Why living here is better.
Discussion
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/deputy-mayor-who-crashed...
And I quote:
He said the independent councillor had not been speeding or driving in a reckless manner but had been naive in his choice of such a powerful vehicle.
"You made bad choices and it ended in catastrophe," Magistrate Maloney said.
And I quote:
He said the independent councillor had not been speeding or driving in a reckless manner but had been naive in his choice of such a powerful vehicle.
"You made bad choices and it ended in catastrophe," Magistrate Maloney said.
Caulkhead said:
Sorry, I don't understand. Why does a bloke getting a 12 month ban for crashing a Ferrari into two pedestrians make Australia a better place to live? 
He wasn't speeding or driving dangerously, and the insinuation is that he was banned and punished mainly because he's young and has a Ferrari.The Wookie said:
Caulkhead said:
Sorry, I don't understand. Why does a bloke getting a 12 month ban for crashing a Ferrari into two pedestrians make Australia a better place to live?
He wasn't speeding or driving dangerously, and the insinuation is that he was banned and punished mainly because he's young and has a Ferrari.
The Wookie said:
Caulkhead said:
Sorry, I don't understand. Why does a bloke getting a 12 month ban for crashing a Ferrari into two pedestrians make Australia a better place to live?
He wasn't speeding or driving dangerously, and the insinuation is that he was banned and punished mainly because he's young and has a Ferrari.looks like an estate agent
fido said:
From the perspective of the two people he has hospitalised i'd say he was driving dangerously, or recklessly, whatever you want to call it. Tosser who can't control his right foot.
article said:
The millionaire property developer was not speeding at the time of the crash and claimed that he had lost control of the 600 horse power vehicle when another pedestrian walked out in front of him.
So perhaps he didn't control his right foot on the brake pedal to your Driving God standards?Or?
Sounds to me on the basis of the evidence presented, which is admittedly very incomplete, that he was indeed punished because of his choice of vehicle.
alfaman said:
don't think so - sounds like he couldnt control his car due to lack of skill / attention...why else would you hit 2 pedestrians.
looks like an estate agent
On the face of it I'd agree, but why would the judge use words to the effect of him not doing anything particularly wrong? In which case what does his choice of vehicle have to do with the price of fish, it sounds like he could have dropped a Ford Focus doing exactly the same thing.looks like an estate agent
There was mention that he'd swerved to avoid another pedestrian, perhaps it was just s
t luck.TheTurbonator said:
Could be worse, in Italy the salesman who sold him the car, would have been charged and sentenced for not predicting the accident.
and I'm surprised the TV weather presenters in Italy havent resigned en-masse to avoid jail when it's rainier/sunnier/warmer/colder than expectedFiF said:
article said:
The millionaire property developer was not speeding at the time of the crash and claimed that he had lost control of the 600 horse power vehicle when another pedestrian walked out in front of him.
but surely you guys watch those Patrol programmes where some numpty rolls a Sports Car / 4x4 but claims he was driving normally and despite his application of the brake pedal at 20mph in a straight line the vehicle managed to flip over several times and ended in a fireball.
Oh and you forgot to quote the other bits ..
"But he was found guilty of negligent driving in Burwood Local Court last month, with Magistrate Brian Maloney noting that his initial report to police was different to that he later gave in court."
In another article, Amir Khan explains how he is an incredibly careful driver.
fido said:
FiF said:
article said:
The millionaire property developer was not speeding at the time of the crash and claimed that he had lost control of the 600 horse power vehicle when another pedestrian walked out in front of him.
but surely you guys watch those Patrol programmes where some numpty rolls a Sports Car / 4x4 but claims he was driving normally and despite his application of the brake pedal at 20mph in a straight line the vehicle managed to flip over several times and ended in a fireball.
Oh and you forgot to quote the other bits ..
"But he was found guilty of negligent driving in Burwood Local Court last month, with Magistrate Brian Maloney noting that his initial report to police was different to that he later gave in court."
In another article, Amir Khan explains how he is an incredibly careful driver.
"He said the independent councillor had not been speeding or driving in a reckless manner but had been naive in his choice of such a powerful vehicle.
"You made bad choices and it ended in catastrophe," Magistrate Maloney said."
The article does not explain how he was negligent.
right back at ya!FiF said:
The article does not explain how he was negligent.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/councillor-cops-driving-ban-after-hitting-pedestrians-with-ferrari-20121023-283l5.htmlHowever, he was found guilty of negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm in Burwood Local Court last month, with the magistrate, Brian Maloney, noting that he did not initially tell police about the car coming the other way, and that he had been ''naive to the propensities of the vehicle he was driving''.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negl...
fido said:
FiF said:
The article does not explain how he was negligent.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/councillor-cops-driving-ban-after-hitting-pedestrians-with-ferrari-20121023-283l5.htmlHowever, he was found guilty of negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm in Burwood Local Court last month, with the magistrate, Brian Maloney, noting that he did not initially tell police about the car coming the other way, and that he had been ''naive to the propensities of the vehicle he was driving''.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negl...
I note you also didn't quote from that article.
''You weren't driving a car wantonly, you weren't driving a car recklessly,'' Mr Maloney said. ''You just chose the wrong options and a catastrophe resulted. It could happen to anybody.''
You buy a 600bhp car, it's your responsibility to maintain control of that vehicle - assuming of course there were no manufacturer faults e.g. a stuck throttle. If that isn't the case, then walking down the Colonnades in Canary Wharf could be alot more precarious - alot of supercars along that stretch of road doing 20mph.
Edited by fido on Wednesday 24th October 13:03
FiF said:
fido said:
FiF said:
The article does not explain how he was negligent.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/councillor-cops-driving-ban-after-hitting-pedestrians-with-ferrari-20121023-283l5.htmlHowever, he was found guilty of negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm in Burwood Local Court last month, with the magistrate, Brian Maloney, noting that he did not initially tell police about the car coming the other way, and that he had been ''naive to the propensities of the vehicle he was driving''.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negl...
I note you also didn't quote from that article.
''You weren't driving a car wantonly, you weren't driving a car recklessly,'' Mr Maloney said. ''You just chose the wrong options and a catastrophe resulted. It could happen to anybody.''
Sooooooo, he was negligent because he bought a car, which although he was driving appropriately before he was presented with an emergency situation, he did not have the necessary skill to control said vehicle in that emergency situation, and was therefore negligent in not forseeing that emergency situation. Something, according to the judge, "which could have happened to anybody."
Presumably that could, in theory, have been provided for by taking some tuition in said vehicle, not to mention falling foul of the old "but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court."
Maybe I've missed something, but it does not seem to be particularly objective sentencing, assuming that the reports are accurate, which to be fair, they often do fall well short in this respect.
Presumably that could, in theory, have been provided for by taking some tuition in said vehicle, not to mention falling foul of the old "but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court."
DJRC said:
Im confused. Are you saying it was good or bad he got a 12 month ban for having an accident and hitting 2 pedestrians?
Well I'm just wondering the thought process of how another poster can summarise with:-Fido said:
Tosser who can't control his right foot.
Clearly for him to have been found negligent then he must, in the eyes of the court, have made an error of judgement in the process of dealing with that emergency. From the reports it seems that the errors of judgement he made as commented on by the court were "failing to mention to the police the presence of an oncoming car" and errr buying a Fezza?Maybe I've missed something, but it does not seem to be particularly objective sentencing, assuming that the reports are accurate, which to be fair, they often do fall well short in this respect.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff