Drunk drivers slammed after two cyclists killed

Emjay

Emjay

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
15,031
access said:
how do you know this? how do you know nothing would have happened to them. or do you just believe because they are victims.

the risk of death or injury increases greatly when in these places not fit for them.

i am not condoning drunken driving or backing the driver.

if i was cycling on the n1 and got hit by a vehicle for what ever reason, it doesnt matter, i would blame myself for being where i am not supposed to be.

if i stuck to the rules in the first place, i would be ok.

look after yourself first, keep safe, dont just expect things to go your way. i suppose this is the difference between a darwin candidate and non.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot.
 
S

Slootvreter

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
30,273
BigAl-sa said:
?

Erm, if the okes in the morgue had abided by the rules of the road (provincial statutes), they would probably still be alive?
Click to expand...

Yeah but they're spandex ninjas and they're vulnerable and the accused was driving a 1.5 ton piece of metal etc etc automatic victim
 
schumi

schumi

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
25,089
Blood sample of motorist in cyclists' death case taken too late - court hears

Durban - A blood sample, which would have determined whether or not motorist Omesh Ramnarain was drunk when he crashed into two cyclists, killing both, was only taken after the legal two-hour "window period".

According to the investigating officer in the matter, Constable Nokuthula Mtolo, this was because there was no doctor available at Addington Hospital to do the blood test.

Ramnarain is standing trial before Durban Regional Court Magistrate Anand Maharaj on two charges of culpable homicide and one of drunk driving relating to the accident at about 05:00 on February 7, 2016.

It resulted in the deaths of Richard da Silva and Jarred Dwyer.

The pair was part of a group of cyclists heading north from Durban on the M4. They were at the back of the group when Ramnarain crashed into them, allegedly at high speed, in his black Golf GTI.

Their bodies were flung some metres up the road.

Ramnarain has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He claims he only had four cider drinks at a local club that evening. He also denies negligence and says he did not see the two cyclists at all.

Several witnesses have testified that they smelt alcohol on Ramnarain's breath and saw him walking unsteadily at the scene.


Moderately drunk

The doctor who performed the test described him as "moderately drunk".

But it has been suggested by his advocate Murray Pitman, that any sign of slurred speech or unsteadiness could be put down to the fact that he was crying and in shock.

In her evidence on Thursday, Mtolo said when she arrived on the scene, Ramnarain had been sitting in a vehicle with his parents on the other side of the freeway.

"When he came out of the vehicle he was unsteady, not walking straight. He was smelling of liquor.

"When I took him to Addington there was no doctor available. We waited close to an hour."

It is common cause that the blood sample was taken at 07:40, about two and a half hours after the accident and is thus inadmissible as evidence.

Mtolo conceded under cross examination that Ramnarain appeared shocked, was shaking and crying and his behaviour "could be because he was emotional".

The State closed its case and the trial has been postponed to March for the defence to try to locate other witnesses to the accident.

Ramnarain is expected to give evidence.

News24
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...eath-case-taken-too-late-court-hears-20180118
 
NarrowBandFtw

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,747
schumi said:
the blood sample was taken at 07:40, about two and a half hours after the accident and is thus inadmissible as evidence
Click to expand...
:wtf: kind of logic is that?!?

A late sample is unreliable as proof of sobriety, but if it shows you are still legally drunk after that much time it is a given that your were shytfaced at the time of the incident unless you managed to have another few drinks in the 2.5 hours. I assume that doesn't happen while you're in custody, so this technicality seems like the height of stupidity.
 
Sneeky

Sneeky

Honorary Master
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
12,129
NarrowBandFtw said:
:wtf: kind of logic is that?!?

A late sample is unreliable as proof of sobriety, but if it shows you are still legally drunk after that much time it is a given that your were shytfaced at the time of the incident unless you managed to have another few drinks in the 2.5 hours. I assume that doesn't happen while you're in custody, so this technicality seems like the height of stupidity.
Click to expand...

https://sadd.org.za/education/the-law-faq/#1485640336102-7aaba45b-3e8a
The two hour time period was meant to have been used as a guideline, but was unfortunately written into the NRTA as a Law. SADD have asked that this be changed and used as a guideline again. Blood should therefore at present be drawn within two hours. Even if the two hour period has lapsed , an officer may still insist that a blood specimen should be drawn. It can still be used in court. In such a case the statement must prove that the accused was definitely under the influence of alcohol or another substance. The full assessment of the Effects of Alcohol by a Doctor / nurse should be done, as well as drawing blood. It is critically important to do the Alcohol assessment in these cases, as the driver may then be charged under the Main Count (Sect 65(1) ie driving under the influence. At this time you should complete a very full sobrierty assessment of the patient, as this may be used in Court and is especially important in cases where severe injury or death has occured.

