Another cyclist killed!!!

pantani

a man and woman out for a spin at 6.15 am and another drunken motorist kills one of them!omg....see cyclingnews.com:mad:

Run_to_da_hills

RIP.

Bluefoam

In Ireland? Link please.

Captain Havoc

Australia

RIP

murph226

RIP

pantani

sorry guys NSW Australia.:mad:

Icyseanfitz

RIP, ffs cars should come as standard with a breathalyser before you can start the ignition, what is so hard about that?

kumate_champ07

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

RIP, ffs cars should come as standard with a breathalyser before you can start the ignition, what is so hard about that?

every new car sold today is capable of driving at well over 100mph but the top speed limit is well under 100mph, nobody seems to ever bring this up.

Cabaal

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

every new car sold today is capable of driving at well over 100mph but the top speed limit is well under 100mph, nobody seems to ever bring this up.

Can never understand this one either, if the speed limit is 120km why aren't all cars say limited to 130km (just to give that extra margin).

Would massively cut down on need for Gardai speedchecks and speedvans etc

07Lapierre

Limiting cars to 130 won't prevent drunks from driving/killing people!!

kennyb3

07Lapierre wrote: »

Limiting cars to 130 won't prevent drunks from driving/killing people!!

+1, dont want to go off topic, but some times you have to take off your cycling hat. the limit is 120kmph in ireland, however if you take your car abroad to other countries such as Germany there is an Autobahn. Also im sure the costs of limiting cars is a significant factor.

Anyway RIP, very tragic. Really dont understand drinking and driving.

Jawgap

Very sad at any time of year, but particularly around now.

On the issue of driving under the influence, I never understand why people who injure, maim and kill other road users are nearly always charged with road traffic offences. Everyone knows that alcohol impairs driving performance, so to get behind the wheel when you know or suspect you have alcohol in your system is reckless in the extreme and should be dealt with as such.

07Lapierre

Jawgap wrote: »

Very sad at any time of year, but particularly around now.

On the issue of driving under the influence, I never understand why people who injure, maim and kill other road users are nearly always charged with road traffic offences. Everyone knows that alcohol impairs driving performance, so to get behind the wheel when you know or suspect you have alcohol in your system is reckless in the extreme and should be dealt with as such.

Are they not charged with "Dangerous driving causing death"? is that not the same as "Man slaughter"?

TinyExplosions

07Lapierre wrote: »

Are they not charged with "Dangerous driving causing death"? is that not the same as "Man slaughter"?

I think that's the case.. in the US it's Vehicular Manslaughter you can be charged with

Jawgap

07Lapierre wrote: »

Are they not charged with "Dangerous driving causing death"? is that not the same as "Man slaughter"?

It's usually "dangerous driving causing death" - personally, given the level of recklessness involved I always thought someone should be charged with manslaughter or even murder, or attempted murder.

I think (in other words I'm not sure) it's because if you kill someone with your car the offence is deemed to be one founded in negligence instead of recklessness.

I would have thought at this stage we could agree that the knowledge of alcohol and its effect on driving is so widespread that driving while you are, or suspect you are over the limit is reckless.

Jawgap

To clarify.....

If you're deemed to be reckless, your considered to have a "guilty mind" the old chestnut of "mailice aforethought"

If you're deemed to be "criminally negligent" you're considered to have been not paying attention, lacked awareness etc

Driving offences seem to fall into the second class, when, in my view, some of them should be in the first class.

07Lapierre

Jawgap wrote: »

It's usually "dangerous driving causing death" - personally, given the level of recklessness involved I always thought someone should be charged with manslaughter or even murder, or attempted murder.

I think (in other words I'm not sure) it's because if you kill someone with your car the offence is deemed to be one founded in negligence instead of recklessness.

I would have thought at this stage we could agree that the knowledge of alcohol and its effect on driving is so widespread that driving while you are, or suspect you are over the limit is reckless.

Are the circumstances not taken into account?
example: if two guys have a row, one jumps into his car and the other starts to run. The guy in the car drives after the other fella and runs over him. IMO, Thats Murder. But a guy who goes out for a few drinks and then drives, well he's reckless, but can he really be charged with murder if he kills a pedestrian?

sealgaire

I'm sure there are hundereds killed on bikes in Asia everyday

dited

07Lapierre wrote: »

a guy who goes out for a few drinks and then drives, well he's reckless, but can he really be charged with murder if he kills a pedestrian?

No. In order for it to be murder there needs to be an intent to kill or cause serious injury, as set out here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0005/sec0004.html#zza5y1964s4

Jawgap

Recklessness can amount to intent - certainly in the UK it can, but it doesn't seem apply as much here.

