Don’t ruin another life
There is an email doing the rounds about Anthony Taliana, the young man who is being prosecuted for causing the death of Clifford Micallef, who was on a bicycle at the time, by driving into him at 5am.
This email comes with a digital presentation illustrated with the sort of photographs many men in their late teens and early 20s like to upload on Facebook, oblivious to the reality that they can be copied by any one of their Facebook ‘friends’ and used against them for whatever purpose.
The author of this document describes Anthony Taliana as ‘the killer’, ignoring the fact that murder presumes the intent to kill and that because of this Taliana is being charged with manslaughter.
The presentation takes selected photographs out of context and arranges them in such a way as to build a profile of a drunkard with a fleet of cars and nothing better to do than drive around killing people in what is described – yes, really – as il-karozza qattiela.
I hold no brief for Anthony Taliana. I don’t know him or his family from Adam. I do know, however, that he is only 21 and that this terrible thing could have happened to any one of the very many 21-year-old men I know through having three of my own of that age (and none of them are irresponsible, unemployed or uninsured).
As any parent in this situation will tell you, steady girlfriends receive the red-carpet treatment because they are a tempering influence. Single young men tend to move around in all-male groups, drink too much, take stupid risks and get generally out of hand.
There are no parents of young men, of my acquaintance, who do not go to sleep wondering whether they will be woken in the small hours by that dread telephone call of which we all live in fear.
It’s a safe bet that every parent of ‘boys’ that age, while sympathising with the bereft Micallef family, felt an even stronger tug of empathy for the Taliana ‘boy’ and his parents. The thought would have hummed through the heads of all that, yes, it could have been them.
The only difference, perhaps, is that they would like to think that their sons would not have fled the scene, but would have stayed and dealt with the consequences of their actions.
The people rushing to condemn and to pass that email around cannot possibly have sons aged 18 to 24 (common sense seems to set in permanently at 25, and this is reflected in insurance premiums), who drive and stay out all night without the steadying influence of a sensible girlfriend.
If they did, they would understand that the risk is not small but ever present of being woken just before dawn by a shrilling telephone with awful news from the hospital or the police station.
Contrary to the impression being given by the authors of that email presentation and those who are harrumphing all over the internet, you don’t have to be a drunkard, or irresponsible, or unemployed, or driving without insurance cover, to mow down a man out on his bicycle before dawn on a poorly lit road.
As I recall, not that long ago a man on a bicycle was knocked down in a tunnel by a perfectly sober, insured grown-up with a driving licence, who failed to notice because of the dim interior that he had hit a cyclist and dragged him for several metres.
His victim was not Maltese and so his death was not covered in the media as though it were that of a hero. It was reported briefly and let go. The man who knocked him down was not vilified or crucified.
It was recognised that this was an accident caused by a mixture of negligence, poor lighting and the unexpected presence of a cyclist at that particular point in the road, where we are unaccustomed to seeing people on bicycles.
Similar things have happened to me, somebody who has been driving for 26 years and who has ratcheted up hundreds of thousands of miles on the clock – though without consequences greater than a shock to my system and the need to pull to the side of the road and calm down.
You turn a corner at regular speed and find yourself screeching to a halt just inches away from an old woman deep in conversation on the tarmac. You drive down a quiet road and suddenly a football rolls across, closely followed by a child who jumps down into your path off a wall.
All that is required is for your attention to falter for just a split second. Of course, it helps when you’re not tired, haven’t had too many drinks, and have insurance cover.
This is not a plea for clemency for Anthony Taliana. If he really is the sort who does nothing much with his life and who ‘borrows’ family cars which he drives without insurance cover, then the knowledge that he may have been responsible for the death of a father of young children (I say ‘may’ because he has yet to be tried) could bring him to his senses.
But it has to be borne in mind that he was extremely unfortunate – though by no means as unfortunate as the man who died – to be driving along that particular road at that particular time, in circumstances no different (except for the lack of insurance cover) to those of the many thousands of young men driving around in the early hours while tired or the worse for wear.
The point I wish to make is that Anthony Taliana is no different to thousands of other men his age.
Those of my readers who were not absolute nerds or dojoq and who haven’t rewritten their youthful history in their own minds now that they are serious pillars of society, will find in Taliana perhaps the merest hint of recognition, if not of their own behaviour then certainly of that of their friends and associates.
Those who are fraught with anger and sorrow at the death of a family member or close friend will be unable to see that the one who knocked him down faces a life sentence too.
Living with the knowledge that you have ended somebody’s life is hard enough to deal with when you are mature. When you are 21 and confused, it can have a catastrophic effect on your mental health and general psychology. Those who are keen for ‘justice’ – and one suspects that they believe the only real justice to be an eye for an eye and a life for a life – should think harder.
One life has ended. What good can come of ruining another one?
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
133 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I can’t see how you can defend this irresponsible young man. He was already been charged with dangerous driving, and it seems he has not learned his lesson.
The fact that his father tried to cover up for him shows that he does not want him to grow up, that he is a mummy’s boy. That is why he continues to drive drunk. You did not say anything about how he had left the man he hit and continued to drive as if nothing happened, not even bothering to report it to the police, not caring if the person he hit is dead, alive or dying. He just didn’t give a damn. All he cared about was his own skin.
Go ahead, call me dejjaq. As Mons Victor Grech said this morning on ‘Kulhadd’ on Net TV, people are more and more selfish, self-centered and do not care about others. Do you realise that this man has taken another person’s life? Do you realise that he did not even stop to help the injured man? How can he repent for what he did if he will not face up what he did? It is just not like you to defend ‘criminals’?
A 21 year old is an adult in the eyes of the law. He is no longer a boy. By drinking till the early hours and driving, he run down a man, left him dying there without giving a shit, and went home, knowing that his dad will cover him up.
Did he care if he ruined another man’s life? Another family’s life? Then how can you defend him?
[Daphne – I am not defending him. I am pointing out that a 21-year-old is not a 40-year-old and can’t be measured by the same yardstick. That is why car insurance premiums are so very much higher for drivers who are under 25. The fact that you are legally adult at 18 does not mean you have the measured approach to life of a settled and mature 40-year-old. It is, in fact, quite impossible to be like a 40-year-old when you are 20, unless there is something wrong with your psychological development. The strange thing is that people like you are more condemnatory and vicious towards a 21-year-old who drives into a cyclist and kills him, than you are about the grown man who did the same thing while fully in his senses during the daytime, driving in a tunnel. To me, that’s worse. I’m afraid I don’t share the general contempt for 21-year-olds. People still have a hell of a lot of growing up to do at that age. You are not thinking straight: there is a world of difference between setting out to do something deliberately and causing an accident through negligence and irresponsible behaviour. Even the law acknowledges this. Apparently, it is now a crime to be 21. I would strongly suggest that you turn your irate attention to those who administer construction sites – they are all grown men – where other family men are killed and maimed on a regular basis, again through negligence. That would be a just cause for your anger.]
Daphne, if tal-muzew is not thinking straight, neither are you, and it is because you have sons of that age. There is nothing wrong with being a 21-year-old. Not so long ago I was a 21-year-old myself and went out with a bunch of friends and drank more than was good for us. However we never took to the wheel after that. Taxis got us home safely if in a state of drunken stupor with no more damage than a roaring headache and an overworked liver. There is nothing wrong with being a 21 year old, but there is everything wrong with behaving like this particular 21 year old and I am not sure if the two things have anything to do with each other. I am sure that further down the line, he will still be behaving with such criminal irresponsibility.
[Daphne – It absolutely doesn’t follow. Bad people stay bad, yes – I’ve been able to track the really bad people I knew at 18 and they are still bad, much worse, in fact because adulthood gives you more opportunities for badness. But confused, reckless and wonky people generally sort themselves out as long as they find a firm hand, psychological help and – this is the most crucial – a purpose in life. You don’t solve these kinds of problems with prison; and public opprobrium. You make them worse. And if you were sensible enough at 21 to take a taxi after drinking, then good for you. You are certainly the exception – not even people my age do that.]
Hear, hear.
Daphne, well written, but I have to add that when these accidents happen I end up pointing my finger at the authorities. Alcohol has no purpose in life – it has no positives at all – the only positives are reaped by the sellers and government on taxes. I asked my kids recently how many times they or their friends have been stopped for testing, and they all replied ‘never’. This was shocking – many youths I see at Paceville in early morning already show signs of not being in a position to drive, but they do. If the authorities care at all it simply takes good policing and testing with severe, yes very severe, punishments – but in our country discipline is only for the disciplined. The others couldn’t care less because people just do what they want.
I would like to say that I fully agree with what you write, as a democratic country calls for a democratic system to condemn one person for his or her wrong-doing. However, I have a few statements and questions for you and all those who so hastily are ready to back your every word.
Firstly, just because another unfortunate accident in the past did not receive the same media coverage and public attention as this does not in any way remove or diminish the severity of this case. So please compare like with like! And also please, do not use such pettiness of defining words as “killer” and “murder” to make your case, as we all know exactly the context in which these words are being used in this presentation.
Yes, one may argue (and rightly so I believe) that the way in which the author of the said presentation (which I have received quite a few times now) has rearranged the photos to suit his/her purpose, maybe rather underhand and not entirely correct. Or maybe it is? Is the author trying to vent anger that is being felt by not only the bereft Micallef family but maybe by the population at large?
Is it not a safe bet too, to say that the public is sick and tired of hearing from the media of yet another victim of irresponsible driving, behaviour, action or work?
Am I correct in understanding that the point you are making is that just because Anthony Taliana is “no different to thousands of other men his age” and that he was unfortunate enough to have actually knocked down and killed Clifford Micallef, does this make him any less guilty (always presuming that he IS found guilty by our courts for such actions!)?
[Daphne – No, you are not correct. I am simply reminding people that it could have happened to anyone, and we should leave it up to the courts to determine the extent of his guilt, and what exactly he was guilty of. I am not in a position to say that I would never fail to notice a cyclist on a quiet dark road at 5am and knock him down, and if you feel you are in that position, then I admire you for your certainty. The only thing I can say with certainty is that I would not have driven off – but then I am not 21 and have a track record of responsible behaviour. The point here is that while abandoning the scene was an act of irresponsibility, I am not comfortable with attributing anything at this stage to the act of knocking the cyclist down. I can see that I might very well have done it myself while driving on ‘auto-pilot’ on a familiar road in the dark.]
So I ask: is this how YOU recommend we should feel in such a situation? Is this how YOU suggest the system should move forward when faced with such a situation?
In doing so, are you trying to sympathise with Anthony Taliana and feel sorry for him because his and his family’s life will be changed forever? Excuse me but serves him bloody right. He should have thought about that before he stepped into that car and drove in such a state.
[Daphne – Oh for crying out loud. The only people I know, of whatever age, who don’t drive after drinking are teetotal. It’s a safe bet that you’ve driven after drinking too. You don’t have to be plastered to kill somebody or write off your car. All it takes to affect your general judgement and sense of distance is two or three drinks. I am not trying to sympathise with Taliana or his family. I do sympathise with them. And unlike you, I happen to know – through observation of people my age and people my sons’ age – that far worse psychological and behavioural problems are caused by inflexible parental discipline than by a lax parental attitude.]
