Compare and Contrast
Uncategorized - - Posted on March, 19 at 5:55 am by Helen
Tom Towle, Father of the Year 2007, speeds down a highway near Mildura one dark night at speeds in excess of 120 KPH; drunk, with his four year old son on his lap (it has not been completely established whether the infant was, in fact, steering). He ploughs through a group of teenagers who are walking on the verge, killing six. He flees the scene and disappears into vineyards, abandoning his two distressed and bruised children in the car to be managed as best they can by emergency services. He has numerous prior convictions including burglary, assault and of course, numerous driving offences.
Later, in court, he is found not to be guilty of “six counts of culpable driving causing death” (Wasn’t manslaughter even an option here?), but instead, guilty of a lesser charge of “dangerous driving causing death”.
A few months later, there is a serious non-fatal accident involving a bicycle hitting a pedestrian (there has been one fatality in similar circumstances two years before this.) The response? Change the laws so they’re tougher on cyclists than on someone like Towle.
A new crime for cyclists, possibly similar to culpable driving for motorists, will be introduced into State Parliament later this year.
Roads Minister Tim Pallas revealed the new tough line on irresponsible cyclists after a hit-run accident on Tuesday night that left a man, 62, in intensive care.
I don’t like cyclists who flout the road rules, but sometimes I can understand where they’re coming from. How can young hotheads respect the law when they see it applied like this?
Crossposted at the Balcony
>
Posted in Uncategorized |
March 19th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I guess it wouldnt occur to Pallas the comparison with the near Midura incident,for a number of reasons,Many in Mildura want to be N.S.W.citizens,and it would appear neither a ethnic police officer or grape grower of similar origin to himself were directly involved.And according to a quick Google name meaning search..Pallas Greek God of Warcraft..is simply probably reading in behaviour,appalling behaviour on bicycles,as akin to Internet matters or computer wargames…and for bicyclists opening a car door without noticing bicyclists,its cannon work..via the helmet as nose cone.I think,Pallas needs to be a little bit more thorough in understanding,than a quick tempered type of response.Although,if there wasnt so much problem with quick tempered use of well chosen sets of words,then maybe , being quick tempered,may not mean even a health problem..but simply giving someone a piece of your mind…sharing and caring!?!Legality should be the last resort,and perhaps bicyclists need to be apprehend under other provisions of law besides,initially road related matters.A more general approach that can be comprehensively utilised to incl. the harshest,of penalty.Bad law can create bad behaviour in citizens,acting on known and familiar law as the public knows it, is a better option.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am
There should of been an l in the Midura..A!?Mildura.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Hadn’t heard about the abandonment of children but isn’t that some form of offence? Do you get a visit from some agency or authority?
Not sure how a burglary conviction could be seen as related to this though.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Yeah, Towle does seem to have a forgiving jury - it’s hard to see how they let him off the “leaving the scene of an accident” charge, f’rinstance. But we should always be careful about second-guessing these things on the basis of newspaper reports - they rarely give all the facts. Let’s wait and see what the sentence is though - unlike the jury, the judge knows the priors.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
You should be nominated for ratbag of the year
Tom Towle, Father of the Year 2007, speeds down a highway near Mildura one dark night at speeds in excess of 120 KPH
[One case of defamation - this was rejected by a jury and is without any foundation - besides it wasn’t a highway]
drunk
[Another case of defamation]
with his four year old son on his lap (it has not been completely established whether the infant was, in fact, steering).
[Another case of defamation - the jury found it had little bearing on his driving]
He ploughs through a group of teenagers who are walking on the verge, killing six.
[After avoiding another group on the other side of the road]
He flees the scene and disappears into vineyards
[After being seriously threatened with a bashing]
abandoning his two distressed and bruised children in the car
[leaving them with a large group of people]
to be managed as best they can by emergency services
[Psychologically probably better for the children than watching their father get a severe bashing]
He has numerous prior convictions including burglary, assault
[completely irrelevant]
and of course, numerous driving offences.
[unlicensed driving from years ago wasn’t it]
Later, in court, he is found not to be guilty of “six counts of culpable driving causing death” (Wasn’t manslaughter even an option here?), but instead, guilty of a lesser charge of “dangerous driving causing death”.
[The two offences lesser than manslaughter were legislated because people were getting off scott free when found not guilty of manslaughter, if he is not guilty of culpable driving he is not guilty of manslaughter]
March 19th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I’ve started riding a bike again after 25 years break. I rode to school every day, 1 mile each way, for 12 years. The bike sheds at school had, maybe, 200 bikes. Being driven to school by mum was not only extremely rare but looked upon by students as very lame. Anyway,…
I noticed in recent years that there is a backlash against cyclists that seems all out of proportion with any offence. Motorcycles have cruised between lanes forever and they aren’t the target of such anger. Pedestrians are always jaywalking and there’s no backlash from Joe Public there. Is it the bicycle or the the lycra or the silly hat? When did cyclists become “The other”?
March 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
As a long term motorcyclist I beg to differ.
The only difference is that we’re scarier to Joe Public, so he generally confines himself to shouting “d*ckhead” or “ar*ehole” when he thinks we can’t hear.
But there are a few serious nutters out there who will attempt to ram you for getting ahead of them in traffic.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I think I’d be equally as scared on a motorbike as on a pushie, IB. (Currently I only ride a bike - sometimes.)
Derrida and others, I agree with you, but my point was not specifically to call for a harsher sentence for Towle. Bad writing on my part perhaps, but (as the comments on my own blog show) I’ve failed to put my specific point across, namely:
1. Driver drives, with lethal consequences, in such as way as to make “culpable driving” seem almost laughable;
2. Driver fails to notch up a culpable driving charge.
3. Bike rider is guilty of an egregious riding incident but it’s not as outrageous, nor does it cause as much carnage (AND I AM NOT EXCUSING it),
4. Victorian government says it’ll change the law to make the penalty on the cyclist harsher.
Do you see what I’m on about?
I kinda regret laying into Towle, as he’s kind of hogged the attention in this post.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Glenn” put fingers to keyboard:
You should be nominated for ratbag of the year
That’s Ms. Ratbag to you, sport. Yes, a wonderful Aussie appelation and one I would wear with pride - that’s one for my sidebar!
One case of defamation - this was rejected by a jury and is without any foundation - besides it wasn’t a highway
Oh, so it was only a secondary road that Towle was driving at speeds “up to 150 kph”, according to the AGE. That actually makes it worse… doesn’t it?
Drunk [Another case of defamation]
Here’s one of the many reports, this one’s from the AGE:
“Mr Rapke said that while police could not prove how much alcohol Towle had consumed on the night of the collision, the police officers who interviewed him five hours after the incident said he smelt of liquor and had red eyes.”
Also, wasn’t there a case recently where they found someone had to actually have a reputation to lose before they could win a case for defamation?
with his four year old son on his lap (it has not been completely established whether the infant was, in fact, steering).
[Another case of defamation - the jury found it had little bearing on his driving]
Oh, please. You cannot be serious.
He ploughs through a group of teenagers who are walking on the verge, killing six.
[After avoiding another group on the other side of the road]
Oh, so he managed not to kill all the teenagers!
Awesome!
He flees the scene and disappears into vineyards
[After being seriously threatened with a bashing]
There’s such a thing as Leaving the Scene of an Accident, “Glenn”. And there’s also such a thing as doing the right thing by other people. But, sure he may have felt his miserable life was threatened, and none of us know what we’d do in such a situation (although, you can be bloodywell sure, I won’t be doing a high speed fang with a preschooler behind the wheel).
But it’s your NEXT comment that leaves me almost as slack-jawed as the subject of this comment.
abandoning his two distressed and bruised children in the car
[leaving them with a large group of people]
You really aren’t winding me up?
You are really serious?
Wow.
“….”
…managed as best they can by emergency services
[Psychologically probably better for the children than watching their father get a severe bashing]
*speechless*
He has numerous prior convictions including burglary, assault
[completely irrelevant]
and of course, numerous driving offences.
[unlicensed driving from years ago wasn’t it]
Yes, irrelevant in the court, but not irrelevant on a blog where I was (tangentially) pointing out that this was a heavy-grade dangerous moron, not just some normally law-abiding person who gambled on a mobile phone call or otherwise did something foolish and out of character. To see my actual point, see comment #8 , so I don’t have to repeat myself.
As for his priors being unlicenced driving from years ago, which implies one minor offence, they were: “…a string of prior driving convictions, including two for drink driving and eight for driving while his licence was cancelled or disqualified.” (The AGE, again.) As well as the other stuff.
[The two offences lesser than manslaughter were legislated because people were getting off scott free when found not guilty of manslaughter, if he is not guilty of culpable driving he is not guilty of manslaughter]
For once, you have a point, but you have elided the fact that culpable driving was an option. If that’s not culpable driving, then what is?
March 20th, 2008 at 9:57 am
If you’ll take what our wonderful, not-at-all-tabloidish Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi media say, over what has been found by a properly instructed jury, perhaps “dickhead” is better than “ratbag”.
