in S51A how BOTH (a) and (b) must exist for
> the offence of "predatory driving" can be committed.
** Not weird at all - it is bleeding obvious that intent to harm a person
must exist.
> It's not an
> offence (in that section of the Act) to deliberately damage another
> vehicle without harming an occupant, but it IS an offence to cause
> bodily harm.
** Section 51A has nothing to say about causing actual damage or bodily
harm.
It is entirely about driving behaviour and intent.
The title alone tells you that.
Ever considered a remedial reading course - pal ??
Cos you fucking need one.
...... Phil
Ray Murphy
>
[....]
>> It's weird to see in S51A how BOTH (a) and (b) must exist for
>> the offence of "predatory driving" can be committed.
>
> ** Not weird at all - it is bleeding obvious that intent to harm
> a person must exist.
RM: It ~is~ weird, because some motorists may wish to
damage an expensive car with predatory driving - without any
intention of harming any occupant, but they would not be guilty
of preditory driving.
>> It's not an
>> offence (in that section of the Act) to deliberately damage another
>> vehicle without harming an occupant, but it IS an offence to cause
>> bodily harm.
>
>
> ** Section 51A has nothing to say about causing actual damage or
> bodily harm.
(says Phil who tells others to read)
Now read S.51A again s-l-o-w-l-y this time, Phil
(1) Take particular note of the words "that causes [..] an impact'"
(Impact causes "damage" Phil.)
(2) Also -- "intends [..] to cause [....] actual bodily harm"
================
51A Predatory driving
(1) The driver of a vehicle who, while in pursuit of or travelling
near another vehicle:
(a) engages in a course of conduct that causes or threatens an
impact involving the other vehicle, and
(b) intends by that course of conduct to cause a person in the
other vehicle actual bodily harm,
================
[...]
> ...... Phil
Ray
Ray Murphy
>
> "Ray Murphy"
>>
>>> My original Q still stands as to the actual intention of the odd
>>> wording of section 51A.
>>
>> RM: Bicycles are not treated as vehicles in that section of the
>> Act, so section 51 couldn't be used.
>
> ** Shame about this bit:
RM: No, it's not a shame at all - you just got it wrong
again - presumably to fit in with your incessant trolling activities.
> " (3) In this section:
>
> "impact" involving a vehicle includes:
> (a) an impact with any other vehicle or with a person or object, "
-------
RM: As I said earlier - a bicycle is not a vehicle for the
purposes of S.51. Bicycles are expressly excluded.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section 52
(9) Definitions In this section:
"vehicle" means:
(a) any motor car, motor carriage, motor cycle or other vehicle
propelled wholly or partly by volatile spirit, steam, gas, oil,
electricity, or by any other means OTHER than human or animal power,
or
(b) a horse-drawn vehicle,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ray
TomTom
Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> typed:
The particular offence is a form of assault on a person, not a form of
criminal damage to property. Section 51A clearly does not apply to the
given facts.
TomTom
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> typed:
The heading of a section is not part of the law.
> Ever considered a remedial reading course - pal ??
Complete waste of time in your case.
> Cos you fucking need one.
That would be a PKB, if you could read.
Ray Murphy
"TomTom" <t...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:g01vim$nch$1...@news.albasani.net...
RM: Thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, there's a big difference between deliberate damage to motor
vehicles and deliberate injury to people.
I'm glad you pointed it out before the resident troll was informed and
pasted it here.
Ray
Phil Allison
"Ray Murphy"
"Phil Allison"
>
>>> It's weird to see in S51A how BOTH (a) and (b) must exist for
>>> the offence of "predatory driving" can be committed.
>>
>> ** Not weird at all - it is bleeding obvious that intent to harm
>> a person must exist.
>
> RM: It ~is~ weird, because some motorists may wish to
> damage an expensive car with predatory driving - without any
> intention of harming any occupant, but they would not be guilty
> of preditory driving.
** There is nothing * weird * at all - fuckwit.
One can damage a car when it is parked and empty.
That crime is called malicious damage.
>>> It's not an
>>> offence (in that section of the Act) to deliberately damage another
>>> vehicle without harming an occupant, but it IS an offence to cause
>>> bodily harm.
>>
>>
>> ** Section 51A has nothing to say about causing actual damage or
>> bodily harm.
