dangerous and culpable driving

Discussion in 'Australian Motorcycles' started by Big Bird, Mar 10, 2008.

  1. Big Bird

    Big Bird Guest

    Hi,

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

    Cheers

    BB
     
    Big Bird, Mar 10, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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
     
    Zebee Johnstone, Mar 10, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
     
    Andrew McKenna, Mar 10, 2008
    #3
  4. 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
     
    George W Frost, Mar 10, 2008
    #4
  5. Big Bird

    Biggus :) Guest

    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.
     
    Biggus :), Mar 10, 2008
    #5
  6. 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.
     
    Andrew McKenna, Mar 10, 2008
    #6
  7. Big Bird

    JL Guest

    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
     
    JL, Mar 10, 2008
    #7
  8. Big Bird

    Biggus :) Guest

    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.
     
    Biggus :), Mar 10, 2008
    #8
  9. Big Bird

    Diogenes Guest


    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
     
    Diogenes, Mar 10, 2008
    #9
  10. Big Bird

    G-S Guest

    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
     
    G-S, Mar 10, 2008
    #10
  11. Big Bird

    G-S Guest

    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
     
    G-S, Mar 10, 2008
    #11
  12. 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
     
    Zebee Johnstone, Mar 10, 2008
    #12
  13. Big Bird

    Biggus :) Guest

    specially with our piss weak legal system.
     
    Biggus :), Mar 10, 2008
    #13
  14. Big Bird

    Diogenes Guest

    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
     
    Diogenes, Mar 10, 2008
    #14
  15. Big Bird

    Diogenes Guest

    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
     
    Diogenes, Mar 10, 2008
    #15
  16. Big Bird

    G-S Guest

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


    G-S
     
    G-S, Mar 10, 2008
    #16
  17. Big Bird

    G-S Guest

    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
     
    G-S, Mar 10, 2008
    #17
  18. 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
     
    Zebee Johnstone, Mar 10, 2008
    #18
  19. Big Bird

    Diogenes Guest

    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
     
    Diogenes, Mar 10, 2008
    #19
  20. Big Bird

    Diogenes Guest

    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
     
    Diogenes, Mar 10, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.