Street Racing - Justice - Jail time for 2 racers  

BoozeBooga

You do have a good point im not saying you dont, but in my opinion if someone was found to have been street racing and killed someone doing so, they deserve everything they get. You seem to be missing the point, dont you think lining up side by side and racing to speeds well above the speed limit is more dangerous than talking on the phone? I do, and so did the court that sent those pricks to jail. And while people have been speeding/racing for years my reference to the movie Fast & The Furious was simply trying to say in the movie they glorify street racers and i dont care what you say there are peolpe that would have seen the movie and went out doing the same.

Unka Drunk

Accidents don't happen, they are caused.
I feel that the media, and the govt, are concentrating too much on the negative aspects of young drivers. Negativity breeds negativity. More should be spent on education and more time and feedback directed on positive driving attitudes. If motorists concentrated more on what was happening ahead of them and around them there would be less trauma on our roads.
Penalties for street racing and dangerous driving are no where near adequate. The courts only seem to go hard after there has been a loss of life or severe casualty.
Maybe our judiciary system needs edumucation too.

KamikazeMax

Changing the radio station while driving isn't illegal as far as I know. People who cause deaths with their car should get the book if they deliberately broke the law. Drag racing, talking on your phone, drink driving, not having a roadworthy vehicle, not having a valid license etc are all things that you are well aware of are illegal. If you decide to ignore the law and you cause an accident or someone is killed because of it then yes, you deserve to be prosecuted with the full extent of the law. Don't play us for fools and try to compare changing the radio station. Yes it's dangerous as well and I know someone who has caused an accident while changing a CD. Until the law recognises that this is just as dangerous, it won't be made illegal. Therefore an accident while changing a radio station is still an accident. They may have not wanted to kill anyone, but they broke the law and it caused 2 people to die. They deserve what they got, and much much more.

Marcus89

their called car crashes now not accidents aren't they? just to be politically correct pretty sure that's what the police refer to them as

KamikazeMax

Doesn't matter what they are called mate, simple fact is they were dickheads and 2 innocent people died..

EUniqe

are you farking serious? wtf you even on this forum for?????? im pretty sure its called 'boost'crusiing, i.e cruising with a turbo/supercharger which make the car um... fast?


and yeah that would make us a world first and reeealy internationally popular :S

Philthy

That's correct. The theory being that car crashes are usually always caused by something. An accident s something like potting the brown when you were aiming for the pink. Crashes are caused by something even if its just a crappy road or tuning the radio.
Thats why all the Accident investigation units changed to crash units.




Ehhh I think he was joking mate.

Rookie ROX

You're both idiots. Dale was making a simple comment implying that young drivers and not the only ones involved in antisocial driving behaviours such as street racing, however the Government (and media) responses fail to recognise this.

I can't even figure out how you thought he was even making remote reference to it being okay to race on the streets. However yes, it does need to be taken off the streets. But how do YOU propose that's going to happen when all the material designed to reduce this behaviours is SOLELY targeted at persons aged 17-25? How are new licence laws going to affect middle aged Bogan Bob who insists on being a wanker on the road? Quite simply, they're not.

So to sum it up for you - l2r.





You're trying to make ridiculous claims now. Sure, very few people go out and cause a crash with the pure intention to kill someone.

However when someone IS involved in a fatal road crash, their actions at the wheel must be taken into account when deciding what penalty they receive. That's how the law works. Person A who is doing 10km/h over the limit, hits another car and kills the driver is going to receive a lesser penalty than Person B doing 100km/h over the limit. Why? Because the only way to do that speed is by a clear decision to do it. Just like they made the poor decision to race on public roads. It's all about the circumstances and decisions.



Ding dong, we have a slight winner.

I agree with the first part, I disagree with the last part, because I know full well simply making penalties harsher and harsher will NOT work. It never has, it never will. Zero tolerance (which is where it will end up) has never been a successful solution, there's alternatives that produce better results, however they're more complicated (thus expensive) than the simple band aid fix harsher penalties are. And it's only basic politics to figure out which one gets chosen. The media is the greatest issue though, hence the reason I'm currently working on something dealing with that.



