Journalism and cycling

RobbieMD

randomname2005 wrote: »

I think it depends on what you are trying to make a conviction on. Manslaughter, probably difficult, but driving without due care and attention, driving inconsiderately (I am sure there are legal names for these but am too angry to find exact names). If the accident is close to where Racoon Queen suggested, then you look at how far it was from the kerb - if the distance between the car and kerb was very little then it should be possible to prosecute on a minor offense and at least have some justice for the family if a serious offense is not going to be successful. But there is no desire in the country to prosecute people for motoring offenses.

I don't know if a family would feel justice was done though, if the person responsible for the death of their loved one, was issued a ticket for 2points and an €80 fine though.

Also I would imagine motoring offences are probably the most common offence prosecuted in Ireland.

RacoonQueen

JMcL wrote: »

Over the age of 60 you can only renew up until your 70th birthday, and thereafter it's a 3 year license along with a "fitness to drive" cert (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driver_licensing/renewing_a_full_driving_licence.html) - and from what I can see, it'd seem you'd have to be pretty bad not to get one of those - of course it's all down to how good/obliging your GP is.

It is shocking though that you get handed a driving license at age 18 and effectively retain it to the grave with no further training/testing required except in the most exceptional circumstances - drivers should at least be required to redo the test if they rack up 12 points. In France, you don't even have to renew - you can still be driving at age 80 with a picture of your 18 year old self on the license (though the only real difference here is that it's a bit of a revenue raising exercise)

You can also take into account that there is a % of drivers in this age range say 60 plus (and younger?) who never did any driver training or took a test.
The worst driver I know, in their 70s filled in a form and ticked boxes and has every category of licence.

Fian

France appears to be proposing registration plates for bicycles?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/18/france-considers-mandatory-bicycle-ownership-register-thefts

Each cycle frame would be marked “in a readable, indelible, permanent and unforgeable way in a clearly visible place”, the draft text says.

The registration number will be in a form that can be verified by an optical reader.

TheChizler

Fian wrote: »

France appears to be proposing registration plates for bicycles?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/18/france-considers-mandatory-bicycle-ownership-register-thefts

Seems like a standardised version of the existing serial number really.

Fian

TheChizler wrote: »

Seems like a standardised version of the existing serial number really.

Ah maybe so. I was interpreting "optical reader" to mean autmatic number plate recognition devices in police cars, but it is probably something handheld now i think about it.

All the same a mandatory registration system still seems like a bit of overkill to me tbh.

magicbastarder

looks like a $50 solution to a $5 problem?
will probably create as many issues as it solves. especially when bikes often change hands for no money, being passed within families or between friends.

AndrewJRenko

ford2600 wrote: »

As a side note, the driver I least like to meet are old drivers. You very rarely get aggression but very often get a close pass, often at moderate speed, but its often like they have really considered you at all, with no steering input. Compulsory retraining over age of 65 and a new licence application every couple of years might be a worthwhile recommendation

Fully agree, except maybe the compulsory retraining and retesting should start a bit earlier, say about 25?

Macy0161

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fully agree, except maybe the compulsory retraining and retesting should start a bit earlier, say about 25?

I think there's definitely a case for a theory test every renewal. If you have extra classes (like I do), that means every 5 years.

Idleater

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fully agree, except maybe the compulsory retraining and retesting should start a bit earlier, say about 25?

My (motorcycle) advanced driving license has to be renewed every 3 years. And that's a 90 minute test, not a round the block.

I fully agree with retraining and retesting, though a happy medium not at advanced level would suffice. Unfortunately with advanced driving, most of those who could do with it, don't.

hesker

tomasrojo wrote: »

Martin Porter was making the argument two or so years ago in the UK that cycling cases shouldn't use juries. It was this sort of thing he had in mind. Look how they contorted themselves to absolve the driver and blame the cyclist (which is what the references to hiviz and helmets is really about).

Thanks for posting that. Spent a bit of time reading his blog.

I think this article sums up the situation quite accurately.

https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html?m=1

AndrewJRenko

Idleater wrote: »

My (motorcycle) advanced driving license has to be renewed every 3 years. And that's a 90 minute test, not a round the block.

I fully agree with retraining and retesting, though a happy medium not at advanced level would suffice. Unfortunately with advanced driving, most of those who could do with it, don't.

I wonder if the technology is here or coming soon that would allow assessment in a simulator or similar, without going out on the road?

magicbastarder

ford2600 wrote: »

As a side note, the driver I least like to meet are old drivers. You very rarely get aggression but very often get a close pass, often at moderate speed, but its often like they have really considered you at all, with no steering input. Compulsory retraining over age of 65 and a new licence application every couple of years might be a worthwhile recommendation

i know i'm shoehorning this response after your comment, but this stuck out at me from an article in the irish times today:

The claims were denied and Mrs Ryan’s side contended the accident occurred as a result of her suffering a blackout which rendered her unable to control the car and avoid colliding with the teenager.

