First experience .. Vic law regarding passing emergency vehicle

[JasonACT]

(Except you're quite possibly punishing the innocent families too then, and to distance myself from being quoted twice today - I was only pointing out what the magistrates / judges are dealing with. That's not my opinion. Not to mention the original Australians and their higher incarceration rates - sending them offshore to serve time, that's so bad, you can't imagine.)

[hayseed]

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Well, just remember, our British monarchy and forefathers did exactly the same thing 190 years ago.... Port Arthur.

Plus;We're already doing It with Refugees..

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Well, whether the driver of the Porsche was speeding or not, or if it was just a routine pullover, he is still guilty of a crime.

Yes, and that was being dealt with, albeit, in a rather dangerous situation.

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

His car was involved in an accident, being crushed under the truck.

Yes, but he wasn’t involved.

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

It is an offence to leave the scene of a motor accident, especially were people are injured or killed, and not try to render assistance.

Just putting it out there.
This applies to the “driver” of a vehicle. The term “driver” means that he must be in control of the vehicle IE: sitting in the driver’s seat with the keys in the ignition. As Mr Pusey was away from the vehicle as it was parked, he’s not legally in control of it.

It’s all in here.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/leg...86125/s61.html

As the vehicle was being impounded, after the required details are completed, Mr Pusey is not required to remain in attendance.
So…
Was he under arrest?
Was he told that he could not leave?
How do you render assistance to someone who is dead?
How do you render assistance to someone who is half underneath a truck?
The legal definition of assistance is subjective. Calling 000 is rendering assistance. Asking another person to call 000 is also rendering assistance.
The video from the scene immediately after shows another person assisting the female member. Mr Pusey standing beside him blocking the sunlight could be deemed rendering assistance. How can you render assistance if you have no medical training?

These are some of the things that will no doubt be brought up in court.
The police have to be very careful with the investigation into this. The usual BS and lies they add to make someone appear guilty or “more” guilty will not apply in this case as it will be one on the most thorough and high profile in Victoria’s history.

The Chief Commissioner has already made some huge errors of judgement with his media appearances. Mr Pusey’s lawyer will already be rubbing his hands together with the “balanced” reporting *sarcasm* that his client has been receiving in the mainstream media casting a serous doubt of the possibility of a fair trial.

Unfortunately, many views on all forms of social media are that of emotion over logic. Regardless of people’s views toward My Pusey, he has the same rights under the law that everyone else has, regardless of his personality.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by M&Ms

As someone who does RCA's as part of my job, no he is not the root cause. Without all the facts, the root cause may be the laws that are in place forcing drivers to drastically wipe 60% of their speed in a short period of time, without consideration of differing braking capabilities of the different vehicles on the road. The other cause may be the unsafe manner in which all parties were parked on the side of the motorway.

Totally non-related to this case, however, would you argue the same IF we were talking about the law called MURDER, would you blame the law then? I am guessing not - just sayin'

[GO FURTHER]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Just putting it out there.
This applies to the “driver” of a vehicle. The term “driver” means that he must be in control of the vehicle IE: sitting in the driver’s seat with the keys in the ignition. As Mr Pusey was away from the vehicle as it was parked, he’s not legally in control of it.

This is not entirely true.

For example... You leave your car parked on a highway, but forget to engage the handbrake and put it in Park or in gear.

You walk away from your vehicle, and your car starts to roll down the road.

Your car then hits another car, injures or kills another person or damages property.

(This is defined in the Road Safety Act 1986 - Sect 61, subsection (2) )

Your obligations as the last driver of the vehicle remains.
You must still render assistance, exchange names & addresses, etc, as defined under the Road Safety Act 1986 - Sect 61, subsection (1).

Now, in Mr Pusey's case, his parked car did not move "of its own accord" (as defined by subsection (2)), but was only "moved" and not of its own accord and involved in the accident when hit by the truck.

Also if Mr Pusey's car had been officially impounded before being hit by the truck, then one could assume that his car is no longer under his control, and under the control of the attending police or the state.

So this opens up a legal minefield and puts a lot of the legalities in Mr Pusey's favour.

Not related to the above case, but in terms of being in control of a vehicle, sitting in the driver's seat with the keys, I put the following scenario to my nephew, who is a Police officer in the Victorian Highway Patrol...

"If I had been drinking, got into my parked car outside my house with the car keys on my person, and went to sleep, then you drove past and noticed me in the car".

"You then pulled over (thinking it was suspicious), started to question me, noticed (alcohol on my breath) and gave me a breath test, which read that I was over the legal limit".

I then said to you, "I was sleeping it off in my parked car, having had a little to much to drink".

