Is this a leniant sentence or what ?

[buggerlugs]

http://www.news.com.au/national/kill...-1225809039517

[silicon]

Yes it is. But I think the taxi driver should have got the same for his stupidity as well.

It reminds me of a recent case where a woman stopped on a road for ducks and a motor bike rider came up behind her stopped and had no where to go. He ended up dead due to his bad luck with the fact there was oncoming traffic.

[FGII-XR6]

thats real inteligent ? we drive drunks around all the time ( my partner both drive cabs) and we often need to pull over to let them spew it is not illegal to do so and I chalenge you to put up with crap we do. if they throw up the smell stays in the cab for weeks no matter what we use to clean up
maybe the publican who got the passenger so drunk ( what happened to responsible service of alcohol) is partly responsible but not the cabbie who pulled over so a drunk could spew after drinking too much. If you are calling this driver stupid you are calling me stupid as i often pull over for drunks to spew

Originally Posted by silicon

Yes it is. But I think the taxi driver should have got the same for his stupidity as well.

It reminds me of a recent case where a woman stopped on a road for ducks and a motor bike rider came up behind her stopped and had no where to go. He ended up dead due to his bad luck with the fact there was oncoming traffic.

[JACK250]

It isn't really fair to either blame or not blame the cab driver, for all we know he may have pulled over safely, or stopped in the middle of the road... No point drawing your own conclusions

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

Is this a leniant sentence or what ?

Actually, that is a question because it ended with a question mark instead of a full stop.

[Bluefreak]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

thats real inteligent ? we drive drunks around all the time ( my partner both drive cabs) and we often need to pull over to let them spew it is not illegal to do so and I chalenge you to put up with crap we do. if they throw up the smell stays in the cab for weeks no matter what we use to clean up
maybe the publican who got the passenger so drunk ( what happened to responsible service of alcohol) is partly responsible but not the cabbie who pulled over so a drunk could spew after drinking too much. If you are calling this driver stupid you are calling me stupid as i often pull over for drunks to spew

The taxi driver stopped his cab in the lane he was traveling in over a rise (overpass) - anyone cresting that rise at 100kph would be hard pressed to avoid him in a car let alone a truck = completely stupid...

[xr6turbo2005]

Originally Posted by Bluefreak

The taxi driver stopped his cab in the lane he was traveling in over a rise (overpass) - anyone cresting that rise at 100kph would be hard pressed to avoid him in a car let alone a truck = completely stupid...

have to agree, very stupid. would be interesting to see teh outcome if the truck driver wasnt high on drugs etc , but simply could not stop in time ?

[LTDHO]

The courts favour those who kill others, 18 months is a holiday for Shayne Hodge.

Whilst the situation was made dangerous by the cab, it should have been avoided by the truck driver. The fact he was allegedly using amphetamines does move a majority of the liability against him.

He makes other truck drivers look bad. This is the 2nd person he has killed and Judge John Smallwood has given him three years in jail with a non-parole period of 18 months, so Shayne can be back on the roads killing by June 2011.

[silicon]

AU3XR6 I totally agree having vommit in the car would be absolutely digusting; but unfortunately that goes with the job.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vic...-1111114658900

The taxi driver had stopped in the left hand lane (no emergency lane anymore, it was removed years ago) as described above and in the article url above. It could have easily been that the same acident happened; except the truckie was clean of drugs. Who would be at fault then? What would happen in court?

[prydey]

disregarding the crime and length of sentence, i can't help but feel if a truck wasn't involved this wouldn't be in the news. if the same offences were committed by a car driver, the sentence may or may not have been the same but i doubt it would make headlines.

whats worse - a driver who takes drugs to stay awake, or a driver who drives fatigued or tired? neither should be driving and yet both could result in the same outcome but one will be viewed differently when they discover drugs in the system.

is it worse to kill 2 people a few years apart, or multiple people in the one accident?

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by prydey

disregarding the crime and length of sentence, i can't help but feel if a truck wasn't involved this wouldn't be in the news. if the same offences were committed by a car driver, the sentence may or may not have been the same but i doubt it would make headlines. ...

True, because if a car was involved, the people in the cab would probably still be alive.

whats worse - a driver who takes drugs to stay awake, or a driver who drives fatigued or tired? neither should be driving and yet both could result in the same outcome but one will be viewed differently when they discover drugs in the system.

What about the driver that takes drugs because they're fatigued/tired?

is it worse to kill 2 people a few years apart, or multiple people in the one accident?

Depending on your point of view, that's an easy one.

I would say 2 people a few years apart is far, far worse. It shows that, despite killing someone a few years ago, the truckie did not learn anything from the unfortunate (avoidable?) first incident, continued to be a hazard to others and, in fact, unfortunately ended up killing again.

It doesn't matter what the circumstances were - he was drugged up to try and stay awake and alert. Could this second accident have been avoided if he was clean and alert - I don't know, but it doesn't excuse the fact that he wasn't.

