Cyclist killed (but not dangerously)

CramCycle

First of all, I haven't said it yet, but my sympathies go out to her family as this is a tragedy regardless of the reasons.

superrdave wrote: »

But that does not mean what he did was dangerous driving, within the meaning of the statute.

Since we're only relying on the newspaper reports it is hard to not get out of line on a thread like this. That said, the driver of the truck indicated he clearly seen the cyclist and further down the road he heard the impact (implying she was visible for a reasonable distance).

Within meaning of the statute or just common sense, he was guilty of dangerous driving as he was driving without due care and attention, these actions caused the death of another person. Again whether it was a pedestrian, cyclist or another motorist is irrelevant. I cannot say whether his inexperience contributed to this, personally, I don't think it did as he could have gotten away with this driving style for years and it would have gone relatively unnoticed until he had an accident. Experience wasn't his problem, common sense was.

Lumen

superrdave wrote: »

that does not mean what he did was dangerous driving, within the meaning of the statute

What exactly do you mean by this? The statute doesn't define the meaning of "dangerous", since it's obvious. That which creates danger, i.e. risk of physical harm.

Under what circumstances can hitting a cyclist during an overtake not be dangerous?

I don't see the "high burden of proof" aspect. The outcome speaks for itself.

Deisetrek

CramCycle wrote: »

First of all, I haven't said it yet, but my sympathies go out to her family as this is a tragedy regardless of the reasons.



Since we're only relying on the newspaper reports it is hard to not get out of line on a thread like this. That said, the driver of the truck indicated he clearly seen the cyclist and further down the road he heard the impact (implying she was visible for a reasonable distance).

Within meaning of the statute or just common sense, he was guilty of dangerous driving as he was driving without due care and attention, these actions caused the death of another person. Again whether it was a pedestrian, cyclist or another motorist is irrelevant. I cannot say whether his inexperience contributed to this, personally, I don't think it did as he could have gotten away with this driving style for years and it would have gone relatively unnoticed until he had an accident. Experience wasn't his problem, common sense was.

Agree , inexperience is not the issue here . Having been knocked down myself by a very "experienced" 85 year old driver 4 months ago ( careless driver btw , that's my opinion not judge Moron's I'd say) , the issue is the judge' s conclusion that the driver was not driving without due care and attention , a farcical decision in any man's language . That's the debate here not experience or inexperience .

BostonB

I don't think you can't say experience isn't a factor. Theres a reason to be accompanied.

I don't think its useful to compare it with other accidents. If you choose to break the law and then have an accident. Thats entirely different to being within the law and having an accident. IMO.

Captain Havoc

What's the point in having a learning permit? Shouldn't we just go back to purchasing your driving license without having to do a test?

superrdave

Lumen wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by this? The statute doesn't define the meaning of "dangerous", since it's obvious. That which creates danger, i.e. risk of physical harm.

Under what circumstances can hitting a cyclist during an overtake not be dangerous?

I don't see the "high burden of proof" aspect. The outcome speaks for itself.

Errr... Sorry about this, but the statute does define dangerous driving:

s53(1) of RTA 1961 wrote:

A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

Also, the high burden of proof i mean is that the jury have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the driving was dangerous to the public, in the meaning outlined above.

The key aspect of this case, as I see it, is that it was very early in the morning and the jury may have said he 'might reasonably' not have expected there to be a cyclist there when he overtook the truck. If this had happened at nine in the morning, he might well have been convicted.

Obviously my sympathies go to the family and there but for the grace of God go any of us, but I can see why he wasn't convicted. I'm not one to go setting up a lynch mob here and don't think the judge or jury did anything unexpected. I mean, if I was on the jury, I would probably have been pressing for a conviction, but when you have the cop out option of just finding him guilty of careless driving (or him possibly having pleaded guilty to it already), it is easy not to find him guilty of dangerous driving causing death. Motorists can see something like that happening to themselves (unlike most jury cases, like assaults or drug cases) and are loath to convict and potentially send someone to jail. All that said, there is no way he should have been out unaccompanied, but that alone is not a basis for convicting him.

Edit: The statute has been amended a number of times and I'm not quite sure what the version was in 2007 when this happened, but it would be largely similar to that above. By reference to today, the 2010 act, which hasn't been commenced yet, states "A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public." which is quite similar.

BostonB

For me, he's not any other driver. Hes a driver whos not qualified to be on the road on their own. With almost no experience or qualified instruction. Thats the full circumstances.

A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place ....having regard to all the circumstances of the case ....is dangerous to the public.

