He got off lightly if you ask me. Should of also made him do community service with the coastgaurd aswell. >
He got off lightly if you ask me. Should of also made him do community service with the coastgaurd aswell. >
planning the next onslaught 6.5m Profish
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The boat dealer might not have had anything to do with it. he said on the news not long afterwards that he was going to sue BCF who sold him the jackets because they gave him the wrong advice on what type to get...
Mate, my first conviction was for wilful damage. I argued that when I threw the stone, I was not aware that it would hit the street lamp and then go through someone's bedroom window (who just happened to be a copper)Originally Posted by lunar_c
. The law argued that I *should have* been aware.
If someone throws a punch in a brawl and that punch results in someone's death, the defendant would argue, "M'lud, I didn't think that "might" happen" Then it could be argued that this was a situation where the defendant should have identified that it *might* occur.
This is *precisely* why bom states that wind "might* increase by 40%. The guy must have been aware of that and therfore had a consequence (in law) for underestimating his actions. It wasn't a "might" that the wind would increase as the day drew on it was almost a racing certainty as we all well know. The seas "might" increase and he *may* have to use more petrol. He didn't allow for that and is therefore guilty of putting his kids at risks.
Life is full of "mights" and "what ifs" and if we don't allow for them we are doomed. The drunk driver thinks he *might* get home without being breathalysed and that one "might" that he took it upon himself to "go for" then results in a death. Some could argue that that wasn't a might but in many cases a racing certainty. How many drunk drivers have been caught before.? They're the guys that place absolutely no store by "mights" and fail to see that often "mights" become inevitabilities. They're gamblers by nature and unfortunately, gamblers, just as drug addicts do, take others down with them
kev
A good way to change somebody's attitude is to change your own.
And there we have it mate.........."Thinking ther are fine" They shouldn't thin, they should *know*
Come on, let's get real here, When we buy a car we don't expect a salesman to tell us how to fasten our seat belts ar even the legalities of fastening 'em.
I'll say it for the last time because it is so bllody annoying to me (due in part to my own baggage) to hear what is inferred here. "It is no-one's responsibility for *my* kid's safety other than my own. This delegating of resposibility that is so prevelant nowadays is ruining tha fabric of our society. *WE* owe it to our kids and society at large to take responsibility, take blame and admit fault in *all* things rlevant to family matters. It's not the school's fault......It's not the media's fault.......it's not peer pressure that's at fault........it's not even the fault of the ridiculous political corretness that blights our society. All those make positive parenting nigh on impossible but we don't just give up and hope someone else will put us right. Responsibility lies first and foremost in the hands of the parents and it is *their* responsibilty to *ensure* that they know to the best of their ability and not just *think" they know.
I came clean on the vest issue.......bricks are useless in my opinion. where kids are concerned. I admitted that my kids were at risk.......they "might" have been safe, but "might" isn't good enough (for me). I owe it to them to *know*.......I owe a boat salesman nothing and he owes me nothing. It is *not* his responsibilty it is mine. Even if legislation stated that he had a legal obligation to advise me, I would still seek, through all avenues possible, as to what is best for my kid's safety. My responsibility and mine only, which is why I don't get out as often as most because I *do* take account of that 40% and I *do* think about the "mights"
I hope I'm not sounding too eavy here and I don't want anybody reading things between the lines that aren't there or see me as preaching, This is about boating and within that "framework" how we all (as individuals) see our resposibilities. I am just stating mine, and no doubt, at sometime in the future, I will fail, as I have in the past. I am just saying that at least I try to see all eventualities and don't leave that responsibilty to others........or blame them
kev
A good exercise for the heart is to bend down and help another up.
Kev - you are right.
But if you throw a punch and no one dies you are not guilty of murder.
The difference between 15kn and 28kn is alot more than 40%.
Does anyone know their precise fuel consumption in all possible sea states?
Particularly in conditions that you have never experienced in a particular vessel?
I would like to know how everyone calculates their reserve fuel and what conditions they plan for as a "worse case".
I doubt very many jackets are suitable either.
Look at the label - it will say "not suitable for rough conditions" or similar.
Why would anyone cross Moreton Bay with one?
Everyone has assumed a lot about this guys character and decided they don't like the "cut of his jib".
The only relevant thing is how he prepares for his next trip.
But between a conviction and community services it looks like his kids won't be going fishing for a while.