One of the first disciplinary lessons I remember from my younger school days, was that we always have to suffer the consequences of our actions!
[Daphne – I am with you there. But the law, ethics and morality dictate that you cannot measure the actions of a developing person in the same way that you would measure the actions of a mature one.]
And no matter how screwed up this “boy” or “man”, however you describe him, will end up as a result of his nightmares following this unfortunate incident, I am sure that many will agree with me in saying that he will be not even one infinitesimal stretch worse than the victim’s children and wife, who now have to go on with their lives without their beloved one with them.
[Daphne – This is a non sequitur. The suffering of one lot of people is not ameliorated by the suffering of others. The two are not linked. You are thinking in terms of revenge, which is hardly ideal.]
Whether you have children his age or not, in no way justifies how you should look at such a situation.
[Daphne – On the contrary, it does. To give you a similar example: most men cannot understand the humiliation non-working wives feel at having to ask their husbands for money to go to the hairdresser or buy a tube of mascara. But any married woman can empathise immediately, whether she works or not. Obviously, people with sons Anthony Taliana’s age are instantly going to empathise with his family, even if they also empathise with the Micallef family.]
Whether we talk about Anthony Taliana today or any other similar incident in the past or future, we should not lose sight of our better judgement and be nothing other than objective about it all. Was he driving legally? No! Was he driving properly? No! Was he driving sober? No! Was he responsible for knocking down and killing Cliff Micallef? Well apparently yes, as we wouldn’t be here discussing all this, but let us leave that to the courts to decide!
[Daphne – You know, I’m really fed-up of the way grown people in Malta are unable to think logically and clearly. The lack of insurance cover or a driving licence are not causes of an accident, but aggravating circumstances. Drunkenness, if proved, would be considered a cause. When you lose this clarity, you end up thinking and speaking like a Saudi Arabian lynch mob, which appears to be what is happening here. It is completely uncivilised. Two months ago in England, a married couple committed suicide by driving their car off a cliff. They had two bags with them, one containing their son’s toys, and the other their five-year-old son’s body. He had died of meningitis but had been paralysed from the neck down since he was 16 months old, after his spinal cord was severed in a car crash. This happened when a serious, mature woman in her 50s took her eyes off the wheel for a split second while driving round a bend and smashed straight into the car in which the baby and his mother were travelling. The baby’s life was ruined and his distraught parents, after years of stress, killed themselves when he died. What do you suggest for the woman who caused the accident? Torture followed by hanging? She was fined and had her licence marked with seven points. Those who think in uncivilised terms of revenge see this as unjust. Those who are civilised see it as just. It could have happened to anyone.]
Was he responsible enough to suffer the consequences of his actions? Apparently not, as he fled the scene (in panic and fear or blatant irresponsibility or both), ignoring the dying Cliff Micallef at the side of the street.
[Daphne – You are not 21, and you don’t know what you would have done when you were 21 and in that situation. You are also assuming that he was aware he had hit a person. You shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that he saw him and couldn’t brake in time. Were there brake marks at the scene? He may simply not have seen him, and hence not understood that he had hit a person and not something else.]
So if he is found guilty of such then he should be given the full penalty at law, and may he serve as a lesson to all those, include my children when THEY grow up, that there is nothing and no one in this country who will excuse such illegal and irresponsible driving.
[Daphne – So I was right. Your children are still at school. A word of advice: don’t shoot your mouth off, jump to conclusions, make assumptions, or think that ‘upbringing is all’, because you will probably have to eat all your words when they turn 16, and carry on eating them for the next few years after that. Another word of advice: when they reach that age and you think they’re behaving, they’re probably doing everything that others do, only behind your back because you have brought them up to believe that ‘they are not bad like other people’s children’. And so you will be one of those parents who teachers and the police are so frustrated with: the ones who believe that their children never do wrong and that the teachers and police are lying. Good luck – believe me, you’re going to need it, especially if yours are boys.]
Again may I point out that like you, I have no brief for either Anthony Taliana, who lives another day with the chance to repent, “come to his senses” and do good with what is left of his life, or for Cliff Micallef who has now be robbed of his life FOREVER!
[Daphne – Well, then that should allow you to calm down and think rationally.]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191129/The-smile-parents-live-The-heart-breaking-story-Beachy-Head-tragedy.html
“She was fined and had her licence marked with seven points”
True, but let’s face it, had she been drunk or talking on the phone she would have got far far more.
Except for the fact that it probably plays down the drink-driving element in this tragedy, this article is commendably clear, fair and humane.
I agree wholeheartedly. Let’s wait for the courts to decide. Yes, we men (boys) have all done something (sometimes over and over) stupid in our youth. For the most part, we got away with it. No one hurt, no one injured, and no one dead.
What kind of justice are we expecting anyway? Does anyone really think that Cliff’s family are going to feel any better whatever happens to the young man? He made a few unfortunate errors of judgement. Like many before him, he thought nothing was going to happen to him, but it did. Murder? Not guilty! Stupidity and gross underestimation of the risks? Guilty as charged!
I agree with the way you built this argument, yet I fail to understand what your bottom line is. Is it to “protect” the rights of the driver for a fair trial? (I agree on this one.) Or is it to create an awareness of how bad driving in Malta is?
[Daphne – It’s neither of those things. It’s to remind people that this country doesn’t operate on the principles of shariah law, and also that a 21-year-old cannot be measured by the yardstick used for a 40-year-old. And something else: it’s to remind them of the importance of bearing in mind the words ‘If I too could have mown down a man on a dark road at 5am then I had better bloody well keep my trap shut.’]
You said: “the unexpected presence of a cyclist at that particular point in the road”… but what does the word unexpected mean to you?
[Daphne – Just that: unexpected. I don’t expect to find a cyclist on a dark road at 5am in Malta. People are generally far less alert on familiar roads which they take every day than they are on unfamiliar roads. I take the route home on auto-pilot. Anything on that road that is not usually there is likely to get hit in the dark, unless it is marked with large warning lights, as other cars and trenching works (sometimes) are.]
Therefore, where and when do you expect to see cyclists? As a keen cyclist myself, I can tell you that I have done the Coast Road a million times, and although there seems to be no space for anything but mad cars, I am still here writing. I also use the tunnel and here you go.
[Daphne – I fail to understand why cyclists should imperil drivers and pose a hazard to them by cycling through darkened tunnels among traffic. Cars are obliged to put on their headlights. Cyclists have no such lights. Bidnija is on the regular Sunday cyclists route and I could cheerfully strangle some of them – most are very responsible. Without proper cycling lanes, have a cyclist in traffic is like dealing with a jaywalker.]
My point, Daphne is that you seem to be protecting the rights of a person who has done something wrong (and I cannot agree more with you), yet, you seem to be playing down the need to be more careful on the road, be it on a bike or in a car.
[Daphne – I’m sorry if I don’t write like the typical Maltese person by stating the obvious just in case somebody might get the idea that a 44-year-old mother of three sons in their 20s, who has been driving every day since she was 19, thinks it isn’t important to be careful on the road. Do I have to say this? Shouldn’t it be obvious?]
I can assure you, the only people who are lobbying for a fair trial are the ones who said “ara xi gralu miskin” rather than the ones who said “ara x’ghamel”. Since the accident, I haven’t gone out on my bike.
So much fuss for going green and doing some exercise… I’d rather be fat and pollute than die.
[Daphne – I agree with you. The last time my son and his friends went out on their bikes in Malta before they started driving, one of them ended up with his foot trapped under the wheel of a bus. Now he lives in Amsterdam and cycles everywhere and it’s safe because the city is planned for cyclists. In the same way, even though there were always motorbikes around at home when I was growing up, if one of my sons had brought one home I would have set fire to it rather than have him use it. It’s much too dangerous now.]
“..I would have set fire to it…” Is that not a rather Sharia approach to life which you condemmed in some other part of this inane converasation.
Another point – 21 yr old or 40 yr old – law treats them exactly the same – insurance companies do not because their actuaries advise them of risk levels – nothing more. There is absolutley no difference in the eyes of law and someone’s age should not influence the courts. Although I am sure it will.
Daphne,
Our society will be all the poorer if we didn’t have you to put such stories into perspective.
While I do agree with you and condemn this witch hunt by people, who I’d bet at some time or another “had one for the road” and would have failed a breathalyser test, the law cannot act as if nothing happened either.
The point is that is why we have laws, and not rely on the “people’s courts” as one madman had once wanted to do. The village rabble on timesofmalta.com comments section are even justifying lynch mobs, for crying out loud!
fejn mar?
Also, I do not know the unfortunate cyclist but if he’s anything like what he’s been described he would be the first to condemn this witch hunting rabble!
It basically shows that deep down, if there weren’t laws to restrain, most people are still capable of barbaric primitive acts. The Milgram experiment is proof of this.
I don’t agree with this jury by internet through emails. One has to be considered innocent unless proven otherwise. At 21 a person is responsible for his actions. Responsible parenthood produces responsible citizens. If the court prohibited the young man from driving it did just that to protect society from his dangerous driving.
“One life has ended. What good can come of ruining another one?” Very true: one was killed, and the lives of a young woman and her three orphaned children ruined. If he is found guilty, we shouldn’t have him driving around.
One has to take into consideration that previously he nearly ruined other people’s lives, that is why he was handed a sentence not to drive. I know that jail is not the ideal place for a 21 year old , but if he is found guilty that is the only place where his actions will land him.
Let us not interfere and leave justice take its course.
The problem is that, following whatever happened certain people decided to play ”God” and judge others. Let the courts decide what penalty they should give and how to describe the driver’s character. If proved to be manslaughter, this situation could happen to any of us. Without anyway justifying or criticising Mr. Taliana’s actions, in such situations it is very difficult to control one’s emotions. It is up to the police and the courts to see to that.
On the other hand I think that the people or ”friends” who have sent this e-mail should be prosecuted at least for breaking the Data Protection Act, as you must have someone’s permission to use his/her photographs (even on a public profile), for influencing the public’s (or those who aren’t able of making their own decisions) bias and thirdly for the maliciousness of creating an image (which may not be true) of this young man.
[Daphne – They can be prosecuted under the libel laws, not the Data Protection Act.]
However I think it is high time that the cycle lanes in that area should be redesigned for the simple reason that the cycle lane was previously a hard shoulder (a small lane or space on the side of the road used for emergencies and breakdowns), which is too close to oncoming cars and offers no safety whatsoever to cyclists. There are good and safe cycle lanes such as those on the road connecting Mgarr to Mosta, so they should be done elsewhere.
I offer my deep sympathies to the family and friends of the cyclist as he was an example to many, and his generosity, enthusiasm and energy will be dearly missed.
My final plea is that everyone should keep calm, and not to let these internet mobsters affect other’s feelings and opinions. Unfortunately, such comments were also to be found on the comments section of a leading newspaper’s website, using the phrase ‘The People’. Just let the justice system do its job.. then comment afterwards!
May I add that bicycle lanes in Malta were never planned correctly. It would be time to revisit them before we have other victims.
I do not subscribe to the tone of the email you refer to. However, as one who over the years has met too many reckless and abusive drivers intentionally trying to intimidate me or even run me off the road, I can see where such sentiments are coming from.