Use the correct blood collection kit from SAPS, and fill in the correct forms as supplied. Do not use an alcohol swab at any time with any drink driving/alcohol query.

In Culpable Homicide or serious injuries use a District Durgeion if one is available, as long as this does not delay the drawing of blood, and that blood is taken within 2 hours.

A District Surgeon statement stands up better in Court, and helps get a conviction.
Click to expand...
 
NarrowBandFtw

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,747
Slootvreter said:
Interesting. Should not be difficult to prevent a suspect from downing half a bottle of wine during the time. Unless he does it right after the crash.
Click to expand...
I actually heard this second hand story (might be BS) of friends who crashed while DUI. Phoned up a family member who's involved in the law somehow who apparently asked if they have any liquor left in the car and suggested they start drinking like there is no tomorrow and ensure the cops see them drinking when they arrive.

"Sorry occifer, the crash got me into such a state I needed a drink to calm down, *hic*"
 
S

Slootvreter

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
30,273
NarrowBandFtw said:
I actually heard this second hand story (might be BS) of friends who crashed while DUI. Phoned up a family member who's involved in the law somehow who apparently asked if they have any liquor left in the car and suggested they start drinking like there is no tomorrow and ensure the cops see them drinking when they arrive.

"Sorry occifer, the crash got me into such a state I needed a drink to calm down, *hic*"
Click to expand...

Yep, as ridiculous as it sounds, it probably happens.
 
P

ProfA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
13,409
NarrowBandFtw said:
They don't?!?

I witnessed a drunk driver plow through 5 pedestrian tourists not that long ago (google Swedish tourist killed in Blouberg) right in front of my house. One died at the scene and another was in terrible shape, I still wonder if she made it.

The driver was clearly drunk, most witnesses are on record as saying he was speeding. The pedestrians however were walking directly in the road at dusk. Police apparently have bungled the blood test of the driver and we're now heading into year 2 after the incident with said driver roaming the earth scot-free ...

Lesson learned: eye witness testimony means sweet f-all when it comes to proving either speeding or drunk driving.
Click to expand...

Well, the only way to prove speeding is using speed measuring equipment and only way to prove drunk is blood test. So it makes sense that eye-witness testimony is treated with a pinch of salt for that no?
 
supersunbird

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
60,152
ambroseg1 said:
Well, the only way to prove speeding is using speed measuring equipment and only way to prove drunk is blood test. So it makes sense that eye-witness testimony is treated with a pinch of salt for that no?
Click to expand...

If I'm driving 80 in a 80 zone, and a bus comes shoot past me making me feel like I am standing still, then it's obvious the bus is speeding. The exact amount not determinable, but that he was speeding, a fact.
 
S

Slootvreter

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
30,273
supersunbird said:
If I'm driving 80 in a 80 zone, and a bus comes shoot past me making me feel like I am standing still, then it's obvious the bus is speeding. The exact amount not determinable, but that he was speeding, a fact.
Click to expand...

Is that enough proof?

How did the witness determine the guy was speeding?
 
supersunbird

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
60,152
Slootvreter said:
So no need to prove how fast he was going?
Click to expand...

No, or else all car needs black boxes to make that even possible, here one would need to rely on eye witness testimony ("I was driving 120 and the guy flew past me") and technical expertize.

A competent collision reconstruction specialist would be able to determine the speed at impact most likely, but I'm sure there are very few of those in SA.
 
S

Slootvreter

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
30,273
supersunbird said:
No, or else all car needs black boxes to make that even possible, here one would need to rely on eye witness testimony ("I was driving 120 and the guy flew past me") and technical expertize.

A competent collision reconstruction specialist would be able to determine the speed at impact most likely, but I'm sure there are very few of those in SA.
Click to expand...

So a court would simply believe this guy was doing, say, 100? Just like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top