It was pleaded the accident occurred as a result of the alleged blackout and Mrs Ryan had no legal liability for it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-with-brain-injury-after-being-hit-by-pensioner-settles-case-for-2m-1.3668517

the article doesn't say whether this specific claim was entertained, but i'm somewhat bemused with the concept that you can drive with a known health problem and not be held liable for an incident resulting from said health problem. i'm hoping the defence has no basis in actual law.

Johnny Jukebox

[HTML][/HTML]

Deleted User wrote: »

Well reading that sure ruined my day. Never ceases to amaze me some of the bolloxology seen in our courts.

Mine too. But something stinks about this case. I grew up on that road and have ridden it thousands of times to and from school, college and work. Its wide, its straight, it has speed ramps and it was bright, being a morning in June.

The cyclist was a middle aged man going to work, presumably a very familiar journey.

Yet somehow, the driver managed to bin the rider completely, knocking him off the bike with such force that he couldn't get his hands out to protect himself during the fall. I've come off the bike more times than I care to remember and putting your hands out to break your fall is an instinctive reaction. I can only speculate that the force of the collision prevented the rider from doing this.

BTW - the journo who reported on the inquest for the papers is getting a bit of grief on Twitter. Its unfair as she did report the facts as outlined in the inquest but I'd like to see a bit of digging around the driver and any medical conditions he might have had (dementia for example) or if members of his family had expressed concern around his driving.

Pinch Flat

Amazing in that case that there’s zero recommendation for the driver. Like slowing down and giving cyclists room.

Instead, the recommendation is stick on a helmet at you’ll be grand. Surprised the coroner didn’t recommend hi vis vests as well.

AndrewJRenko

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

The cyclist was a middle aged man going to work, presumably a very familiar journey.

Yet somehow, the driver managed to bin the rider completely, knocking him off the bike with such force that he couldn't get his hands out to protect himself during the fall. I've come off the bike more times than I care to remember and putting your hands out to break your fall is an instinctive reaction. I can only speculate that the force of the collision prevented the rider from doing this.

Did the inquest give any particular details about the medical cause of death? Was there a head injury, or a crush injury, or other?

Johnny Jukebox

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did the inquest give any particular details about the medical cause of death? Was there a head injury, or a crush injury, or other?

From the Indo article;

Scans revealed he suffered a traumatic head injury with a fractured skull and swelling of the brain. He passed away that evening at 9.26pm. Pathologist Dr Francesca Brett gave the cause of death as severe cerebral trauma due to injuries sustained in the collision.

TheChizler

I wonder was there any evidence given that a helmet would have helped or did the recommendation just materialise with zero basis. I don't want to get into a helmet debate but any evidence I've seen shows they're only good for short falls, if you come in contact with a vehicle they may as well not be there.

Macy0161

TheChizler wrote: »

I wonder was there any evidence given that a helmet would have helped or did the recommendation just materialise with zero basis. I don't want to get into a helmet debate but any evidence I've seen shows they're only good for short falls, if you come in contact with a vehicle they may as well not be there.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than no good in contact with a vehicle - the normal point about helmets in vehicle collisions is that they're multi impact (e.g. helmet impact with vehicle, then helmet impact with road), and cycling helmets are only designed for single impact.

As to the bigger point - no, they never do proper analysis imo. They just lazily assume the helmet would've saved them. It's the same logic as the social media posts of broken helmets with "I would've been dead without my helmet, a doctor said so it must be true" when there's been no proper investigation or analysis of the incident.

randomname2005

RobbieMD wrote: »

I don't know if a family would feel justice was done though, if the person responsible for the death of their loved one, was issued a ticket for 2points and an €80 fine though.

Also I would imagine motoring offences are probably the most common offence prosecuted in Ireland.

I imagine they would feel far from fully satisfied, but at least it would be something.

Corca Baiscinn

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Amazing in that case that there’s zero recommendation for the driver. Like slowing down and giving cyclists room.

Instead, the recommendation is stick on a helmet at you’ll be grand. Surprised the coroner didn’t recommend hi vis vests as well.

He didn't but someone found it necessary to state that the rider wasn't wearing hi vis on a morning in June! Also, Garda witness found it necessary to say that the couple in the car were familiar with the road when presumably they could have ascertained form the cyclist's family if that was also his regular route to work. I imagine it had to be since the collision happened so near his house so what as the point of describing one party's familiarity with the road?

aldark

It is possible to read the inquest evidence as a reluctance on the part of the garda to prosecute on old man.

It's the whole sensible policing thing - what would society benefit by dragging this through a court, not even hearsay evidence, not enough evidence to reconstruct events and responsbility.