Now the question would be... "Would you charge me with being over the legal alcohol limit, in charge of a motor vehicle, and disregarding the fact that I was related to you".

Surprisingly, he said, "No".

He said, "A police officer has to also consider what is called 'intent' to evaluate if an offence has been committed".

He said, "In this case your 'intent' was not to drive the car, but instead to go to sleep". Since there was no intent to drive your car while intoxicated, I would not charge you". He said, it very much depends on "what your intent was to do next" in evaluating a possible offence or crime.

[vbvbvb088]

Originally Posted by Polyal

How the hell did the dash cam footage get released! No one other than the investigators have the right to be viewing that at the moment.

RIP to the officers.

Trying no to jump to conclusions but why would the bloke run if he owned the car. And what kind of person runs when 4 others have just been mowed down in front of them.

The footage was on news.com.au. It is about a month old but is same car. Can not be determined who was driving. Note what lane it is in. His lovely wifes home has been shown on TV as it was vandalised. Snowflakes chance in hell would I be living there....

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

This is not entirely true.

For example... You leave your car parked on a highway, but forget to engage the handbrake and put it in Park or in gear.

You walk away from your vehicle, and your car starts to roll down the road.

Your car then hits another car, injures or kills another person or damages property.

(This is defined in the Road Safety Act 1986 - Sect 61, subsection (2) )

Your obligations as the last driver of the vehicle remains.
You must still render assistance, exchange names & addresses, etc, as defined under the Road Safety Act 1986 - Sect 61, subsection (1).

Now, in Mr Pusey's case, his parked car did not move "of its own accord" (as defined by subsection (2)), but was only "moved" and not of its own accord and involved in the accident when hit by the truck.

Also if Mr Pusey's car had been officially impounded before being hit by the truck, then one could assume that his car is no longer under his control, and under the control of the attending police or the state.

So this opens up a legal minefield and puts a lot of the legalities in Mr Pusey's favour..

I totally get where you’re coming from but the understanding I have is that because the vehicle is being impounded, he has legally lost possession of it, so it will be a technical legal argument to where the liability of Mr Pusey ends.

A hypothetical to this would be if the vehicle was being winched into the tow truck, broke free and killed an officer. As the last driver, he couldn’t possibly be held responsible for the officer’s death.

The police have added a charge of failing to provide details. This is quite interesting as he would have provided all of his details when intercepted. The police could claim that after the “accident” he should have provided those details again, this will no doubt be argued in court.

There’s no doubt that Mr Pusey will have a very good legal defence, therefore, the police must ensure that the charges laid, are appropriate and not just the “burger with the lot” that they usually hand out in such cases.
I have no doubt that the police will charge Mr Pusey with everything they can, including Covid 19 restrictions and public urination.

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Not related to the above case, snip snip.

Here you have described a very good example of police discretion. The thing that’s not in any statute book is what’s known as the “attitude test”. There’s no doubt that Mr Pusey would fail this test.

[ratter]

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Not related to the above case, but in terms of being in control of a vehicle, sitting in the driver's seat with the keys, I put the following scenario to my nephew, who is a Police officer in the Victorian Highway Patrol...

"If I had been drinking, got into my parked car outside my house with the car keys on my person, and went to sleep, then you drove past and noticed me in the car".

"You then pulled over (thinking it was suspicious), started to question me, noticed (alcohol on my breath) and gave me a breath test, which read that I was over the legal limit".

I then said to you, "I was sleeping it off in my parked car, having had a little to much to drink".

Now the question would be... "Would you charge me with being over the legal alcohol limit, in charge of a motor vehicle, and disregarding the fact that I was related to you".

Surprisingly, he said, "No".

He said, "A police officer has to also consider what is called 'intent' to evaluate if an offence has been committed".

He said, "In this case your 'intent' was not to drive the car, but instead to go to sleep". Since there was no intent to drive your car while intoxicated, I would not charge you". He said, it very much depends on "what your intent was to do next" in evaluating a possible offence or crime.

Although years ago, I worked with a guy that got done in a similar situation, he was asleep in the back if the car in the work car park, but had the car running to get some heat from the heater.
He lost his license for quite a while

[M&Ms]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Totally non-related to this case, however, would you argue the same IF we were talking about the law called MURDER, would you blame the law then? I am guessing not - just sayin'

Murder carries behind it an intentional act, completely different.

If an airplane falls out of the sky after being struck by lightning, do you blame the lightning as the Root Cause? Or is whatever weakness in the plane's system that caused it to come down the Root Cause? Or is it the flying through a lightning storm that could have been avoided the Root Cause? Think about it, and think of the similarities here...