The sentence is ridiculously lenient... he should be banned from being a truckie for good. He's already killed two times too many.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

disregarding the crime and length of sentence, i can't help but feel if a truck wasn't involved this wouldn't be in the news. if the same offences were committed by a car driver, the sentence may or may not have been the same but i doubt it would make headlines.

whats worse - a driver who takes drugs to stay awake, or a driver who drives fatigued or tired? neither should be driving and yet both could result in the same outcome but one will be viewed differently when they discover drugs in the system.

is it worse to kill 2 people a few years apart, or multiple people in the one accident?

Are you serious?

Firstly, yes it is worse and more news worthy when it is a truck driver than a normal car driver, for two reasons. The truck driver is a professional driver and is supposed to be safer and more skilled than the average driver. Also the driver of a truck is driving a vehicle that weighs 25 times that of a car, and when involved in an accident is often fatal for the other occupants, hence we should be able to expect these "professional drivers" have greater consideration for public safety.

As for not making it into the news, the driver in Brisbane that drove drunk in his car and ran down 2 pedestrians recently made it into the news. So I guess bad car drivers do make it as well.

As for the "whats worse - a driver who takes drugs to stay awake, or a driver who drives fatigued or tired?" I don't really see the relevance of your question, in your own post you admitted both are bad and should not be on the road. If the truckie had just been fatigued and crashed with the same result, he should still go to jail, simple. Having said this, to answer your question I suppose the drugged and tired driver is worse than just the tired driver as he is breaking more laws.

Finally, what is it with your last question, I mean seriously any death of another person resulting from the negligent and dangerous action of a driver is too many. I guess what makes it worse in this case is this truck driver has demonstrated on two seperate occasions that his negligence has been lethal. The person that has one bad crash that happens to kill two had still only demonstrated this negligence once.

If you ask me, 18 months is way too light. What would have happened if he had drugged himself and then in a drugged out haze shot someone. Simple fact is he would get 20 times what he got. So why is it he gets of lighter because he did not use a gun but instead put even more lives at risk driving 50t of lethal weapon on our highways while drugged out of his brain. Added to this it is the second time he has done this.

I think the Judge failed his own purpose when he stated he had to hand out a sentence that reflected the severity of the crime, 18 months does not reflect the value of human life.

[Fev]

3....2......1......

[prydey]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Are you serious?

Firstly, yes it is worse and more news worthy when it is a truck driver than a normal car driver, for two reasons. The truck driver is a professional driver and is supposed to be safer and more skilled than the average driver. Also the driver of a truck is driving a vehicle that weighs 25 times that of a car, and when involved in an accident is often fatal for the other occupants, hence we should be able to expect these "professional drivers" have greater consideration for public safety.

As for not making it into the news, the driver in Brisbane that drove drunk in his car and ran down 2 pedestrians recently made it into the news. So I guess bad car drivers do make it as well.

As for the "whats worse - a driver who takes drugs to stay awake, or a driver who drives fatigued or tired?" I don't really see the relevance of your question, in your own post you admitted both are bad and should not be on the road. If the truckie had just been fatigued and crashed with the same result, he should still go to jail, simple. Having said this, to answer your question I suppose the drugged and tired driver is worse than just the tired driver as he is breaking more laws.

Finally, what is it with your last question, I mean seriously any death of another person resulting from the negligent and dangerous action of a driver is too many. I guess what makes it worse in this case is this truck driver has demonstrated on two seperate occasions that his negligence has been lethal. The person that has one bad crash that happens to kill two had still only demonstrated this negligence once.

If you ask me, 18 months is way too light. What would have happened if he had drugged himself and then in a drugged out haze shot someone. Simple fact is he would get 20 times what he got. So why is it he gets of lighter because he did not use a gun but instead put even more lives at risk driving 50t of lethal weapon on our highways while drugged out of his brain. Added to this it is the second time he has done this.

I think the Judge failed his own purpose when he stated he had to hand out a sentence that reflected the severity of the crime, 18 months does not reflect the value of human life.

hey, don't get me wrong. i agreee with all you say. like i said at the start of my post - disregard the sentence. i wasn't entering into the 'too lenient' argument. fatalities caused on the road will nearly always fetch a lesser sentence than those caused by other methods. also, no fatality should be glossed over. i wasn't making light of any situation. i was just thinking that there are a lot of incidents that are right up there that don't get the same sort or outcry.

i wasn't saying any of the examples that i gave were ok. i actually said that none should be on the road.

i wasn't sticking up for any irresponsible behaviour whatsoever. some people analyse things way too much.

in fact its probably better to view the first post i made as just a generalisation, not specific to the incident under discussion.

[Mr Hardware]

If i was the judge i would have taken his licence off him for life and thrown him in jail for umpteen years.

[Polyal]

Yeah I got angry when I saw this on the news.

Twice convicted of being on drugs resulting in two fatalities...so basically two murders. Then the next report was for a young bloke who did the same but with pot and not in a truck and he gets 11 years..WTF. Both are as bad as each other.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

hey, don't get me wrong. i agreee with all you say. like i said at the start of my post - disregard the sentence. i wasn't entering into the 'too lenient' argument. fatalities caused on the road will nearly always fetch a lesser sentence than those caused by other methods. also, no fatality should be glossed over. i wasn't making light of any situation. i was just thinking that there are a lot of incidents that are right up there that don't get the same sort or outcry.

i wasn't saying any of the examples that i gave were ok. i actually said that none should be on the road.

i wasn't sticking up for any irresponsible behaviour whatsoever. some people analyse things way too much.

in fact its probably better to view the first post i made as just a generalisation, not specific to the incident under discussion.

