Dan and his wife belong in prison. This is shocking, but not surprising when it comes to Andrews...

https://youtu.be/SQ0dHqBd7rQ?si=4R5MxoENkOk9fbS5

He should face an inquiry in parliament regarding this and whether he had any hand in influencing Police while he was Premier.

Could you give a summary of what his is about?

I'm not clicking on to a Sky "News" link, sorry.

But I'm interested to see what this is all about.

Cheers.

I think they are still talking about that car accident.

The police have already stated that there is no case.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 18^th, 2024 at 5:13pm:

Could you give a summary of what his is about? I'm not clicking on to a Sky "News" link, sorry. But I'm interested to see what this is all about. Cheers.

Expert review into Daniel Andrews car crash that hospitalised teenage cyclist accuses Victoria Police of engaging in 'overt cover up' to protect ex-premier

An expert review into the car crash involving Daniel Andrews’ family SUV and a teenage cyclist, commissioned by the cyclist’s family, has accused Victoria Police of engaging in an “overt cover-up” to avoid implicating the former premier.

Teenage cyclist Ryan Meuleman was hospitalised in January 2013 following a collision with the Andrews family SUV in the beachside suburb of Blairgowrie.

According to police records, the vehicle was being driven by the former premier’s wife, Catherine Andrews, with the couple both insisting the vehicle came to a “complete stop” before turning right and being “t-boned” by Mr Meuleman’s bike.

But a new review by a former Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner has determined the SUV had likely been “travelling at speed” and had cut the corner before striking the bike.

The 36-page review by Dr Raymond Shuey, the state’s former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations, claims the Andrews’ version of events is “improbable and implausible”, and concludes the police investigation in the incident – which supports the Andrews’ version of events – was “deeply flawed”, “unfounded” and “contrary to the available evidence”.

Pointing to the fact the traffic incident system report submitted by police had recorded the vehicle’s driver as “Catherine Louise Kesik” – Ms Andrews’ maiden name – Dr Shuey accuses Victoria Police of engaging in “an overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening crash”, stating the “failure by supervisors and reviewers to identify this or seek explanation is inexcusable.”

The former Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner also accuses the former Victorian premier of constructing a version of events that was “clearly intended to place fault on the cyclist”, pointing to Mr Andrews’ claims the cyclist “absolutely T-boned the car”.

The review - based on an analysis of FOI documents, witness statements, and Dr Shuey's own reconstruction of the incident - finds that contrary to the official version of events, the near-fatal crash was “definitely not a low-speed vehicle impact”.

“It was definitely not a high-speed bike impact against a slow speed vehicle – otherwise the flip motion of the cyclist would have been in a different and opposite direction to his actual trajectory,” the review states.

“If the vehicle was travelling from a stationary start in Melbourne Road (as stated by Catherine and Daniel Andrews), 27 metres prior to impact, it would not have reached the resultant speed to cause the damage and injuries.

“Low speed impacts propel pedestrians and cyclists forward of impact. This impact was so severe, it flipped the cyclist … onto the bonnet, propulsion over the roof line and then sideways onto the roadway.”

Dr Shuey concludes that based on the available information, including the fact the SUV had stopped 19.2m after the point of impact, “the impact speed of the vehicle was in excess of 40kph and more likely to be in the range of 40kph to 50kph”.

“The forward momentum of the SUV carried the cyclist a further 5.7m … It was definitely not a slow speed crash, as the prime factor was vehicle speed,” the review states.

Dr Shuey conducted the review on behalf of the Meuleman family’s lawyers, who are suing Slater and Gordon for breaching duty of care when they represented Mr Meuleman when negotiating an $80,000 compensation payout from the transport accident commission.

The Labor-aligned law firm has denied the claims and says it will defend the proceedings.

The Supreme Court proceeding is scheduled for trial in May 2025.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/expert-review-into-daniel-andrew-car-crash-that-hospitalised-teenage-cyclist-accuses-victoria-police-of-engaging-in-overt-cover-up-to-protect-expremier/news-story/548b88012abd15624c477888bd8fdd85

It's obvious there's been a cover-up. You don't get those injuries from colliding with a car that is stationary. Andrews and his wife need to face Court.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 18^th, 2024 at 10:00am:

Dan and his wife belong in prison. This is shocking, but not surprising when it comes to Andrews... https://youtu.be/SQ0dHqBd7rQ?si=4R5MxoENkOk9fbS5

My interpretation of the incident showed the driver to be Dan Andrew's himself. His wife took the blame to save her husband's reputation.

Photographic evidence determines that Andrews cut the corner, going over the stop line, in a hurry to a probable meeting.

dans statue is up

---

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 20^th, 2024 at 8:57am:

It's obvious there's been a cover-up. You don't get those injuries from colliding with a car that is stationary. Andrews and his wife need to face Court.