Take the example of the guy who jumps into the car and chases after the other person. If he drives at him and thinks "he'll jump out of the way" and he doesn't that's manslaughter bordering on murder.

If the guy he is chasing is running on the path, and he's driving on the road and the guy being chased slips, and falls into the road and gets dead, then its probably manslaughter, depending on the driver's state of mind / intent.

If they row, the driver leaves, thinks about it and then comes back thinking "I'm going to get that f^&ker" and he does - probably murder.

I think with driving under the influence, you know it's unsafe (and if you don't, you should) - you know it can adversely effect your ability to control a vehicle - and you know there may be consequences that would not otherwise come to pass if you didn't drive under the influence - therefore you're reckless and should be dealt with as such, rather than as someone who displayed poor judgment and was "unlucky."

that's just my view - it's not meant to be an authoritative interpretation of the law:)

EDIT - just to be clear, too, I'm not suggesting people who drive under the influence should be charged with murder, I think they should be hit with a manslaughter charge.

Doctor Bob

kennyb3 wrote: »

+1, dont want to go off topic, but some times you have to take off your cycling hat. the limit is 120kmph in ireland, however if you take your car abroad to other countries such as Germany there is an Autobahn. Also im sure the costs of limiting cars is a significant factor.

The cost is likely to be negligible. Cars have had cruise control technology for years, for example, which could presumably be adapted quite easily.

There was also an experiment a few years ago in a Swedish town, possibly carried out by Volvo (? - don't have refs just now) where cars were fitted with automatic speed limiters which were activated by triggers at the roadside, so if the limit was 30 km/h, the car would adjust accordingly. It was, apparently, a big hit with drivers, and was relatively simple in ITS terms.

In other words, We Have The Technology! But do we have the will?

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

There was also an experiment a few years ago in a Swedish town, possibly carried out by Volvo (? - don't have refs just now) where cars were fitted with automatic speed limiters which were activated by triggers at the roadside, so if the limit was 30 km/h, the car would adjust accordingly. It was, apparently, a big hit with drivers, and was relatively simple in ITS terms.

In other words, We Have The Technology! But do we have the will?

Yes, we have the technology to enable everyone to drive with their right foot flat to the floor, bouncing off the virtual limiter at 80kph. That's great until you go around a corner and there's a motorcyclist/child/deer in the road.

scotchy

I’m a cyclist, a motorcyclist and a car driver.

I opened this thread thinking some poor soul had been callously mown down by a drunk driver in Ireland. Not 12000 miles away in Australia.

.

kennyb3

And sure wont all the cars just end up being re-mapped or whatever its called to eliminate the limiter.

Anyway, its never going to happen as it would need world wide consensus surely to be any knid of sucess (otherwise just import non limited cars) - which will never happen.

anyway this is going off topic, apologies.

dited

Jawgap wrote: »

Recklessness can amount to intent - certainly in the UK it can, but it doesn't seem apply as much here.

What constitutes intent is "clarified" by the second part of the section I linked to earlier - one is presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of one's conduct.

Applying this to drunk drivers, I don't think that you can automatically say that hitting and killing or seriously injuring a cyclist (or anyone else for that matter) is a natural and probable consequence of the average incidence of drunk driving. Of course there are many circumstances where this would be the case, eg if the drunk driver decides to take a shortcut down Henry Street while driving at 60 mph.

The penalties on conviction for dangerous driving causing death are the same as penalties for manslaughter, theoretically indicating that it is considered to be an equivalently serious offence. Unfortunately, it seems that not all of the judiciary agree, as evidenced by Judge John O'Hagan who, passing sentence on a man who killed a mother and daughter, said that he wanted to "send out a strong message". The man was jailed for a year. A strong message indeed.

Doctor Bob

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, we have the technology to enable everyone to drive with their right foot flat to the floor, bouncing off the virtual limiter at 80kph. That's great until you go around a corner and there's a motorcyclist/child/deer in the road.

To be clear, I'm absolutely not a fan of anything that makes driving a more passive affair. I was at that presentation a few months ago where Ben Hamilton-Baillie was talking about the naked street, and the other chap presenting made my blood run cold with his discussions of technological advances in driving. For example, his solution to the issue of cars on auto-pilot (not his words) in the vicinity of schools was to fit some class of transponder to the children. You couldn't make it up!

My last post was simply pointing out that such a development wouldn't be as hard as kennyb3 was suggesting. Not an endorsement at all at all.