Tumbleweed Posted October 22, 2013 Share If I remember correctly it is true. At intersections the line will be broken that would normally allow you to turn into another street. It'll certainly be interesting to see how this defence works out in court. Apparently the accused's lawyer is claiming there were no signs saying no turning. Not sure if one cancels out the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesme Posted October 22, 2013 Share I don't think saying there was not arrow, you should have known the law... would work, fact is no one even knowing the law is following it. thats the problem, arrow or not, knowing the law or not. fact is, drivers actions was cause of accident. G It'll certainly be interesting to see how this defence works out in court. Apparently the accused's lawyer is claiming there were no signs saying no turning. Not sure if one cancels out the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 22, 2013 Share I don't think saying there was not arrow, you should have known the law... would work, fact is no one even knowing the law is following it. thats the problem, arrow or not, knowing the law or not. fact is, drivers actions was cause of accident. G No facts have yet been proven. The first witness called didn't actually witness the accident, only the aftermath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Deon) Posted October 22, 2013 Share Does the white line apply in this case. No provision is made to turn into the service road. Unless no turning sign is in place, it could be taken as road marking error?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 22, 2013 Share Does the white line apply in this case. No provision is made to turn into the service road. Unless no turning sign is in place, it could be taken as road marking error?? That seems to be the argument the defence is raising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Deon) Posted October 22, 2013 Share I dunno, I want justice too but what is justice in this case?? The fact that the taxi is roadworthy is where I start doubting the drivers intentions. He did appear to be in shock and stayed on the scene until the police arrived. Where have you ever heard this happening?? It's sad whichever way you look at it! An example must be made but surely diver's negligence and bad attitudes are what we are fighting.. Is this case about what can happen to any of us? Edited October 22, 2013 by Pain or shine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesme Posted October 22, 2013 Share prosecution would argue taxi driver can not decide if road markings is right or wrong. He is mandated to follow whatever is presented. Did he.... 2nd, even if he did follow the markings, he still turned, into oncoming traffic, irrelevant if he saw it or not, his actions, by turning was the cause of the accident. G That seems to be the argument the defence is raising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 22, 2013 Share I dunno, I want justice too but what is justice in this case?? The fact that the taxi is roadworthy is where I start doubting the drivers intentions. He did appear to be in shock and stayed on the scene until the police arrived. Where have you ever heard this happening?? He was said to be in tears. I think, from testimony I've read, that was from both remorse and an alleged beating he received. Taxi was roadworthy, and he had all the correct paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 22, 2013 Share prosecution would argue taxi driver can not decide if road markings is right or wrong. He is mandated to follow whatever is presented. Did he.... 2nd, even if he did follow the markings, he still turned, into oncoming traffic, irrelevant if he saw it or not, his actions, by turning was the cause of the accident. G I really think we need clarity on this. Do you maybe have a link to the law regarding solid white lines? I was of the impression that it applied to overtaking or switching lanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramrod Posted October 22, 2013 Share He was said to be in tears. I think, from testimony I've read, that was from both remorse and an alleged beating he received. Taxi was roadworthy, and he had all the correct paperwork.when was he beaten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted October 22, 2013 Share Even IF the taxi was allowed to cross the white line, he cannot turn in front of oncoming traffic [insert Ka dish ding guillotine sound] = GUILTY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Deon) Posted October 22, 2013 Share prosecution would argue taxi driver can not decide if road markings is right or wrong. He is mandated to follow whatever is presented. Did he.... 2nd, even if he did follow the markings, he still turned, into oncoming traffic, irrelevant if he saw it or not, his actions, by turning was the cause of the accident. G ..and if he is guilty for these reasons, then he should face the penalty. I fear what will be understood from the verdict though. Media will surely make an example of the driver when in my eyes, a win for cycling should be that hit and run case of a few months ago. All fingers point to that guy being DUI!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 22, 2013 Share when was he beaten? The traffic officer who attended the scene said the driver had bloodstains on his shirt, and said he'd been assaulted. He was placed in the cop car for his own safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stretch Posted October 22, 2013 Share I have said it before and I will say it again. The real people that should be taken to court here are the Traffic Police. The less they do, the more people push the legal limits.. That means speeding, drinking and driving, texting and driving, turning illegally, skipping stop streets and lights, driving unroadworthy vehicles etc etc....If you can get away with because the police force is sitting on their arse..then you will, and that is the REAL problem. If I were the standers I would seriously consider suing the government.... GaryvdM, RossW, (Deon) and 4 others 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesme Posted October 22, 2013 Share the only way this needs to be looked at... brake it into the simplest of actions/results... Guilty or not on these....what was his actions, what was the outcome.he turned, accident happened. there is no arguing this. Involuntary manslaughter. what will have impact on sentence, if found guilty, ye, the lines, the visibility, his remorse. G Edited October 22, 2013 by awesme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Deon) Posted October 22, 2013 Share I have said it before and I will say it again. The real people that should be taken to court here are the Traffic Police. The less they do, the more people push the legal limits.. That means speeding, drinking and driving, texting and driving, turning illegally, skipping stop streets and lights, driving unroadworthy vehicles etc etc....If you can get away with because the police force is sitting on their arse..then you will, and that is the REAL problem. If I were the standers I would seriously consider suing the government....I second that! Go for the state next! Car brochures need to offer indicators as an optional extra, just under colour-coding which is usually last!! Sick of it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now