[GO FURTHER]

Here's an interesting question...

Will Mr Pusey be able to claim on his insurance for the damage to his Porsche?

or can Mr Pusey claim the cost of damages (or car if written off) from the Truck driver that caused the accident and was technically at fault?

I understand that if it is proven that you were driving your car under the influence of drugs, over the legal alcohol limit, or breaking the road rules (such as speeding), then your insurance company won't pay out.

And if the truck driver was proven to be driving illegally (alleged drugs), then his insurance company won't pay out either.

But in Mr Pusey's case...

1. He was not driving the car when the accident actually happened.

2. He was no longer (allegedly) in control or possession of the car, since it may have been impounded beforehand.

Interesting situation.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Here's an interesting question...

Will Mr Pusey be able to claim on his insurance for the damage to his Porsche

or can Mr Pusey claim the cost of damages (or car if written off) from the Truck driver that caused the accident and was technically at fault?

I understand that if it is proven that you were driving your car under the influence of drugs, over the legal alcohol limit, or breaking the road rules (such as speeding), then your insurance company won't pay out.

But in Mr Pusey's case...

1. He was not driving the car when the accident actually happened.

2. He was no longer (allegedly) in control or possession of the car, since it may have been impounded beforehand.

Interesting situation.

Yes, absolutely, he didn't crash it, and it was a totally unforeseen set of circumstances. As he had not driven the vehicle while “knowingly” being affected by a substance. It would be different if he crashed the vehicle himself or tried to drive the vehicle after a positive result from the roadside drug test, however, the police wouldn’t allow that. There’s no .05 “so to speak” with a drug test, you’re either positive or not. We had a rep from Shannon’s insurance give a talk at a club meeting many years ago where a lady had damaged her vehicle and it was unregistered. There was no TAC insurance, however, it was argued that her policy was not effected simply because her registration had lapsed, so Shannon’s had to honor the claim.
So insurance rules and the law are a little different and somewhat contradictory at times.

Mr Pusey’s insurance will go the owner of the truck and they will be successful.

Mr Pusey did not contribute to the crash as he followed a lawful direction from the police to pull over. It’s up to the police to pull the vehicle over in a safe place, not for Mr Pusey to keep driving to what “he” thinks is a safe place.

I genuinely believe that police procedures will change because of this as a greater spotlight will be cast on the dangers of roadside interceptions and more importantly, those interceptions that could otherwise be done elsewhere. There was absolutely nothing preventing the officers involved from directing Mr Pusey to exit the Eastern Freeway at the Chandler Highway exit to continue their impound procedure and drug test there. Even after a positive roadside oral fluid test, any of the police members present could have driven the vehicle to a safer location as they do with vehicles when someone tests over the BAC at a booze bus location.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

I genuinely believe that police procedures will change because of this as a greater spotlight will be cast on the dangers of roadside interceptions and more importantly, those interceptions that could otherwise be done elsewhere. There was absolutely nothing preventing the officers involved from directing Mr Pusey to exit the Eastern Freeway at the Chandler Highway exit to continue their impound procedure and drug test there. Even after a positive roadside oral fluid test, any of the police members present could have driven the vehicle to a safer location as they do with vehicles when someone tests over the BAC at a booze bus location.

Not Victoria, but on Friday afternoon I saw Police pull over a car on a multi lane rd, officer got out, walked up to the drivers window and motioned for him to drive around the corner to continue the discussion.
Both cars moved to the side road.
I immediately thought of this tragedy and how it may be changing procedure.

[EBSXR6]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Not Victoria, but on Friday afternoon I saw Police pull over a car on a multi lane rd, officer got out, walked up to the drivers window and motioned for him to drive around the corner to continue the discussion.
Both cars moved to the side road.
I immediately thought of this tragedy and how it may be changing procedure.

A guy at work got pulled over earlier this year, he pulled over a bit further up the road as he wanted to be in a safer area and the Policeman gave him this big lecture about pulling over straight away, you cannot win with some people.

There was a story I don't know if it is an urban myth a driver was booked for speeding in Beverage Drive Tullamarine Melbourne, the driver recorded all the interaction on his Phone after the Policeman had issued the fine and returned to the Police car the driver got out of his car and approached the Policecar, the driver produced ID a Work Cover Inspector and armed with video evdence he alleged the Poiliceman was not wearing his Hi Viz vest.
He issued the Policeman with a Work Cover infringement notice which was several multiples of the Speeding Fine.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by EBSXR6

A guy at work got pulled over earlier this year, he pulled over a bit further up the road as he wanted to be in a safer area and the copper gave him this big lecture about pulling over straight away, you cannot win with some people.

