Journalism and cycling

AndrewJRenko

ED E wrote: »

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

They could at least have asked the feckin questions

andy69

ED E wrote: »

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.

Wonder if it'd be worthwhile getting private forensic work done...I imagine they'd be more detailed, probably have actual qualified engineers etc, and might ask the questions you'd want (as in, I'm sure they'd listen to what you'd want asked/probed, as opposed to AGS who I'd imagine wouldn't take any input from family members).
There's a couple of hits there in a quick Google search....having said that it'd be hard to compose yourself in the wake of a fatal crash and losing a loved one to be going and setting up something like this I'd say

magicbastarder

Cycling Stakeholders Unite To Form Body Modelled On Motor Lobby

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/10/11/cycling-stakeholders-unite-to-form-body-modelled-on-motor-lobby/#537317f26257

Grassey

magicbastarder wrote:

Cycling Stakeholders Unite To Form Body Modelled On Motor Lobby

I had a chuckle that their acronym is CIE

magicbastarder

will be interesting to see how it being an industry body, rather than simply a cycling advocacy body, will effect their lobbying.

magicbastarder

Dublin Bus driver pleads not guilty over cyclist’s death

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/dublin-bus-driver-pleads-not-guilty-over-cyclist-s-death-1.3673418

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: A friendly reminder about comments on an ongoing court case. So far all look OK but anything that appears that might look like it is accusing or blaming either party. Basically, and sorry about this, nothing outside the bare bones comments in the article.

brocbrocach

magicbastarder wrote: »

Dublin Bus driver pleads not guilty over cyclist’s death

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/dublin-bus-driver-pleads-not-guilty-over-cyclist-s-death-1.3673418

I think this is ok with moderator's request as no connection to the actual incident. Just highlighting the perception/attitude that seems to be floating about. Copied from stickybottle article.



"For the accused man, Mr Garnet Orange SC put it to Garda McHugh that while some cyclists behaved well on the road, others less so.
Garda McHugh replied he would also see a range of driving from motorists in vehicles."

magicbastarder

guys - i've deleted more posts, which included speculation of defence/prosecution tactics and mindsets involved. while i may personally agree with some of the comments made, can we leave all that till after a verdict is returned?

cheers

magicbastarder

Dublin Bus driver guilty of careless driving causing death of cyclist
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/dublin-bus-driver-guilty-of-careless-driving-causing-death-of-cyclist-1.3674182?mode=amp

Hurrache

Can we comment on that SC now?

TheChizler

That was quick. Can we comment now so?

He told the jury if there was a possibility that the cyclist was not visible to the driver, it should acquit.

This line worries me. If she hadn't been wearing hi-vis would this direction have brought the jury to a different finding? Is there not a responsibility to not proceed blindly?

Chips Lovell

Yes

What Username Guidelines

Hurrache wrote: »

Can we comment on that SC now?

Probably not outside the bounds of the article as it's still before the courts until sentencing, but...

Mr Orange told the jury that Ms White was not on trial but said that what killed Ms White that night was pure bad luck and not carelessness. He said the headlights of the bus could not have caught Ms White and that his client could not have seen her. He said it was murky winters night and said the location of the accident was darker than the rest of the road because of a broken street light.

Mr Orange said that what killed Ms White was the head injury sustained when the back of her head hit the road. He said her helmet was not fastened and had only being resting on her head.

“It clearly fell off when she fell off. It was as useless as a chocolate teapot,” he said.

He said there was evidence the buses routinely crossed the line at that junction. He said if it was this crossing of the line which caused the collision “there would be accidents there every day”.

Mr Orange urged the jurors to leave out any views they had “about the ongoing heated cyclists versus everyone else debate”.

“Whether you hate cyclists or whether you’re a cyclist who hates bus drivers you cannot let those views cloud your decision. You must leave those out of the jury room but you cannot leave your common sense out,” he said.

Christ, I know he's defending, but he's some piece of work, mentioning the "ongoing heated debate" and basically just adding to it.

Hurrache

You've pretty much covered my intentions. His tactic was to muuddy the victim and try sling as much blame as he could on her, bringing up how some cyclists don't cycle by the rules, the whole cyclists vs bus drivers thing (only one reason bring it up and then ask the jury to ignore it), how lights start to fade on cyclists bikes, and if somehow the helmet was going to prevent serious injury or death in a bus vs bike accident, and so on.