If its not dangerous, then they should scrap the requirement. Its meaningless.

superrdave

BostonB wrote: »

For me, he's not any other driver. Hes a driver whos not qualified to be on the road on their own. With almost no experience or qualified instruction. Thats the full circumstances.




If its not dangerous, then they should scrap the requirement. Its meaningless.

The problem is the principles of statutory interpretation and the esjudem generis rule.... not to bore you too much with legal latin ****, but where something general is mentioned and followed by specifics, the general must be interpreted consistent with the specifics.... in this instance, that would mean interpreting the 'full circumstances' as being the actually physics of the accident, rather than whether or not driver was a particular type of driver. I would think the statute would have needed to refer to something like the skill or experience of the driver before it could be taken into account. The law may very well be an ass on this, but I don't think the fact of an acquittal is particularly surprising.

CramCycle

superrdave wrote: »

The key aspect of this case, as I see it, is that it was very early in the morning and the jury may have said he 'might reasonably' not have expected there to be a cyclist there when he overtook the truck. If this had happened at nine in the morning, he might well have been convicted.

So by that logic, any overtaking done at anytime outside of rush hour and without looking is completely justifiable?

On a road with a two way system and only one lane of traffic each side, it is reasonable to expect that there is a possibility of approaching traffic (regardless of it being a cyclist or a motorist or pedestrian), if he couldn't make out an approaching cyclist, his eyesight is clearly not fit for the purpose of driving either. This can be accepted as a reasonable deduction as there were at least two vechicles going one way, it's not a stretch to imagine a vechicle going the other way.

Originally Posted by s53(1) of RTA 1961
A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

in a manner : he couldn't observe the opposing line of traffic when he attempted an overtake
regard to all the circumstances : same point as before
use of the place : it is a public road, it is reasonable to assume there is a possibility of traffic
amount of traffic : there were two vechicles going in his direction, it is reasonable to expect a similar level in the other directiondangerous to the public : he didn't observe basic principles in common sense while operating a vechicle on a public road which lead to the death of a member of the public

If I done this, regardless of whether it was accidental, I would be expecting time as I walked into the court house. No one is perfect, I often make mistakes on the road, but common sense (IMO) has so far prevented me from commiting a maneuvre that results in the death of another person that is my fault.

zagmund

Umm, so it defines dangerous driving as driving that is . . . "dangerous to the public."

And that's it then ?

Dangerous driving is driving that is dangerous. And we needed someone to write that into law ? And this helps define it in what way exactly ?

And as for that guff about not reasonably expecting a cyclist to be on the road - what's all that about ? Why wouldn't a cyclist be on the road ? Yes, it was early, but people cycle at all hours of the day and night.

z

superrdave wrote: »

Errr... Sorry about this, but the statute does define dangerous driving:

Originally Posted by s53(1) of RTA 1961
A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

BostonB

"full circumstances"

Something can't be "Full" and exclude things. IMO

Lumen

superrdave wrote: »

Errr... Sorry about this, but the statute does define dangerous driving

I said the statute didn't define what is dangerous. It defines dangerous driving as dangerous, but doesn't elaborate on what dangerous means.

Compare to UK legislation for instance:

Road Traffic Act 1991 wrote:

(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—

(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

(2)A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.

(3)In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

(4)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried.”

Note the emphasis given to what "a competent and careful driver" would consider acceptable, not "your average man on the street". This makes it relatively easy to asses, because a competent and careful driver will neither drive unaccompanied when not qualified do to so, nor overtake in such a way that an oncoming cyclist is killed, unless there are massively extenuating circumstances.

Anyone got any links to guidelines on careless vs dangerous driving for Ireland?

challengemaster

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Am I right in saying, he's just walked away scott free? Well that's a real deterrent for other learner drivers to always drive accompanied :rolleyes:

He killed someone, so no, you wouldn't be right to say he's walked away scott free. He has to live with that for the rest of his life.

Nobody here knows the exact circumstances of the accident, but yet you feel you've a right to decide who was in the wrong, despite what an informed judge and jury have already decided. :rolleyes:

victorcarrera

He was just a young lad (26 years of age) driving a car!!!

It is not as if he was a competent person, of sound mind and age of reason, solely responsible for and with full knowledge, consent and awareness of the limitations of the vehicle and the risk and severity of damage that propelling an object weighing up to 2,000Kg on the wrong side of a public road can do.

As per the RSA site the 50Km stopping distance including reaction time in wet conditions is 35m (dry 24m).
I can see cyclists approx 1km away, unaided?

Three weeks previously, the accused bought a car and took out his first provisional licence about a week before that.

As he was level with the back wheels of the lorry he accelerated to get past when he saw the peak of a cap of a person travelling on the road.

