PDA

View Full Version : Tagger Killer To Be Freed



Twelvevolts
03-01-2010, 06:04 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3203809/Tagger-killer-Bruce-Emery-to-be-freed

Looks like you tough sentencing types had better start working your way into a lather about this short sentence - oh no that's right, Sensible Sentencing says it is ok to kill kids who put paint on walls.

Metla
03-01-2010, 06:09 PM
I "caught" a tagger the other day, Looked about 15, broad daylight, right across the road from the shops.

I yelled at him and he ran a mile, And somehow I managed to not chase him down with a knife and stab him until he was dead. Don't know how I managed to do it, But there you go, It is possible.

Zippity
03-01-2010, 07:04 PM
He should have been awarded something in the New Year Honours.

B.M.
03-01-2010, 07:31 PM
Here's hoping he's a re-offender. :thumbs:

Twelvevolts
03-01-2010, 07:33 PM
I "caught" a tagger the other day, Looked about 15, broad daylight, right across the road from the shops.

I yelled at him and he ran a mile, And somehow I managed to not chase him down with a knife and stab him until he was dead. Don't know how I managed to do it, But there you go, It is possible.

You liberal you

Twelvevolts
03-01-2010, 07:34 PM
He should have been awarded something in the New Year Honours.

Why?

Peterj116
03-01-2010, 07:39 PM
Out just in time to get his knighthood.


:thumbs:

Greg
03-01-2010, 09:04 PM
I "caught" a tagger the other day, Looked about 15, broad daylight, right across the road from the shops.

I yelled at him and he ran a mile, And somehow I managed to not chase him down with a knife and stab him until he was dead. Don't know how I managed to do it, But there you go, It is possible.
LOL - you crack me up sometimes Metz. I couldn't have put it better myself.

But going back to the incident... the kid deserved a smack across the face, no more than that.

bob_doe_nz
03-01-2010, 09:16 PM
But going back to the incident... the kid deserved a smack across the face, no more than that.

Or a cracked knuckle or four...

prefect
03-01-2010, 09:52 PM
It was a travesty the guy was sent to prison at all.

Nomad
03-01-2010, 09:58 PM
Well these sentence things are up to individual interpretation.

There is always the death penalty.

Some would agree with that and live in a country that involves that, some people who do live there or not in those countries don't agree .....

angry
03-01-2010, 10:00 PM
It was a travesty the guy was sent to prison at all.

It was, If you look into this a little, lundy and his family were the victims of: racist, gang targeting, and intimidation.

As usual in these matter's, of long police inaction, only the finall unfortunate serious incident, recieves any police or media attention.

Zippity
03-01-2010, 10:28 PM
What a load of crap.

Twelvevolts
03-01-2010, 11:51 PM
It was a travesty the guy was sent to prison at all.

Well I suspect if your son was murdered on the street you'd think a little differently about it. Obviously you don't care about the victim in this case despite all your hot air to the contrary on other cases.

And as the Police say "That is the tragedy of it. The victim has been portrayed as this evil little kid that has been running around. But that wasn't the case at all, he was never in trouble with the police"

But then he had the Sensible Sentencing Trust going to work on him, little thought for the victim on this occasion, cuddled up with the killer. Bunch of hypocrites, shows the SST don't really care about victims at all.

prefect
04-01-2010, 12:05 AM
We can thank the SST for pitching in to help real victims not tagger vandals, they are called criminals not victims. Need to sort your terminology out calling a criminal a victim is bad juju.
I am pretty sure most people would think criminals getting taken out during their execution of a crime is good karma. I could be wrong though I am a bit of a redneck.

Greg
04-01-2010, 06:24 AM
A "bit"??

Cicero
04-01-2010, 08:27 AM
I agree with Prefect.

I note the tagger has not re-offended.

Which we will agree is a good thing.

plod
04-01-2010, 08:36 AM
And as the Police say "That is the tragedy of it. The victim has been portrayed as this evil little kid that has been running around. But that wasn't the case at all, he was never in trouble with the police"
.
All that says is that he was never caught doing anything by the police. So the saying must be true "If I don't get caught, I didn't do anything wrong"

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 09:16 AM
I agree with Prefect.

I note the tagger has not re-offended.

Which we will agree is a good thing.

So if it is ok to kill people for painting a wall - where is your threshold when it isn't ok? Presumably you don't favour killing people for jaywalking? Then again - who ever thought people would endorse the death penalty for spray painting a wall - without a trial as well.