No-one has claimed that the car was stationary.

The "discussion" is about the point of impact.

The former Premier's wife was driving, and the claim from her and Dan is that the bike collided from the right-hand side. That is: the bike ran into the side of their moving car.

The bike rider's parent claims that the car ran into the bike rider.

I don't believe there was a cover up. The police did err in that they failed to do a blood alcohol test of the driver which should have been done.

Going by the police photo of the car following the accident, I tend to agree that the collision looks more like "the bike ran into the side of the moving car" rather than "the car ran into the bike".

https://i.imgur.com/H9ruXkd.jpg

The bike track on which the cyclist was riding is not a defined intersection with Ridley St Blairgowrie, Victoria

https://i.imgur.com/OlMaB1g.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/x52Sccl.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 18^th, 2024 at 5:13pm:

Could you give a summary of what his is about? I'm not clicking on to a Sky "News" link, sorry. But I'm interested to see what this is all about. Cheers.

;D And you expect others to click any links you supply?

It won't hurt you ... irrational hypocrisy.

Anyway .... why are you still here?

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1^st, 2024 at 11:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 20th, 2024 at 8:57am: It's obvious there's been a cover-up. You don't get those injuries from colliding with a car that is stationary. Andrews and his wife need to face Court. No-one has claimed that the car was stationary. The "discussion" is about the point of impact. The former Premier's wife was driving, and the claim from her and Dan is that the bike collided from the right-hand side. That is: the bike ran into the side of their moving car. The bike rider's parent claims that the car ran into the bike rider. I don't believe there was a cover up. The police did err in that they failed to do a blood alcohol test of the driver which should have been done. Going by the police photo of the car following the accident, I tend to agree that the collision looks more like "the bike ran into the side of the moving car" rather than "the car ran into the bike". https://i.imgur.com/H9ruXkd.jpg

If the car went through a stop sign & the bike collided with the  right hand side of the car then Andrews & his wife are in the wrong.

Not only did they fail to stop, they failed to give way ... they failed to give way to the right.

Gnads wrote on Oct 1^st, 2024 at 11:39am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:31am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 20th, 2024 at 8:57am: It's obvious there's been a cover-up. You don't get those injuries from colliding with a car that is stationary. Andrews and his wife need to face Court. No-one has claimed that the car was stationary. The "discussion" is about the point of impact. The former Premier's wife was driving, and the claim from her and Dan is that the bike collided from the right-hand side. That is: the bike ran into the side of their moving car. The bike rider's parent claims that the car ran into the bike rider. I don't believe there was a cover up. The police did err in that they failed to do a blood alcohol test of the driver which should have been done. Going by the police photo of the car following the accident, I tend to agree that the collision looks more like "the bike ran into the side of the moving car" rather than "the car ran into the bike". https://i.imgur.com/H9ruXkd.jpg If the car went through a stop sign & the bike collided with the  right hand side of the car then Andrews & his wife are in the wrong. Not only did they fail to stop, they failed to give way ... they failed to give way to the right.

The entry to Ridley St.

https://i.imgur.com/k1opNAR.jpg

There is no stop sign or give way sign on entry.

The collision was at a place where there is no defined intersection. The track on the right is where the cyclist entered the street. It is not a controlled "intersection" at that track.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1^st, 2024 at 11:49am:

Gnads wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:39am: Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:31am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 20th, 2024 at 8:57am: It's obvious there's been a cover-up. You don't get those injuries from colliding with a car that is stationary. Andrews and his wife need to face Court. No-one has claimed that the car was stationary. The "discussion" is about the point of impact. The former Premier's wife was driving, and the claim from her and Dan is that the bike collided from the right-hand side. That is: the bike ran into the side of their moving car. The bike rider's parent claims that the car ran into the bike rider. I don't believe there was a cover up. The police did err in that they failed to do a blood alcohol test of the driver which should have been done. Going by the police photo of the car following the accident, I tend to agree that the collision looks more like "the bike ran into the side of the moving car" rather than "the car ran into the bike". https://i.imgur.com/H9ruXkd.jpg If the car went through a stop sign & the bike collided with the  right hand side of the car then Andrews & his wife are in the wrong. Not only did they fail to stop, they failed to give way ... they failed to give way to the right. The entry to Ridley St. https://i.imgur.com/k1opNAR.jpg There is no stop sign or give way sign on entry. The collision was at a place where there is no defined intersection. The track on the right is where the cyclist entered the street. It is not a controlled "intersection" at that track.

So you're saying that Andrews vehicle turned into Ridley st & the cyclist came out of that dirt road on the right?

Are you saying the bike came out of the dirt road & hit the car as it was approaching the stop sign(clearly visible) on Ridley st to exit at the T Junction?