That's correct. They should all be referred to as road crashes.



It does actually.

'Accident' implies that nobody is at fault, and for almost all crashes, someone is. Be it an obvious factor such as excessive speed, falling asleep at the wheel because of fatigue or failing to drive to the conditions.



lol.

I like people who have no clue.

ROCK ON
R~R

Charger 360

Blatantly your as much of a fool as your mate. The statement requires no intepretation it is simply what he said!!!

What a load of crap that the material designed to reduce behaviours is targeted SOLELY at 17-25. You must show me where the rules state the laws for street racing, hoon laws, car confiscation etc apply only to 17-25. The rules apply to all drivers irrespective of the age etc.

Good one pea brain - talk about clueless. Let's hope your not handing out to much of your well thought through advice.

Rookie ROX

High power vehicle restrictions - Applies only to those under 25.

Passenger restrictions - Applies only to those under 25.

Late night driving restrictions - Applies only to those under 25.

All three are initiatives designed to reduce road fatalities and antisocial driving behaviours.

Then there's the actual issuance of penalties - Maybe you yourself should sit in on a Magistrates Court for the day and take note of what penalties are handed out for driving offences, because I will guarantee that younger drivers will receive harsher penalties than an older driver for the same offence. It's undeniable that younger drivers are targeted.

The amusing thing is though that what you're arguing with me about is where the problem is.

ROCK ON
R~R

Tom Tucker

So its been established by the court that a vehicle is now viewed as a weapon that if not used appropriately can result in death, with judgements of manslaughter handed out.

Why is it that street racing seems to attract the full extent of this interpretation while driving under the influence seems to be less of an issue at the moment?

Or how about someone who accidentally causes a fatal crash. Is it the same as whirling a huge flail around in public and accidentally killing someone?

I have reservations about this interpretation and am of the opinion that road fatalities, as absolutely tradgic as they are, illustrate the risk one takes when getting behind the wheel. And the ever increasing legislation put in place cannot decrease this risk, but only serves in decreasing everyones freedoms

Timmyp34

what foolz you guys are











This is true i have been to court twice in to weeks. As soon as the word drifting comes up the judge has a mood swing and is now on PMS. But the case before they pretty much let some old @#$! of for DD.



Also someone taking pills is worse than a small fight .



maybe the law hates me to.

CarFanatic

x2

09ONE

A little off topic I know but...

Statistically, the most dangerous thing an average person will do is drive to work.

Acting On Impulse

It's not the fact the law hates you... It's more to the point the law hates what you have done.
As for the old person who was done for...well you say DD, I assume you mean DUI... There are a few different levels of DUI which you can be charged with.
So depending on the range he/she was caught at will depend on what charge they will get.

BoozeBooga

Maybe adds like this on Australian TV could help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILMkpRNCBDI

Rookie ROX

No, ads like these are much more effective;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdjO0ZK-aKM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgQyaBNBao0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63tW-UHMltM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQX6-nUx-BQ

ROCK ON
R~R

^sims^

You know what? I totally agree.



Lets elaborate...

I have no doubt that if I were a family member of one of the victims I probably would disagree.

I feel that, as much as they were street racing and yes it is illegal and stupid, I don't believe they intentionally went out to kill someone (der, manslaughter). I'm sure if hindsight could play a part they would 100% not follow through with what they did.

They both could be really genuine lovely people and because of a stupid mistake their life is going to be fucked. Yes, I know "what about the people who died and blah blah" but you can't bring them back. I don't believe in this case that they should have their lives completely ruined by a horrible accident. It's not really going to solve anything or being the deceased back to live. Nor is it going to stop others from doing the same thing.

Not only that but there have been far worse acts of crime that go far less punished than these two have.

Also, I'm not trying to say that they don't deserve to be punished AT ALL, just maybe not so harshly.

alskar

commonwhores racing again..
why race in a boat?pfft

Kavliari

Fuck banning the cars, just ban bogans from driving full stop, no wait, we can take a page from the book of sparta, and throw every bogan new born off a cliff and their scummy race will end.

aussieontour

they are 2 totally different things.......the crash being manslaughter (no direct intent to kill) and your example(obviously trying to kill) anyway our justice system is piss weak, you'd be out before 10 years for murder with good behaviour etc.

