She drives he dies!

Wile E. Coyote

Wednesday, 26 August 2009 15:03
The jury in an inquest into the death of two young Cork men following a road traffic accident near Fermoy in August 2007 has delivered a verdict of death by misadventure.
19-year-old James Sexton and 22-year-old Michael Murphy, both of Castlelyons in Cork, died following an accident in a car driven by the then 19-year-old Theresa Dingivan.
The inquest heard Ms Dingivan who has already been acquitted of dangerous driving in Cork Circuit Criminal Court had a provisional licence, which she got just over four weeks prior to the accident.

The jury told the coroner, Dr Michael Kennedy, that they recommend that the laws in regard to provisional licences be vigorously enforced.

Just read the above on the RTE website and was just wondering what people thought given the RSA's big 'He drives she DIE's' campaign and them constantly trying to clamp down on male drivers.

Do you think the same verdict would have been handed down if this was a 19 year old male that had been driving at the time?

Captain Slow IRL

That's bullsh1t - if it was male, it'd be manslaughter.

Yakult

What sentence did she get? :O

Smart Bug

R_H_C_P wrote: »

What sentance did she get? :O

One spelt with an e I imagine.

Novella

"Death by misadventure"?! :rolleyes:

She had just been in court for dangerous driving so she's obviously not the bees knees behind the wheel of a car. I think it's ludicrous and if it was a male, he definitely would not have gotten off so lightly as there is huge emphasis on dangerous driving committed by males.

pikachucheeks

I think that whole campaign is incredibly sexist.

Both males and females are capable of being bad drivers and causing accidents - Neither should be accused of being worse than the other.

Antamojo

Some drivers are just more equal than others...

Gary ITR

That whole campaign is a load of tosh. We just had a massive thread on the whole thing over in motors.

A number of the users have written to various bodies including the RSA and the BCI

boogle

Smart Bug wrote: »

One spelt with an e I imagine.

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahah!
Make way for the Sarcasm Master and his/her acerbic wit! It must be lonely all the way up there on your ivory tower. So charitable of you to descend and grace us all with your wisdom.


No really. This is getting too much in this forum. Someone makes a typo or spells the odd word incorrectly and someone always jumps on them like the poster is some kind of dribbling simpleton. Now I hate reading posts written in txtspk or rambling posts without any kind of grammar or punctuation, but nobody's perfect for feck sake. Nobody likes a pedantic nitpicker.


Yeah, I know R&R is that way ---->

TobyZiegler

She had just been in court for dangerous driving so she's obviously not the bees knees behind the wheel of a car. I think it's ludicrous and if it was a male, he definitely would not have gotten off so lightly as there is huge emphasis on dangerous driving committed by males.

The court case in which she was acquitted of dangerous driving was this case i presume. So in fairness she had been acquitted in which case death by misadventure would make sense. However I dont know the ins and outs of the case and maybe the acquittal was unfair.

Smart Bug

boogle wrote: »

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahah!
Make way for the Sarcasm Master and his/her acerbic wit! It must be lonely all the way up there on your ivory tower. So charitable of you to descend and grace us all with your wisdom.


No really. This is getting too much in this forum. Someone makes a typo or spells the odd word incorrectly and someone always jumps on them like the poster is some kind of dribbling simpleton. Now I hate reading posts written in txtspk or rambling posts without any kind of grammar or punctuation, but nobody's perfect for feck sake. Nobody likes a pedantic nitpicker.


Yeah, I know R&R is that way ---->

It took you 9 minutes to type & spell-check this amount of text?!

boogle

Smart Bug wrote: »

It took you 9 minutes to type & spell-check this amount of text?!

What, can't find anything in my post to make a smartass comment about? Also, I'm not chained to my computer.

El Weirdo

boogle wrote: »

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahah!
Make way for the Sarcasm Master and his/her acerbic wit! It must be lonely all the way up there in your ivory tower. So charitable of you to descend and grace us all with your wisdom.


No really. This is getting too much in this forum. Someone makes a typo or spells the odd word incorrectly and someone always jumps on them like the poster is some kind of dribbling simpleton. Now I hate reading posts written in txtspk or rambling posts without any kind of grammar or punctuation, but nobody's perfect for feck sake. Nobody likes a pedantic nitpicker.


Yeah, I know R&R is that way ---->

FYP:pac:

boogle

El Weirdo wrote: »

FYP:pac:

[NERD]I was imagining a tower like Orthanc from LOTR, where Saruman can just stand up on a big flat platform at the very top and survey all that he commands. [/NERD]

the_syco

More info: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1117/fermoy.html

Monday, 17 November 2008 21:16
The trial of a Co Cork woman who is charged with dangerous driving causing death has been told that her car seemed to vanish in a cloud of smoke and dust after it crashed into a concrete pillar.