Or that Andrews had turned into Ridley st & the bike came out of the dirt road on the right and hit the car?


Stop signs have the same give way aspect as a give way sign ... and regardless of signage vehicles approaching a T intersection have to give way to all vehicles on the through road.

Gnads wrote on Oct 1^st, 2024 at 12:02pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:49am: Gnads wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:39am: Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:31am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 20th, 2024 at 8:57am: It's obvious there's been a cover-up. You don't get those injuries from colliding with a car that is stationary. Andrews and his wife need to face Court. No-one has claimed that the car was stationary. The "discussion" is about the point of impact. The former Premier's wife was driving, and the claim from her and Dan is that the bike collided from the right-hand side. That is: the bike ran into the side of their moving car. The bike rider's parent claims that the car ran into the bike rider. I don't believe there was a cover up. The police did err in that they failed to do a blood alcohol test of the driver which should have been done. Going by the police photo of the car following the accident, I tend to agree that the collision looks more like "the bike ran into the side of the moving car" rather than "the car ran into the bike". https://i.imgur.com/H9ruXkd.jpg If the car went through a stop sign & the bike collided with the  right hand side of the car then Andrews & his wife are in the wrong. Not only did they fail to stop, they failed to give way ... they failed to give way to the right. The entry to Ridley St. https://i.imgur.com/k1opNAR.jpg There is no stop sign or give way sign on entry. The collision was at a place where there is no defined intersection. The track on the right is where the cyclist entered the street. It is not a controlled "intersection" at that track. So you're saying that Andrews vehicle turned into Ridley st & the cyclist came out of that dirt road on the left? That can't be right because the damage is on the right hand side of the car. Or are you saying the bike came out of the dirt rode & hit the car as it was approaching the stop sign(clearly visible) on Ridley st to exit at the T Junction? Stop signs having the same give way aspect as a give way sign ... and regardless of signage vehicles approaching a T intersection have to give way to all vehicles on the through road.

No, the bike came from the dirt track on the right.

https://i.imgur.com/UWTpKgS.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/mVq4dSV.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/McRp9q4.jpg

The cyclist should have stopped, looked right, looked left, looked right again and if safe to do so, crossed Ridley street.

There is no case to answer, this was just an accident. In my opinion, the cyclist was in the wrong, crossing Ridley street, not at an intersection and failing to stop prior to crossing the street.

From the Victorian road rules for bikes:

Bike paths
Bike paths are separate, usually off-road paths reserved for bike riders. Bike paths are
marked by a bicycles only sign on a signpost, which has a bike symbol and the word
‘only’ underneath it. They end where the path meets a road or footpath or where
indicated by a sign.

Now, this "bike track" does not fit the official definition but as it clearly meets a road ...

They end where the path meets a road or footpath

One could argue that the following should have applied:

If you are riding on a bike path or similar and want to cross a road at a pedestrian
crossing, you must get off your bike and walk it across unless there are bike
crossing lights.

https://content.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/vla-resource-bike-law.pdf

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1^st, 2024 at 12:07pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 12:02pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:49am: Gnads wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:39am: Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 1st, 2024 at 11:31am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 20th, 2024 at 8:57am: It's obvious there's been a cover-up. You don't get those injuries from colliding with a car that is stationary. Andrews and his wife need to face Court. No-one has claimed that the car was stationary. The "discussion" is about the point of impact. The former Premier's wife was driving, and the claim from her and Dan is that the bike collided from the right-hand side. That is: the bike ran into the side of their moving car. The bike rider's parent claims that the car ran into the bike rider. I don't believe there was a cover up. The police did err in that they failed to do a blood alcohol test of the driver which should have been done. Going by the police photo of the car following the accident, I tend to agree that the collision looks more like "the bike ran into the side of the moving car" rather than "the car ran into the bike". https://i.imgur.com/H9ruXkd.jpg If the car went through a stop sign & the bike collided with the  right hand side of the car then Andrews & his wife are in the wrong. Not only did they fail to stop, they failed to give way ... they failed to give way to the right. The entry to Ridley St. https://i.imgur.com/k1opNAR.jpg There is no stop sign or give way sign on entry. The collision was at a place where there is no defined intersection. The track on the right is where the cyclist entered the street. It is not a controlled "intersection" at that track. So you're saying that Andrews vehicle turned into Ridley st & the cyclist came out of that dirt road on the left? That can't be right because the damage is on the right hand side of the car. Or are you saying the bike came out of the dirt rode & hit the car as it was approaching the stop sign(clearly visible) on Ridley st to exit at the T Junction? Stop signs having the same give way aspect as a give way sign ... and regardless of signage vehicles approaching a T intersection have to give way to all vehicles on the through road. No, the bike came from the dirt track on the right. https://i.imgur.com/UWTpKgS.jpg https://i.imgur.com/mVq4dSV.jpg https://i.imgur.com/McRp9q4.jpg The cyclist should have stopped, looked right, looked left, looked right again and if safe to do so, crossed Ridley street. There is no case to answer, this was just an accident. In my opinion, the cyclist was in the wrong, crossing Ridley street, not at an intersection and failing to stop prior to crossing the street. From the Victorian road rules for bikes: Bike paths Bike paths are separate, usually off-road paths reserved for bike riders. Bike paths are marked by a bicycles only sign on a signpost, which has a bike symbol and the word ‘only’ underneath it. They end where the path meets a road or footpath or where indicated by a sign. Now, this "bike track" does not fit the official definition but as it clearly meets a road ... They end where the path meets a road or footpath One could argue that the following should have applied: If you are riding on a bike path or similar and want to cross a road at a pedestrian crossing, you must get off your bike and walk it across unless there are bike crossing lights. https://content.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/vla-resource-bike-law.pdf

