P-Plater Scape Goat?

[minux]

Yes, yes. you are meant to drive to the conditions of the road and all that jazz, but how many would do it on a country road??? Not many. Not that anyone would admit it.

I know what you mean stocky. I lost it a 40km's once. Took a corner a bit too wide and hit some loose gravel.

This would have to be one of the stupidest posts in this thread.

Your asking who here would slow down when sensing danger on a road lol, i did it every time, everyone i knew and every car i have ever passed has done the same on these roads.

If you are too stupid to slow down then you shouldn't have a license.

[ProphetVX]

Yes, yes. you are meant to drive to the conditions of the road and all that jazz, but how many would do it on a country road??? Not many. Not that anyone would admit it.

I know what you mean stocky. I lost it a 40km's once. Took a corner a bit too wide and hit some loose gravel.

I guess if other people do it, it makes it ok?

Yes, alot of people speed and don't drive to the conditions of the road. Ironically they're usually the ones that end up crashing. Anyone who drives country roads would know that there are so many hazards not just cars on the road at any time whether it be a kangaroo, cows, fallen trees or whatever, if you can't see far enough ahead that you can avoid collision then slow down.

I've lost my license for driving like a moron, since then I realised how big an idiot it was and stick to the road rules and drive safely. I had no one to blame but myself for the fines and consequences I faced, neither should this kid. 1 neg driving charge should be enough to make anyone slow down.

[AttaBoy]

Well lets just hope that when he gets out he will be a better driver.

Some people just never learn their lesson and continue to be danger to other road users.

But remember, we are living in an imperfect world, nothing is perfect or the way you want it to be. There will always be someone out their doing very stupid things. Its part of life, we hear these things and all we can do is shake our heads. No matter how much effort the government puts or how much the law changes - there still going be problems, not just it applies to driving but everything else in life.

[1vngal]

This would have to be one of the stupidest posts in this thread.

Your asking who here would or slow down when sensing danger on a road lol, i did it every time, everyone i knew and every car i have ever passed has done the same on these roads.

If you are too stupid to slow down then you shouldn't have a license.

No, I'm not asking who would or wouldn't slow down when sensing danger on a road. All I meant by it was, we don't always drive to the conditions of the road. It impossoible to know exactly how a certain piece of road should be driven on. I bet even you have taken a corner in the wet, just that little too fast, we're all human and all very much capable of making a bad judgment on the road should be driven on.

I'm not saying that he has been unfairly treated because he did nothing wrong. It's jut in many threads like this, everyone is so quick to judge. THAT WAS ALL.

And as for that last bit of your post, did I say wouldn't slow down in that situation? Or any situation where speed may be a dangerous factor? No. I didn't. Can you sit there and honestly say that you have never made a mistake when driving? I have. I've made plenty.

I guess if other people do it, it makes it ok?

I never once said that.

[shaggerz]

Short of mechanical failure there is no excuse for these things. If the car functioned in its normal manner, then the only factor left is the driver.

Its DISGUSTING to me that there are people out there who don't understand the potential danger that surrounds them when driving. Those people should not be driving.. they should be taught to appreciate the weapon they are in control of. I imagine after this guys 18 month stretch he'll drive with more care and probably spend a lot of time thinking about hazard perception.

I am so glad that Queensland is adopting this new licensing system with tougher testing and hazard perception tests.

If you have ever worked in a dangerous environment or with dangerous things you will understand the concept of hazard perception very well. I work in a workshop where I am surrounded by CRT monitors with cracked EHT transformers, exposed live wiring, hazardous chemicals and mechanical dangers... theres nothing like 27 000 volts across your chest to motivate you to take extra care and avoid hazards rather than just ignoring them.

As for being targeted for being a P plater? sounds like rubbish to me. I'm not saying it does or doesn't happen... just that its totally irrelevant to this case.