Excellent! Being in my 30s, I am now mature and very responsible but at that age, though I never drove without a licence, I did do stupid things. Instead of “the people” crucifying him they should let the court do its work.
What is needed is a serious debate about our roads and how to make them safer for those who cycle. Another serious debate should take place for taking action against “people” who use the internet to destroy others or worse to replace the court.
I’m 21 and confused, which is why I’ve read this bullshit.
Good for you Daphne. Well done. He who is without sin shall throw the first stone.
Sorry, he IS different from many other young men. He is a relapser first and foremost so the fact that his driving licence had already been revoked did not stop him from getting DRUNK and behind the wheel, driving at excessive speed.
[Daphne – Caroline, how do you know he was drunk?]
Also, the fact that not only did he not stop at the accident scene but also tried to cover up his actions makes him so much different from many other young men. The email doing the rounds does not call for revenge; it calls for justice and given that the maximum sentence this “unfortunate” young man can get for this crime is just six years, please, do permit anyone who knew Cliff or any Maltese cyclist for that matter, to be extremely angry!
[Daphne – You are not speaking of justice, but of revenge (an eye for an eye). The two are different. Whether you are angry or not is irrelevant. It is certainly not a factor in the court proceedings. We do not permit angry people to mete out their own rough justice precisely because we are civilised.]
[Daphne – Caroline, how do you know he was drunk?]
Innocent until proven guilty, I know, but the fact that he has been charged with drink driving indicates that the police may have some proof of it:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090801/local/unemployed-motorist-charged-with-manslaughter-drink-driving
[Daphne – Don’t count on it, Mandy, and especially not if the St Julian’s police station was involved. Last month I was prosecuted for disturbing the peace down at that station, and they even ‘found’ a ‘witness’ to confirm what they said. Unfortunately, she undermined their efforts somewhat by leaning across to the police officer when she had finished ‘testifying’ and asking ‘Hux hekk ghidtli biex nghid?’. Hahahaha. Case dismissed.]
I agree that efficiency may not be their forte. On having to deal with them last year (about a stolen wallet), I actually had to take a plastic bottle out of the hands of the policeman at the counter, because he was constantly playing with it (the bottle) while supposedly listening to what we had to say. I even had to tell him “jimporta tieqaf u tismaghna?” to get a reaction from him. (We were eventually seen to by a policewoman, who asked for proof of identification, despite having been told that the person’s ID card, etc were all in the stolen wallet.)
Needless to say – despite us reporting to them that the supermarket where the wallet was stolen was in possession of very clear CCTV footage of the culprits and of the actual theft – until around two weeks after the incident the police never formally requested the evidence from the supermarket, and presumably they haven’t done so since, either.
Actually, unless the accused is in the presence of the police from the crash until he/she is tested, it is practically impossible to prove drunk driving in a court of law for several reasons but mostly because he may have drank as soon as he got home because the fright.
You know, this witch hunt is exactly why I don’t believe in trials by jury! Judging is a judge’s job and not some holier than thou civil service employee who make up the bulk juries!
Were the police charged for perverting the course of justice?
This makes me sick to the bones, the PN was victim of police brutality in the 70s and 80s and yet they seem to have done nothing to sort the police force out.
I have not received or seen the email on Mr Taliana which I think is in bad taste.
You seem to condone irresponsible and illegal behaviour by single young men simply because this is widespread. Even if the latter where the case, such an attitude should be condemned and not condoned.
Every person should be held accountable for his actions and their consequences. Even persons under age and in certain circumstances their parents or guardians can be held accountable.
Daphne. I’ve seen the email doing the rounds. Much of it is a true representation of facts. It might be better to ruin an irresponsible person’s life who if not ruined, might ruin other innocent ones.
And I don’t think he is unfortunate. (1) No insurance + (2) Previous “conviction” + (3) Ran away = 100% IRRESPONSIBLE!
[Daphne – Not nice at all, I’m afraid. A civilised society does not ruin people’s lives as a preemptive measure.]
There is no such thing as a civilised society. However, there may be civilsed people within a society. Maggie who I hope is dead or close to it once actually said “there is no such thing as society” so there……….
For me, anoyone who is drunk and drives is a potential murderer. Doesn’t matter if he’s mature or not.
[Daphne – Lucky for us you’re not a legislator, then.]
…or writes dictionaries.
I myself have been perturbed at the constant baying for blood for Mr. Taliana, which has been circulated on the net. The frenzy has reached so damning proportions that the next thing you’ll know is a wild mob with pitchforks and butcher knives making a rush for Mr. Taliana.
However, what is glaringly missing in your article is that no mention whatsoever is mentioned of Mr. Taliana’s history. It appears that Mr. Taliana, had already a history of dangerous driving, having been convicted of such offence, a couple of years back.
Is this omission a mere oversight?
[Daphne – No. It is the result of my strong aversion to speculation and gossip. I never cease to be amazed at the things I get up to, when I hear about them from gossips, the Teeny Beach crowd and the Labour press.]
Ah, so one guy and two girls (slightly injured) in hospital plus one dead is gossip?
Not sure if it’s a cultural difference, but I find the open tolerance to drink-driving here quite appalling. I agree to the sentiment of not punishing too harshly a young man who simply does what his society thinks is OK. But at the same time, why is it so accepted to drink and drive in Malta? The second you get into a car you do shoulder a certain responsibility, as abuse can and does lead to harm to other people. Granted, sometimes bad things happen in perfect condition, with a perfectly responsible driver, but that does not justify allowing people to use something which almost automatically turns them into bad drivers.
Some people claim they even drive better after a few glasses, which is ridiculous. Alcohol lowers your reflexes, diminishes your peripheral vision and makes you less capable of handling stress and stressful situations. Why should it be allowed to get into a car in such a state and why, in so many other countries, don’t people have this need? Granted, there are drunk drivers everywhere, but in other countries they are condemned for their actions.
I don’t see why we should punish this young man beyond reason, but at the same time I do not want to see him on the road again for a long time.
Daphne, I totally disagree with you. While admittedly the email doing the rounds may be in bad taste, however your defence of Anthony Taliana where you say “The point I wish to make is that Anthony Taliana is no different to thousands of other men of his age” is way off the mark.Am I to understand that thousands of other men his age already have a court case for reckless driving?
[Daphne – Only because they haven’t been caught, David, believe me. The fact that only a few people are hauled before the courts for possession doesn’t mean that only a few people do drugs in this country. Thousands do. God forbid we should take prosecutions as a reliable statistic for anything except murder.]
The fact that he already had another court case speaks volumes, as we all know that if you park illegally for three minutes you are slapped with a parking fine, but if you drive your Ford Escort Armata at beak neck speed, no authority will notice.
For him to land in court, and now mow someone down without stopping is not what most 21-year-olds are up to. No, I don’t find the merest hint of recognition with this behaviour, nor in my friends and associates.
Hallina, Daphne.
[Daphne – You’re my contemporary, David, so we must have moved in completely different circles at that age because I certainly remember more than a few near misses, deaths, maimings and even a couple of people dressed as clowns stranded on the Rabat Road roundabout after they failed to see it and drove right up onto it while on their way TO and not from a party at Ta’ Gianpula. I myself was nearly killed at 19 in a car crash. And another point is that you have nieces not nephews. It’s young males who are the greatest problem in every society.]
“I myself was nearly killed at 19 in a car crash.”
Though it’s really nobody’s business, it would be pertinent to point out that your accident was in broad daylight, on the way to work, and was not your fault, but the fault of a “mature” driver (a then minister’s driver, if I recall correctly), who was – presumably – sober at the time.
I agree with you here, Daph. Looking back, I shudder to think how, when aged around 18/19 and only two of my then “klikka” drove (let alone owned a car) eight of us would squeeze into a Mini Minor to drive to a beach a few miles away; the rest would be packed into a Fiat Mirafiori (cringe!), some sitting jutting out of the window for good measure.
There are some things you simply don’t think of when you’re a teenager, but the one thing you do think is that “it won’t happen to me”.
I think David is right. Most young men are different from Daphne’s description. There are some who do silly things occasionally but they come to their senses immediately. Hallina Daphne.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, John, but who’s more likely to know, me or you? You’re from an ‘ambjent tal-Muzew’, by your own admission. Your sons go to tal-Muzew for their entertainment as well their doctrine. That’s a part of Maltese life, yes, but another part is what I describe. Seeing things for what they are is not justifying the situation; it’s seeing things for what they are, which is the essential starting-point for any solution. In this argument, you and David remind me of those people who insist that there is no ‘need’ for divorce in Malta because the situation is all right as it is. Yes, thousands of young Maltese men after having had a few drinks (and so do their parents). Yes, people generally, and men in particular, are seriously reckless at 18 to 24 in a way that they are not when 40. Yes, one of the biggest problems in insurance is people driving without cover, crashing into people who do have cover – and one of the biggest problems for pedestrians or cyclists is being hit by somebody without cover when they do not have, as pedestrians and cyclists, cover themselves.]
Daphm I have a son who’s been driving around for two years. He’s not ‘tal-muzew’. When he thinks he drank a bit too much or is too tired he won’t drive; he just sends us an sms informing us about his whereabouts, so that when we wake up and don’t see him in his bedroom we won’t panic.
[Daphne – Yes, mine do that too.]
And two of my sons used to go to ‘il-muzew’. Now they go elsewhere. They are free to choose.
I work with 20 -30-year-olds and they are not the kind you are describing. They have well kept cars, they enjoy night life especially on the weekend, and yes, they drink. Admittedly one of them seems to be more ‘prone to accidents’ , but that’s one in twelve.
We are talking here about 21-year-olds and I can assure you that there aren’t many of them who are ‘tal-muzew’. I cannot see myself in that ‘part of Maltese life’ which you are trying to depict me in. At least it no longer exists here at the outback of Zurrieq. Even ‘tal-muzew’ go out for a drink and a juicy steak during the night.
Your prejudice against young drivers makes me recall about the accident which happened on the road from Attard to Mosta where a car driven by a young man and with three other young passengers on board ended up in a water culvert during the night. The police sergeant investigating the accident asked for a blood test for alcohol presence at the emergency department, when the test resulted negative he insisted that the test be carried out again on the young driver.
[Daphne – I don’t have a prejudice against young drivers. That is the whole point of my argument. Acknowledging the fact that young drivers are more prone to accidents and risk-taking behaviour is not prejudice. Nor is it opinion, either. There is a reason why insurance premiums for 18-year-olds are so high that comprehensive insurance is literally unaffordable (and deliberately so). And there is a reason why all drivers under 25, whatever their track record, are charged a much, much higher premium for cover than even drivers with a poor record who are over 25.]
A point which you missed is that new licence holders have a points system which deters them from being reckless drivers.
You are making a lot of of assumptions to win this argument.
[Daphne – I did not miss that. Scroll through the comments and you’ll see that I’m the only one who mentioned it.]
At this time of the year the sun rises at 06:18. Cycling at 05:30 is like cycling at 01:00 as regards lighting levels. This is very risky even if cycling in country roads let alone the coast road. Conversely to what cyclists like to think their sport is a high risk activity and not solely due to irresponsible drivers, there are other factors contributing to the risk like the roads, cyclist behaviour and visibility. It could have been a family man going back home after a night shift who was driving, this equivalent of public lynching is being done because the driver is perceived to be a kiesah or hamallu. There are no witnesses to the accident, the cyclist could have veered suddenly to the middle of the road, we do not know. Only courts can mete out justice, this email (which I received last week) is equivalent to mob justice.
Nice, why don’t we ban cycling? Cycling is a ‘high risk activity’ in Malta because; the roads are a total mess. They are not even fit for a third world country. But go tell that to our ministeru ta’ l-infrastruttura. And because drivers-drunk or sober, young or old, hamalli or puliti-think that cyclists have no right to be on the road. It is the typical Maltese selfish and ignorant mindset. Quite a contrast from what happens in other countries where huge lorries stop and wait for cyclists to pass. All this is getting very tiresome, the courts will give Taliana what he deserves but what really matters, the state of the roads and the mindset of the Maltese driver will remain unchanged and that is another tragedy.
Question: “One life has ended. What good can come of ruining another one?”
Answer: Preventing the ruin of possibly another, and another and yet another.
Justification: The guy had a warning after his first ‘strike’. The second ‘strike’ came around, everybody knows the consequences. So, what’s next, smiling to the next ‘strike’ round? We ‘ruin’ another life to save hundreds of others.
[Daphne – Il-vera tal-biza. This is the second such comment which came in. Did you all receive your moral and ethical rigour at duttrina classes when you were children? Justice is retroactive, not preemptive. The only situation in which the state can lock up a person as a preemptive measure is if he is criminally insane. How can you, as a supposedly civilised person raised in a supposedly civilised environment, think in terms of ruining a person’s life to prevent the possibility of his ruining others? If we begin reasoning like this, where will it all end?]
And presumably, “Mindy” was “Mork, the dork” in his (I’m assuming that it’s a “he”) youth.
And presumably, “Mindy” was never drunk, neither did he ever drive under the slightest influence of drink. Nor does he do so now.
“Did you all receive your moral and ethical rigour at duttrina classes when you were children?”
Wherever I got it from doesn’t really matter. And of course, Daphne, Nano nano, I did mistakes in my past and I still do. But I learn from them, and should I have been already “warned” once, just as this relapser, and given a second opportunity, again just as this relapser, then I would not have ruined it all by risking again in this way (under the influence of alcohol, without a proper insurance etc), nor would I have happily put videos on youtube of myself drifting my car in an urban street that is shared with pedestrian, cyclists and civilians.
Mindy, internet as we know it now did not exist two decades ago, let alone YouTube itself. You could probably count yourself lucky.
“there is a world of difference between setting out to do something deliberately and causing an accident through negligence and irresponsible behaviour.”……. I’m sorry Daphne, but this is where your argument grinds to a halt! Who’s not thinking straight? Whether you’re 40 or 21, whenever you get behind the wheel of a car when you’ve had too much to drink or when you’ve been out all night and can hardly keep your eyes open, then you are knowingly, deliberately and dramatically increasing the risk that you are very possibly about to kill someone.
[Daphne – You’re contradicting yourself here. By definition, anyone who is drunk is unaware that he is incapable of driving. Hence, he is incapable of thinking ‘I’m not fit to drive and yet I’m going to drive, even if I pose a risk to life and limb. The decision for which we are responsible is not taken at that point, but at the point at which we begin drinking. Yes, it does make a significant difference whether you are 21 or 40. At 21, you are still unable to calculate risks. At 40, you are. And that is why this sort of behaviour at 40 is more serious than at 21. Ask insurers why they have a different set of (much, much higher) premiums for drivers under 25.]
You might kill yourself, or one of your mates who foolishly get in the car with you …. or else you could kill someone who you’ve never met before. Like someone walking on the pavement or a child using the zebra crossing …. or perhaps someone riding a bicycle. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with your age – if you drink and then drive you’re a bloody idiot ….. and a potential killer. Period.
[Daphne – I can’t see the point of all this hectoring. I have been driving for 26 years. I am not advocating careless driving. I am advocating civilised behaviour. You don’t counter uncivilised behaviour – reckless driving – with more uncivilised behaviour: behaving like a lynch mob and calling for revenge.]
If it is found that Mr Taliana falls within this category then he deserves all that the courts can throw at him. If it is also true that, as you say, “many thousands” of young men and women drive around while tired or the worse for wear, then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
[Daphne – Yes, there is and yes, it has to be addressed. But it’s not going to be solved by making an example of one hapless person. It’s going to be solved by proper monitoring on our roads and draconian regulations for drinking-driving. But it’s not going to happen because The People, the Labour Party and the GRTU’s restaurants and bars section will begin going on about stringent regulations and how they are going to use their vote to undo them all. The government should use precisely this point in time to get those regulations through, when public opinion is on its side. But you do know that it’s going to kill bar business and affect restaurant business because couples can no longer split a bottle of wine. And that’s not going to happen without a major war.]
There needs to be a far greater awareness that it is NOT OK to drink and drive, that it is NOT OK to drive when you are not fully able to do so for whatever reason. As a respected journalist you are in a position where you can help raise this awareness amongst Maltese drivers and shape the opinion of many instead of attempting to defend what is so terribly wrong.
I can understand your point but….what about the victim’s wife and three children? Is it a consolation that somebody who is still 21 years old, he drinks and drive, like others do, he does crazy things like others do? But he ruined a family, killed a father, killed a husband.
[Daphne – What about the victim’s wife and three children? Even if Anthony Taliana is killed by firing squad, which is what some people here appear to believe to be appropriate, how is that going to change their situation? I haven’t really met Cliff Micallef since we were Taliana’s age, but I did know him then and I can tell you that he was far from a goody-goody stay-at-home type. None of us were. He would have been one of the first, at that age at least, to say ‘it could have been me’, in reference to the driver rather than the cyclist. I think it is outrageous to assume that he would have wanted revenge.]
I agree that we should wait for the court’s decision; we have to respect the court’s decision but…
A family member went through something similar in the 1980s. Fortunately he was not killed (although left there to die), but left with more than 50% disability. He hasn’t worked since and he had to raise three kids together with his wife, spending months in hospital, tens of operations and having to adapt to a completely new way of life…being disabled, giving up his work, hobbies and what not.
Now on the other hand that young, careless and cool driver who caused the acciden continued to live his life as if nothing happened, showing off in his expensive cars and boats (now more than 25 years later, his son is doing the same! without even the smallest consideration of the hardship he caused to the victim, his wife and kids, and that’s what happens in such cases, and it will happen again and again…it hurts, it really hurts!
[Daphne – But that’s life. The alternative would be the law of the jungle, in which anyone who causes another to be maimed is placed in a public square and maimed too. You couldn’t even do this if the maiming was deliberate, let alone if it was accidental or due to negligence. If life were fair, we would all be born rich, beautiful and clever and nobody would die of cancer or in a plane crash.]
I wonder how many of the “serious” forty-somethings – some of whom may be commenting here, others who are “hovering” around this blog – can honestly say that they’ve NEVER driven under the influence of alcohol after a “fenkata” or “boys'” night out. Probably not many.
And before any vultures leap out, I am not condoning the driver’s behaviour – far from it. It’s just that I find people’s selective memory bothersome at times.
[Daphne – That’s just what I remarked earlier, Mandy: that people who have had too much to drink by definition are unaware that they shouldn’t be driving, because the alcohol has affected their judgement already. And that’s why so many of the 40-somethings on this blog truly believe that they have never driven under the influence. They really believe that, even though it cannot possibly be true unless they are teetotal or always call Wembley to take them home.]
Look, it can happen to a sober, licensed and insured (at least, I hope so) 60-year-old nun at 9am, too:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090810/local/nun-crashes-into-five-parked-cars
@DCG: you should also start suggesting solutions to these so called accidents. In the US ( land of the free) in some states you can only drive if you are 26, others have a driving licence with a point system which decreases dramatically on first offence, and others have a licence which limits your speed to a lower limit than normal or an engine capacity of less than 1000cc for people under 25. So which one should we adopt? The real problem is parents especially macho fathers of which there are many in Malta.
[Daphne – The legal driving age in the US is 16. We already have a point system. Speed is regulated for everyone and not for some, for the simple reason that making it mandatory for one individual to drive slowly where others are driving fast would cause more accidents than it avoids. Engine capacity – which jurisdictions do you have in mind? Over here, that is reflected in insurance premiums. We already have all the regulations in place. What we don’t have is enforcement of drink-driving laws. Macho fathers – I agree. They’re all over the place and they’re bloody awful. They damn their sons for life, mainly by making them incapable of having a proper relationship with a woman. Macho behaviour is one of the main causes of marital discord and marital breakdown in Malta.]
I believe it’s both parents not only fathers………boys do go for their mothers usually and that’s a fact.
[Daphne – Go for their mothers? What, you mean attack them?]
NO. THEY JUST ADORE THEM.
[Daphne – Adoration is not love as I have had to tell somebody repeatedly. When this intensive mother-son situation is created, it is generally because there is only one son, the father is either absent or falls short of the mother’s expectations, and she sets her son up as a husband-substitute (though only emotionally, of course), raising him from birth as her creature. An Italian man put it very well to me recently: ‘In Italy, the women raise their sons for themselves. In northern Europe, they raise them to go out and survive in the world.’ In Malta, some women raise their sons for themselves, too – but certainly not all. Most have long since woken up to the wisdom of raising them to survive.]
“The legal driving age in the US is 16”
Well there is no US legal driving age, it depends on the state you are in, a couple have it as low as 14!
[Daphne – Sorry about that: the statutory minimum age……]
I don’t agree that this could have happened to anyone. Yes, accidents do happen to everyone but I think with this particular one that everyone is missing the point- drunk driving is the issue.
[Daphne – I’m going to have to be rude and use capital letters here. HOW DO ALL YOU PEOPLE KNOW THAT HE WAS DRUNK? DID YOU TEST HIM YOURSELVES AT 5AM THAT MORNING? You are ASSUMING he was drunk, and your assumption, if I may make what is probably a pretty accurate guess, is based on (1) the fact that he is 21 and male and was out at 5am, and (2) the photographs in that slanderous email, showing him mixing drinks at a party – something none of us ever did, to go by the general hoo-ha.]
Yes, the road is poorly lit and the bicycle lanes aren’t great, but first of all, if a road is poorly lit then personally, I don’t drive as fast as I would during the day. Clifford hit the front of the car, the windscreen and the roof, meaning the driver must have been going at a ridiculous speed.
[Daphne – We don’t need to guess at the ‘ridiculous speed’. There is a speed camera a few metres away. So stop it with the speculation. He may have been driving fast; he may not have been driving fast. And I don’t think we should be speculating about the trajectory of the body either. You cannot know this trajectory as you are not the investigating officer, though of course you may have been told in confidence by a member of the family.]
This accident could have happened to many 21 year olds, but only the ones that make the choice to drive home after drinking in Paceville (granted that’s probably the majority).