One can only wonder what makes you so fearful of tagging that you support the death penalty for it without trial.

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 09:24 AM
All that says is that he was never caught doing anything by the police. So the saying must be true "If I don't get caught, I didn't do anything wrong"

So what? You justify a killing because he possibly might have sprayed a wall previously??

So if it was the first time he sprayed a wall - would you have settled for life imprisonment or would the death penalty still have been your chosen solution?

And would there be any age restriction on your sentencing regime? Would you put a six year old to death for the same thing?

So looks like Sensible Sentencing means the death penalty for any allegation over any offence at any age. Gee - your world sounds like a really fun place to live.

plod
04-01-2010, 09:28 AM
So what? You justify a killing because he possibly might have sprayed a wall previously??

So if it was the first time he sprayed a wall - would you have settled for life imprisonment or would the death penalty still have been your chosen solution?

And would there be any age restriction on your sentencing regime? Would you put a six year old to death for the same thing?

So looks like Sensible Sentencing means the death penalty for any allegation over any offence at any age. Gee - your world sounds like a really fun place to live.

Never said anything of the sort, was just stating that just because you haven't been caught by police before, doesn't mean your not a criminal

Sweep
04-01-2010, 09:31 AM
Well I suspect if your son was murdered on the street you'd think a little differently about it. Obviously you don't care about the victim in this case despite all your hot air to the contrary on other cases.

And as the Police say "That is the tragedy of it. The victim has been portrayed as this evil little kid that has been running around. But that wasn't the case at all, he was never in trouble with the police"

But then he had the Sensible Sentencing Trust going to work on him, little thought for the victim on this occasion, cuddled up with the killer. Bunch of hypocrites, shows the SST don't really care about victims at all.

The tagger was not murdered on the street so your analogy leaves a lot to be desired.

andrew93
04-01-2010, 09:36 AM
Who do you believe? (http://www.3news.co.nz/Parole-Board-denies-Emery-to-be-released-this-week/tabid/209/articleID/135919/Default.aspx)

prefect
04-01-2010, 09:38 AM
I think the term for killing crooks while they are committing a crime is called summary justice. Like when police or army in NZ can shoot looters on sight. Consideration must be given to how angry people get when they see crooks committing a crime. Thats why imo the guy shouldn't have gone to jail but be lauded as a hero in the fight against crime. Bit like the defence of crime of passion they have in some countries where it is ok to shoot when you see your wife in bed with another man.
volts the SST is the voice of real NZ get used to it or you will get all wound up and die of a heart attack from the stress of fighting progress.

Cicero
04-01-2010, 09:44 AM
So if it is OK to kill people for painting a wall - where is your threshold when it isn't OK? Presumably you don't favour killing people for jaywalking? Then again - who ever thought people would endorse the death penalty for spray painting a wall - without a trial as well.

One can only wonder what makes you so fearful of tagging that you support the death penalty for it without trial.

Not the tagging,it's the blatant disregard of others rights.

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 09:50 AM
Not the tagging,it's the blatant disregard of others rights.

Oh I see - you support the death penalty for disregarding rights. What rights are we referring to? The right to have a clean wall?

So would throwing an egg at a wall also require the death penalty? We've had a rash of college students here throwing eggs at houses, do they all deserve to die as well??

Sweep
04-01-2010, 10:00 AM
Oh I see - you support the death penalty for disregarding rights. What rights are we referring to? The right to have a clean wall?

So would throwing an egg at a wall also require the death penalty? We've had a rash of college students here throwing eggs at houses, do they all deserve to die as well??

Sigh. You keep bringing up the death penalty. We don't have the death penalty in New Zealand or has something changed overnight?

While I generally don't agree with the death penalty I would have no problem with it in certain cases.

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 10:01 AM
I think the term for killing crooks while they are committing a crime is called summary justice. Like when police or army in NZ can shoot looters on sight. Consideration must be given to how angry people get when they see crooks committing a crime. Thats why imo the guy shouldn't have gone to jail but be lauded as a hero in the fight against crime. Bit like the defence of crime of passion they have in some countries where it is ok to shoot when you see your wife in bed with another man.
volts the SST is the voice of real NZ get used to it or you will get all wound up and die of a heart attack from the stress of fighting progress.

Imagine how angry you might get if your son was killed in the street. My son was assaulted in the street the other day (the offender has gone to court) so I have recent experience of a young person being assaulted, and appreciate under your warped thinking he could now be dead.