Ben
he should just buy a bigger boat if he wants to take kids in the bays open waters we all know how bad it can get the right boat no safety risk full stop, out of fuel bad conditions dosent matter nothing major is going to happen ,right boat for kids in the bay is not a open 14 ft tinnie
Now why is it that I can visualise the calming hand of juicy on your shoulder?
i'm done on this one
kev
A happy person is not a person in a certain set of circumstances, but rather a person with a certain set of attitudes.
kev your missing the point i'm makeing
someone goes gets a licence so they can drive thier new tinny they are about to drive
they read the hand book over and over and do the test where it says they only need one PFD type 1 per person
passes flying colours and get their licence
goes pay for the boat and picks it up where they recive 4 or how ever many PFD type 1 covering everyone one board
not knowing about sizes and not being told or advised he gets children sizes takes the falmily out fishing in the river or bay and something happen where now they are in trouble with inproper PFD's
i know i would advise them if i sold them a boat about different sizes but may salemen don't
sure the driver is in trouble and is in the wrong but when your new you don't know everything
and thats the point i'm trying to make
handbook has no mention of sizes in the PFD and salesman don't mention it so how does a new comer find out untill too late
Mate, you are right and I for one commend you for viewing it from this angle. We all have our own standards and values and are often blinded by our prejudices. I stand by what I say in regard to how *I* view the risk and how he handled it, but yes, you're right, I am judging not only on that, but perhaps (unknowingly) on how I perceive the offender to be.
I work with damaged kids and in some respects have my own baggage from similar damage but I *do* try not to be judgemental, but sometimes that is all we have available to us, particularly when we are angered or see a perceived injustcice. Endangering/abuse/neglect of kids is a very emotive issue and I think that I mayt be guilty of taking this beyond the realms of boating and for that, I apologise.
I suppose the fact that I only saw this guy reiterating that he was a "good father" whilst not actually addressing any other issue *has* clouded my judgement, but as you say, all that matters is that he has learned from it (hopefully). In *every* case of abuse/neglect that I have dealt with, I have never known any abuser admit (initially) to being at fault. It was always, "the drugs made me do it" "I couldn't help it I've had a crap life" etc and I myself have "been there, done that" so really I should know where they're coming from.
We all make mistakes, and we should all be forgiving, but again, we are only human aren't we, so that's a very big ask sometimes. I sincerely hope he *is* an alright guy and that this turns out all ok in the end.
Depite bad publicity, Department of Child Safety do their best in difficult circumstances, with minimal resources so if they are/do become involved in this, I can assure you that they *will* do their best to keep family together and give the bloke a fair go.
Thanks Ben, for cooling me down a little
kev
A heavy burden does not kill on the day it is carried.
Thumps/Kingtin/ssab1....you(s) are pissing in the wind ,on some extreme tangent.....
Back to reality...... TELL ME ,what law did he break ?????
http://www.safeboating.org.au/Equipm.../index.asp#qld
Is it illegal to "not have enough petrol"....NO
Is it l-a-w to carry (not wear) a pfd1 OR 2...yes
Is it "illegal" if ill-fitting?......NO
Is it "illegal" to be in a boat under 5Mtrs.....NO
was the bay "closed" to boats.....NO
summary: safety equipment breach(pfd).....$150 + court costs
>
calm day......run out of petrol....$3000 fine(wind could blow up)
calm day......flat battery, can't pull start.....$3000 fine(wind could blow up)
http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/qt/MSQ.nsf...w-2brisnth.pdf
He erred.
To err is human.
There was no malice intended.
By all means restitution should be made by him to the rescuing organisations for there time, effort and costs incurrred etc.
But unless he is a very wealthy man--which I suspect he is not. Then the fine was overly excessive in my opinion.
Louis
gazza...the LAW OF COMMONSENSE..AS FAR AS RUNNING OUT OF FUEL ON THE WATER..THERE SHOULD BE A LAW..akin to reckless endangerment..try asking the boys from VMR ,they might enlighten you of their feeling in regards to these happenings..ie people running out of fuel on the water.happens far to often,40yrs on the water never run out of fuel in any conditions.how about you. RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT IS THE LAW I THINK> alex
Betcha the RACQ guys get pissed off at people running out of petrol ,after they passed about 50? petrol-stations ,before "running-out".......AS FAR AS RUNNING OUT OF FUEL ON THE WATER..THERE SHOULD BE A LAW
Betcha Insurance companies get pissed-off ,when people drive their cars ,in a hailstorm ,AFTER being warned by every radio station in town......but they make "a run for it"......
BETCHA...as you agree, there is NO LAW ,regarding carry ample fuel.....
i.e. no law = no fine
soooo , what l-a-w did he break??.....for $3000....waiting
I'd like someone to convince me he broke the 1/3 rule as well..
Guys and Girls - this is bullsh&t really when all the other people who bash, kick, maim, damage other peoples property, steal / repeat offenders, arsonists, drink drivers all get slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again with somewhat smaller fines.
This bloke has been made an example of (political posturing or whatever you want to call it) . People do worse than this in their cars everyday - speeding , endangering their kids lives and others with unsafe overtaking, running lights, cutting people off etc etc etc and what happens to them as unsafe operators of a vehicle ..............ASOLUTELY NOTHING.
Driving murderoulsy on the road is OK - but getting caught out in your boat in bad weather and calling for assistance is punishable by $3K - ridiculous.
IMHO
Phill
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
