The solution to (drunk) motorists killing other road users? Opinions/Suggestions:

[Icycling]

I know this thread is old but I just felt like giving my opinion

 

Ok. So I have read most of this thread and it’s actually shocking. Not the Andre Gouws part but the part where most of you say things without thinking clearly about what you are actually saying.

Now yes I do know Mr Gouws in person. Or well use to long ago. Out of personal experience I know for a fact that he is rather misguided in some of his ways.

The fact that he got into his car under the influence was a mistake. A choice he made yes.

He made the choice of wearing the shirt he had on. Maybe he wasn’t thinking when he did that or who knows. The meaning of the shirt “cleverly disguised as a responsible person” actually implies that the person wearing it is still a child. Which Mr Gouws is to some extent. Regardless of his age

 

Should he have known better, Yes

Should he learn a lesson and pay for his mistakes. Yes

But the thing is. How he pays for his mistakes is not for any of us to decide. He is misguided in his ways. They want to charge him with murder. Now the problem with that is that it was not pre-meditated or even a choice. If he made the choice to run over a cyclist then yes throw him in jail or even bring the death penalty back but I doubt he made that choice.

Now a lot of people on this thread say and wish that he dies or gets sodomized repeatedly in jail etc. How does that make you different? It actually makes you worse in some ways. Andre did not make the choice to kill someone. Some of you actually willingly choose to wish death upon him. You want physical and emotional harm to be caused to a person that made bad choices. Understandable to some extent but how does that make you better than him or anyone? Out of anger people say and do all kinds of things that are irrational and stupid. Out of fear people take similar actions and make similar choices. Out of stupidity the same. I can go on and on about this but the truth is

None of you know what the emotional state of Andre was when all of this happened. All we know is he was under the influence. Probably passed out at a braai or party or something. Woke up early still intoxicated and then wanted to drive home. He then, still under the influence and half asleep, crashed into a cyclist and killed him. Out of fear he then drove off. Etc etc. My point here is not to make his actions right or take blame away from him. The point im trying to make is that he made one big mistake and that was getting into his car. Everything after that was not a choice he made with 100% clarity. He made bad choices in an already bad situation. Does this mean he is a monster or that he has to die because of it? I don’t know but I don’t think so. He is responsible for what happened yes. He chose to drive that car. And thats the only crime he really commited. Driving under the influence. Everything after that was an accident and misguided thinking from a person who wasn’t fully awake and wasn’t sober and then had emotions of fear and shock added onto that as the accident happened.

Andre has to pay for his crimes. Crimes of fleeing the scene and driving under the influence. He made a mistake and made bad choices which lead to someone losing their life. I personally do not think he murdered someone. Yes someone died because of his actions but it was a mistake. I do feel that he has to pay for his actions somehow. Be it jail time or whatever else.

 

The hate and sarcasm on this thread is understandable. But by reading what a lot of you say I feel that a lot of you aren’t any better than Mr Gouws. This thread shows how easy it is to make bad decisions.

 

I guess me posting this is my bad decision

Now the topic of this thread is Opinions and suggestions...

The legal age of drinking should be raised to 21. Problem is the government won’t like this because they lose money. The tax on cigarettes and alcohol is ridiculous.

Cycling should be limited to specific areas and times only. Problem is some people actually use their cycles for transport. And yes I know it’s silly of me to say this on a forum filled with cyclist but the attitude of cyclists on the road is frustrating.

Parks should be put up for cyclist where no cars are allowed. Problem is how do you get there with your bike in the first place.

Bike Lanes? Who wants to pay more taxes towards the government for that?

Doesn’t matter how you try and solve this problem there is always something that will stand against it.

 

Drunk driving is a huge issue in south Africa. Bad driving too. People have no respect for the laws on the road anymore. Be it people who drive cars or bikes or whatever. Things are getting worse in this country and the only way things will get better is if everyone can just take a step back, re-examine the situation or look at the bigger picture and ask yourself, How is what you are doing now making a difference?

 

My condolences to the victims family

 

I hope and pray Andre makes a change to himself and learns from his mistakes.

 

I agree it could happen to any off us (maybe not been drunk)! But how do you guide people to been more responsible?

 

Sometime is it just that making examples out of people and handing down the maximum penalty so other really get a wake up call and act more responsibly i.e. having a huge deterrent! We all commit crime probable on a daily basis and sometime breaking the law has become so acceptable that it is now the norm - J walking would be an example on this. But when bye breaking the law we put others people live at major risk or take a human life then the penalty has to be very server and hopefully broad cast to the population - that if you do X the result will be Y and you don't want to be given a penalty of Y do you? So don't do X!

[NeutralThinking]

And I also do not believe he fled the seen out of fear but instead fled to try avoid trouble

 

 

fear of the consequences....

[fabes]

 

 

 

fear of the consequences....

exactly.... Avoiding trouble

 

Now please respond to my first post and apply neutral thinking

[NeutralThinking]

I agree it could happen to any off us (maybe not been drunk)! But how do you guide people to been more responsible?

 

Sometime is it just that making examples out of people and handing down the maximum penalty so other really get a wake up call and act more responsibly i.e. having a huge deterrent! We all commit crime probable on a daily basis and sometime breaking the law has become so acceptable that it is now the norm - J walking would be an example on this. But when bye breaking the law we put others people live at major risk or take a human life then the penalty has to be very server and hopefully broad cast to the population - that if you do X the result will be Y and you don't want to be given a penalty of Y do you? So don't do X!

 

 

But then the law has to change to fit in. Making a martyr out of one guy when so many others have done the same as him

Edited November 21, 2012 by NeutralThinking

[fabes]

 

 

 

But then the law has to change to fit in. Making a martyr out of one guy when so many others have done the same as him

look at the Jub Jub case

[NeutralThinking]

Mr "neutral" thinking lets see how neutral you are.

 

You have posted your version of what is fair for Mr Gouws now please have a look and post your opinion on how Clems' family should look at this whole situation and state what you think is fair for them to be going thru in this situation

 

I don't think anybody is over reacting. Yes if the cyclist was pushed off the road and got up and cycled home and all these remarks were made then yes these statements would be over reacting but sadly a life has been lost

 

Lastly seeing as you have joined a cycling forum post a pic of your bike

 

What exactly are you trying to suggest? That because of the pain caused to the family Andre should meet maximum penalty or even a death sentence if that was still done?

[fabes]

 

 

What exactly are you trying to suggest? That because of the pain caused to the family Andre should meet maximum penalty or even a death sentence if that was still done?

Cant you read?

[DaLoCo]

 

 

Ok.

 

You get manslaughter and you get murder

 

Murder in its core from a legal perspective means it was pre-meditated. You made the choice to go kill someone and did in other words

 

manslaugter is without that pre-meditation..

 

 

So because some guy drank too much and drove he made the choice to kill someone? so its pre-meditated?

The law was amended to accept the choice to drive as pre-meditated murder, simply because the heavier sentences would deter people from choosing to drive drunk.

 

If you are under the influence and choose to drive your car it is seen as a pre-meditated action in the eyes of the law. All actions that follow that decision can be seen as intentional. Legally Andre Gouws can be charged with murder. He managed to single-handedly destroy all mitigating circumstance with his actions following the collision.

 

I do agree that some cyclists are right tjops when cycling, but to even consider that as mitigating for the death of one is absurd. Motorists are the major tjops for not knowing the road act regarding the rights of cyclists and pedestrians.

[Icycling]

But then the law has to change to fit in. Making a martyr out of one guy when so many others have done the same as him

 

Unfortunately as per reports on Monday with not having a death penalty in RSA any more the jails are way too full. So we cannot have all law breaker going to jail - so it is a case of setting the example with some. Almost sounds like insurance - many pay for few!

[Hairy]

Neutral .... sorry to say most of your suggestions are really shocking.

• Every driver knows there is a drinking limit. If you exceed this you are a sure danger to all around you.
  
• Leaving the scene of an accident is also very common knowledge.
  
• You have made many assumptions RE the drivers condition and mindset on the day .... assumptions are the mother of all ... well I am sure you know the old adage.
  
• Banning cyclists from using the roads during certain times is not logical. You are then punishing innocent people for drunk drivers poor decisions. Would you or could you also then argue that cars should not be driven during certain times of the day?
  
• Hold the drunk driver accountable through the legal system.
  
• The legal system though I do feel is very slack on drunken drivers
  
• Besides the cyclist being killed there are vast numbers of pedestrians and other motorists also being killed by drunk drivers
  
• A person has lost their life because another could not suppress his need to drink hard and then drive afterwards.
  

[slowpoke]

 

 

 

But then the law has to change to fit in. Making a martyr out of one guy when so many others have done the same as him

 

With the high road accident numbers we have in SA we all know at speeding, jumping lights, driving drunk, driving high, dicing and jumping railway crossings will MOST likely result in death. As such behaving in such a manner IS premeditated with the motive being personal convenience.

 

Precendence is being set,mnot just in this case, but in others. So far 2 cases have resulted in murder convictions. Precedence is a legal concepts. So this case is not "making a martyr" out of your friend, it is simply following the precedent set where others have been found guilty.

 

Mr Gouws' parents should have thought about the consequences of raising a miscreant a long time ago and taught him from a young age to take responsibility. A simple "oh, it was an accident" DOES NOT cut it when you have taken deliberate action which has caused harm (in this case death) to others.

 

He must man up and take his punishment, which will hopefully be a very lengthy prison term.

[NeutralThinking]

Cant you read?

 

No. I can read quite well thank you.

 

Problem with your logic is that I am looking at this from a legal point of view where you now want to bring in the emotional distress caused to the family...

 

The reason I ask what you are trying to suggest is because where are you going to end with this?

 

Whats fair on the family. Nothing of this is.

 

Whats fair as a judgement on Andre Gouws for his actions. Who knows. But according to law and how law describes murder I find it to be weird that people can slap the murder charge on him.