The problem here is that the vast majority of people reading the headline may perceive that someone drove into and over a cyclist without any sanction.

check_six

aldark wrote: »

It is possible to read the inquest evidence as a reluctance on the part of the garda to prosecute on old man.

It's the whole sensible policing thing - what would society benefit by dragging this through a court, not even hearsay evidence, not enough evidence to reconstruct events and responsbility.

The problem here is that the vast majority of people reading the headline may perceive that someone drove into and over a cyclist without any sanction.

The problem here *IS* that someone drove into and over a cyclist without any sanction.

The driver saw the cyclist in front of him. Then he killed him.

The Guard said he couldn't determine what happened. Why not? If the driver ran into the back of another car it would be cut and dried. Why is this different?

The driver is not able to drive to a sufficient standard to stay driving at the very least, never mind any further punishment. Why was this not floated as a possibility?

And the only recommendation after all that nonsense? Get a vest and a hat.
:mad::mad::mad:

ED E

Proven time and again that murder is ok as long as it's vehicular. Here and the UK.

Lumen

ED E wrote: »

Proven time and again that murder is ok as long as it's vehicular. Here and the UK.

It's not murder if there's no intent.

ED E

Case today from Kerry shows how flexible intent is.

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think it's a bit more nuanced than no good in contact with a vehicle - the normal point about helmets in vehicle collisions is that they're multi impact (e.g. helmet impact with vehicle, then helmet impact with road), and cycling helmets are only designed for single impact.

As to the bigger point - no, they never do proper analysis imo. They just lazily assume the helmet would've saved them. It's the same logic as the social media posts of broken helmets with "I would've been dead without my helmet, a doctor said so it must be true" when there's been no proper investigation or analysis of the incident.

Your handy look-up chart:

            Ok                   Death           Serious Injury

Helmet      Helmet prevented    (S)he did all    Dead without helmet 
            all injury          (s)he could                             

No Helmet   Incredibly lucky,   What do you      Helmet would have 
            irresponsible       expect?          meant no injury

Doc07

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think it's a bit more nuanced than no good in contact with a vehicle - the normal point about helmets in vehicle collisions is that they're multi impact (e.g. helmet impact with vehicle, then helmet impact with road), and cycling helmets are only designed for single impact.

As to the bigger point - no, they never do proper analysis imo. They just lazily assume the helmet would've saved them. It's the same logic as the social media posts of broken helmets with "I would've been dead without my helmet, a doctor said so it must be true" when there's been no proper investigation or analysis of the incident.

I have always been amazed that even some doctors think a helmet makes any difference to outcome when a cyclist is hit by a car or truck.(certainly above 50km/hr)
I can definitely endorse your point about ‘no analysis’. Nobody even looks at /for the helmet never mind any analysis. The doctor who states ‘you would have been dead without out it’ is just trying to be nice.

Corca Baiscinn

aldark wrote: »

It is possible to read the inquest evidence as a reluctance on the part of the garda to prosecute on old man.

It's the whole sensible policing thing - what would society benefit by dragging this through a court, not even hearsay evidence, not enough evidence to reconstruct events and responsbility.

The problem here is that the vast majority of people reading the headline may perceive that someone drove into and over a cyclist without any sanction.

I see your point to an extent if it's the case that the driver has given up driving and maybe he has, but we dont know.
Not entirely sure re lack of evidence tho', true there was no cctv and no witnesses but the media reports of the inquest didn't go into the examinations conducted on the bike and car so we dont know what the forensics people gleaned from those.
This was not a criminal court. The purpose of an inquest is to make findings of fact as to what happened , not to apportion blame, but the inability of the garda witness to explain the sequence of events as well as the Jury's recommendation re helmets creates the impression that the cyclist was to blame for his own death.
This doesn't make the roads any safer for other people who cycle.

AndrewJRenko

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

I see your point to an extent if it's the case that the driver has given up driving and maybe he has, but we dont know.
Not entirely sure re lack of evidence tho', true there was no cctv and no witnesses but the media reports of the inquest didn't go into the examinations conducted on the bike and car so we dont know what the forensics people gleaned from those.

There were witnesses - the two people in the car. And no one asked them how much passing space they gave when overtaking, or if an overtake was appropriate and justified on a residential street.

Easier to blame the victim for helmets and hi-vis, I guess.

ED E

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There were witnesses - the two people in the car. And no one asked them how much passing space they gave when overtaking, or if an overtake was appropriate and justified on a residential street.

Easier to blame the victim for helmets and hi-vis, I guess.

Coroner can't compel them to give testimony. Won't testify against themselves in court.

Garda FCI is the start and the end of a potential case. Whether they could have done more I doubt we'll ever know but from speaking to regular attendees at such inquests their competence is reportedly very questionable.