Wife Cops Neg Driving Charge.....

[Guest FatBAt]

Oh settle down there on your first paragraph!

And dont bother with the statement from the off duty sarge. I agree its unlikely to be a conflict of interest but he is likely to have other higher obligations to his position. If your desperate for his evidence, just issue a subpoena instead.

And theres only one bloke in Sydney I would ever want to represent me on a traffic matter, and I cant remember his damn name. His based in North Sydney and is well known for a number of succesfull matters against speed cameras and the RTA. Which is also likely to make him expansive.

Way it up, whats neg drive - about $300 vs principle???

I don't want to get into a slinging match here Bionic but you subpoena the very person that MAY be on your side and it's a certainty that he won't be for very long. Best thing to do is ask him first before you tell him to get his arse in court because that is what a subpoena is telling him to do.

Sure thing he may give evidence and tell the truth. (BUT) You p!ss him off, and he isn't going to be very helpfull. It's called being diplomatic.

Cheers

[RegSpec]

This is Mrs. Bionic, aka Loretta.

Today was judgement day – the day I had to go to court for the accident that destroyed our XR8 on 10 Dec 2006. I got a no conviction recorded and a 12 month good behaviour bond. (still not exactly sure whether this is just for traffic ‘bad’ , criminal ‘bad ‘ or both??) My good samaritan sargent didn't follow through with his promise to stand up for me (only an apologetic smile as he left the witness box) and the senior constable from Bowral continued the tradition of losing papers (remember Paul Onions)- and had conveniently mislaid the notes Reg saw the sargent give her. The magistrate was a car enthusiast and used his personal experience to arrive at his decision.(Yes he stated this!!) He maintained that he had travelled at 130 mph down the straight at Eastern Creek and had never aquaplaned (didn’t qualify if it was wet or dry). He also stated that the XR8 was a high performance vehicle with a significant amount of high technology and could not aquaplane unless you are accelerating or decelerating??. He stated that he found it hard to believe that I had an exemplary traffic record (I did have a speeding fine of less that 15km 2 days earlier by radar so I didn’t know about it at the time of the accident) and went on to qualify that statement with ‘but then again there are old people who drive everywhere at 30 kph and have accidents happening all over the place behind them and consider themselves safe drivers’ All in all it was an OK result but the inference was that women (or just this woman) do not have the ability to handle a high performance car. My solicitor did say that it was illegal to have used his personal experience to reach his judgement and that we could appeal the decision BUT the cost would not be worth the points scoring. It just cost 2 grand to have no conviction recorded so I guess in terms of insurance etc it will eventually pan out. It's not sour grapes but the attending police officers only gave the situation a cursory glance - the constable didn't even get the place of the accident right on the photos taken at the scene.

[TOM1111]

I thought the whole cruise contol and aquaplaning thing was a myth

[chooch]

save your dosh......spend it on mods.

[ZAP]

I would have smacked your solicitor around the head for not questioning the "illegal" testomony. Also the cop making statements about aquaplaining should have been questioned and then discredited.

I would say that it sounds like your legal team lost the decision. Atleast you will not suffer from a conviction.

[Kimberley Scott]

Loretta not only did you damage your T (sorry XR8) , have your driving and insurance put in jepordy, but you also suffrered what sounds like a rant from someone that does not have an understanding what actually happened.

I do not believe that cruise control caused the aquaplane, nor do I believ that what happened was a s e result of negligent driving (driving to fast for conditions maybe, but not negligent).

My understanding of aquaplanning is that the wheels cannot disperse the water underneath the tyres quickly enough, causing them to float on top of the water causing lossof tration if rerar wheels or loss of steering if front wheels. It has nothing to do with accelerating and I would suggest decelerating would make it harder to aquaplane as more pressure is forcing the front tyres harder to the road surface.

At the end of the daty my comiserations firstly for the accident, and secondly for what appears to be a farcical decisions using the correct legal channels.

Scotty

Edited 16/04/08 11:52 AM by Kimberley Scott

[turbotrana]

I aquaplaned once at 60kph, just cruising and going over a thin film of water crossing the road (tyres just legal), very close to hitting head on traffic.

From that day onwards I make sure the family cars have high quality tyres with decent tread.

[Iconic Bionic]

This is Mrs. Bionic, aka Loretta.

Today was judgement day – the day I had to go to court for the accident that destroyed our XR8 on 10 Dec 2006. I got a no conviction recorded and a 12 month good behaviour bond. (still not exactly sure whether this is just for traffic ‘bad’ , criminal ‘bad ‘ or both??) My good samaritan sargent didn't follow through with his promise to stand up for me (only an apologetic smile as he left the witness box) and the senior constable from Bowral continued the tradition of losing papers (remember Paul Onions)- and had conveniently mislaid the notes Reg saw the sargent give her. The magistrate was a car enthusiast and used his personal experience to arrive at his decision.(Yes he stated this!!) He maintained that he had travelled at 130 mph down the straight at Eastern Creek and had never aquaplaned (didn’t qualify if it was wet or dry). He also stated that the XR8 was a high performance vehicle with a significant amount of high technology and could not aquaplane unless you are accelerating or decelerating??. He stated that he found it hard to believe that I had an exemplary traffic record (I did have a speeding fine of less that 15km 2 days earlier by radar so I didn’t know about it at the time of the accident) and went on to qualify that statement with ‘but then again there are old people who drive everywhere at 30 kph and have accidents happening all over the place behind them and consider themselves safe drivers’ All in all it was an OK result but the inference was that women (or just this woman) do not have the ability to handle a high performance car. My solicitor did say that it was illegal to have used his personal experience to reach his judgement and that we could appeal the decision BUT the cost would not be worth the points scoring. It just cost 2 grand to have no conviction recorded so I guess in terms of insurance etc it will eventually pan out. It's not sour grapes but the attending police officers only gave the situation a cursory glance - the constable didn't even get the place of the accident right on the photos taken at the scene.

Are the transcripts available?. I am enormously surpirsed at the justices comments. I cant help but thinking that your efforts at disputing the matter have been in vain, as you have been found guilty of the offence and placed on a bond, where you may have well been entitled to a dismissal with a warning given if you chose not to contest the matter.

I.B.