[Daphne – Are we all in denial here? It isn’t only ‘the majority of 21-year-olds’ who drive after drinking for hours at a party. It’s also the majority of their parents, or at least, the majority of the ones whom I know. I go to many parties, and I have yet to see a taxi outside picking anyone up. And I don’t see many teetotal wives and girlfriends doing the driving, either.]
Drunk driving is never addressed in Malta and isn’t given nearly enough importance in this discussion. The law needs to be enforced and public transport improved and till then, people need to be less selfish and find other ways of getting home, even if it means paying 20 euros for a taxi, because it never costs as much as a life.
[Daphne – Agreed.]
It said in the news he was driving under the influence didn’t it?
[Daphne – That makes it the gospel truth, then, does it. In these circumstances, I prefer to wait for the investigating officer’s report and evidence in court.]
As for older people who go to parties and drive, fair enough, but I wouldn’t say that they all drink as much as a 21 year old on a night out either, since they don’t usually do it with the aim of getting drunk.
[Daphne – I think you need to get out more. My experience is that the parents drink far more than the sons and daughters, though I have noticed that women my age are now drinking less than they used to. It’s not the law that’s keeping them in check, but their permanent calorie-counting. Fear of putting on the pounds is far more effective than fear of a fine.]
I think the driver deserves more than six years in jail, because (and this is just my opinion) he doesn’t really seem like the type of person with the capacity to change. Maybe it’s the way he is being portrayed by all the people determined to see him punished, I don’t know. Sometimes all we can do is speculate.
[Daphne – How can you say anything so terrible? It really shows that you have no understanding of the situation if you think that sending this young man to prison for more than six years is going to solve anything. I don’t think he should even spend six months in prison. And the point is that you shouldn’t be speculating. ‘Sometimes all we can do is speculate’ – no, you have a choice between speculating on gossip, speaking clearly about the facts, or keeping quiet.]
And it is a shame drunk-driving laws only seems to be enforced when someone gets killed, but putting it bluntly, this situation could serve as an example to others, although we are a LONG way off from an ideal level of enforcement.
“Daphne – We don’t need to guess at the ‘ridiculous speed’. ”
Actually you can be going at 10 mph, if you hit him and he hits his head the wrong way (is there a right way) you cn still get killed. Hell, you can trip whilst walking and get killed!
[Daphne – You can fall off a horse and be killed, while wearing a helmet, too…..]
Bingo!
This email is worrying because it assumes guilt before a trial. In Malta we have rule of law. Punishment cannot be meted out if not according to law. Were it otherwise we might just as well throw all legal structures overboard and declare a republic of the jungle. In order that someone be punished facts must be collected, exposed in a transparent manner in court, exposed to counter arguments by the defence, and only then is judgment pronounced.
However I have to agree totally with Pat in that in Malta drinking and driving is considered to be acceptable. I suppose the only time someone would not drive (maybe) is when he would have drunk so much he would hardly be able to move. (And in this sense, “he” applies also to “she”) Otherwise people just drink and drive.
But then again, it has to be an impartial court which decides, after hearing evidence, that the guy in question was in that state.
I disagree with the fact that you believe it is ‘unexpected’ to find a cyclist at 5am on a dark road. Having ridden the very same route with Cliff several times, I can attest to the fact that his bike was fully equipped with three red lights in the back and a bright front light.
While as a cyclist I accept that cycling is a reasonably risky sport, I don’t believe that Cliff would have intentionally risked his life at that point, since he was a very experienced cyclist.
I believe that running from the scene in the driver’s case and then callously begging his father to cover up for him was not something a ‘normal’ 21 year old would do.
[Daphne – How would you know? Do you have much experience with people that age? Do you remember being 21 yourself? it’s easy to play the hero from the sidelines.]
However, it is up to the courts to decide.
There are three types of 21-year-old males. 1. The ones who have a Peter Pan complex and don’t want to grow up. 2. The ones who assume responsibility and clearly know their boundaries; these usually end up at university or doing self-employed work, or both. They are characterised by facing problems head on. 3. Then there are the ones who are literally dying to grab a Darwin Award. These people are usually affected by a mix of the Peter Pan complex, low self esteem and a shallow mind, and do daring stunts to impress girls.
Unbelievable what mass-hysteria can do. I shudder to think what the family must be feeling about all this. This thirst for revenge is symptomatic of the primitive mentality of a hypocritical uber-Catholic nation and it is only serving to tarnish this tragedy with sleaze.
Thanks for trying to show people that there is a flip side…. seems like glass-houses are all out of fashion!
[Daphne – Yes, Rachel, maybe I should remind my censorious contemporaries on this blog of some of the things many members of our generation used to do aged 18 to 24: driving under the influence of marijuana, trying to drive under the influence of LSD, driving motorbikes while drunk and without a helmet because wearing one wasn’t mandatory, binge-drinking BEFORE a party and then eight people piling into a car with a driver more smashed than the passengers and careering down the wrong side of the street with everyone shrieking with hysterical laughter, people hospitalised every few weeks because of car smashes or motorbike accidents that were the result of ‘losing control of the car/bike’ after drinking heavily or smoking a joint, people wrapped round lamp-posts or stranded on roundabouts on a regular basis on the Rabat Road before or after a night at Ta’ Gianpula, people drinking all night at Club 47 and then waking up to check whether their car is parked outside the house because they couldn’t remember driving home, and not being able to find the car because they obviously couldn’t remember where they parked it (then finding it parked halfway up some other car’s backside and liberally decorated with the paintwork of other vehicles)….Most of these people are staid and solid citizens now. On the other hand, those who were utter dorks back then have had a delayed adolescence in their 40s and are now driving under the influence of cocaine while partying like it’s 1984. But as long as we can pick on somebody else’s kid and forget what we did ourselves and stay in denial about what our own kids do behind our backs, that’s fine. The biggest piece of hypocrisy in this whole tragic saga was a woman who is my exact contemporary, quoted in one of the Sunday newspapers with a paean to the dead man, when I know that at Anthony Taliana’s age she wasn’t just a drunk-driver but also a heroin addict.]
Yesterday’s article in The Malta Independent was one of your best. You put all my thoughts into words. Well done, Daph – I too have three kids and unfortunately few us are not guilty of driving under the influence and until there is more enforcement it’s not going to change.
I understand that if the Police see someone clearly drunk and getting into his car ready to drive off, they can’t stop him and test him. They have to wait till they see his erratic driving. Is this true?
[Daphne – No, of course not. If he is clearly drunk then they don’t even have to test him. The reason they don’t stop him is because they don’t want to have to deal with the problem of taking his keys and calling a relative to pick him up. The St Julian’s station is possibly one of the worst in Malta, and it’s the one that has to deal with the majority of these difficulties.]
“They damn their sons for life, mainly by making them incapable of having a proper relationship with a woman. Macho behaviour is one of the main causes of marital discord and marital breakdown in Malta.” —–> this is sooooo sick and out of context. marriage breakdown is a totally different story. in this case, marriage breakdown was a result of an unfortunate (or otherwise) accident – and it does not transpire that the dead one was a macho man. so please keep to the subject and don’t fit in the male-female thing in each and article you write.
[Daphne – I think you are a little confused here. I never mentioned Clifford Micallef’s marriage, and in fact was especially careful not to do so even when he was described repeatedly as a family man. These things are nobody’s business. Somebody mentioned that today’s YOUNG men – I imagine that it was a reference to the driver – are the product of macho fathers, and that is the context in which I mentioned that machismo is the single greatest cause of marital discord.]
Macho fathers are the ones who buy big toys for small boys… and nothing to do with marriage, women, or your fixations of the male-female never ending sickening comments.
[Daphne – No, macho fathers are the ones who teach their sons, either by example or by explicit explanations, what a woman’s place is. Toys have nothing to do with it. All small boys like big trucks and cranes. It’s normal. What isn’t normal, on the other hand, is for them to receive the lesson that men should be treated with respect but that women needn’t be. As for your other remarks, I deleted them as you are clearly somebody with a problem.]
i am surprised that you recognise me as one with problems.
how cheeky.
[Daphne – It doesn’t take much, you know.]
Sorry to join the discussion so late – was doing something for my favourite NGO.
Daphne, your entire premise that “it could have happened to anyone” which you repeatedly harp on, is false. Mr Taliana is not “anyone” he is a convicted lousy driver. He was not supposed to be driving at all. He had no insurance. Any normal person wouldn’t have been driving in the same circumstances. A few might just have risked it but would have taken extra hyper caution. But Mr Taliana doesn’t trifle with these niceties. It may not have been pre-meditated, but no, Daphne, this was not an “accident” – the dice were loaded in favour of Mr Taliana killing someone . . . the only chancey thing about it was who would it be, not ‘if’. Unfortunately for him, fate chose Mr Micallef as the victim but a victim there was bound to be.
[Daphne – Chris, this morning a 60-year-old nun ‘lost control of her car’ and smashed into another five vehicles. She could also have smashed into a woman with a pushchair. The odds are not that a drunk-driver will kill somebody, but that he won’t. Given the fact that there are thousands of people out driving every summer night with several drinks swilling around inside them, to me it is nothing short of miraculous that this is the first such tragic accident. It is precisely because it is so unusual that we are making a great fuss about it. Perhaps you should talk to the people at RMF and ask them how many accidents they have to deal with on a Saturday night in winter as opposed to every other night of the week. They’re run off their feet. As for people driving without insurance cover: this is extremely common and nothing can be done about it. You can tell from the tax disc on the windscreen whether the car is insured, but you have no way of knowing whether the driver is covered by that insurance policy. We always assume that the driver is, but we are wrong to do so. And yes, Chris, it was an accident. If it wasn’t an accident it would have to be premeditated, and it clearly wasn’t. It was an accident aggravated by negligence.]
In your desperation to justify the patently unjustifiable, you are mixing lettuce with onions as we say. Nun aged 60 crashes = freak accident. Shithead off his face who shouldn’t be driving, = killer on the loose. There is no similarity in the cases. Stop trying to invent one.
[Daphne – I find it interesting that excuses are made for nuns. I approach this from the opposite standpoint: while I can see why a 21-year-old would be a rotten driver who mows people down, I can’t see why a 60-year-old sober woman would ‘lose control of her car’ and mow into another five vehicles, fortunately and accidentally missing passers-by. I find that more questionable, and not less so.]
It was so NOT an accident that the perpetrator a) abandoned the scene b) hid the evidence and c) (allegedly) tried to pervert the course of justice.
[Daphne – Chris, if it was not an accident then it would have to be premeditated or self-defence. There is no fourth way. It was obviously not premeditated, it was obviously not self-defence, therefore it was an accident. The court may decide that the circumstances were aggravated by negligence through dangerous driving, but he is not standing trial for murder. That in itself should tell you that it was an accident. You can still be prosecuted for causing death through negligence (manslaughter). I don’t know what your definition of accident is, but these are the official ones: 1. an event that is without apparent cause, or is unexpected; 2. an unfortunate event, esp. one causing physical harm or damage, brought about unintentionally. Your argument is illogical. Abandoning the scene, hiding the evidence and perverting the course of justice are separate crimes entirely. They do not have any bearing on whether the death was an accident or not. It is quite possible to have an accident and wish to hide the evidence, run away from it, or escape prosecution.]