All good.

I guess my post was a bit harsh and I did recognise your generalisations from the start.

I think the points I am trying to get across are-

1) Death caused by negligent vehicle use should be regarded with increased severity, a vehicle is a deadly weapon. There would be a lot stronger sentence if it was a death caused by negligent firearm use.

2) Professional drivers such as truck drivers, taxi drives, chauffeurs, drivers of emergency vehicle and bus drivers should accept the fact that the public have a right to expect a better standard from them. If they can't live with that expectation, get out of the job. I would go to the point of calling for mandatory sentencing for professional drivers involved in accidents resulting in serious injury or death as a result of intoxication or negligence. This is a big call for me as I fall into this category as a paramedic and now involved in driver training.

Perhaps I have scraped the results out of cars one too many times and need a holiday.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Yeah I got angry when I saw this on the news.

Twice convicted of being on drugs resulting in two fatalities...so basically two murders. Then the next report was for a young bloke who did the same but with pot and not in a truck and he gets 11 years..WTF. Both are as bad as each other.

Agree with you, except the truck driver is worse, refer to my last post as to why I have this view.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

2) Professional drivers such as truck drivers, taxi drives, chauffeurs, drivers of emergency vehicle and bus drivers should accept the fact that the public have a right to expect a better standard from them. If they can't live with that expectation, get out of the job. I would go to the point of calling for mandatory sentencing for professional drivers involved in accidents resulting in serious injury or death as a result of intoxication or negligence. This is a big call for me as I fall into this category as a paramedic and now involved in driver training.

Perhaps I have scraped the results out of cars one too many times and need a holiday.

there is a lot of negligence out there! just that when these guys do it the end results are often a lot more catastrophic.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

there is a lot of negligence out there! just that when these guys do it the end results are often a lot more catastrophic.

Exactly, this is what sentencing needs to reflect and society needs to make it clear to the operators of these vehicles they are expected to operate at a higher standard.

[prydey]

gecko - out of curiosity, how do energy drinks and coffee register in blood tests? not sure what the ingredients are for the amphetamines that are obviously used but i wonder if any of them are found in these legal products. maybe just at a lower %?

[geckoGT]

To my knowledge you will not find any amphetamines or any of their derivatives at any concentration as they are an illegal substance. Even pseudoephedrine is no longer used in cough/cold preparations due to misuse.

These drinks are normally caffeine and guarana based and therefore not illegal, nor do they have the brain function altering properties of amphetamine based substances.

[prydey]

cheers. i must admit, i work nightshift and there are some mornings where i'm driving home and there would be a fair amount of caffeine in my system.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

cheers. i must admit, i work nightshift and there are some mornings where i'm driving home and there would be a fair amount of caffeine in my system.

I know what you mean, after a twelve hour night shift, 2 hours of over time and not even a meal break all night, there is a lot of caffeine in my system. Probably some of the reason I now have a heart arrythmia at 37 years old.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Exactly, this is what sentencing needs to reflect and society needs to make it clear to the operators of these vehicles they are expected to operate at a higher standard.

Here, here.

You are given the privilege of being allowed to drive within the community when you obtain a licence and that comes with responsibilities - being sober and coherent are but two.

But having said that; stopping in the middle of high speed flowing traffic is a grievous lesson in stupidity and shows little or no regard for other road users and their safety.

Remember people - it is a privilege not a right and we all have to play together.

[Bobman]

What about the girl's part of this tragedy?

Anyone who drinks to the point of making themselves sick is just an idiot. It happens every week, but some people think it's the "norm" to get "smashed".

Not detracting from the truck driver's duty of care here, but if the girl hadn't have drank herself silly like so many 18-25 year olds, then we might not have been talking about this now.

The taxi driver didn't have too much choice, but why couldn't the cars behind have just over taken it? It seems to be common these days that people will stay stuck behind you and beep their horns, even if they can quite freely overtake without a worry. This was sadly a chain of problems that led to the crash and without one link could have been averted.

[MO]

With regard to truck drivers,how culpable are their employers who demand they keep to timetables that are just plain stupid.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by MO

With regard to truck drivers,how culpable are their employers who demand they keep to timetables that are just plain stupid.

they do have a 'chain of command' system in place now that is meant to stop that sort of thing happening.

also, the heavy vehicle log book system is pretty involved these days and indescretions are fined pretty heavily.

[MO]

Well, thats good that they are trying to fix it,so if a company is doing the right thing then the driver should be getting proper breaks etc.
Just a thought how do owner/drivers get on especially if they're playing catchup with bills etc.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I know what you mean, after a twelve hour night shift, 2 hours of over time and not even a meal break all night, there is a lot of caffeine in my system. Probably some of the reason I now have a heart arrythmia at 37 years old.

'Pot calling the kettle black' saying that on this thread.
I know caffeine is not as bad as the rubbish some truckies might take