>
>
> Now read S.51A again s-l-o-w-l-y this time, Phil
>
> (1) Take particular note of the words "that causes [..] an impact'"
> (Impact causes "damage" Phil.)
** An " impact " may cause no damage and you snipped the crucial word "
threatens ".
Here is the whole line:
" (a) engages in a course of conduct that causes or threatens an impact
involving the other vehicle, and "
So, I repeat:
** Section 51A has nothing to say about causing actual damage or bodily
harm.**
Dickhead.
> (2) Also -- "intends [..] to cause [....] actual bodily harm"
** Which is not actual harm but a thought existing in the culprits head.
Seek a remedial reading course now.
Cos your reading is completely fucked.
....... Phil
Phil Allison
"Ray Murphy"
>>
>>>> My original Q still stands as to the actual intention of the odd
>>>> wording of section 51A.
>>>
>>> RM: Bicycles are not treated as vehicles in that section of the
>>> Act, so section 51 couldn't be used.
>>
>> ** Shame about this bit:
>
>
>>
>> "impact" involving a vehicle includes:
>>
>> (a) an impact with any other vehicle or with a person or object, "
> -------
>
> RM: As I said earlier - a bicycle is not a vehicle for the
> purposes of S.51. Bicycles are expressly excluded.
** The definition of a " vehicle " does not include a bicycle - as * I
stated * in my original post.
See the words " ... or with a person or object " in relation to the
"impact involving a vehicle" - or IOW the target of predatory behaviour.
So, predatory driving involving only a person as the target and no vehicle
is also included.
PLUS included is the case where an " object" is the target of the predatory
behaviour - so long as there is intent to thereby to injure a person.
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"Tom the Tosser."
> The particular offence is a form of assault on a person, not a form of
> criminal damage to property.
** Correct.
But damage to property may well occur during the commission of the offence.
See 3 (b) " the vehicle overturning or leaving a road. "
> Section 51A clearly does not apply to the given facts.
** A blatant non sequitur.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Ray Murphy"
> "TomTom"
> RM: Thanks for pointing that out.
** Tom the Tosser has pointed out nothing.
The pathetic, autistic cretin is even more illiterate than you.
...... Phil
TomTom
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> typed:
> "Ray Murphy"
>>>
>>>>> My original Q still stands as to the actual intention of the odd
>>>>> wording of section 51A.
>>>>
>>>> RM: Bicycles are not treated as vehicles in that section of the
>>>> Act, so section 51 couldn't be used.
>>>
>>> ** Shame about this bit:
>>
>>
>>> " (3) In this section:
>>>
>>> "impact" involving a vehicle includes:
>>>
>>> (a) an impact with any other vehicle or with a person or object, "
>>> -------
>>
>> RM: As I said earlier - a bicycle is not a vehicle for the
>> purposes of S.51. Bicycles are expressly excluded.
>
>
> ** The definition of a " vehicle " does not include a bicycle - as * I
> stated * in my original post.
>
> See the words " ... or with a person or object " in relation to the
> "impact involving a vehicle" - or IOW the target of predatory
> behaviour.
> So, predatory driving involving only a person as the target and no
> vehicle is also included.
No, it is not. You don't understand the provision. But that is par for
you.
> PLUS included is the case where an " object" is the target of the
> predatory behaviour - so long as there is intent to thereby to
> injure a person.
Whatever that gibberish means...
Anonymous
As you might have gathered by now, you have a firm grasp of the shit end
of the stick. There is likely to be no significant charge, and certainly
not one under section 51A. Apart from the minor detail that section 51A
cannot apply in this case.
HTH
Sylvia Else
> ** Hi to all,
>
> The recent incident in Sydney involving some 50 bicyclists brought down on
> the highway by the deliberate act of a motorist seems very much a criminal
> matter - but what criminal charge can the NSW police use ?
>
> Driving offences have been mentioned by the police, eg failing to stop
> after an accident - but what happened is way more serious than that. I see
> two possibilities in the NSW Crimes Act: Sections 51A and 52AB.
>
> The first is called "Predatory driving" and the second is " Offence of
> failing to stop and assist after vehicle impact causing death or grievous
> bodily harm ". Far as we know, by great luck no rider was seriously
> injured, so the second is out.
