dangerous and culpable driving

Hi,

Whats the legal difference between dangerous driving and culpable driving ??

Cheers

BB

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:45:34 +1100

I believe that in NSW there isn't an offence of culpable driving
anymore, it was replaced by an upgraded dangerous driving.

Zebee

 

Correct. The law varies in every state. If the OP was asking in respect
of the Thomas Towle case in Mildura (where, driving dangerously, he
killed six teenagers) then the difference in principle is that a driver
is culpable if, while driving dangerously, they cause death, whereas
dangerous driving means driving in a negligent or wilful manner that
might lead to loss, injury or death but, at the time of the offence, had
not actually resulted in death.

Culpable driving is usually much harder to prove; the Thomas Towle case
sounds like a plea bargain.

 

Culpable driving is where you cause a death by knowingly driving dangerously
such as in a drag race or hooning or even speeding
You can drive dangerously without causing death
Just because his son was on his knee doesn't mean he was driving dangerously, just
being an idiot
Watch for the next episodes of law suits claiming damages for loss of life

 

Basically means you can drive like a fuckwit with kid on ya lap,
probably pissed, flat out, plow into a pack of kids, and its all ok.

 

You can drive dangerously without committing any other offence; for
example, cornering at 60 km/h in a 60 km/h zone isn't an offence but it
may be dangerous driving.

Whether his son was on his knee or in the lawful booster seat in the
rear is irrelevant. Towle drove into a group of teenagers and killed six
of them; that's dangerous driving even if the teenagers were in the
middle of the road. Elevating it to culpable driving requires proof that
he knew his actions were dangerous and recklessly disregarded that
knowledge. That was the bit the DPP didn't want to try and prove because
there wasn't enough (or any) evidence.

Sadly, the idiot (Towle) has already started breeding.

 

No, it's not OK, but for some reason it's more OK than killing them
with a knife or a gun, I still don't get why although Moike seemed to
be able to muster an argument on this one last time it went 'round.

JL

 

No, it's not OK, but for some reason it's more OK than killing them with a knife or a gun, I still don't get why

Neither do I... Maybe the ACB was in charge.

 

Well, being of a rather simplistic nature, for me the issue cut and
dried. The dictionary meaning of the word 'culpable' is
'blameworthy'. i.e worthy of blame.

Now...

Did his driving cause the death of six teenagers? It seems to me that
it did.

Was his driving to blame? It seems to me that it was.

Ergo, His driving was worthy of blame for the death of six teenagers.

Ergo. He was guilty of culpable driving occasioning six deaths.

There'll be no more crap when I become Dictator Of Australia... Plea
bargains will only be sanctioned in cases where a guilty bastard is
likely to walk free, which in this case, was highly unlikely.


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Actually I suspect that it was always pretty likely that he was going to
get off the more serious charge.

Nb... I'm not saying that is either good or bad, just that it was always
going to be hard to get that conviction.


G-S

 

This is why I believe a charge of vehicular manslaughter makes sense
(and a couple of other charges that fill the gaps).

It's easier to get a conviction on an exact charge than stretching
another one out of shape and trying to make it fit.


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:17:12 -0700 (PDT)

Intent really.

If you are using a knife to do a job a knife is for, say skinning a
roo, and you are a bit wild, someone's standing nearby, you stab them
because you aren't that good at what you are doing, that's not the
same as deciding to have a go at them.

Sure - if you have it in your hand you shouldn't be wild, and you
should be careful if there are people around, you definitely have
responsibility for what happened.

But not the same amount as you would have if you had been waving it
about sans roo, or waving it about to intimidate, or been otherwise
focusing on hurting someone or grandstanding about how tough you are.
Rather than being a crap rooskinner.

Zebee

 

specially with our piss weak legal system.

 

That's what puzzles me. How can anyone, given the reported facts, be
seen to be NOT guilty of culpable driving causing death?

I just don't get that.


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

I beg to differ, Zebee.

I don't think proving intent is relevant to the issue of culpability
(if culpability means blameworthiness, and if not, then i'd like to
know what they are having 'culpability' mean.)

I short, one can be blameworthy of causing a death without necessarily
having had an intent to casue that death. In fact I would say that
proving intent only becomes relevant if the charge is murder.

What say my learned collegues?

Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Culpable driving in the legal sense doesn't mean what it means in the
general english language sense is all.


G-S

 

Proving culpable driving requires intent (not the same intent as murder,
more like the intent required for manslaughter).

I still reckon vehicular manslaughter should be brought in a charge in
Victoria, makes more sense.


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:20:33 +1100

They mean intent. THis is legal, not literal.

Culpable is about a level of responsibility. Not responsibility per
se.

Zebee

 

OK then, call me stupid, but please tell me what culpable DOES mean in
the 'legal sense', Geoff. (Excuse me if I've missed such a definition
previously in this thread.)


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

I still beg to differ.

Read
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s29.html


and
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/14/1071336811784.html

e.g.

"The State Government is considering a new criminal charge of
dangerous driving causing death because of difficulties prosecuting
the more serious charge of culpable driving.

Department of Justice officials are preparing a discussion paper on
the new offence, which will not include the elements of drunkenness,
gross negligence or recklessness needed to secure a conviction for
culpable driving.

Drivers guilty of lesser lapses leading to road fatalities, such as
falling asleep at the wheel or failing to give way, could face the new
offence."

- - - - - - - -

In this detailed article on culpable driving, nowhere does the word
"intent" appear.

- - - - - - -

In fact, I did a search for definitions of culpable driving and found
no mention anywhere of the word intent in the way you present it.

So, Zebee, could you perhaps be so kind as to direct me to some
reputable reference where culpable driving is linked to intent?

Much appreciated...


Onya bike...

Gerry