No - I recall the last time you National Socialist types got power in a country, it started with summary justice and ended with concentration camps.

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 10:06 AM
Sigh. You keep bringing up the death penalty. We don't have the death penalty in New Zealand or has something changed overnight?

While I generally don't agree with the death penalty I would have no problem with it in certain cases.

Well the tagger was killed and certain people here think that was justified that he should have died for spraying a wall. We don't have the death penalty now and neither do we want it. However, if we have the "summary justice" Prefect proposes, you'd be able to kill anyone you thought had committed a crime.

Zippity
04-01-2010, 10:09 AM
12 v - what are you drinking and/or smoking?

Your level of comprehension is way off mark :(

Cicero
04-01-2010, 10:17 AM
So what? You justify a killing because he possibly might have sprayed a wall previously??

So if it was the first time he sprayed a wall - would you have settled for life imprisonment or would the death penalty still have been your chosen solution?

And would there be any age restriction on your sentencing regime? Would you put a six year old to death for the same thing?

So looks like Sensible Sentencing means the death penalty for any allegation over any offence at any age. Gee - your world sounds like a really fun place to live.

If they choose to disregard others rights they should be prepared to pay the consequences,if it was left to the likes of you,they would spend most of their time laughing at you.,my method there is no laughing at all.

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 10:26 AM
If they choose to disregard others rights they should be prepared to pay the consequences,if it was left to the likes of you,they would spend most of their time laughing at you.,my method there is no laughing at all.

Oh is that your real problem - you think people will laugh at you so you justify killing people for that. Sorry - people are already laughing at you for holding such extreme views.

Sweep
04-01-2010, 10:29 AM
Well the tagger was killed and certain people here think that was justified that he should have died for spraying a wall. We don't have the death penalty now and neither do we want it. However, if we have the "summary justice" Prefect proposes, you'd be able to kill anyone you thought had committed a crime.

You know crime starts with the little things like stealing a sweet. The person gets away with it so they steal more and it just keeps growing until the person does get caught. Then because it's a "first offence" they get a low sentence which really makes them think well the penalty was not too bad so they go do it again and again etc until they get caught. Now it's a second offence and the process is still the same. At some stage the offender gets chucked in the pokey where they learn how to commit new and better offences.

Actually, for some people the death penalty is in fact appropriate. An example would be Graeme Burton in my view.

It was not "thought" that the tagger had sprayed the wall was it?

prefect
04-01-2010, 10:32 AM
No - I recall the last time you National Socialist types got power in a country, it started with summary justice and ended with concentration camps.

Check this link out, its a law when someone is losing an argument in an internet forum they bring in the Nazis or Hitler.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Cicero
04-01-2010, 10:34 AM
Oh is that your real problem - you think people will laugh at you so you justify killing people for that. Sorry - people are already laughing at you for holding such extreme views.

No problem being laughed when I am being funny,something I am sure that is foreign to you.

When these menaces flaunt reason and laugh at you for doing so,then you know what they need.

prefect
04-01-2010, 10:36 AM
Crime imo starts in NZ with kids not wearing cycling helmets, watching their care providers (used be called parents ) drive through stop signs, speeding smoking electric puha etc.

prefect
04-01-2010, 10:38 AM
Oh is that your real problem - you think people will laugh at you so you justify killing people for that. Sorry - people are already laughing at you for holding such extreme views.

I for one aint laughing at Cic for holding extreme views because the views are held by the majority of new zealanders.

Cicero
04-01-2010, 10:56 AM
Crime IMO starts in NZ with kids not wearing cycling helmets, watching their care providers (used be called parents ) drive through stop signs, speeding smoking electric puha etc.

Totally disagree with helmet law,should be our choice.

Might be the right thing to do,but I find that quite offensive (force).

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 11:12 AM
No problem being laughed when I am being funny,something I am sure that is foreign to you.

When these menaces flaunt reason and laugh at you for doing so,then you know what they need.

Flaunt Reason??? I doubt when you can justify killing a youth for painting a wall you know much about reason.

Humour isn't foreign to me at all - again you're making the mistake that people who disagree with you somehow humourless or not human - that after all is how you justify killing people for trivial offending.

Sweep
04-01-2010, 11:12 AM
Totally disagree with helmet law,should be our choice.

Might be the right thing to do,but I find that quite offensive (force).