 

Yes I understand the concept. Make the consequences so high that no one will ever drink and drive again. Thats the ultimate goal. But will it happen? Doubt it

 

Your way of thinking is from an emotional point of view of the family. I get that and its understandable seeing that you have a family of your own. I myself feel that If Gouws had to stand infront of me I would beat the crap out of him.

 

What annoys me is the justice system. Laws are written and so easily changed. If you look at the law concerning murder Andre falls into the Manslaughter category. Not murder itself. Now they charge him with murder. Charging him with fleeing the scene of the crime is fair yes. Cos he did. Charging him with DUI. Fair cos he was. But murder seems out of place.

Maybe a law should be brought forward that states that if you break the law and anyone comes to harm based on that action or is killed you will then be charged with lets say 25 years etc. I dont know. maybe there is a law similar to that but right now all thats happening is people are throwing charges at him thats not fair. I dont mean fair on him but fair on how law was written. It does not solve the problem it just complicates it. Something needs to be set in place to prevent people from doing this.

 

I get why people are so angry because people want something to be done. they want to feel safe and they want to be able to not worry about losing a loved one or even their own life when going out cycling or jogging or driving or whatever. Cycling in itself is a hobby and sport for a lot of people. Form of exercise and way to relieve stress.. Now with the added stress that you might get killed by someone driving a car under the influence.

 

what you dont get is that I understand the situation and I understand why people are angry. But theres a right way and a wrong way to do something and all of this seems and feels wrong to some extent.

[Hairy]

I forgot to add in my post that no person should be subjected to rape in prison as previously suggested by other users.... if it does happen to a rapist in jail though, then my view is that they got what they deserved.

[NeutralThinking]

Neutral .... sorry to say most of your suggestions are really shocking.

• Every driver knows there is a drinking limit. If you exceed this you are a sure danger to all around you.
  
• Leaving the scene of an accident is also very common knowledge.
  
• You have made many assumptions RE the drivers condition and mindset on the day .... assumptions are the mother of all ... well I am sure you know the old adage.
  
• Banning cyclists from using the roads during certain times is not logical. You are then punishing innocent people for drunk drivers poor decisions. Would you or could you also then argue that cars should not be driven during certain times of the day?
  
• Hold the drunk driver accountable through the legal system.
  
• The legal system though I do feel is very slack on drunken drivers
  
• Besides the cyclist being killed there are vast numbers of pedestrians and other motorists also being killed by drunk drivers
  
• A person has lost their life because another could not suppress his need to drink hard and then drive afterwards.
  

 

I gave reasons for all my suggestions as to why they wont work or wont happen. I wasn't being serious with those. The point i was making was to try and get people to discuss a solution to a problem instead of just going on about how badly this guy should get thrown in jail or executed or sodomized. It just feels like when something like this occurs people want to moan and go on about how angry they are and not really give the topic some thought on how to make it not happen again.

 

As for the law passed. The word murder just feels wrong to me. You can copy and paste murder and call it Criminal manslaughter or whatever. Would make more sense. But using the murder charge is confusing.

 

Im not saying he should not go to jail. by all means make him. Im just saying that when reading the articles and murder gets mentioned it causes confusion and hate in a sense thats not right. Its like everyone now says he is a murderer. The real issue was he broke the law and someone died cos of it. People dont see it like that. They see murderer and that causes a problem because it sometimes takes the focus of the real issue. Drunken driving

[Shebeen]

I'm not sure if I've said it here before, but I do have a small measure*** of sympathy for the driver.

 

before you read on, realise you fall into one of two categories:

*people who have driven whilst over the limit

 

*people who have NEVER driven whilst over the limit

 

I say this because I've driven on our roads over the limit before, I was young and silly - but it wasn't really a socially unacceptable practice. I thought it was ok because it was normally short distances and I tended to drive way slower than normal.

We have a culture of drink driving in this country, and whilst it is getting MUCH better enforced it is still a massive problem. Goodfellas, drivebuddies etc. are probably the best thing to happen recently. In fact a huge majority of our crime is alcohol related.

 

I don't condone the actions of the driver, but he is the scapegoat for the thousands of other drink drivers who got home safely that morning. All the other thousands were lucky, this time. If you've ever driven a car whilst over the limit you can thank your lucky stars this never happened to you.

 

***I guess an acceptable jail term would be 10 years. It's hard to put yourself in anyone's shoes here but I don't think putting him away for life actually helps anyone. The whole point of jail is to find the balance between punishing people for wrong actions, a deterrent for others considering these actions and allowing offenders time to change their ways.

[fabes]

Love the way your neutral thinking has come here only to defend one person

 

My F@&king logic a problem here because I'm looking at this from and emotional view and not a legal point of view??????

 

What are you actually smoking. You come here and tell us we all wrong because of how we view this situation as cyclists and try bull***t us with legal views( which you also seem to know f@&k all about).

 

I highly doubt this would be your reaction if you lost someone close to you because of a drunk driver.