This has been going on a couple of days now
Heavy traffic, cyclist not using the cycle lane, other people going about their lawful business and big truck can make for a sad outcome.
The man before the court is not a criminal, not a threat to society in any way that I can see.
The only people benefiting from this are the lawyers.
We see far too much of this.
Let the coroner decide if there is any reasonable way of preventing a re-occurrence but there is clearly no criminality here. In this life bad things can happen to good people.
No need seek to punish anybody - is there? It sure as eggs is not going to bring the deceased back to life.
How about a bit of common sense.
Glenn Becker has pleaded not guilty to careless use of a motor vehicle causing the death of 27-year-old cyclist Jane Bishop in November 2010 on Auckland's Tamaki Drive.In this world accidents happen, they are tragedies and often they are the results of a combination of circumstance and small errors. It is not always necessary to find someone culpable.
He is accused of carelessly opening his car door while parked on the side of the road, causing Bishop to swerve her bike into the path of an oncoming truck.
Heavy traffic, cyclist not using the cycle lane, other people going about their lawful business and big truck can make for a sad outcome.
The man before the court is not a criminal, not a threat to society in any way that I can see.
The only people benefiting from this are the lawyers.
We see far too much of this.
Let the coroner decide if there is any reasonable way of preventing a re-occurrence but there is clearly no criminality here. In this life bad things can happen to good people.
No need seek to punish anybody - is there? It sure as eggs is not going to bring the deceased back to life.
How about a bit of common sense.
I would have thought it quite reasonable to expect that drivers look over their shoulder to determine if there are any approaching vehicles, including bikes, when exiting their vehicle. Is it alleged that he failed to do this? It's difficult to believe that if he had done it, a bike could have appeared in the time it took for him to look but before he opened his door. Was there something unusual about the environment?
ReplyDeleteI read the article you linked to but I couldn't see exactly what did and didn't occur. I do think if it could have been shown he opened his door in a careless manner (i.e. without having a good look) and his actions were casually linked to someones death, he should be punished but it's not clear they could show that in court (which isn't to say that it didn't occur, just that it couldn't be proven beyond doubt, which effects his legal, not moral, culpability.)