Woman avoids jail after 'catapulting' man off bike due to poor visibility

WoollyRedHat

anncoates wrote: »

He stopped when he hit her.

What is exactly wrong with what was said?

Anybody that willingly drives with the window frozen over like that should be Jailed. I'm sorry, but it's colossal stupidity to drive a vehicle with no visibility.

How many kids she has, however, and when and with whom she had them has no relevance to this case.

Nothing, I'm joking, it's the tone that it could be read from it that I was joking about

fasttalkerchat

The reporting of this story was very strange. I have no doubt the woman was in the wrong for not properly clearing her windows and waiting a few mins until the car heated up.

However, it says neither the driver nor the cyclist saw each other despite the driver saying she could see kids playing. How is that possible?

Private Piles

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The reporting of this story was very strange. I have no doubt the woman was in the wrong for not properly clearing her windows and waiting a few mins until the car heated up.

However, it says neither the driver nor the cyclist saw each other despite the driver saying she could see kids playing. How is that possible?

The part about her thinking that the noise and damage caused to windscreen was caused by her partner is even more baffling. I'm presuming the smashed windscreen happened when the cyclist was bounced off it..... so she saw kids playing on street, but failed to spot the fully grown adult man who just landed on her windscreen? Right :rolleyes:

- ''She said she noticed four children playing on one side of the road and then heard a loud bang. She noticed her windscreen was broken and assumed her former partner, who she had difficulties with in the past, had attacked her car.''

mapaco

DaDumTish wrote: »

After King entered into her bond Judge McCartan told her; “You made a dreadful mistake but put it behind you. I believe you have the resilience to do so. Everything else about you impresses me.”

2 words....big knockers :rolleyes:

kraggy

Private Piles wrote: »

The part about her thinking that the noise and damage caused to windscreen was caused by her partner is even more baffling. I'm presuming the smashed windscreen happened when the cyclist was bounced off it..... so she saw kids playing on street, but failed to spot the fully grown adult man who just landed on her windscreen? Right :rolleyes:

- ''She said she noticed four children playing on one side of the road and then heard a loud bang. She noticed her windscreen was broken and assumed her former partner, who she had difficulties with in the past, had attacked her car.''

She's obviously not claiming that he attacked the car while she was driving. As far as I can decipher, she's claiming that it was only after the collision that she noticed the damage but put it down to her boyfriend having damaged the car overnight while it was parked in the driveway, but that she didn't notice it til after the collision.

Bare in mind that the windscreen was covered in ice/mist so she may have thought that the mist/ice had covered it until the windscreen had demisted but that the damage had in fact occured before she left the house.

Which to me is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilty.

I'm not sticking up for her overall. I'm merely addressing that particular part of the evidence.

Boombastic

kraggy wrote: »

She's obviously not claiming that he attacked the car while she was driving. As far as I can decipher, she's claiming that it was only after the collision that she noticed the damage but put it down to her boyfriend having damaged the car overnight while it was parked in the driveway, but that she didn't notice it til after the collision.

Bare in mind that the windscreen was covered in ice/mist so she may have thought that the mist/ice had covered it until the windscreen had demisted but that the damage had in fact occured before she left the house.

Which to me is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilty.

I'm not sticking up for her overall. I'm merely addressing that particular part of the evidence.

And the wing mirror flying off?

anncoates

Hello.

She noticed the impact.

Unless she was fucking asleep. Deeply asleep.

Boombastic

anncoates wrote: »

Hello.

She noticed the impact.

Unless she was fucking asleep. Deeply asleep.

Oh no she didn't! :pac:


She could have been changing the 'breathe in, breathe out' cd in the car

Icyseanfitz

irish judge =

fcuking idiot, and i love how having a kid at 17 has anything at all to do with anything

I see she used the classic Chewbacca defence.

Sentences for car-related crimes are ridiculous in this country. There's a very strong "accidents happen" culture for less serious impacts which means then that serious ones are treated less seriously than they should be. Driving seems to be seen as a right rather than a privilege.
This isn't as bad as someone getting convicted of dangerous driving and killing two kids and walking out of the court the same day though.

Scruffles

anncoates wrote: »

He stopped when he hit her.

What is exactly wrong with what was said?

Anybody that willingly drives with the window frozen over like that should be Jailed. I'm sorry, but it's colossal stupidity to drive a vehicle with no visibility.

How many kids she has, however, and when and with whom she had them has no relevance to this case.

its pure impatience, get some hot water & a scraper-plus turn the cars hot air blowers on;that has it done in almost no time.
much of society has developed a learned behavior,unable to stand/sit doing nothing whilst waiting; they always have to be fcuking off quickly somewhere instead of taking time to do something properly.
drivers seem to be worse for it,always beeping at other drivers because they are not going at their desired boy racer speed,who the hell gives them the right over everyone else to abandon all rules and respect for other road users?

Mushy

humbert wrote: »

Looks like Judge McCartan has a soft spot for hit and run drivers, at least when cyclists are involved.

(before anyone says it, the cyclist obviously should have been lit up but that in no way excuses killing someone and driving on)

Maybe Im biased cos I knew the guy, but that was a shambles of a judgement. In no way should he have been out and about in this country long before it happened.

This decision just compounds misery onanother family. The woman should be locked up for longer than the road ban.

Boombastic

Scruffles wrote: »

its pure impatience, get some hot water & a scraper-plus turn the cars hot air blowers on;that has it done in almost no time..........

Careful the water isn't boiling

humbert

P_1 wrote: »

TBH that sentence was a pretty good one. I wonder if exile would be a better deterrent to crime than imprisonment?

In isolation I couldn't argue with you but given his record and given that prison's main function is to protect society from people exactly like that I think it's difficult to justify.

Much like this woman, she has a history of reckless driving and her story is completely implausible. For the judge to say that he is in any way impressed by how this woman has lived her life suggests there is something wrong with his head.

kraggy

Boombastic wrote: »

And the wing mirror flying off?

Women don't look in their wing mirrors

gnfnrhead

Scruffles wrote: »

its pure impatience, get some hot water & a scraper-plus turn the cars hot air blowers on;that has it done in almost no time.

Keep a can of de-icer in the car. I turn the hot air on, get out, spray it on the window, and by the time you get back into the car you just have to turn on the wipers and its done within seconds.

The can is always fcuking freezing though :pac: