Drunk drivers slammed after two cyclists killed

[Pitbull]

The idiot hasn't decided how he is going to plead?!

Pretty straight forward if you ask me, I hope he gets life!

Would you plead without speaking to a lawyer?

 

[Deadmanza]

Would you plead without speaking to a lawyer?

I guess not.

Still how he would plead anything but guilty is f*&^*N beyond me!

 

[Pitbull]

I guess not.

Still how he would plead anything but guilty is f*&^*N beyond me!

Yea I agree.

Technically because they were not suppose to be there he won't get as much butt hurt as he's due. He'll probably get a suspended sentence on Culpable Homicide.

 

[rwenzori]

A UK study found that riding two-abreast is much safer than single file, while SA law specifically states single file (also intended for cyclist safety).

Is it about safety? Or about not having some arseholes holding up the traffic by blocking the lane?

Those cyclists shouldn't have been there strictly speaking.

Nothing about "strictly speaking" They should not have been there. Period.

Those who have no sympathy coz they feel high and mighty about a technicality should really see a shrink. Some clear anger issues there.

No - just an observation about stupidity. Shem.

 

[Deadmanza]

Yea I agree.

Technically because they were not suppose to be there he won't get as much butt hurt as he's due. He'll probably get a suspended sentence on Culpable Homicide.

Guess we will have to see how the trial goes. However, a suspended sentence for killing 2 people will be insane!

If he was sober and hit them different story!

 

[Ninja'd]

Guess we will have to see how the trial goes. However, a suspended sentence for killing 2 people will be insane!

If he was sober and hit them different story!

Curious. Would it have been worse if he was sober?

 

[Deadmanza]

Curious. Would it have been worse if he was sober?

Not what I meant.

I meant in terms of him getting a suspended sentence because they were technically breaking the law by cycling there.

I reckon him being drunk should negate any technicalities.

Typing this and reading my post that you quoted, it does sound a little silly.

 

[dlk001]

Hey I'm no saint, and I would like to hear someone say they have never driven after having a few. Thing is I know I'm drunk, not to drunk to drive but aware that my reaction times are pretty messed up. So driving at 40-50km/h gives me way than enough time to react. You get people who get drunk and then think they now know how to drive and goes 140 in a 60 zone and the likes...

I once driven home after having two ciders. While driving on the National Road, within speed limit, suddenly a drunk pedestrian was standing right in the middle of the road. Luckily I spotted him from a distance, slowed down to avoid hitting him. Had I accidentally hit him, I bet I would have been the one going to jail. That was a lesson to never drink and drive again.

Even though my reaction time was adequate for the risk, I could have easily ended up in trouble had I been tested for alcohol.

 

[Pitbull]

Guess we will have to see how the trial goes. However, a suspended sentence for killing 2 people will be insane!

If he was sober and hit them different story!

The crux of the matter is they were not allowed to be there. No one would have been dead if they followed the rules. In essence, they are just as guilty as the driver. But that is for the court to decide. I don't agree with it but that's the law. Would you think that if he was sober he would not have hit them? Maybe speed was more a factor that his intoxication? I have no idea.

 

[FoXtroT]

The crux of the matter is they were not allowed to be there. No one would have been dead if they followed the rules. In essence, they are just as guilty as the driver. But that is for the court to decide. I don't agree with it but that's the law. Would you think that if he was sober he would not have hit them? Maybe speed was more a factor that his intoxication? I have no idea.

In no way can you consider the severity of the opposing parties offences equal.

 

[Garson007]

I'm surprised we still allow cyclists on the roads.

This.

 

[Pitbull]

In no way can you consider the severity of the opposing parties offences equal.

I'm not and he will be punished. No where near to what he deserves as both parties are in the wrong.

Similar to someone running over a kid in a build up area who's chasing a ball. The kids is not suppose to be in the street however the driver should have been able to avoid it. Mostly those cases are Culpable homicide with the bulk if not all suspended. It's tragic don't get me wrong for one second. I believe this driver should be burned at the stake. He destroyed 2 families and countless other lives. No amount of punishment will be able to heal those wounds. The fact remains if they were not on that road where they are not suppose to be we would not have had this conversation.