[Reaper]

A friend of mine had just been sentenced to 18 months prison, with a no parole period of 18 months. Here's the story:

In April 06, he was driving my car on a small country road with unmarked lines, doing around 100 KM/H. Another vehicle was coming in the opposite direction and my friend moved the vehicle to the left to allow more room. Unfortunately, the wheels on the left hand side of the car left the road, and my friend over corrected to the right, straight into the other vehicle.

My Friend suffered a shattered ankle, I had minor whiplash injuries, one of the passengers in the other vehicle was unharmed, the other two were seriously injured but have now nearly 100% after a long period of time in hospital.

The police took four months before interviewing anyone about the accident, and it was almost 12 months before the matter was brought to court. I had to be a witness.

I expected the court room to be full of diagrams, police reports, especially since the other party claimed that my friend was doing at least 120KM/H, and that he was swerving all over the road doing fishtails before the impact, and that he came around a corner up the road sideways. Shouldn't there have been some sort of physical evidence? Skid marks? I thought police could tell how fast you were going by analyzing skid marks.

In the end, the judge literally said that he believed what the other people were saying, and charged my friend with 2x of Dangerous Driving Causing Grevious Bodily Harm, and Neg Driving, and he has been sentenced. He also had to face another charge in a few months time (I don't know what that is).

To me personally it really seems like my friend was found guilty before the case even started, since he was a P Plater, he must have been driving dangerously, right? What really upsets me the most though, is that there was no evidence, it literally came down to they said/we said, and that shouldn't be enough, should it?

Pretty bull**** as far as I'm concerned, especially when guys get off drink driving over and over again.

I doubt it. AFAIK the police lay the charges and the magistrate (assuming it was the magistrates court) determines guilt or innocence. Lets take your rantings out of it and look at the facts.

From your version your friend swerved onto the wrong side of the road in front of an oncoming car. If you look at the root cause of this, your friend was (even at 100km/h) driving too fast and he lost control. That would satisfy a charge of negligence. As a result of your friends negligence, two people were seriously injured which would satisfy the grievous bodily harm.

From *your* statement, I don't think the magistrate had any choice but to find your friend guilty. I doubt that "P" plates would have had anything to do with that finding. Congratulations Einstein - I think you convicted your friend.

Now, when it comes to sentencing, the person's prior history would have been taken into account. Because he has "P" plates, I would assume that he has had a license for a very short period of time. In that time he has already racked up a speeding fine and previously been convicted of Neg driving. Now, in a relatively short period of time he has been negligent again and caused a big crash. I would think in those circumstances a strong penalty should apply. Your friend has had 2 previous warnings that he ignored and from your account it sounds lucky he didn't kill anybody.

Also note that I am only going on *your* best case version of events and haven't taken into account the other sides version. As always the truth will be in the middle somewhere.

Reaper

However, conditions or not. If the signed speed limit was 100, and he was travelling at or under 100, he hasn't broken the law.

The signposted limit is a *maximum* speed available to a driver when it *is safe to do so*. It doesn't mean that you are obligated to do that speed all the time. All drivers are obligated to drive in a safe manner at all times which the original posters friend clearly failed to do. See my post above. I think the magistrate got it right. Guilty on all 3 charges.

Reaper

He'd had one previous speeding fine, and a neg driving fine, which definitely would have counted against him. But I don't think that a stupid accident caused by inexperience is worth 18 months prison.

It wasn't a stupid accident. It was caused (by your own admissions) by negligent driving on your friends part. You say he has been convicted of negligent driving before and also speeding. They are only the things he has been caught doing. This guy is no saint and it doesn't sound like he learns very quickly.

Book 'em Danno.....

Reaper

it is true that unfortunately most magistrates will choose to make an example out of any P plater

It had nothing to do with "P" plates. Follow thru the facts and try a bit of clear thinking.

that appears to have been driving dangerously. With that being said, with no physical evidence of dangerous driving.

i think it's pretty gung-ho to just assume that the P plater was dangerous driving because the person in the other car thought he was- after a traumatic event which could have altered the context of their memory of the event (eg imagining the person who caused him such pain having horns coming out his head and fishtailing up the road with a beer in one hand and a joint in the other).