The Eastern Freeway example will counter any argument of that nature in future, you can bet your bottom dollar.

The more analysis of this incident that comes to light, the less severe the consequences for Mr Pusey did seem likely. The fact the Police didn't like what Pusey did post accident is perhaps poor form, but not sure if he broke any laws. That Pusey went to VicPol with a barrister suggests he's not stupid and well cashed up.

[jgmdat]

I just hope when Kharma catches up to this Pusey creature she has had a c#*t of a day.

[prktkljokr]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

We had a rep from Shannon’s insurance give a talk at a club meeting many years ago where a lady had damaged her vehicle and it was unregistered. There was no TAC insurance, however, it was argued that her policy was not effected simply because her registration had lapsed, so Shannon’s had to honor the claim.
So insurance rules and the law are a little different and somewhat contradictory at times.

In my towing career saw this happen on many multiple occasions, when I asked an assessor from SGIO why, I was told that they insure the vehicle, the policy is current and the registration state of the vehicle is a police matter, he said its like insuring your house and not paying your rates, its none of their business.

I was also told that the roadworthy condition of a vehicle is none of their business even if it contributed to the accident, but when it comes to the repair if they decide to do so, the faulty item that caused the accident is the owners responsibility to rectify as they will not cover wear and tear.

I have even seen company cars crashed by their drunk drivers only to have the insurance company go through with the claims?, turns out as the driver is not the owner, the insurance on the car still stands, im sure the insurance company will chase the driver for the costs .

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by EBSXR6

There was a story I don't know if it is an urban myth a driver was booked for speeding in Beverage Drive Tullamarine Melbourne, the driver recorded all the interaction on his Phone after the Policeman had issued the fine and returned to the Police car the driver got out of his car and approached the Policecar, the driver produced ID a Work Cover Inspector and armed with video evdence he alleged the Poiliceman was not wearing his Hi Viz vest.
He issued the Policeman with a Work Cover infringement notice which was several multiples of the Speeding Fine.

It was about time for the police and the hi-vis vest story to come out in this thread

There's all sorts of variants of that story, I reckon it's an urban myth.

Worksafe don't hand out fines, they can give improvement notices and stop work orders, it goes through court if they're going to go for contravention of the act that involve fines and they're on companies rather than individuals.

[Franco Cozzo]

Mohinder charged with 4x counts of culpable driving causing death.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecri...0bb7f65b927905

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Not Victoria, but on Friday afternoon I saw Police pull over a car on a multi lane rd, officer got out, walked up to the drivers window and motioned for him to drive around the corner to continue the discussion.
Both cars moved to the side road.
I immediately thought of this tragedy and how it may be changing procedure.

Nice in theory but as you know it depends on who they are puling over, some muppets pull over in the middle of the freeway

[efirestorer]

Please Mr or M/s Coroner , do NOT recommend that Police direct offending drivers off the freeway to a "safe "side street/ exit ramp , idiots will then exit at high speed on to our suburban streets with the enhanced risk of causing this type of mayhem. Much , much better to have a new offence created of driving in an emergency lane if not so directed by an authorised emergency person. Appropriate extremely high penalties should follow , eg this truck driver or any hoon passing slower traffic by using the emergency lane as one to use to pass slow traffic in all lanes would be barred for life with a mandatory gaol sentence / heavy fine..

[hayseed]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Mohinder charged with 4x counts of culpable driving causing death.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecri...0bb7f65b927905

Interesting that's There's NO Drug Charges..!!

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by hayseed

Interesting that's There's NO Drug Charges..!!

Guess the Police case just got a whole lot weaker. Let's see how good Bajwa's lawyer is, perhaps he should use the barrister Pusey has engaged.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by hayseed

Interesting that's There's NO Drug Charges..!!

It is interesting, however, they can be added later. I will say that the media’s reporting of this case has been nothing short of disgraceful, but I don’t really have a lot of faith in the (trial by) media.

There’s a elephant in the room and it’s plainly obvious to see.

[prktkljokr]

Also it could be that the drug paraphernalia was not his and he had no drug traces in his system when tested, the truck could be a shared company truck and he might be just one of 2 or 3 drivers that use it?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by prktkljokr

Also it could be that the drug paraphernalia was not his and he had no drug traces in his system when tested, the truck could be a shared company truck and he might be just one of 2 or 3 drivers that use it?

As it was only a local prime mover there's a good chance a number of drivers were using it.

If the drug stuff turns out to be his, throw the book at him.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by prktkljokr

Also it could be that the drug paraphernalia was not his and he had no drug traces in his system when tested, the truck could be a shared company truck and he might be just one of 2 or 3 drivers that use it?

If a crack pipe was found, it must be established that it (A) belongs to the truck driver (B) he was using it (C) if he had no knowledge of it, who's was it? (D) was it planted either at the scene or at another location by an unknown person?
If it is found to belong to the truck driver and he was under the influence, the full weight of the law sound be used, not only on him but to set an example to those who may be doing the same thing.

To throw some perspective on this, I had a Limo 25 years ago. I was pulled up one night for a random licence check, everything was fine. Soon after, one of the people who was sitting in the back started freaking out because he was having difficulty retrieving a bag that had a white powder substance in it that he shoved down the back seat. If the police searched the vehicle and found it, would he admit that it belongs to him? After all, he did shove it down the back of the seat so he could deny all knowledge of it. If I was to be questioned, I would deny all knowledge of it as well. These days with trial my media, I would automatically be assumed guilty in the court of public opinion because of (A) drug or drug paraphernalia was found and (B) I denied all knowledge of it.

That's why it's a good idea to only rely on the facts that are known and to wait until the investigation is complete. Mainstream media is not capable of doing this.

[ford71V8]

He went from the truck to a hospital bed - if there were drugs in his system, it would have been identified and the police would know and charge accordingly.




Its not new, and its been annoying me for a while now, but geez I'm fed up with news reporters and news articles referring to the police is Cops or Coppers.
Even right now with this tragedy, you would think they would up the levels of respect and use the words Officer or Police, but no....


Herald Sun headline:

Truck driver Mohinder Singh faces court over Kew crash that killed four cops

[prktkljokr]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

If a crack pipe was found, it must be established that it (A) belongs to the truck driver (B) he was using it (C) if he had no knowledge of it, who's was it? (D) was it planted either at the scene or at another location by an unknown person?
If it is found to belong to the truck driver and he was under the influence, the full weight of the law sound be used, not only on him but to set an example to those who may be doing the same thing.

To throw some perspective on this, I had a Limo 25 years ago. I was pulled up one night for a random licence check, everything was fine. Soon after, one of the people who was sitting in the back started freaking out because he was having difficulty retrieving a bag that had a white powder substance in it that he shoved down the back seat. If the police searched the vehicle and found it, would he admit that it belongs to him? After all, he did shove it down the back of the seat so he could deny all knowledge of it. If I was to be questioned, I would deny all knowledge of it as well. These days with trial my media, I would automatically be assumed guilty in the court of public opinion because of (A) drug or drug paraphernalia was found and (B) I denied all knowledge of it.

That's why it's a good idea to only rely on the facts that are known and to wait until the investigation is complete. Mainstream media is not capable of doing this.

They said it was drug paraphernalia, this could mean anything drug related, pipe, bong, scales, little baggies, joint, pills anything, it could be anyone's.

"Drug paraphernalia" is a term, to denote any equipment, product or accessory that is intended or modified for making, using, or concealing drugs, typically for recreational purposes. Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are related to a wide range of paraphernalia. Paraphernalia generally falls into two categories: user-specific products and dealer-specific products

Not defending the driver, but we dont know what happened in the lead up to this guy running over 4 cops the poor bloke could have been avoiding another accident in front of him and just chose to swerve the wrong way not seeing the cops there, there could have been another truck blocking his view, at this stage its all speculation and I am sure it will all come out in due course.

Just because they have charged the guy does not mean the guy is guilty of what he is charged, once all the evidence has been analysed, the charges could be down graded or upgraded depending on the findings, they just have to charge him with something to hold him accountable for his actions on the day.

Driving a truck for many years I know its not easy pulling up a fully loaded truck in the space a car driver thinks you can .

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by hayseed

Interesting that's There's NO Drug Charges..!!

Not yet, they will have to finish their investigation.
These 4 charges are just to hold him in custody so they can complete the investigation.
He would have also had blood sample taken in hospital at the time, common practice, with or without consent.
He's only just been released from hospital, unable to do an interview there, so now he's out they can finish questioning him.
Will be a few days if not weeks yet before it's all tied up in a bow for DPP.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by ford71V8

He went from the truck to a hospital bed - if there were drugs in his system, it would have been identified and the police would know and charge accordingly.




Its not new, and its been annoying me for a while now, but geez I'm fed up with news reporters and news articles referring to the police is Cops or Coppers.
Even right now with this tragedy, you would think they would up the levels of respect and use the words Officer or Police, but no....


Herald Sun headline:

Truck driver Mohinder Singh faces court over Kew crash that killed four cops

Lowest common denominator, dumb people writing stories for other dumb people.

Yes the reporting has been disgraceful and disrespectful to several involved 👎