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

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.

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

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-and...

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


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.

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


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".



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

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


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.

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



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.

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


It would seem you are correct.

As much as I don't like Andrews.

The author of the thread should maybe rename the post.