It can't be denied that cycle helmets reduce the chance of serious head injuries in the event of an accident much like the seat belts may stop people from having serious injuries as well.

The fact that you disagree with a particular law though does not mean you should disregard or flout the same.

prefect
04-01-2010, 11:23 AM
Being a vandal is not a trivial offence, in some cases it is a shoot on sight offence.

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 11:42 AM
Being a vandal is not a trivial offence, in some cases it is a shoot on sight offence.

Well at least you're honest about your extremist views - but misguided if you think that most people are with you. Painting a wall is a trivial offence compared to killing someone.

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 11:44 AM
It can't be denied that cycle helmets reduce the chance of serious head injuries in the event of an accident much like the seat belts may stop people from having serious injuries as well.

The fact that you disagree with a particular law though does not mean you should disregard or flout the same.

Actually I thought I saw research that said that wearing a helmet makes you less safe than not wearing one. I'm not sure it is as clear cut as you think - on this one freedom to wear or not wear a helmet should be up to each person.

Cicero
04-01-2010, 12:57 PM
It can't be denied that cycle helmets reduce the chance of serious head injuries in the event of an accident much like the seat belts may stop people from having serious injuries as well.

The fact that you disagree with a particular law though does not mean you should disregard or flout the same.

In my case it does,on the rare occasions I go for a bike ride,I do not wear a helmet.

I think I would end up looking like 12V and that would never do.

plod
04-01-2010, 01:54 PM
Imagine how angry you might get if your son was killed in the street. My son was assaulted in the street the other day (the offender has gone to court) so I have recent experience of a young person being assaulted, and appreciate under your warped thinking he could now be dead.


So what were the circumstances in that your son got assaulted?

Cicero
04-01-2010, 02:47 PM
So what were the circumstances in that your son got assaulted?

It won't be the sons fault.

Twelvevolts
04-01-2010, 07:23 PM
It won't be the sons fault.

My son isn't going to Court. The guy who hit him has.

And you are still someone who says they would kill someone for spray painting a wall - but then you'd never be a fault as whatever and if you decide someone is guilty - that is all that is required for execution apparently.

Sweep
04-01-2010, 08:17 PM
Actually I thought I saw research that said that wearing a helmet makes you less safe than not wearing one. I'm not sure it is as clear cut as you think - on this one freedom to wear or not wear a helmet should be up to each person.

So you thought you saw research. Was that in a dream?

Sweep
04-01-2010, 08:23 PM
My son isn't going to Court. The guy who hit him has.

And you are still someone who says they would kill someone for spray painting a wall - but then you'd never be a fault as whatever and if you decide someone is guilty - that is all that is required for execution apparently.

I thought your son should go to court as well assuming he is a witness to the alleged assault unless the person has put in a guilty plea.

So the person charged with assault has been to court and what is the result so far?

Cicero
04-01-2010, 08:41 PM
And you are still someone who says they would kill someone for spray painting a wall - but then you'd never be a fault as whatever and if you decide someone is guilty - that is all that is required for execution apparently.

By jove I think you have got it,keep it up and I might give you a stamp on the back of your hand.

Winston001
04-01-2010, 10:52 PM
You know crime starts with the little things like stealing a sweet. The person gets away with it so they steal more and it just keeps growing until the person does get caught........ At some stage the offender gets chucked in the pokey where they learn how to commit new and better offences.



To be honest I used to think that too but the evidence is otherwise. The world-leading Dunedin Longitudinal Study found that 70% of teenagers are involved with at least one illegal act. However only a few go on to further criminal behaviour while the rest become responsible citizens.

We cannot have a civilised society where vigilante behaviour becomes acceptable. Death for spraying some paint on a wall.....???? :2cents:

Cicero
04-01-2010, 10:57 PM
We cannot have a civilised society where vigilante behaviour becomes acceptable. Death for spraying some paint on a wall

Quite so,give them a bigger brush and a nice smock.

Twelvevolts
05-01-2010, 04:31 PM
So you thought you saw research. Was that in a dream?

Apparently it wasn't a dream.

In June 2007, the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research published research noting that:

"There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase is estimated to be around 14%. The introduction of a bicycle helmet law in these countries has additionally lead to a reduction of cycling-kilometres of 22%. This effect is likely to be larger for adolescents than for adults, and smallest for children."

As detailed on this website, mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in the State of Western Australia resulted in cyclist injury increases and cyclist number declines around 30%"

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

Twelvevolts
05-01-2010, 04:39 PM
I thought your son should go to court as well assuming he is a witness to the alleged assault unless the person has put in a guilty plea.


I presume he pleaded guilty - several witnesses in any event. Police have not advised the outcome so don't know what the result was. I'm pleased he went to Court - not concerned what the outcome was to be honest although an apology would have been nice. Process rarely happens in one Court sitting though so likely it is on-going.

Twelvevolts
05-01-2010, 04:41 PM
By jove I think you have got it,keep it up and I might give you a stamp on the back of your hand.

I'm sure you like stamping on the back of hands . . . . and heads as well no doubt.

Cicero
05-01-2010, 05:37 PM
I'm sure you like stamping on the back of hands . . . . and heads as well no doubt.

I must say,since meeting you,the urge has indeed been there.

But not b4.

Twelvevolts
05-01-2010, 06:07 PM
I must say,since meeting you,the urge has indeed been there.

But not b4.

We've never met.

R2x1
05-01-2010, 06:08 PM
Goodness me ! !
It is a new decade, why can't we all get along in a slightly more civilised fashion? A bit of simple action should allow everyone to be satisfied and occupy the moral high ground.
Twelvevolts simply puts a sign on his letterbox announcing that this is a free-tagging area and spray cans are welcome, while Prefect and Cicero could have a sign indicating that taggers body parts will be sold to cover costs.

Throughout the land, the taggers can do as they want, while the tagged have the same freedom of choice.

prefect
05-01-2010, 06:11 PM
Helmets save cyclists from head injury and brain damage any research thats says otherwise is rubbish.
Although the brain size of cyclists must be brought into question who would ride 1.5 metres from a car doing 100 kph? and breath in their exhaust fumes.

Cicero
05-01-2010, 06:15 PM
We've never met.

Do as D2 suggests and see how you go.

I do believe we have met on here,you twit.

Mate you would test the patience of a saint,and it is said I am up for one.

Twelvevolts
05-01-2010, 07:57 PM
Goodness me ! !
It is a new decade, why can't we all get along in a slightly more civilised fashion? A bit of simple action should allow everyone to be satisfied and occupy the moral high ground.
Twelvevolts simply puts a sign on his letterbox announcing that this is a free-tagging area and spray cans are welcome, while Prefect and Cicero could have a sign indicating that taggers body parts will be sold to cover costs.

Throughout the land, the taggers can do as they want, while the tagged have the same freedom of choice.

Sorry - where did I say I supported tagging?

I support an appropriate sentence for it - not an open right to do it. As usual you suppose people who oppose the death penalty to be pro crime in some way - sorry put that's illogical. Community Service cleaning up graffiti would seem to be a better option.

Twelvevolts
05-01-2010, 07:59 PM
Helmets save cyclists from head injury and brain damage any research thats says otherwise is rubbish.
Although the brain size of cyclists must be brought into question who would ride 1.5 metres from a car doing 100 kph? and breath in their exhaust fumes.

Good to know you never let research get in the way of your views - pretty much sums up your approach to crime and punishment as well. I guess you think the Earth is flat as well because your gut feel tells you so.

prefect
05-01-2010, 08:34 PM
I have an inkling the earth is round because when flying I can see the curve of the earth.
Some research is just plain wrong and I discount it

Sweep
05-01-2010, 08:40 PM
Apparently it wasn't a dream.

In June 2007, the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research published research noting that:

"There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase is estimated to be around 14%. The introduction of a bicycle helmet law in these countries has additionally lead to a reduction of cycling-kilometres of 22%. This effect is likely to be larger for adolescents than for adults, and smallest for children."

As detailed on this website, mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in the State of Western Australia resulted in cyclist injury increases and cyclist number declines around 30%"

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

Thanks for the link.

Did you read the full pdf report linked to on that site as I did?

Even the above is suspect as words like "estimated" and "likely" mean nothing.

Sweep
05-01-2010, 10:35 PM
I do not suppose a helmet would have helped here to be fair.

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=109310&fm=psp,nwl

johcar
05-01-2010, 11:24 PM
Apparently it wasn't a dream.

In June 2007, the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research published research noting that:

"There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase is estimated to be around 14%. The introduction of a bicycle helmet law in these countries has additionally lead to a reduction of cycling-kilometres of 22%. This effect is likely to be larger for adolescents than for adults, and smallest for children."

As detailed on this website, mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in the State of Western Australia resulted in cyclist injury increases and cyclist number declines around 30%"

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

I know this is off-topic, but ....

Yes, some research 'suggests' that wearing helmet puts a cyclist more at risk of an accident. However this can possibly be attributed to motorist attitudes that, if a cyclist is wearing a helmet, he (or she) is 'safe', and the motorist believes they can therefore pass closer to the cyclist, which therefore increases the risk of an accident.

I know from personal experience that when I hit the deck in 2007, thanks to a motorist executing a u-turn in front of me, I would not be here, had it not been for the helmet I was wearing. The same can be said for my Tamaki Drive mates.

However, the severity of injuries sustained can be greater if the helmet worn is of the more solid design (usually a $$-related design flaw - it is a truism that, with cycling, the more you pay the less you get, material-wise). This more solid design seems to transfer more of the impact energy to the head (and brain) - whereas the more open helmets, with a stiff inner frame, tend to have more 'give' and therefore dissipate the force of the impact.

So if anyone is considering taking up cycling, don't buy a $60 helmet unless you think you have a $60 head.

The German cyclist death referred to by Sweep is another example of why we should adopt the rule of the road whereby the least vulnerable party to an accident should be held at fault (similar to the "crash-into-the-back-of-another-vehicle,-it's-your-fault" rule).

This would have the effect of increasing the space and respect (or fear of hitting someone) with cyclists vs. pedestrians, cars vs. motorcycles/cyclists, and buses/trucks vs. cars. (The exception would be trains, as they are very easy to hear and/or see, cannot change direction and cannot stop in a hurry).

The "Rule of Big" should be, if you are bigger than the party you are approaching, you must take care and give them space.

At the moment, the unofficial "Rule of Big" works the opposite way - where a cyclist & car#1 are travelling in one direction and car#2 approaches from the opposite direction, car#1 overtaking the cyclist will tend to swerve into the cyclist because there is a perception that car#1 will receive less damage hitting the cyclist than the other car. Which is true. But the meat bag on two wheels will most likely be hospitalised for months, or, worst case, be attending their own funeral.

According to the nzcity article Sweep links to, the German cyclist and truck were both sharing the inside lane of a passing lane. It seems the truck did not give the rider sufficient space, possibly because other vehicles were overtaking the truck and he didn't want to lose speed by slowing down so he could overtake the cyclist safely. However this is supposition on my part...

When I learned to drive (1975), I was taught to treat cyclists like another car when overtaking and move into the lane over the centreline (or in this case the overtaking lane). What's changed?

Twelvevolts
05-01-2010, 11:36 PM
Thanks for the link.

Did you read the full pdf report linked to on that site as I did?

Even the above is suspect as words like "estimated" and "likely" mean nothing.

You are likely right - I never claimed it was correct - just that I recalled reading that perspective. Personally I favour freedom of choice with regard helmets - I hardly used a bike since the law came in and it should be my choice to ride without one.

Sweep
05-01-2010, 11:37 PM
Very good Johcar.

I have driven trucks for years up to about 38 tons with the trailer.

Many a time I give way to horse riders. I also stop or slow down for farm animals on a road.

It's only consideration for others.

johcar
06-01-2010, 12:05 AM
You're a dying breed Sweep!

Consideration for others is the absolute key, not only in driving habits, but in life generally!!

Just had a look on Streetview (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=santoft+rd,+bulls&sll=-36.847385,174.765735&sspn=0.03393,0.072956&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Santoft+Rd,+Bulls,+4894,+New+Zealand&ll=-40.123372,175.313129&spn=0.064844,0.145912&z=13&layer=c&cbll=-40.113653,175.331538&panoid=LpiiZfiUtpbuxWQLkwAcIg&cbp=12,113.76,,0,19.08)at the accident site, looks flat and pretty open....

The accident report might make interesting reading, unfortunately not for the tourist's family.

This is the second cycling-related death for the Bulls/Foxton area in the last 6 months that I am aware of!!

I heard a news item a month or so ago where a Spanish (?) tourist cancelled a cycle trip around NZ with his family because it was far too dangerous. The trip had been a life-long ambition apparently.

Mr Key might have cause to worry about his nationwide cycle-path - if we scare cycling tourists into not coming, there won't be much of a need for a cycle-path!

Sweep
06-01-2010, 12:29 AM
I will wait and see if the truck driver is charged or not.

johcar
06-01-2010, 08:38 AM
Rest assured, he will be. He was involved in an accident that involved a death.