There are NOT thousands like Taliana about – you refuse to recognise or admit that most of us with a conviction would NEVER get off our faces and tear around uninsured.
[Daphne – That’s because we’re 44/45 and not 21. I wouldn’t have done that at 21 because I had a baby to look after, but I can’t say I wouldn’t have done it at 19. I might very well have, and so would a lot of other people I can think of, most of whom are thoroughly staid sofa-surfers now. I have neither a poor memory nor a predisposition to hypocrisy. And yes, very many people of all ages drive without insurance cover in Malta. It’s a perennial problem.]
Why someone who is usually so clear-thinking cannot see such a simple yet profound difference mystifies me.
[Daphne – It is precisely because I am clear-thinking that I have written this. I am able to separate my emotions over Clifford’s death from the facts of the case as we know them, placed in the context of real life for 21-year-old males as I know it only too well. That some people have construed it as a defence of Taliana’s actions shows that they are unable to do the same. Taliana is that cliche: the one who was in the wrong place at the wrong time (just as Clifford was) while doing what everyone else was doing anyway. It was the first thing one of my sons, who is his contemporary, said when he read the news report.]
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=92386
When I was 21 years old 39 years ago, together with many friends and others we souped up our Mini Coopers + MGB’s/Ford Escorts + Lotus Cortinas to ‘full race’ engines’ with many extras to get the most we could in acceleration. What did we do with our DIY ‘racing cars’, accompanied by our wives/girlfriends? We raced them at any time of day and on any stretch of road, however short such as Dingli Street in Sliema, and from the Preluna hotel right up the coast road – where this death occurred – top Kennedy Grove.
Did it ever cross our mind that not only were we taking a risk but also putting that of others in danger? No. Did we have any fear? No. Did we think about tomorrow? No. Were we taken to court for over-speeding? Yes. Did we continue racing our cars? Yes. Could the unfortunate incident talked about above happened to each and every one of us? Yes.
When I was 21 years old, just married, with my wife three months pregnant, I was passenger with a driver who had never been to Ta’ Qali, where we used to race. He made a U turn straight into oncoming traffic, and the resulting crash left me unconscious for six weeks, the doctors not knowing whether I would live or not for the first two weeks. One of the girls who had been sitting on the rear of the other car, a convertible, was killed.
Was it a big enough lesson to stop our habit? No, it was not. Soon after I recovered, I began tuning up another Mini Cooper with the help of a mechanic. There was a disagreement about who would drive this on the day of the big race. I took this argument so badly that it was only then that I began to think about what I was doing. Did I regret the money I had spent on illegal racing? No. I could go on and on and on about how young men and boys behave at that age.
I bet that although we speak of safety and the need to wear seat belts and crash helmets, most of us would be the first to do away with them if the law was rescinded. I bet that most of those who speak about the immaturity and recklessness of youth would still drive their car after having a couple of drinks, enough to make them unsteady and unsafe.
In the good old days ‘recklessness’ existed as it exists now, the difference being that roads were even worse then nowadays and there were few cars.
Finally I would like to mention that none of the four families involved in that serious accident ever hated one another for what happened. On the contrary, I remember the three other families visiting me in hospital when I regained consciousness. This is not because the good old days were any better but because there are people and people.
Again, Daphne proves to be the most reasonable.
[Daphne – It wasn’t any different in my parents’ generation, when young men used to play a game called Chicken. Two cars packed with ‘boys’ were driven at full speed headlong towards each other, and the aim was to swerve away at the last possible second. The driver who swerved away first was the chicken. This once resulted in several young men being killed in a head-on smash at top speed. They would have been around 70 now.]
Daphne, it seems that you are referring to the accident, which happened on the coast road, limits of Bahar ic-Caghaq, in which one of the cars was a Citroen, with soft (floating) suspension, and hence relatively difficult to control under conditions of high speed slalom (swerving).
Reminds me of the film ‘Rebel without a cause’.
I recall an older friend of mine relating this incident to me, which he had actually witnessed. If I recall correctly, he had told me that it happened in the stretch of road, which back then was more narrow, between ex-Atlas hotel and the entrance to Madliena.
[Daphne – Yes, that’s right.]
Yes, it was called ‘chicken’ like you said. Fortunately that happened about two years before I began driving but I’m sure I’d have enjoyed the thrill if it were possible for me to get into one of those cars. And it is the same accident that Leo mentioned below.
I mentioned that it was ‘chicken’ and that I would have been thrilled to join in the so-called game, but I also said that that incident happened about two years before I began driving. I never mentioned being there, so I was mistaken. In point of fact it is as John said below that the accident happened. I spoke to my brother who was on the scene and from what he told me it is similar to what John said.
Hi Daphne,
Interesting points you raise but…..life would be so much easier if the public was not ONLY just made aware of the laws, but also knew that the authorities are continuously enforcing these same laws, which I regret to say does not happen. All it takes are a few breathalizer tests every weekend around the Paceville/Bugibba areas, heavy fines, and standing our ground when the shiese hits the fan with the bar owners. I am convinced that mini-vans will end up doing a roaring trade.
A little story:
Someone I know very well (and I know you do as well) was apprehended by the police when he was a student in the United States, for simply having an open bottle of beer in the backseat of his car, at the age of 20. He was not drunk but he effectively broke the law because he was not yet 21, and was ”in possession of”. He spent a night in jail, had to be bailed out the next morning, bail set at $300 dollars (which was then turned into a fine), and made to serve three months of community service. His ‘mugshot’ was on the FBI list for three years after that. (A fellow student who a year later joined the FBI as a forensic officer thought it funny to actually fax the mugshot to his office of his first job in Malta. Great stuff!) But I digress….. believe me, he never drank and drove, or carried a bottle of beer in his car while in the States after that. Enforcement certainly left its mark.
[Daphne – It would be dire if we went down that road. The USA is fascist in such matters, and it has a difficult historical relationship with alcohol. A schoolfriend’s son, aged 20, was picked up on the beach in the US state where he lives because he was with friends who had ONE can of beer. His mother was called to pick him up at the station. He was allowed to go, but the friend who was holding the can of beer spent the night at the station and was prosecuted the next day. Who wants that? Let’s go for a happy medium. Banning those under 21 from drinking is a non-starter. If they can vote for a government and marry they can drink, for heaven’s sake. But we are at the opposite extreme.]
Has it stopped this man drinking and driving here? Sadly no, the main reason being that he and thousands of others know that the police do not even have enough breathalizers to conduct raids, never mind enforcing the law. And I do not think we can rely on individuals having ‘responsible’ drinking habits either. I rarely hear the phrase ”No more thanks, I’m driving” ….and my friends are much older than 23. So yes, whether it’s fear of, or respect for, the law, if strict enforcement means less people drinking and driving then I am all for it. After all, it can save a life.
I agree, Daphne, jail etc was over the top, especially at the age of 20, but I was just making a point that enforcement has its positive attributes.
As to our drinking age, passing by Wembley’s at night and seeing 15-16 year olds totally smashed, with the police very obviously turning a blind eye to the illegal selling of alcohol by the bottle shops around, really bugs me. I realise that education about responsible drinking etc., has to start at home, but hey, surely the police can help out by ensuring that laws are observed by one and all, even if we do opt for a ”happy medium”.
[Daphne – Education at home doesn’t help. Believe me, I’ve been there. We forget that rebellion against parents is an important part of psychological development. One just has to live in hope that their chosen way of rebellion isn’t going to end up with disastrous consequences. However, people who don’t rebel at the appropriate time – when in their teens – will end up rebelling at the inappropriate time, when middle-aged. So rather than being a matter of preventing kids from rebelling, it should be a matter of keeping them safe while they rebel. The police don’t only turn a blind eye – those at the St Julian’s station actually treat you like an inconvenient hassler if you report a bar for selling alcohol to minors. This happened to me some years ago.]
NO NO NO – see here you go again getting soft on dirnk driving. Alcohol and and driving kills – get it!! ?/ Hello…..!!
here should be zero tolerence same as in the US and most European countries. Study the evidence – deaths by drink driving on the road and determine whihc country has the best record – that country would also have the closest to zero tolerence combined with strict enforcement.
I really don’t wish to persist in an argument, but Daphne you are really persisting on the wrong side of the argument. I totally agree with Chris Ripard.
[Daphne – Our perspective on things is shaped by our past and our present. Though you, Chris and I are all contemporaries, it looks like I’m the only one of the three who experienced (or perhaps who remembers) similar behaviour by our contemporaries at 21. It really doesn’t seem that long ago. And I’m also the only one of us three who has not one but three sons of that age, as a consequence of which I must know perhaps around 30 young men that age, if not more.]
While accidents will of course happen to the vast majority of people who drive properly as I assume the nun was, and not under the influence of anything, the probability of “accidents” to people who may be under the influence or just outright show offs is far far greater!
[Daphne – If the nun were driving properly she wouldn’t have smashed into five cars. If that were a 21-year-old ‘show-off’ and not a nun, our assumptions would have been very different. And this is exactly what I am trying to highlight here. Our prejudice drives us to convict people before they have even gone to trial. That nun could have easily killed somebody. What would we have said then? That she wasn’t drunk so that’s OK?]
If anything the pics circulated on the e mail and his prior conviction is a clear indication of what sort of guy he is.
[Daphne – No, David, they are not exceptional, believe me. They are completely normal for somebody in that age group. And that is why I tell you that access to people of that age is CRUCIAL in trying to understand what happened here, or at a push, memory of what it was like to be that age ourselves. Did none of your friends ever burst in on you while you were on the lavatory in a Gozo house where everyone was coming and going and snap you at your business? I remember much worse than that: friends bursting in with a camera on other people in bed, or in the shower, or vomiting into a bucket, or rolling around on the floor. And what – did you never mix drinks at a table loaded with bottles or go to a party at a house when parents were away, where the ‘drink’ consisted of everyone raiding the cocktail cabinet at home and pouring the thieved goods indiscriminately into a plastic dustbin which, if you were lucky, was newly bought? Then everybody went off and threw up all over the rosebushes and passed out in the shrubs.]
If I recall correctly, Chris is one of a family of five or six brothers, a couple of whom drove motorbikes – not cars – in their teens/early twenties. With a motorbike, you wouldn’t dare risk driving after having had a drink or two, because you wouldn’t stand a chance. It was either that, or getting a lift …
We drove everything – mopeds, motorcycles and cars. None of us six brothers ever caused any injuries to anyone in cars, even though some of our old bangers were barely fit for the road and nowhere near a quarter as safe as today’s cars. We would also drink and drive. It is more than possible that we were more safety aware than most because we were all bikers, where your faculties automatically become super-honed towards safety.
btw Mandy, which Mandy are you? Not always Mallia, surely?
“We drove everything – mopeds, motorcycles and cars. None of us six brothers ever caused any injuries to anyone in cars, even though some of our old bangers were barely fit for the road and nowhere near a quarter as safe as today’s cars. We would also drink and drive. It is more than possible that we were more safety aware than most because we were all bikers, where your faculties automatically become super-honed towards safety.”
It’s also safe to assume that if you had hit someone, which despite your super ability to drive safely is not very unlikely, you would have been judged in the same way. It’s a matter of luck in the end.
