Mathieu_Schneuwly Posted January 18, 2018 Share Surely if he is proven to have been drunk at the time he becomes guilty by default? Much like how an unlicensed driver is guilty by default? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Surely if he is proven to have been drunk at the time he becomes guilty by default? Much like how an unlicensed driver is guilty by default? Not in the real world unfortuantely. But from what I have gathered they will not be able to proof he was drunk. Having a liqour breath does not proof what your what your alcohol levels were. So unless no blood or breathelyser (spelling) test was done or someone who could testify he was drinking loads before getting into the car then this argument will not help at all in the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted January 18, 2018 Share I think the only real thing here is if can be proven that he was driving in the yellow lane and he hit the cyclists in the yellow lane he can get nailed .. a bit. But sadly if that is a freeway it will make it difficult to get a harsh sentence. He will propably end up with a suspended sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted January 18, 2018 Share Yes eddy, I think it does matter to a large degree which lane they were in and the defense is going to use every opportunity to discredit any witnesses testimony. Please, don't get me wrong, I am not in anyway defending the driver, but if the cyclists were in the left lane of the highway, then irrespective whether he was drunk or not, a court of law is probably going to favour the driver. The reason I say so is because it would be totally unexpected and the speed differential would give very little reaction time. I think the defense is going to make every effort to prove this, hence trying to create doubt about the position of impact. I also think the defense are going to use visibility to favour their client as well, which is why the are also casting doubt about the red flashing light! So prove poor visibility, left lane, huge speed differential, very little reaction time and this f*cker will walk free!Wouldn’t the prosecution use the same line though? “The driver was drunk and shouldn’t have been on the road, so wouldn’t matter if they were in the left lane, which they weren’t” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmJayZA Posted January 18, 2018 Share The media is very silent on whether a test was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edition 507 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Wouldn’t the prosecution use the same line though? “The driver was drunk and shouldn’t have been on the road, so wouldn’t matter if they were in the left lane, which they weren’t”Absolutely, the onus is on the prosecutor to prove he was drunk, and that might be difficult as per Bateleur1's comments. Patchelicious 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamS2 Posted January 18, 2018 Share I think the only real thing here is if can be proven that he was driving in the yellow lane and he hit the cyclists in the yellow lane he can get nailed .. a bit. But sadly if that is a freeway it will make it difficult to get a harsh sentence. He will propably end up with a suspended sentence.Sadly, your comments are the reality of this case. If the state had a conclusive blood alcohol test, they wouldn't have even considered offering him a plea bargain. And without that, drunk driving is almost impossible to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted January 18, 2018 Share Surely if he is proven to have been drunk at the time he becomes guilty by default? Much like how an unlicensed driver is guilty by default? The law is a funny thing. My older brother was out cycling and got killed by a drunk driver (many many years ago) and he received a reduced sentence because he was "impared" by alcohol so not fully aware of his actions. Bateleur1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted January 18, 2018 Share The law is a funny thing. My older brother was out cycling and got killed by a drunk driver (many many years ago) and he received a reduced sentence because he was "impared" by alcohol so not fully aware of his actions. That is one big problem in SA. I personally cannot recall one harsh sentence for someone who drove under the influence and killed/badly injured someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headshot Posted January 18, 2018 Share The law is a funny thing. My older brother was out cycling and got killed by a drunk driver (many many years ago) and he received a reduced sentence because he was "impared" by alcohol so not fully aware of his actions.That must have been a long time ago - or the magistrate simply got it wrong. The prevailing approach would be that drunkenness is an aggravating factor. But yes, the law can be an ass at times. Sorry to hear about your loss. mazambaan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackside Posted January 18, 2018 Share There's a lot of cyclists on the M4 every weekend, so yes. The stretch they were on has a wide yellow lane, so we can only speculate at this time as to what happened. Have also seen this link, look at the state of the car, must have been flying!!! So sad and unnecessary! http://northglennews.co.za/75137/two-cyclists-killed-on-m4/ Edited January 18, 2018 by Trackside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eccc whippet Posted January 18, 2018 Share I don't want say too much...there is a witness to testify they were in the yellow line...I can't say because I was ahead of them...however there is another way they could prove it...I have sent them a link... A question ...how hard would you have to hit a 750 ml bottle full of water...to fly in a straight line for around 200-300 m while creating a whistling sound before making contact with the ground ....might give you an idea of he speed a vehicle would need traveling on impact...any engineers ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted January 18, 2018 Share I don't want say too much...there is a witness to testify they were in the yellow line...I can't say because I was ahead of them...however there is another way they could prove it...I have sent them a link... A question ...how hard would you have to hit a 750 ml bottle full of water...to fly in a straight line for around 200-300 m while creating a whistling sound before making contact with the ground ....might give you an idea of he speed a vehicle would need traveling on impact...any engineers ? Actually the Police Forensic department should be measuring up all the evidence after the accident. Don't know if they were out there and if so wehter the right people were at the site to do the job properly. The clever people would be able to calculate the distances and conclude certain things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eccc whippet Posted January 18, 2018 Share Actually the Police Forensic department should be measuring up all the evidence after the accident. Don't know if they were out there and if so wehter the right people were at the site to do the job properly. The clever people would be able to calculate the distances and conclude certain things.the team called out on the morning of the accident are apparently the best at what they do. i am sure they have worked it all out...the speed and distance. i am still trying to figue what happened to the blood tests taken after the accident...this was something that was mentioned on many occasion that morning...to get the driver to the driver blood test done without 2 hours...the reason for this...i am told that if blood is taken more than 2 hours after the arrest or accident they cannot be used in a court case...maybe someone can give us the facts. Edited January 18, 2018 by isetech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CASSIE1975 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Almost 2 years ago...and still no answers / conclusion for friends and family. Just a very sad state of events...hope and pray for the best end to this tragedy. Some days I question myself (and I might say others as well)...is it really worth (road) cycling in SA...I REALLY LOVE ROAD CYCLING, the bunch / club riding, the speed, the legs burning up the hills as you put in that extra effort in training, pulling away from your mates up the hill...or racing down the hills again on your way back...I REALLY MISS every moment not being on the tar...but in the end (sad as it may be) it is just safer to train on my MTB...BUT that is only MY opinion. Strongs to the family and friends...hope the driver gets his day in court!!! EDIT - spelling Edited January 18, 2018 by CASSIE1975 peetwindhoek 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamS2 Posted January 18, 2018 Share I don't want say too much...there is a witness to testify they were in the yellow line...I can't say because I was ahead of them...however there is another way they could prove it...I have sent them a link... A question ...how hard would you have to hit a 750 ml bottle full of water...to fly in a straight line for around 200-300 m while creating a whistling sound before making contact with the ground ....might give you an idea of he speed a vehicle would need traveling on impact...any engineers ?It depends on a LOT of factors. The exact point of contact on both the bottle and the car, the material the bottle is made of, how full the bottle was, type of bottle cage retaining it, etc. All these things would determine the trajectory of the bottle and amount of energy transferred by the impact. Help.Me. 1 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