So which occurred first. It is possible he decided to accelerate after seeing the cyclist in the hope of getting past and caused this.

Part of Mrs O’Brien’s bike was near her body and the remainder of the bike was stuck in nearby trees.

If we need to know if it was dangerous driving or not I would say that a quick comparison of his insurance premium with a qualified, competent and experienced driver would at least tell us what the underwriters think of his driving.
I would be interested in what the truck driver had to say though.

As for quoting from the irish statute book is concerned it means nothing. Even the people assigned to law reform say publicly that it is so out of date and irrelevant to a modern society and way of life that it needs to be rewritten not reformed.
You add that to the fact that the people responsible for interpreting and implementing the law are appointed by the Irish Government you can begin to see the root cause of many of the disasters in this country.

CramCycle

challengemaster wrote: »

Nobody here knows the exact circumstances of the accident, but yet you feel you've a right to decide who was in the wrong, despite what an informed judge and jury have already decided. :rolleyes:

If you read back carefully, the fact that we don't know everything has been stated many times. The points being made by the majority of posters are based on those represented as facts by the papers, in a case where it is an opinion, I think its been reasonably well stated or explained in a follow up post.

Informed judges make mistakes as do informed juries (also pointed out), most of us read the facts as presented and made a logical conclusion, if the papers have misrepresented the facts or the case then they should be held accountable.

I think Captain Havocs comments were obviously hinting that he paid no price that is observable to other members of public. I hope he does feel sorry but the fact that many errors by the driver have been ignored indicate to other drivers that while they may have consequences, emotionally, there is no need to follow these rules strictly as you personally won't be punished regardless of an accident or not. The judges comments indicate that if the Gardai had caught him overtaking dangerously, with no accompanying driver, in a manner that causes a danger to the public and there was no accident, nothing would have happened to him if he had been brought to court, regardless of the law. Leaving him with the impression, that it was inconvenient, if caught, to behave in such a manner but not something that he should never do.

Lumen

challengemaster wrote: »

Nobody here knows the exact circumstances of the accident, but yet you feel you've a right to decide who was in the wrong, despite what an informed judge and jury have already decided. :rolleyes:

The fact as reported (and not disputed) is that he was driving unaccompanied whilst not licensed to do so, which makes him wrong. Or have I misunderstood the law? It's not some arcane technical requirement, the point of being accompanied is that there's someone competent in the car to stop you doing stupid overtakes which kill people, for instance.

BostonB

challengemaster wrote: »

He killed someone, so no, you wouldn't be right to say he's walked away scott free. He has to live with that for the rest of his life.

Nobody here knows the exact circumstances of the accident, but yet you feel you've a right to decide who was in the wrong, despite what an informed judge and jury have already decided. :rolleyes:

Judges and Juries have been wrong before. Blind faith isn't a good thing. Besides which hes shouldn't have been driving. What did he get for that? Not much of a deterrent for others.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

Judge Moran , is that spelled M.o.r.o.n ?

Captain Havoc

challengemaster wrote: »

He killed someone, so no, you wouldn't be right to say he's walked away scott free. He has to live with that for the rest of his life.

Nobody here knows the exact circumstances of the accident, but yet you feel you've a right to decide who was in the wrong, despite what an informed judge and jury have already decided. :rolleyes:

He was not punished by the law for breaking it, irrelevant of the emotional scars he has to deal with.

Yes, he was completely wrong, he was driving a vehicle he was not qualified to drive alone. I'm not happy driving and cycling on the same roads as people who are unqualified to drive, I spent a lot of money on learning to drive correctly and doing it legally. Would you get on a plane if I was the pilot (I'm not a pilot)?

Deisetrek

challengemaster wrote: »

He killed someone, so no, you wouldn't be right to say he's walked away scott free. He has to live with that for the rest of his life.

Nobody here knows the exact circumstances of the accident, but yet you feel you've a right to decide who was in the wrong, despite what an informed judge and jury have already decided. :rolleyes:

He may have to live with the fact that his recklesness cost a life , the lady in question was not afforded that luxury .........." an informed judge " you're having a laugh aren't you ??

Lemag

Firstly, my sympathies for the family and friends of Ms O'Brien.

It's been mentioned here by a few that the driver will be serving a sort of 'life sentence of remorse'. Not necessarily so. Without assuming this to be the case for this particular individual, not everyone is afflicted by guilt for the pain and suffering that their actions have brought upon others.

seve65

Im sorry but this seems plain bonkers. If a car overtakes and crashes into anything travelling conventionally and safely on the other side of the road, how can that be anything other than dangerous driving. The other side of the road is just that, we have to take responsibility for our own actions.

tomasrojo

Perhaps the extensive use of dublinbikes by barristers, as highlighted by the clip below, might lead to more sympathetic attitudes to people who travel by bicycle in such cases in future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPjvZlAl_js

I don't know the full facts of this case, but it's a well-established trend in most jurisdictions for juries and judges to go quite easy on motorists, with reluctance even to impose a driving ban in many cases. "There but for the grace of God" is perhaps the feeling of motorists on the jury, and most jury members are usually motorists.