“We would also drink and drive.”
You weren’t prudent drivers then, were you? So why be so censorious about someone else who – allegedly – did the same thing?
Vella
It was much safer to ride a motorcycle in the 1980s than it is now. There were fewer cars, and more importantly, very few people in their late teens/early twenties drove, let alone owned cars. I would never dream of driving a motorcycle now.
“If anything the pics circulated on the e mail …”
Digital photography being so much more versatile and cheap than the cumbersome 35mm photos (which would cost around Lm8 or so per lot of 24) have changed the way people use photography.
Many “respectable” forty-somethings out there are probably thankful for the fact that people were not so snap-happy in their youth a couple of decades ago.
[Daphne – Yes, somewhere out there in Germany there’s a photograph of three naked bottoms mooning at the camera lens: mine, and my two best friends’, aged 17. Somebody had landed us with a really annoying (and ugly) German student to look after and he was getting on our nerves particularly badly that day. When he finally went off for a swim, one of us snatched his camera from his bag and the other three mooned at it, and I wonder what he thought when he got back home and developed that roll. I’m hoping the beach was deserted, but given that it was Ferro Bay at the height of summer, I don’t think so.]
I shall think about launching a teutonic search for the particular photograph.
The difference in the old camera prank between ‘then’ and ‘now’ is that then the unsuspecting camera-owner had to call at a shop to collect the developed obscene photos, with the attendant ensuing embarrassment to both parties. And, of course, young gentlemen displayed something a bit more x-rated than a bare bottom.
Pat, your sarcasm is wasted and pointless. Unlike what you and Daphne think, this “accident” was bound to happen to this Taliana person and, sure as eggs is eggs, it did. You (plural) think that I and my bros didn’t maim or kill anyone because we were lucky? Seriously?
Even when we did drive under the influence, we were careful. I remember once (just) driving home from City of London barely able to walk . . . I never left second gear and kept hitting the pavement to make sure I was on my side of the road all the way to Tigne’ Street.
Compare and contrast that to Taliana – drunk or sober. I’ve been driving for 32 years and was only involved in one accident which, purely through inexperience, was my fault. I was 18 and had donated blood that day too, which left me a little groggy but it was my first time and I didn’t realise it would happen.
That apart, my only other accident was when I clipped the bumper of a car parked in a no-parking area, whilst trying to avoid a van coming wrong way down a one-way street towards me. Ironically, the van was driven by a relative of the late Mr Micallef, if I remember correctly. (This was 1981). Since then, nothing.
I never thought of the plastic dustbin. Thanks for the tip.
And a word for the proponents of prohibition: If you want people to stop drinking, you have to give them something better to do. In 2009, there’s bugger all.
Is there less to do in 2009 than in 1909 you think? Or 1999, or 1989?
Also, why do you go to extremes? It’s not a matter of prohibition. It’s about drinking sensibly and responsibly. I had my fair share of drinks in my youth, but I never got into a car under the influence. It wouldn’t even occur to me.
I’m sorry, but if your sprogs have Taliana’s arrogance – which I’m sure they don’t – you (and your husband) haven’t done your job.
[Daphne – They don’t, at all (they’re rather lovely), and nor do their friends. The mistake you’re making here is in thinking that only arrogant bastards drink, drive, ‘borrow’ their parents’ cars when they have no insurance cover and drive home at 5am. As I said, I don’t know this ‘boy’, but then neither does anyone else here. We ‘know’ he’s arrogant because we were told he is in that hateful email presentation.]
I will repeat one last time, none of us and none of yours and in fact very few people are as brazen as Taliana. Just thank God it wasn’t someone close to you he killed (you’d be singing our tune then, that’s for sure).
[Daphne – You see, that’s why our perspective is different. My reaction wasn’t ‘thank God it wasn’t somebody close to me that he killed’ but ‘thank God it wasn’t one of mine who mowed him down’. I have three sons who drive home along the Coast Road at 5am, but nobody ‘close to me’ who cycles there at that time. And yes, no doubt I would be singing your tune if I were close to the dead person, but that’s exactly what I’m saying: anger clouds judgment and makes one seek revenge rather than justice.]
Daphne, it’s not arrogance, its selfishness. It’s like a plague in this country and nobody seems to want to cure it.
I have taken much worse photos . . . and there’s no way I’m putting them on the ‘net!
Busy Ferro Bay – you could have been prosecuted for indecent exposure!
The whole incident was very tragic. I regret the fact that when I got the email, in a fit of anger I sent it on. It’s the wrong thing to do. This guy Taliana’s photos got my goat badly, because Cliff was a good friend. Those photos are not very good references to his character, however.
I hang my head in shame, because when younger we did exactly as he did. I was driving without a licence and insurance cover at 14, although i never ventured into crowded areas, but limited myself and friends to racing around a deserted Hal Far airfield. Later on, getting plastered was normal. We didn’t do drugs, though – alcohol was enough. But we did have a sense of right and wrong. We had our limits, and we never drove under the influence.
Our cars were treasured possessions because they signified independence, and we would never trash them. its not the first time we parked in a layby or at Ta’ Qali and slept it off, or crashed out at a nearby friends’ place. Today my contemporaries are staid pillars of society, or so we fondly imagine.
We were like any other youngster, full of hormones, rebellious, and living for the day. We also did lots of voluntary work, because we enjoyed the penance of it.
What I find troubling is that the brand of rebellion in today’s youth. They really believe that anything goes. They have everything that we as youngsters only dreamed of: a car at 18, money in their pockets and Paceville to spend it in. Yet they have so very little common sense. This guy should have slept it off. It’s horrible, the number of near-accidents I witness near Pacevile on Sunday at 5.30 am when I go for the newspapers. It’s obvious that most young people don’t know that limits, even self-imposed ones, exist. And that is the fault of BOTH parents, not only macho fathers but pliant mothers as well.
In the austere Mintoff years, we had to work hard for these things.
Mario De Bono: Bar the reference to cars and Paceville, your last paragraph could have been pulled out of any decade in the last century, and possibly even before.
Lamenting the recklessness of contemporary youth is the battlecry of middle age. Your children will probably be saying much the same thing in 35-40 years’ time.
Ah, Mario, at least some peoples’ attitudes have changed since the 1970s – about Speedos, at the very least:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Speedos-Alarm-Alton-Towers-May-Slap-Ban-On-Skin-Tight-Swimming-Trunks-After-Resurgence/Article/200908215357899?lpos=UK_News_News_Your_Way_Region_0&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15357899_Speedos_Alarm%3A_Alton_Towers_May_Slap_Ban_On_Skin-Tight_Swimming_Trunks_After_Resurgence
I will comment only on limited aspects on how I think we may go about making ‘proper’ use of our roads and streets.
It may sound paradoxical for a society, unique in not permitting its citizens to obtain a divorce in the wake of a marriage turned sour, to go easy on the issue of driving that can easily end in death.
The latest homo version (homo sapiens) has significant weaknesses that, to its credit, it can analyze and, to some degree, mitigate.
Observing, over a few thousands of years, its penchant to kill one another for reasons of envy, greed or fear, Homo Sapiens gradually evolved artificial rules intended to make its life more bearable. Thou shalt not kill evolved into an approximate culture that served homo sapiens well, without, of course eradicating its natural instinct to kill. Hence, when circumstances mushroom to incite Homo sapiens’ instinct to kill, Homo sapiens responds with the aplomb of famished hyenas. The 20th century is the most glaring self-destruct period underpinned by humanity’s technological capacities.
The car-phenomena is a recent edition to the homo sapiens equation. What appeared to be a means of transport that replaced the horse-drawn cart preceded by a man holding a flag, it gradually became an ideal contraption that enabled man to flirt with his self-destruct instinct.
The use of the car has been extended to behavior akin to a blindfolded person going into a street shooting his licensed gun in any whatever direction.
Now I will fully subscribe to the need for youth of all ages to exercise folly to their heart’s content. I have no problems if they were to enliven their days playing at all sorts of Russian roulette, peeking at the dangling breasts of goats or moon shining to their heart’s content. Yet, when their exuberance transforms a street into some kind of circus maximums playing their brand of Russian roulette with each pot hole, sleeping police, blind corner and every pedestrian, than the car is no longer a means of transport but becomes a revolver that the driver shoots from the hip in each and every blind direction.
Homo sapiens needs to evolve rules that protects it from ‘gun wielding and shooting’ aficionados. It may take the fireworks model, designating areas where Russian roulette practitioners may let their impulses moonshine to their heart’s content. In the meantime, streets and roads must remain a boring way how Tom Dick and Harriett may go from point a to whatever other point as safely as possible.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090811/local/cyclists-death-accused-driver-placed-under-house-arrest
The usual know-it-all commentators will start their useless debate now …
I was 21, and never was under the influence of alcohol, because I don’t like it much. And I am no nerd nor dejjaq, and I am missing nothing.
I see that parents still have a role in advising continously, even for those who are above parental age: “tixrobx u ssuq ghax igib lilek u lilna fl-ghali” instead of taking the libertine attitude “ghax ghandu l-eta tieghu u jaghmel li jrid”.
It’s a matter of upbringing somehow too, and how much parents instill responsibility. Some people think that drinking is a sign that one has become a man or that it is a social necessity.
I agree, the funny thing is that there are 21 year-olds who still live with their parents, but act as if having house rules is childish. Some people don’t realize how ironic that is.
Chris, surely you remember the ‘trapped like a rat in a soupbowl’ exclamation which TSS came up with when I did a 720 on the dew in my MG Midget whilst giving him a lift home from City of London soused to the gills. Let’s call it luck (but the reality is that there are few people out and about at 03.00 a.m.) that I didn’t kill myself, my passenger or someone else.
Daphne’s basically right (as bloody usual): 18 to 22 year old males are a danger to society and to themselves but there’s not much we can do about it. However, this does not mean that the unfortunate few who get caught should get off lightly as there’d be no use for a justice system.
If the guy has a previous record, and is found guilty of relapsing, one would expect the court to increase the sentence accordingly.
The only interesting thing about this hate mail is that I know it has been forwarded by someone who sits on a parish council and regards himself as a devout Catholic. Catholicism however is based on forgiveness.
OK Tim – once you took TSS home when you were pissed i.e. half a mile. That makes you -and me by reflection – habitual drunk drivers. I don’t think so.
What particularly scared me about this story is the way the Facebook photos were used and abused to portray this unlucky boy as a binge-drinking homicidal maniac. I even understand, if not justify, his fleeing from the scene. Panic can move men in strange and absurd ways.
The thing which the majority of the older generations fail to realize is that pictures of you on Facebook are rarely uploaded by you. You need not even own a Facebook account and your picture could still be there for all to see and make use of as they wish. They just need to be friends with your friends, which doesn’t necessarily make them your friends.
This is the voyeuristic culture we live in and there’s no escaping it. The only thing you can do is make sure you behave in public, which even the dorkiest of dorks find difficult to do ALL the time.
We’re going to be in an interesting situation in around 20 years’ time where some of the current 20-somethings will be in positions of power, and yet compromising photographs of them will be only a few clicks away.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/888126/drunk_driving_jacqueline_saburido/
A good article on the whole. Unfortunately, it can also be read as a ‘damage limitation’ exercise.
The thrust of your article would have made more sense if the article tried to identify solutions. It is an ultimate question of responsibility and how to use the responsibility (with authority) to reduce risks for society.
I am not placing the blame on anyone but legislation exists for many problems that plague this country – filthy environment, noise, driving under the influence, elderly citizens who might need to revise their driving licence – and a whole list of (perhaps) petty issues. Other problems simply need professional or competent managers. Sometimes I get the impression that this is what really pisses people off in this country.
This goes beyond ‘mob rule’ or ‘lynch mobs’ or ‘the people’, it is a matter of how and why certain perceptions are allowed to be created.
I have to admit this article surprises me. The said email, doing the rounds, ended up in my mailbox too. Probably this is a symptom of the outrage people feel when such things happen.
Based on the article published by timesofmalta.com today, there appears to be enough evidence for the person involved to be placed under house arrest. Again not sure why under house arrest and not prison.
Having said that and assuming that the sort of reasoning in this blog post is reflective of those who influence the development of our society, I am not surprised that we are living in a society that has lost its value system, become superficial, lead by amateurs and where everything from a little misdemeanour to the highest level of corruption and worse is explained and justified.
I do not agree that “that people who have had too much to drink by definition are unaware that they shouldn’t be driving, because the alcohol has affected their judgement already. And that’s why so many of the 40-somethings on this blog truly believe that they have never driven under the influence.”
You can have had too much to drink, and know it. You then make a choice. I do agree though that most “normal” 40-somethings have driven under the influence. When they are 20, men, by nature, do not calculate risk the same way you do at 40. So it is likely at 20, you will think the risk to be insignificant, and drive. At 40, you will see that risk differently, and probably won’t drive. (no guarantee though)
“At 40, you will see that risk differently, and probably won’t drive.”
Hmmm. When out in company, I’m usually the only one who doesn’t drink alcohol. I don’t like it, so it’s an easy choice. I don’t drive everybody home because my car only takes four passengers yet I haven’t ever seen anyone go home in a taxi.
What does that say about the other drivers, some of whom might even have their own children in their car?
Yeah, I agree. Some of us never grow up, whatever our age!
Daphne, thought I’d throw in my penny’s worth. Especially after reading the “cerebral” comments below the timesofmalta.com article about this chap’s bail condition. Your article definitely helps balance the argument. I remember quite well the coast road ‘chicken’ accident. I also remember acquaintances at the Sliema Pitch and Exiles dying because of their reckless driving or that of their friends.
I look back and shudder at the way my friends and I used to drink and drive so recklessly. As you rightly say, what happened to this chap Taliana could have easily happened to me. However, I would not consider inexperience and youth a mitigating factor. If this person is found guilty of what the prosecution alleges then he should feel the full weight of the law, in the same manner if anyone twice his age would have been found guilty for a similar offence. If one is old enough to drink, drive and vote. Then one should be prepared to accept the consequences of one’s actions.
Unfortunately drinking and driving, unlike in the UK and other countries, is still socially acceptable in Malta. I notice this very clearly on my now frequent visits to Malta. When I decline another drink, because I say I’m driving, the response I get is: “EEEE kemm sirt Ingliz.” And that unfortunately is the example adults are giving the younger generation. The whole situation is further exacerbated by the attitude of the authorities.
People are allowed to drink and drive recklessly and in many cases cars that are not roadworthy. I think that law makers and law enforcers are morally just as guilty of deaths that occur due to the lack of law enforcement and suitable punishment.
Daphne. Just caught up with your thread. Amazing how you’re able to continuously ‘rouse the rabble’ with your thought-provoking comments. This one brought, roaring back, memories of growing up in Canada in the fifties and sixties. Ever try to make love to a grizzly bear after a dare? (just kidding). However, It appears that growing up in Malta was not all that different – doing stupid, dangerous stunts etc. I, also, feel this guy should have his due in a court of law, not the court of the rabble. As for the nun, perhaps she was praying and removed her hands from the steering wheel in order to clasp them and then looked skyward for an acknowledgement.
Two died in that coast road accident (I went to the funerals) and one survived. And they weren’t playing Chicken. As I recall one guy was on the timed racing bit of the ‘course’, overtook a car and smacked straight into his friend who was returning to the starting line. They’d be around 65/6 today.
As for the Taliana incident – well – there but for the grace of God go I – but with one important difference. There is no way I would not stop to offer what assistance I could, and I am not talking hypothetically. A burly Austrian burgher once jaywalked into me on the outskirts of Salzburg and smashed up himself and my Mini pretty badly. I did what I could to help the unconscious mess, and following cars then called the ambulance and police. I was in my 20s. I never thought he’d survive, with only some loss of sense of smell as a permanent disability.
If what has been reported on Net News is to be believed, the English girl pleaded with Taliana to stop. He didn’t. Fine example of Maltese manhood. I can think of few more despicable acts than that. And what about the father telling the police that he did it. Sounds like perverting the course of justice to me.
And if the father lent his car to his son knowing that the son was not insured to drive the car, then he is as big an asshole as the son.
[Daphne – That’s most unlikely, John. Anyone who does that loses his licence, too, and renders himself non-insurable. Insurance companies have a reporting system under which they blacklist people like this. When parents’ cars are ‘borrowed’ it’s without their knowledge. That’s why most parents I know, when they leave the house, take with them the keys of the car/s they’ve left behind, and keep the spares well concealed. This doesn’t always work. I’ve known cases in which the sons (daughters rarely do this kind of thing) take the key off the front-door hook while their parents are at home, then go out to have a secret copy made. They then wait until their parents are asleep before going out, and return to park the car before their parents wake up.]
“Sounds like perverting the course of justice to me”.
Someone once crashed into the back of my car. He was driving without insurance coverage, but I did not know that at the time. I found out when his father called me to change the details on the accident report form so that he’d appear to have been the driver. I refused. Had I agreed, the son would have been out of trouble and the father might have saved some cash or, at worst, have had to pay a higher insurance premium the following year.
I don’t know Mr Taliana senior’s true motive, but, had the police believed him, it doesn’t seem to me that he would have come through unscathed.
I agree with you, Daphne, but for the wrong reason. There are people to blame here , but Taliana is not one of them. The people to blame are the police, for not enforcing drink-driving laws, our judges for giving out lenient sentences to offenders, parents who defend possible irresponsible behaviour by their offspring, legislators who allow 21 year olds to drive, street planners who designed opposing lanes of traffic on a winding coast road, and most of all voters who vote in incompetent members of parliament election after election.
As the Italians say, “Piove, governo ladro.”
I am one of the ‘older generation’. When there was that fatal accident mentioned above (when a group of boys died while racing) we were at a party. As soon as we heard about the accident – no easy feat as there were no mobiles in those days – we were all stunned. The boys all swore they would never speed again, never drink and drive etc etc. They kept their word for a few days at most.
I wish to make two points =
I understand the panic Taliana must have felt and make allowances for that. However, it is arrogance in my books for him to know he had no licence and still drive and drink. If he wanted to defy the ban, he should have been super careful. I still feel, however, that he was doing what many of his age group do.
When we go to a wedding or other reception, the majority of men drink and drive. However, at our age we have more sense and don’t speed.
I don’t understand why family circumstances have to be brought into these stories. In both this case and Gennie Psaila’s we’ve read so many totally unrelated facts that I don’t know what to believe any more. Plus personal facts shouldn’t be even mentioned.
“the majority of men drink and drive”
So do many of the women, and they can’t even use their age as an excuse.
I must say that I find both viewpoints (this post and the chain email) equally annoying and appalling. This post reeks of “boys-will-boys”, “he’s just 21”, “an eye for an eye makes the world go blind”, “cast the first stone” rhetoric.
On the other side it’s the “crazed killer”, “jobless bum”, “reckless and arrogant brat” baying-for-blood-rant.
An inquiry is underway – let the court establish any criminal (and perhaps civil) (co)responsibility, if any.
I can’t see how anyone can say that in the same situation they’d not do a runner too. It’s not something you can say beforehand what you’d do. I’d like to think I wouldn’t panic and run, but at 21, intoxicated (allegedly), and in a state of panic, who knows what anyone would do. We know what Anthony Taliana did, we have absolutely no idea what any one of us would do, because we have never been in that situation.
The Italian penal code renders it a criminal office, punishable with up to one year imprisonment, for any person, not just the alleged perpetrator, not to assist/aid an injured person (“omissione di soccorso”).
No such equivalent exists in our criminal code. Perhaps introducing the equivalent provision would act as an effective deterrent for persons tempted to flee the scene (which is not per se necessarily indicative of responsiblity) and help save lives.
[Daphne – I wonder what the ‘let them drown’ brigade on timesofmalta.com would have to say about that.]
What if the casualty suffers further injury, or is killed, as a result of that assistance? Is one looking at massive crippling lawsuits for the rest of one’s life? Because that’s the reason most people won’t touch a casualty.
Maybe I’m missing something, H P Baxxter, but isn’t there a difference between handling a casualty and calling for help without leaving the scene? It’s not as if mobile phones haven’t been invented yet.
So in the Italian penal code, it is enough to call for assistance. OK makes sense.
I don’t think I would run. I wouldn’t even do that with a dog let alone a human being… I agree with Jack on introducing something like that if it does not exist in Malta.
I hope all of you bleeding heart liberals read today’s Times’ article on the Taliana case: off his face, refused to stop though asked, still being arrogant, hid the evidence, tried to pervert the course of justice . . .
But of course, the gist is that we’re all potentially Talianas, according to you.
I hope people who cycle are reading this blog – then they’ll know why they should give up their hobby immediately. Heck, if everyone thinks like you lot, cycling should be made illegal.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Drink-Drive-Mother-Jailed-For-Killing-Her-Fiance/Article/200908215359526?lpos=UK_News_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15359526_Drink-Drive_Mother_Jailed_For_Killing_Her_Fiance
Very well said, I couldn’t agree with you more. I can’t imagine how one cycles on such a narrow, steep road at that hour when it’s still dark. Cyclists are dangerous on roads even in daylight when you are driving behind one and suddenly he swerves out into the road and back in, let alone at that hour on such a road. It was the fifth incident for LifeCycle. I think it should serve as an eye-opener for them that what they’re doing is dangerous. Why not go to Buskett or Chadwick Lakes to cycle? Why do they have to choose busy, narrow roads at awkward times?
[Daphne – Columnist Minette Marrin wrote about the subject in The Sunday Times (London) last Sunday http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article6797744.ece ]
Why not drive a bit more carefully if there’s a cyclist in front of you?
Or… why not respect the legal speed limits and observe the law so that cyclists don’t have to worry about Sterling Moss wannabes running them down?
I was in Malta in September 2009 and a friend of mine who lives there told me that all her friends drive after drinking, and even she admitted to drinking and driving many many times. It’s simply not an issue there. Another interesting point is that many motorcycle drivers don’t wear helmets. It seems like if they’re going to be a part of the EU, they should act more mature as a country and own up to road safety. I suppose nothing will change until the president or some high – up political figure / actor, or their child is killed in a drinking & driving accident. Seems to be the way of the world