70NKY

Wow, those ads are extremely moving...especially the first one. However, I'm not sure that any amount of ad's can change people attitude's. I dunno how NZ's road toll compares with Australia.

beanster18

i think they just need to take all commo's off the road and give every commo driver a free WRX or EVO so you can just say im not a 6cyl bogan im a turbo 4 bitch

rebado

More people die of cancer than road tolls of all states combined,much of that is needless too as there's medicines that can cure that are held back due to $$$.

Or try this apalling waste of a life:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm




Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'




A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC.

"Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.

Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped.

Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court.

Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people last week.

Meanwhile, Islamists in the capital, Mogadishu have carried out a public flogging.

Islamists in Mogadishu
Islamists are becoming increasingly open in the capital, Mogadishu
Mogadishu is nominally under the control of government forces and their Ethiopian allies, who face frequent attacks by Islamist and nationalist insurgents.

The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan in the city says the flogging was a show of strength.

He says two men accused of helping to kill a man and torture his mother, who they accused of theft, were each given 39 lashes in the north-eastern suburb of Suqa-hola.

The man who actually killed the alleged thief was released, after agreeing to pay his family 100 camels in compensation.

Before the flogging, hundreds of Islamist fighters performed a military parade, our reporter says.

Death threats

Cameras were banned from the stoning in Kismayo, but print and radio journalists who were allowed to attend estimated that the woman, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, was 23 years old.


People were saying this was not good for Sharia law, this was not good for human rights, this was not good for anything
Witness
However, Amnesty said it had learned she was 13, and that her father had said she was raped by three men.

When the family tried to report the rape, the girl was accused of adultery and detained, Amnesty said.

Convicting a girl of 13 for adultery would be illegal under Islamic law.

A human rights activist in the town told the BBC on condition of anonymity that he had received death threats from the Islamic militia, who accuse him of spreading false information about the incident.

He denies having anything to with Amnesty's report.

'Crying'

Court authorities have said the woman came to them admitting her guilt.


FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

More from Today programme
She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply, they said.

But a witness who spoke to the BBC's Today programme said she had been crying and had to be forced into a hole before the stoning, reported to have taken place in a football stadium.

"More than 1,000 people arrived there," he said.

"After two hours, the Islamic administration in Kismayo brought the lady to the place and when she came out she said: 'What do you want from me?'"

"They said: 'We will do what Allah has instructed us'. She said: 'I'm not going, I'm not going. Don't kill me, don't kill me.'

"A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her."

'Checked by nurses'

The witness said people crowding round to see the execution said it was "awful".

"People were saying this was not good for Sharia law, this was not good for human rights, this was not good for anything."

But no-one tried to stop the Islamist officials, who were armed, the witness said. He said one boy was shot in the confusion.

According to Amnesty International, nurses were sent to check during the stoning whether the victim was still alive. They removed her from the ground and declared that she was, before she was replaced so the stoning could continue.

The port of Kismayo was seized in August by a coalition of forces loyal to rebel leader Hassan Turki, and al-Shabab, the country's main radical Islamist insurgent organisation.

Mr Turki is on the US list of "financers of terrorism".

It was the first reported execution by stoning in the southern port city since Islamist insurgents captured it.

The BBC had a reporter in the area, but he was shot dead in Kismayo in June.





There were people who tried to stop this killing and were shot for their efforts and a young boy was also killed in accidental fire.

Either way,there are those that value human life and those that see it as being a commodity or plain don't value it at all.

Sympathy for street racers who cause death and then get jail time?

Not from me....

Street racing is just another of these type of ignorant choices that does kill.

Rookie ROX

You completely missed my point.



Yes and no. Road safety campaigns aren't the be all and end all saviour yes. However it does work for some people, and that's why they exist. The problem is picking the right type though. It's been definitely proven that high fear arousal campaigns based on graphic violence are more likely to be rejected by viewers, and are effectively useless within the 17-25 age group. I recently started researching New Zealand's campaigns and found they've done a really good job with creating campaigns that still really make you think without the need for high fear arousal. That's why I'm a huge fan of the first one. Their primary message is better as well - "The bigger the speed, the bigger the mess" - Personally more logical than "Every K over is a Killer".

ROCK ON
R~R

clubsport_power

Such a waste of life.

Acting On Impulse

I think what Rookie was saying is that even though these guys didn't mean to kill the old couple by getting in their car and going flat out on a road that gets used quite heavily is pretty much the same thing as just mowing two old people down while they stand there.
It's a reckless and stupid decision. They knew what a car can do at high speeds when you hit somebody or something, yet they still got in their cars and raced.
Then worst senario happened and they killed an elderly couple.


Rookie please correct me if I'm wrong

demondash82

as long as theres cars on the road people will race them , i think theres alot of bullshitters on here talking shit , like they have never gave someone a run before . People make mistakes and those 2 dudes probably werent bad guys just made a mistake that will play on there minds forever . i think theres a time and a place for it weather its on the track or a quiet stretch of road its really up to the individual to think for themselves before they act

KamikazeMax

A mistake is something you don't mean to do. Choosing to consciously engage in a drag race on a public road isn't a mistake, it is deliberate stupidity. I agree with there being a time and a place for it, and the place is NEVER on a public road. My mate had a heavily modified 180SX.. He used to race people off the lights. No matter where he was he would reach the speed limit as fast as he could, and that's it.

CarFanatic

There are people out there like that.

KamikazeMax

Yeah, people with enough brains to realise that they don't need to prove how cool they are doing 10-20km/h over the limit. A few minutes ago I was coming home from the shops and some bloke doing 130+ overtook me on a 100 zone.. No more than a minute later I was right behind him at the traffic lights.. What did he achieve? Not a single thing. Maybe next time he will achieve a kiss with the gum tree at the next corner. But one can only hope

17SJS

Which is exactly why they were convicted of manslaughter.

It's only murder if it's premeditated.

70NKY

I'm pretty sure you know the difference, but just to clarify....

Murder, you are responsible for someone's death and you intended to do it.

Manslaughter, you are responsible for someone's death but did not have the intention of killing them.

INTENT is the difference between if someone gets charged with murder or manslaughter.

302 Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills
another under any of the following circumstances, that is to
say—
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person
killed or that of some other person or if the offender
intends to do to the person killed or to some other
person some grievous bodily harm;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the
prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such
a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
© if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to
some person for the purpose of facilitating the
commission of a crime which is such that the offender
may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of
facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed
or attempted to commit any such crime;
(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or
overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned
in paragraph ©;
(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any
person for either of such purposes;
is guilty of murder.
(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did
not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.
(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did
not intend to hurt any person.
(4) Under subsection (1)© to (e) it is immaterial that the offender
did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was
likely to result.

303 Definition of manslaughter
A person who unlawfully kills another under such
circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of
manslaughter.

^sims^

I know.. hence why I said "der, manslaughter".

I still think it's just a waste.

Rusty Night

You are a douche'.

I agree with old mate. Ban fast cars alltogether.

What's the point of owning a fast road car?, there isn't really, if you are complying with all the road rules, there isn't really any reason to have your car be able to do 0-100 in hekticvteckebab speed.

Sure I have a daily that would be considered a 'fast car'. But I also have a race only car. I don't drive like a tool on the streets, I drive it cause I like rotors, but I also wouldn't care if I drove a barina. Cause iv got my race car. I can go out to qr, morgan part, lakeside to race.

Its a much safer invoronment to do this shit in. I have come very close to loosing my life by doing stupid shit on the street (hit a tree, going 60 odd ks, drivers side now have speech inpediment, black outs, migrains ect.)

People who are ignerant to these things (drifting, racing, both touge and straight line on the streets) piss me off. I now see that every time I drive, I have a chance of killing my self, or worse an innocent person. This scares the shit out of me.

I wish people, both young and old, would get over them selves, their cars and their egos. Its people trying to prove that their wang is bigger, by racing on the street is what's causing crash's like this. Where 2 unfortunant people have been killed.

This thread has been an interesting read.

Condolance's to the family's of the victims.