>
> Predatory driving is shown here:
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s51a.html
51A(1)(b) might be difficult to prove, particularly if the distances
involved were such that he could reasonably expect the bicycles to stop
if they'd had braking ability similar to vehicles.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> As you might have gathered by now, you have a firm grasp of the shit end
> of the stick. There is likely to be no significant charge, and certainly
> not one under section 51A. Apart from the minor detail that section 51A
> cannot apply in this case.
Why can it not apply?
Sylvia.
TomTom
Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> typed:
The offence under section 51A requires more than one vehicle to be involved.
For this purpose, "vehicle" does not include a bicycle.
scream
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4826e11c$0$13944$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Well this really irks me, that he could reasonably expect the bycycles to be
able to stop.
The action if not caused by a fault in the car/vehicle, the only intent
possible to be read from the action is intention to cause tje bycycles
persons to run into the back of his car, or at the least cause them to fall
and injure themselves in attempts to stop.
And courts should be able to diseminate between actions that would appear to
be deliberate attempts to injure as against accidental damage. Presumably
why we support such high incomes for our judges and law makers.
Benway
*************************************************
I think you meant "discriminate" and not "diseminate."
This rabid, self-righteous lunatic driver should be
facing criminal charges. If he is let off, it would
encourage other mobile sociopaths to have a go at cyclists.
The usual excuse is that bikes are "holding them up."
If a bulldozer "held them up" I cannot see them playing
"chicken" or "propping" in front of one of those!
*********************************************
regn.pickford
"scream" <scr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:xIbXj.1517$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
If bikes can't stop as well as cars they shouldn't travel `at speed'
where they have high exposure to automobiles with better safety features.
If some goose pulls up in front of me while driving and I slam into his/her
arse, it is _Reg_ that receives the ticket and liability, not the goose
up front who pulls over to answer a mobile phone call.
Sylvia Else
One is usually allowed to stop even if there are vehicles behind. It is
the responsibility of those following to ensure that they are a
sufficient distance from the vehicle in front so as to be able to avoid
a collision in the event that the vehicle stops.
The is also an obligation on a driver of a vehicle moving into a lane
from another not to do so in a way that puts the vehicle too close to
the vehicles behind that are already in that lane.
If bicycles cannot stop as quickly as other vehicles (something about
which I have no view) then a driver might make the mistake of pulling
into a lane, and then stopping, when the bicycles behind are too close
to be able to stop. Such a driver might intend merely to inconvenience
the bicycle riders and not intend to cause an accident.
By riding in packs where inviduals are clearly not far enough away from
the riders infront of them, cyclists create a situation where the
consequences of another driver's error are much more serious than they
should be. There has been talk of the riders in this incident suing in
respect of their damaged bicycles. In the event that they do, I would
expect that the pack-riding would be found to be significant
contributory negligence.
Sylvia.
Scream
"regn.pickford" <re...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote in message
news:482e...@news.comindico.com.au...
If some idiot pulls up in front of your car you are expected to keep enough
distance between you and vehicles in front of you to stop before hitting
them.
Here we are talking about some idiot who slammed his brakes on in front of a
group of people who whether walking or cycling were not equipped to deal
with a better equipped vehicle for this type of action.
So whether it was a group of runners, kids on tricycles or roller bladers,
the intent is obvious and has succeeded.
Now all that has to be decided is what penalty to discourage any repeat of
this type of behavior on our roads.
SCREAM
regn.pickford
"Scream" <scr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:FgTXj.2127$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[quote stt regn]
If bikes can't stop as well as cars they shouldn't travel `at speed'
where they have high exposure to automobiles with better safety features
[quote fin regn]
> So whether it was a group of runners, kids on tricycles or roller bladers,
> the intent is obvious and has succeeded.
> Now all that has to be decided is what penalty to discourage any repeat of
> this type of behavior on our roads.
Test and register bikes, test and license riders, put speed limits, distance
limits,
limit number of riders in a group, fluourescent safety clothing and
flashing lights
on riders helmets,clothing, bikes and restrict their use of main roads at
peak
traffic volumes.
These riders failed to respect the dangers of bunching up, their equipment's
safety features unsuitability to the conditions and this neglect contributed
to
their accident.
Fine the bikeriders; perhaps it'll teach them they _share_ the road
and ride according to the conditions.
> SCREAM
>