It would seem you are correct.

As much as I don't like Andrews.

The author of the thread should maybe rename the post.

Hi Gnads,
I agree, this thread title is just an exercise in incitement.

I used to be a fan of Dan the man (based mainly on the improvement to the train network / removal of level crossings) but I am waiting with my figurative baseball bat to vote Labor out at the next State election.

The farcical budget situation is really bad.

The waste is stupendous.

The ambulance system is woeful.

Youth crime is rampant.

As for paying hundreds of millions to NOT host the Commonwealth Games?

Words fail me.

Bubba is waiting for Dan:


https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/145/564/688/original/587ebdb8a6dd5e33.jpeg

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2024 at 1:15pm:

Hi Gnads, I agree, this thread title is just an exercise in incitement.

Not really Nemo.  You see Catherine Andrews was NOT breath tested at the accident.  This is standard procedure and must be done at any accident.

The police failed to do a breath test on Catherine Andrews which they unbelievably put down to ... "a simple mix-up at the scene of the crash involving Premier Daniel Andrews’ wife was the reason why she wasn’t breath tested."

Really?  As if! 

Yes, a breath test should have been done but I think the rest of the incident is down to the cyclist not paying attention and crashing into the car.

aquascoot wrote on Sep 30^th, 2024 at 6:22pm:

dans statue is up

:D

Gnads wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2024 at 11:32am:

It would seem you are correct. As much as I don't like Andrews. The author of the thread should maybe rename the post.

Regardless of whether bike paths are in use or not, if someone is a pedestrian or bike user and they step or ride out in front of traffic, the driver of the vehicle has to make a considerable effort to stop. That does not mean that the driver will definitely be at fault if he or she hits the pedestrian or cyclist.

However, according to the photographic evidence, Andrews must have hit the pedestrian at such a speed, he must have been inattentive to the area. He must have cut across the stop line, in a hurry. His wife must have taken the blame for the incident -- given that she was the person whom gave her maiden name to police. Otherwise, she indeed was the person who was driving.

Q.
What is the point of 'a justice system', if it is corrupt or tolerates corrupt practices ?



Even 3,400 years ago,      ....all men knew the fundamental difference between wrong and right.

And, 3,400 years ago, the difference between wrong and right,
had something to do with public truth-telling.

Didn't it ?


Leviticus 19:15
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.


Deuteronomy 1:16
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
17  Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.


Deuteronomy 16:19
Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.


Isaiah 3:11
Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.




Don't you love the inspiration [to goodness, and 'well doing'] which is present in the Bible ?

And, do you know/realise, that politicians are persons whom we entrust with the authority,
to be our LAW MAKERS, to our benefit !

Yadda wrote on Oct 4^th, 2024 at 9:46pm:

Q. What is the point of 'a justice system', if it is corrupt or tolerates corrupt practices ? Even 3,400 years ago,      ....all men knew the fundamental difference between wrong and right. And, 3,400 years ago, the difference between wrong and right, had something to do with public truth-telling. Didn't it ? Leviticus 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Deuteronomy 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. 17  Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. Deuteronomy 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. Isaiah 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. Don't you love the inspiration [to goodness, and 'well doing'] which is present in the Bible ? And, do you know/realise, that politicians are persons whom we entrust with the authority, to be our LAW MAKERS, to our benefit !

Yes! That is inspiringly!

Unfortunately real life is nothing like that at all especially if your a politician.

Our political leaders can steal, defraud, lie and rape and the very worst that will ever happen to them is they are required to pay back the ill gained funds.

The law should apply to all. Equally. Not one law for citizens and another for politicians.

If Gladys Berejiklian was found corrupt  twice why isn’t she in jail?