I know his job was to defend his client, but his defence was to attack the cyclist first and foremost.

Grassey

TheChizler wrote:

This line worries me. If she hadn't been wearing hi-vis would this direction have brought the jury to a different finding? Is there not a responsibility to not proceed blindly?

A criminal trial has to establish guilt beyond doubt. 99.9% kinda proof.so if there is an element of doubt the jury shouldn't convict.

Hurrache

Grassey wrote: »

A criminal trial has to establish guilt beyond doubt. 99.9% kinda proof.so if there is an element of doubt the jury shouldn't convict.

Yes, but the doubt here is if the driver saw the cyclist. That has no bearing on if the driver was driving dangerously, or without due care, to cause the death of someone.

AndrewJRenko

I don't suppose there's any chance that the Judge's name was Mr Pink and the prosecutor was Mr Blonde?

magicbastarder

the defence lawyer has a great name, garnet orange.

RacoonQueen

I really don't think I could do that job the defence lawyer does...trying to find a way to blame the dead woman for her death...the helmet was just 'sitting' on her head...and as much use as chocolate teapot (good analogy for helmets in any situation where a bike meets something the size of a double decker bus probably :rolleyes:)

It bothers me how much emphasis there seems to have been on hi vis and helmet and I can't help but think the verdict might have been different if she had not been wearing one of those things.

TheChizler

Grassey wrote: »

A criminal trial has to establish guilt beyond doubt. 99.9% kinda proof.so if there is an element of doubt the jury shouldn't convict.

That's true, but if that's a defence why not say, it's possible the driver didn't look, so it's possible they didn't see them, therefore you should acquit. It feels like they're being absolved of the responsibility to look out for less visible road users.

Hurrache

I think it's stupid website but someone sent me this. No indicating and didn't see the car, what hope would a cyclist have

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1560764264023623&id=274943915939004

CramCycle

Hurrache wrote: »

I think it's stupid website but someone sent me this. No indicating and didn't see the car, what hope would a cyclist have

https://www.facebook.com/aircraftillustrations/photos/a.439517829833/10156749206854834/?type=3&theater

I don't like the colour scheme myself.

Hurrache

Dunno wtf happened there, let me sort that!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1560764264023623&id=274943915939004

Jesus imaging if that was a cyclist not expecting a left turning truck ,then imagining the difference in the comments if it was a cyclist

Arcade_Tryer

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I really don't think I could do that job the defence lawyer does...trying to find a way to blame the dead woman for her death...the helmet was just 'sitting' on her head...and as much use as chocolate teapot (good analogy for helmets in any situation where a bike meets something the size of a double decker bus probably :rolleyes:)

It bothers me how much emphasis there seems to have been on hi vis and helmet and I can't help but think the verdict might have been different if she had not been wearing one of those things.

The lawyer wouldn't use that line of argument if they didn't believe it may work, which is the major problem.

Arcade_Tryer

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Christ, I know he's defending, but he's some piece of work, mentioning the "ongoing heated debate" and basically just adding to it.

It's his job, and he's probably performing it well. We're all pieces of work as we all choose to live in a society which encourages such events to occur, and a culture that potentially rewards such ridiculous arguments as the lawyer is making.

Lumen

Surely we should be thanking the defence barrister for making such crap arguments?

ford2600

Lumen wrote: »

Surely we should be thanking the defence barrister for making such crap arguments?

Yep.

There was a (non legal) technical argument which might have got driver off. I won't be saying so don't ask.

The last thing you should expect from a court is justice. You might occasionally get it. Don't take my word for it, go for a day to district court of your choice, or for the real cream, appeals to the circuit court.

The "chocolate teapot" type stuff is run of the mill and often invited from judge who cut his teeth doing same thing.

Well done to prosecution, a really difficult job. Beyond reasonable doubt when you have to show your hand in advance, play by all the rules and can't really be sure what rabbits will be pulled out of a hat, how your key witness will do presenting evidence or under cross examination.

magicbastarder

RacoonQueen wrote: »

It bothers me how much emphasis there seems to have been on hi vis and helmet and I can't help but think the verdict might have been different if she had not been wearing one of those things.

i would guess maybe that the helmet issue will not affect the verdict so much as the sentence; that whether her helmet was fastened or not does not affect how culpable the defendant was, but that it affects the seriousness of the outcome.

e.g. in a 'we've found you 100% responsible BUT if the helmet had been fastened, she might not have died' way.