21-year-old Theresa Dingivan, from Pearse Square, Fermoy is pleading not guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing the deaths of Michael Murphy and James Sexton at Strawhall, Fermoy on 5 August 2007.

The State alleges Theresa Dingivan lost control of the Honda Civic car she was driving when she overtook another car on a country road at Strawhall.
Advertisement

The court was told that alcohol was not a factor in the case.

Witness Catriona Drislane told the jury of seven men and five woman that she was driving behind Theresa Dingivan's Honda Civic car just before it overtook another car, a Toyota Corolla.

She said she saw the Honda Civic overtake on the right-hand side of the road, attempting to pull in, in front of the Corolla, but loosing control, hitting a wall, and 'vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust before stopping on the other side of the road'.

Garda Eugene Farrell, who answered the emergency call, described the 13-year-old Honda in which the two deceased and three others were travelling, as being almost in two halves, having sustained substantial damage to its right side.

Garda Vehicle Inspector Micheal O'Donovan told the court that while the right rear tyre of the car was badly worn, he was satisfied that it was not the cause of the accident.

While it needed replacing, the road was dry at the time, and there was no problem with traction, he said.

The case was adjourned until tomorrow morning when the findings of a survey carried out on the car on behalf of Ms Dingivan will be put to the Garda Vehcile Inspector.

tech77

boogle wrote: »

What, can't find anything in my post to make a smartass comment about? Also, I'm not chained to my computer.

Your post was fine- no smarta$$ comments here.
But WTF does "On your ivory tower" mean?

boogle

tech77 wrote: »

Your post was fine- no smarta$$ comments here.
But WTF does "On your ivory tower" mean?

The term Ivory Tower originates in the Biblical Song of Solomon (7,4), and was later used as an epithet for Mary.
From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a wilful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension. In American English usage it is a shorthand for academia or the university, particularly departments of the humanities.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower

Gran Hermano

So to summarise, if you're a young male up on a dangerous driving charge your best bet is to have a sex-change before the court case and avail of the lesser punishments given to women?

Wile E. Coyote

The link the_syco posted says that she was over taking at the time. Looking at the picture on the link it's on a continuous white line and doesn't look like a place you could/should be over taking.

How could that not be classed as dangerous driving?

murfie

You cant argue the statistics, and 25% of deaths on the road are caused by young men! That's far more then any other age/gender demographic. So that is why there is more focus to get this group to be more conscience of their driving habits. Specific cases don't prove anything either way.

Smart Bug

boogle wrote: »

The term Ivory Tower originates in the Biblical Song of Solomon (7,4), and was later used as an epithet for Mary.
From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a wilful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension. In American English usage it is a shorthand for academia or the university, particularly departments of the humanities.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower

Getting quite het-up about this now?

Anyway, OT ->

I also express my moral outrage at this gross injustice etc etc

tech77

boogle wrote: »

The term Ivory Tower originates in the Biblical Song of Solomon (7,4), and was later used as an epithet for Mary.
From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a wilful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension. In American English usage it is a shorthand for academia or the university, particularly departments of the humanities.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower

Thanks.
Were these guys on the roof or inside the tower?
From that article, it looks like they might have been inside.

Cookie_Monster

Garda Vehicle Inspector Micheal O'Donovan told the court that while the right rear tyre of the car was badly worn, he was satisfied that it was not the cause of the accident.

While it needed replacing, the road was dry at the time, and there was no problem with traction, he said.

So the tyre was badly worn, needed replacing and was probably illegal if so worn and was not a factor?

She was knowingly driving a car with a dangerous/ defective componant. How does this not contribute to a manslaughter charge?

Wile E. Coyote

murfie wrote: »

You cant argue the statistics, and 25% of deaths on the road are caused by young men! That's far more then any other age/gender demographic. So that is why there is more focus to get this group to be more conscience of their driving habits. Specific cases don't prove anything either way.

Can you provide a link to this statistic? I've seen one to show more young men are killed on the roads but not one that shows they are the sole cause of the accidents.

El Weirdo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So the tyre was badly worn, needed replacing and was probably illegal if so worn and was not a factor?

She was knowingly driving a car with a dangerous/ defective componant. How does this not contribute to a manslaughter charge?

Because she has a fanny?

Edit: Wahaaay! 500th post! Glad it had the word "fanny" in it. Phew.

ben bedlam

Everyone knows women are terrible drivers.

Brouhaha

The simple fact is young men are involved in significantly more accidents on the roads than any other group of drivers. These accidents tend to be more severe/fatal. Some figures can be seen here.

Young men drive more than young women so this feeds into these numbers.

Aiming a safety campaigns at this group is the best use of a safety campaign as it can save the most lives. It's not sexist, it's appropriate.

major bill

Tougher laws need to be brought into the country for driving. used to see it all the time little ****bags overtaking you on a little country road thats in bits with potholes and the like.:mad:

Poor Uncle Tom

El Weirdo got there first...

FlutterinBantam

Novella wrote: »

"Death by misadventure"?! :rolleyes:

She had just been in court for dangerous driving so she's obviously not the bees knees behind the wheel of a car. I think it's ludicrous and if it was a male, he definitely would not have gotten off so lightly as there is huge emphasis on dangerous driving committed by males.

There is a reason for that actually.

Young males are the most dangerous class of driver on the road.

Statistics prove it.

That is the reason.

Robbo

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

The link the_syco posted says that she was over taking at the time. Looking at the picture on the link it's on a continuous white line and doesn't look like a place you could/should be over taking.

How could that not be classed as dangerous driving?

Dangerous causing death was the offence she was charged with in the trial last year. A jury found her not guilty of that offence.

The item in today's paper was in relation to the inquest, a separate matter altogether.

Professey Chin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

There is a reason for that actually.

Young males are the most dangerous class of driver on the road.

Statistics prove it.

That is the reason.

So because one class has more knobends then another, someone from the the group with the least should get off lighter for the same crime.
You realise thats nonsense.

boogle

tech77 wrote: »

Thanks.
Were these guys on the roof or inside the tower?
From that article, it looks like they might have been inside.

Yeah they were inside in an oak-panelled room wearing smoking jackets and sipping cognac.

El Weirdo

Robbo wrote: »

Dangerous causing death was the offence she was charged with in the trial last year. A jury found her not guilty of that offence.

The item in today's paper was in relation to the inquest, a separate matter altogether.

One can still ask the questions though.

Why was that not classed as dangerous driving?

Would she have been found guilty if she was male?

It doesn't matter whether the item in today's paper refers to the inquest or the trial.

RustyNut

El Weirdo wrote: »

Because she has a fanny?

Edit: Wahaaay! 500th post! Glad it had the word "fanny" in it. Phew.

Fanny rocks

Smart Bug

boogle wrote: »

Yeah they were inside in an oak-panelled room wearing smoking jackets and sipping cognac.

One enjoys sipping a fine cognac whilst reclining before the hearth. Boogle, there's a good man, fetch me a light for my belvedere.

/adjusts monocle

Snakeblood

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

So because one class has more knobends then another, someone from the the group with the least should get off lighter for the same crime.
You realise thats nonsense.

You aren't really reading what he was responding to. There's a huge emphasis on dangerous driving by young men: That's because statisics prove young men are more dangerous drivers.

This thread is basically waving an anomaly that has nothing to do with the issue of male drivers around and whining 'That's unfair'. That particular case does seem unfair, if those are the only facts of the case.

Robbo

El Weirdo wrote: »

One can still ask the questions though.

Why was that not classed as dangerous driving?

Would she have been found guilty if she was male?

It doesn't matter whether the item in today's paper refers to the inquest or the trial.

Again, your truck is with the jury who were directed that they may also find her guilty of careless driving. They decided not to. Moreover, given that they found her not guilty of dangerous driving causing death, it is unlikely that they could feasibly find her guilty of just dangerous driving since a higher level of recklessness is required to prove "dangerous driving causing death".

Edit: Just as a quick note, careless driving requires a much lower standard of recklessness than dangerous driving. It is therefore easier to successfully prosecute.

boogle

Smart Bug wrote: »

One enjoys sipping a fine cognac whilst reclining before the hearth. Boogle, there's a good man, fetch me a light for my belvedere.

/adjusts monocle

Here you go


Muahahahahahahahaha!

Professey Chin

Snakeblood wrote: »

You aren't really reading what he was responding to. There's a huge emphasis on dangerous driving by young men: That's because statisics prove young men are more dangerous drivers.

This thread is basically waving an anomaly that has nothing to do with the issue of male drivers around and whining 'That's unfair'. That particular case does seem unfair, if those are the only facts of the case.