If there is no physical evidence of dangerous driving (skid marks on the road) then the case should have been thrown out of court for lack of evidence, something that any decent barrister should be able to arrange.

Lucky he wasn't charged with Dangerous driving isn't it. There is a heap of evidence that he was driving Negligently. Amazingly that is what he was convicted of.

Reaper

yeah i know about that. JC cruise #2, my car hit a bit of gravel while doing a u turn and sent the whole car around 180 degrees. i was only going about 10km/h. what annoyed me most is i had to do the u turn again!

10 km/h???? 180 deg spin???? were you on ice or exaggerating just a little bit.

Reaper

there is every possibility that it was just that. An ACCIDENT. It's not hard to lose control of a car when moving over to let another through. Any one that lives in a country area will know what I mean.

It only takes 2 wheels in the tiniest bit of loose gravel on the side of a dirt road to flip a car. Or cause it to lose control for that matter.

Most country roads, (especially in Tasmania) aren't really that wide. And if you meet a big Hilux on one of those roads, you have to move over pretty damn far.

Parts of this story do sound a bit suss, but I just think you all shouldn't be so quick to judge the situation. Whether he has a prior driving conviction or not. What he says happened, isn't hard to do.

It's very easy in this case. Look at the charge and what constitutes that offense. The posters version of events shows this. I agree it's easy to loose control when you are going too fast for the conditions which is why the vast majority of the rest of the population err on the side of caution and slow down when cars are approaching on a narrow road.

Reaper

[Mr_Slim]

pretty much summed it up there reaper. telling it like it is!

i guess what it comes down to is although by travelling 100km/h (we assume) in a 100km/h zone, he wasn't breaking the law, but there are times when doing just enough to not break the law isn't enough. sometimes you have to show common sense and do that little bit more. eg. drive 10kmh less in rain. or put lights on early in the morning. things like this, while not obligatory under the law, are just general common sense things to do.

driving on a country road, with poor surface off the road, when the road is already narrow - while the law says you can pass this car at 100km/h and just keep driving, common sense tells you to slow down, give them space, and then get back on the road and get back up to 100km/h. if you choose to disobey common sense, then that is showing negligence, or in this case negligent driving.

his prior convictions would've added time to the sentence, as it shows he hasn't learned that driving like a ******** is a bad idea. also i recently did a post about a friend of a friend of mine who got 2yrs for neg driving, with no prior convictions. seems to be the going rate at the moment.

so yeah in conclusion, sometimes you just have to show common sense and do a little bit more than what the law requires.

[Low_VX_Taxi]

Stocky,

How the hell do you lose control fo a car at 10 km/h..i would have thought at that speed the car wouldnt even have enough force to turn 180..

lol my wife managed to write off my cars front bumper and side skirts at 9km/h on a gravel driveway...... gravel is wicked stuff, and 100km/h is juss too fast on a tarred back road let alone a dirt road! Pretty harsh sentence but I think the sentence was all determined by the drivers speed, at 100km/h on a good highway a slight over-correction can sent you askew, that coupled with an already bad dirt/gravel road..... sounds like a text book neg driving offence to me..................

Edit:Lol looks like I was a few seconds too late

[stocky]

10 km/h???? 180 deg spin???? were you on ice or exaggerating just a little bit.

Reaper

yeah whatever mate. made the u turn, finished it, about to drive off and car spun around 180, had to do the u turn again

[Spaced]

As an example when I purchased my car the first time I was in the wet I went to take off normally and the wheels spun. Since then everytime it rains I take it really easy cause I've realised the risk involved.

Your mate had a history and then driving like this caused this accident what did he expect the judge to do. He's trying to prevent this happening again which it would of had your mate been let off.

It is harsh and jail time is by no means easy but he should have learned. Also agree with the others you need to drive to the conditions. If you lose control you were not driving to the conditions (this is how the law is interpreted).

If he thinks the judge was unfair he can contest it and if he was smart would go through another court cause I'm guessing you are in a small town.

[minux]

Ok thread is going in circles, most people agree the guy in question is a knob.