It seems a completely perverse direction from the judge though.

zagmund

Sorry, is that video a spoof ? It's barely loading up (only the first minute or two after 5 minutes of loading) and so far all the cyclists shows have been cut up by a variety of cars and motor bikes. Are they showing how dangerous it is (per the video) or how safe it is (according to the wordage) ?

z

victorcarrera

tomasrojo wrote: »

It seems a completely perverse direction from the judge though.

Especially for me too when I heard on this evenings news of a three month sentence handed down for a relatively minor offence. The wig justified the sentence by referring to the hardship infliced on the victims family.

It is possible that there may have been direction from the victims family on foot of a reconsilliation attempt and remorse from the accused.

tomasrojo

zagmund wrote: »

Sorry, is that video a spoof ? It's barely loading up (only the first minute or two after 5 minutes of loading) and so far all the cyclists shows have been cut up by a variety of cars and motor bikes. Are they showing how dangerous it is (per the video) or how safe it is (according to the wordage) ?

The relevant bit about barristers is at about 02:50, I think.

The opening bit does show some poor lane-positioning and then light-breaking by cyclists, resulting in them having to avoid left-turning traffic. The point being made, I think, is that even though Dublin doesn't look welcoming for cyclists, it has had no serious injuries on the dublinbikes in over one million journeys.

However, I posted it only for the bit about barristers.

On the other matter you mention, I think the makers of the clip can't be blamed for your poor download times.

twowheelsonly

BostonB wrote: »

Judges and Juries have been wrong before. Blind faith isn't a good thing. Besides which hes shouldn't have been driving. What did he get for that? Not much of a deterrent for others.

Firstly, my sympathies to the family of this lady.


Judges in fairness tend to be fairly accurate in their assessment of cases (generally speaking!!). I'm also under the impression that he was most likely quoted out of context in that what he said was part of the facts as presented by the defence. As a previous poster said, he probably spent 30 minutes summing up and 1 line was quoted.

Juries on the other hand tend to be made up of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of Jury Duty but are considered intelligent enough to make crucial decisions. I'll make no apologies for that statement BTW. See it happening often enough and you'll start to agree with me.
I don't have figures or statistics to hand but it's no co-incidence that most people are convicted if they're in a District Court (Where the Judge decides the verdict) but a MASSIVE percentage of people are acquited in the Circuit Court (Where a Jury decides the verdict). There were statistics a couple of years ago, one that stood out for me was in Kerry where only 20% of Circuit Court cases return a guilty verdict. These are cases that the Gardai and the DPP have decided to proceed with - to think that their 'suspicions' only 'prove correct' in 1 out of every 5 cases is a bit absurd to put it mildly.

zagmund

Don't worry I wasn't blaming anyone for poor download times. The only reason I mentioned it was to indicate that I hadn't seen the full thing so I honestly wasn't sure if it was a spoof. I couldn't get as far as 2m50s.

z

tomasrojo wrote: »

The relevant bit about barristers is at about 02:50, I think.

The opening bit does show some poor lane-positioning and then light-breaking by cyclists, resulting in them having to avoid left-turning traffic. The point being made, I think, is that even though Dublin doesn't look welcoming for cyclists, it has had no serious injuries on the dublinbikes in over one million journeys.

However, I posted it only for the bit about barristers.

On the other matter you mention, I think the makers of the clip can't be blamed for your poor download times.

BostonB

The whole thing worked for me no problem.

enas

I was the OP of the first deleted thread, but I only see this now. This verdict is of course disappointing, and leaves me with the bitter impression that "justice wasn't done", although this is just a personal feeling and surely not a criticism of the verdict. I do sympathise with the family a lot.

Unfortunately, this just confirms and strengthens the point I was making in my initial post in the deleted thread (shared by most here of course) that there's something plainly wrong with driver education here. But that wasn't the point of the trial, and it is unlikely that these type of events can lead by themselves to a successful reconsideration of the system.

As for the problems it reveals with the judiciary system in Ireland, I feel far too incompetent to make any comment. I just share the feeling expressed by some here that I always felt that juries are not the best way towards fair and balanced justice. I would never trust myself to make such important decisions, and I hope I will never have too (well, seeing as I'm not an Irish citizen, there isn't any risk at the moment).