If the driver hit the wall or whatever he would have been caught for drunken driving and had his license suspended or a huge fine, maybe both. If he was caught speeding he would have gotten a fine. We can't take away their part of this just because they died (the cyclists)

 

[Cray]

I'm not and he will be punished. No where near to what he deserves as both parties are in the wrong.

Similar to someone running over a kid in a build up area who's chasing a ball. The kids is not suppose to be in the street however the driver should have been able to avoid it. Mostly those cases are Culpable homicide with the bulk if not all suspended. It's tragic don't get me wrong for one second. I believe this driver should be burned at the stake. He destroyed 2 families and countless other lives. No amount of punishment will be able to heal those wounds. The fact remains if they were not on that road where they are not suppose to be we would not have had this conversation.

If the driver hit the wall or whatever he would have been caught for drunken driving and had his license suspended or a huge fine, maybe both. If he was caught speeding he would have gotten a fine. We can't take away their part of this just because they died (the cyclists)

In most cases the judge will apportion percentage blame. It will most likely be primarily against the driver for re-ending people, driving fast, recklessly and under the influence. However he may decide that a certain percentage of the fault for the accident(15-25 maybe) be apportioned to the cyclists mitigated by the fact that loads of cyclists use that route and there being a lack of enforcement by the police.

 

[Pitbull]

In most cases the judge will apportion percentage blame. It will most likely be primarily against the driver for re-ending people, driving fast, recklessly and under the influence. However he may decide that a certain percentage of the fault for the accident(15-25 maybe) be apportioned to the cyclists mitigated by the fact that loads of cyclists use that route and there being a lack of enforcement by the police.

Yup, agreed.

I feel for the families torn apart by this. But we need a ruling on this as it really is causing a lot of deaths on our roads. We read about cyclists being run over way too often. It's time a Judge makes a ruling on it and someone to start taking this seriously.

 

[Kosmik]

Hmmm, willing to bet cyclists were in the slow lane as well. Yet to see a large bunch of cyclists actually go single file like they are supposed to.

Not to mention, the vehicle driver was probably trying to cut the corner "for extra speed".

 

[Garson007]

mitigated by the fact that loads of cyclists use that route and there being a lack of enforcement by the police.

Doesn't the same logic apply to drunk driving?

 

[Getafix]

So all cyclists should use a cycle track/circuit that is only a couple kms long and completely flat? (This is not to say cyclists don't use it, it has been very well used as a speed circuit but therein lies the problem) You can't use the promenade if you are doing proper cycle training so that's out.

OK people say, stick to the B roads. Well most of those don't have a decent shoulder plus you have to keep stopping at lights or stop streets which hinders a decent cycling workout.

By in large, the M4 is the only decent road to use if you need to do any sort of distance training, its long, in most places has a decent emergency lane to utilise, and has varied elevations.

Sure!
Put your life on the line for a good work out.

 

[Getafix]

So here's the thing... Most people aren't aware that cyclists are legal Road users and have every right to be on the roads as any other user. Of course this doesn't include certain highways, etc. But it does apply on 99% of any other road.

It's shocking how so many people have so little tolerance for other users of PUBLIC assets and amenities.

Anyway, as an avid cyclist myself, I can only hope that nobody is irrational enough to harm me intentionally just because they have no idea of the rules/laws and are simply intolerant. Not saying this is you specially, but just a general comment.

Just a general comment.
Only a fool gets into a fight he can't win.
Two wheels against four?

Quit while you are ahead.

If those guys adhered to the rules of the road they would still be alive.

 

[Dude Crush]

Just a general comment.
Only a fool gets into a fight he can't win.
Two wheels against four?

Quit while you are ahead.

If those guys adhered to the rules of the road they would still be alive.

Wtf are u on about? Move along...

 

[Getafix]

In no way can you consider the severity of the opposing parties offences equal.

Severity equal or not. It doesn't help those dead cyclists a lot. Does it?