I realise that now:o
*note to self,read threads from start*

FlutterinBantam

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

So because one class has more knobends then another, someone from the the group with the least should get off lighter for the same crime.
You realise thats nonsense.

No I don't actually, just the way things work.

Poccington

Snakeblood wrote: »

You aren't really reading what he was responding to. There's a huge emphasis on dangerous driving by young men: That's because statisics prove young men are more dangerous drivers.

This thread is basically waving an anomaly that has nothing to do with the issue of male drivers around and whining 'That's unfair'. That particular case does seem unfair, if those are the only facts of the case.

Do the statistics take into account the amount of men driving compared to women? Or the amount of time spent driving by both sexes?

Rather than just looking at the amount of deaths on the roads and doing the maths there and then.

Overheal

Gran Hermano wrote: »

So to summarise, if you're a young male up on a dangerous driving charge your best bet is to have a sex-change before the court case and avail of the lesser punishments given to women?

Hmm...
























@Tar, how much is your insurance?

Snakeblood

Poccington wrote: »

Do the statistics take into account the amount of men driving compared to women? Or the amount of time spent driving by both sexes?

Rather than just looking at the amount of deaths on the roads and doing the maths there and then.

Are you saying there are vastly more under 25 men driving than over 25 men driving? Because the under 25s are the ones who are statistically outsize.

El Weirdo

Robbo wrote: »

Again, your truck is with the jury who were directed that they may also find her guilty of careless driving. They decided not to.

I understand that but how does that make the questions less relevant?

Robbo

El Weirdo wrote: »

I understand that but how does that make the questions less relevant?

Because, to the best of my knowledge, no Irish jury decision has ever been overturned by asking rhetorical question on the internet?

I've answered your questions. And now our Graham with a quick recap...

Why was that not classed as dangerous driving?

Because the jury decided that the level of recklessness was not there.

Would she have been found guilty if she was male?

You'll have to break open the skulls of 12 jurors for that one.

she spanks
he ****

994

Gran Hermano wrote: »

So to summarise, if you're a male of any age or race up on any charge of any kind your best bet is to have a sex-change before the court case and avail of the lesser punishments given to women?

fyp

C.D.

murfie wrote: »

You cant argue the statistics, and 25% of deaths on the road are caused by young men! That's far more then any other age/gender demographic...

I would like to highlight one thing; I am neither disagreeing or agreeing with the "male drivers cause more accidents", merely illustrating how easy it is to jump on a bandwagon without considering the facts.

OK let's presume this is true, 25% of all deaths are caused by young males. Let's assume that there are three age categories- young, middle-aged and old. Assume there are two genders- there are now 6 categories, so if all things were equal, each category would cause ~17% of road deaths.

However, the above is all useless and meaningless as it is out of context. Why? Let's assume that young males have a higher car ownership rate. Let's play around with hypothetical figures- let's say 50% of young males own cars vs. a national average of 30% ownership in the other 5 categories (also assume that each demograph has equal numbers).

Now let's assume that young males cover more mileage per annum than the other groups, let's say 20% more mileage.

Just to recap, we are now in a position where young male have 50% car ownership vs 30% in the other 5 categories and they cover 20% more kilometres per annum.

Assuming the national average is 12,000 km, let's do the maths.

1) Take 100,000 people.

2) There are 16,667 people in each category.

3) Out of the young males category, 6,667 own cars.

4) All the others combined own 25,000 cars.

5) Young males cover 14,400 km each, giving a total of 120,000,000 km.

6) Everybody else combined covers 300,000,000 km.

7) Young males drive 28.57% (120/300) of all km driven each year, so all things equal they should cause 28.56% of accidents, but they don't, in this scenario they cause 25% of accidents, which means that there is an extra 3.56% to distribute amongst the other groups (ie. higher risk).

While this is a very simplistic scenario, it is merely to highlight that statistics are very easy to misinterpret. Additionally you could factor in that young males do more late night driving (high risk) etc etc.

On the subject of distorting statistics, my favourite is: "There is a direct correlation between the number of ice creams sold and the number of drownings in Ireland". This statement is designed to mislead, leading one to assume a cause-effect relationship where none exists. Quite simply, on a hot day, more people eat ice creams and more people go swimming (and hence drown).

Apologies for spelling/grammatical/mathematical errors, it is rare I create such long posts

stepbar

I believe the car was drove by a woman....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0826/fermoy.html

C.D.

As I'm sure somebody will do it, with regards to the above, it was a simplistic "proof of concept" and was not meant to be exhaustive, it was illustrative in nature so I did not formulate it with either mathematical of logical rigour.