Police are often very good at believing what they want to believe, which is often the most dramatic “evildoer” narrative. Possibly the convicted person had red eyes after a sleepless night and may even have had a slightly troubled conscience after unintentionally killing 6 people? No no of course not, he has a record so was inwardly laughing his arse off like Stuntman Mike from Deathproof.
Ah yes. The things actually listed being as dangerous as each other, of course. But one set of offences is likely to be committed by a blue collar bloke in the country, and the other by a smart ‘n sassy city girl. Clearly an unlicenced bloke’s whim to get around where there’s bugger all public transport can not be compared to the NEED of a person like Helen to send texts to her girlfriends whilst driving through a built up environment.
BTW I agree that bike riders are often picked upon in unfairly a similar way to teenaggers and other electorally negligable groups, but there was no need to get all Moranda Devine about it.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Great. Alan Jones Blogs at Surfdom.
Do we really need this stuff here?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
In the words of Lionel Hutz:
“Hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence.”
March 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Lol Hank.
Helen:
I will say that it clearly would not, if the new law is “culpable driving with pedals”, as on the evidence to hand the 62 year old is still alive.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Ah yes. The things actually listed being as dangerous as each other, of course. But one set of offences is likely to be committed by a blue collar bloke in the country, and the other by a smart ‘n sassy city girl.
Shorter Sean: Get off his case. He’s a blue collar bloke! He should be allowed to be an idiot… a lethal idiot!
Clearly an unlicenced bloke’s whim to get around where there’s bugger all public transport can not be compared to the NEED of a person like Helen to send texts to her girlfriends whilst driving through a built up environment.
How did you dream this up? please point to where I said I drove and texted. That is one of the things I am writing against (as it’s a proven cyclist killer). As a matter of fact, I don’t own a mobile phone, Sean, so this is all a product of your overactive imagination.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Keep digging Helen. He has not been “allowed to be a lethal idiot”, he has been found guilty of, inter alia, dangerous driving causing death. You clearly stated that it wouldn’t have been as bad if he’d run off the road and into six people whilst answering his phone, as opposed to hitting them while swerving to avoid another group.
And as stated, your whole underlying argument about the application of the law is a nonsense. The way the law has been applied is: Towle has been convicted of various reasonably serious crimes and faces prison. The cyclist has not been charged. The politician announcing a new “culpable cycling” law refused to link it to the cyclist/pedestrian collision you mention. The pedestrian is not dead, therefore it could not be “culpable cycling”.
Stop me if any of this is too complicated.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Keep digging Helen. He has not been “allowed to be a lethal idiot”…
Clearly, I was referring to your apologies for his behaviour, not the authorities’ response.
. You clearly stated that it wouldn’t have been as bad if he’d run off the road and into six people whilst answering his phone, as opposed to hitting them while swerving to avoid another group.
I stated that nowhere, except in your fertile imagination. However, I can see how someone not accustomed to paying attention while reading might get that impression. What I said in my comment was that this guy was combining several kinds and several levels of negligence: Child on lap plus heavy speeding plus abandoning own children in the context of having been punished multiple times for driving offences, attacking people and stealing, and having learned nothing from the experience:
as opposed to
Some normally law-abiding but clueless dude doing something out of character and regretting it for life (and staying at the scene of the accident to render assistance as the law and simple human decency provide)
They’re both doing something horrible, but you can see the level of actual negligence, while high in the second case, is off the charts in the first.
I can’t believe I’m wasting so much time explaining this.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Helen,
Clearly this is an emotional issue, but culpable driving ‘beyond reasonable doubt’? I’d have to say possible but not proven. The gravity of the end result shouldn’t have a bearing deciding his guilt.
Which is much easier for me to understand than the poor parents of one of those kids….
I’m guessing Tom Towle is going to be living his punishment til the day he dies and nothing the courts can throw at him will make much of a difference.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:02 am
Helen
You say that they are changing the law to “make it tougher on cyclists than on someone like Towle”. This seems inaccurate. As far as anyone can tell from the report, the “culpable riding” law will simply bring the law relating to cyclists in line with the law relating to motorists, who are already subject to a “culpable driving” law. In the case of a “culpable riding” law, it will be up to a jury to decide on the evidence whether or not a defendant cyclist is guilty - just as it was up to the jury in the Towle case to decide on the evidence whether Towle was guilty. This seems remarkably unproblematic.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:48 am
“If you two in the back seat keep on fighting I’m going to turn this car around and…………OH SHIT!!!!”