Suspended sentence for driver that destroyed cyclist's physical capability

boombang

I see some outrage on boards regarding drivers vs cyclists, but this one completely perplexes me.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/suspended-sentence-for-driver-as-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk-1.3073078

Driver nearly kills a woman, leaves her totally wrecked for life and isn't given time? Completely unreal sentencing.

Drivers setting off on journeys without lights is something I see a lot and I flag them/flash them if I see them at it. This shows you how dangerous it can be.

The poor woman.

Weepsie

And he's still allowed to drive

Lumen

I'd imagine the insurance payout will be substantial, if it hasn't been already.

And that cost will be mostly borne by everyone except the driver.

Wishbone Ash

The piece doesn't really say if it was dark or twlight. I suspect he may have been driving with 'parking' lights on (as many older generation drivers do to 'save the battery') as it refers to lack of headlights.

Did the cyclist make a right turn across his path?

I love Sean nos

No mention of what colour the car was.

boombang

boombang wrote: »

I see some outrage on boards regarding drivers vs cyclists, but this one completely perplexes me.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/suspended-sentence-for-driver-as-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk-1.3073078

Driver nearly kills a woman, leaves her totally wrecked for life and isn't given time? Completely unreal sentencing.

Drivers setting off on journeys without lights is something I see a lot and I flag them/flash them if I see them at it. This shows you how dangerous it can be.

The poor woman.

I know her very well. I was at her wedding. Its heart breaking whats happened to her. Meanwhile yer man is still allowed drive.

jimmycrackcorm

boombang wrote:

Driver nearly kills a woman, leaves her totally wrecked for life and isn't given time? Completely unreal sentencing.

It's a typical accident not unlike others involving cars and the sentencing reflects this. The purpose is to sentence for the cause of the circumstances, not the outcome.

Plenty of other people have had all too similar accidents with a different outcome. The difference here is the scope of the cyclist injuries are more severe than normal.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The piece doesn't really say if it was dark or twlight.

It happened just before 7pm in early Feburary. It was pretty much dark.

jive

Terrible accident and feel sorry for all involved, hopefully the woman can regain some semblance of a good life. Having said that, not paying attention and operating a motor vehicle resulting in the complete eradication of someone's quality of life doesn't stack up to the sentence handed down.

It's something people do every day, drive, so they get complacent. A lack of law enforcement and lenient sentencing perpetuate the issue. In fairness to the driver, it's something most people will do at some stage without such severe consequences.

Ironic that from all talk about cyclists with no lights, 1 motor vehicle with no lights did more damage than all those cyclists ever will.

erica74

That's a pretty standard punishment in Ireland for what happened.
Obviously horrendous for the woman and her friends and family. No matter what you may think of the driver, and I'm not defending him or his driving, he didn't set out that evening to cause those injuries and he will have to live with that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
I would imagine the civil case will result in a large award to the woman, which will hopefully go some way towards giving her some quality of life.

I love Sean nos

jive wrote: »

Ironic that from all talk about cyclists with no lights, 1 motor vehicle with no lights did more damage than all those cyclists ever will.

If it wasn't a core element of the case, it probably wouldn't have been mentioned. When a number of pedestrians were killed in RTCs at the beginning of the year, none of the media reports mentioned the vehicle lights or why they were not sufficient to avoid the collision.

HivemindXX

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's a typical accident not unlike others involving cars and the sentencing reflects this. The purpose is to sentence for the cause of the circumstances, not the outcome.

Plenty of other people have had all too similar accidents with a different outcome. The difference here is the scope of the cyclist injuries are more severe than normal.

I think this is a huge problem. We have a situation where driving without your lights on is basically no problem. I imagine in most cases the worst that might happen is that a guard will give you a verbal warning. Then when this carelessness kills someone the argument is that all the driver really did was drive without his lights on, which is no big deal. Just because their inattention ruined lives doesn't make a difference, it's not the outcome that matters.

I think the suspended prison sentence is not unreasonable for this case though. The real outrage is that this driver isn't banned for a few years.

I love Sean nos

Garda Murphy said the main contributing factor to the incident was that Ms Duncan was unable to see Mr Faherty’s car because he did not have his lights on.

A strange statement. Would him not being able to see her, despite her lights, not be the main contributing factor?

Faherty (63), of Elton Walk, Ard na Greine, Dublin, pleaded guilty last February at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to one count of careless driving causing serious harm.

He got a suspended sentence, but kept his licence? Any points for leaving someone in a coma?

cython

I love Sean nos wrote: »

A strange statement. Would him not being able to see her, despite her lights, not be the main contributing factor?


He got a suspended sentence, but kept his licence? Any points for leaving someone in a coma?

Not necessarily, based on this description:

The Irish Times wrote:

Garda Keith Murphy said Ms Duncan had been cycling on the left side of the road when she decided to turn right at a junction with Greencastle Road. Both parties had a green light.

I take it from the piece that she was turning right across his path (the statement that both parties had a green light suggests they were travelling in opposite directions), and collided with the car that she couldn't see due to no illumination on same. The article also makes reference to her bike colliding with his car (admittedly this kind of description can be skewed), suggesting that she was the one who should (and presumably would) have yielded right of way, had she only been able to see the car.

I love Sean nos

cython wrote: »

I take it from the piece that she was turning right across his path (the statement that both parties had a green light suggests they were travelling in opposite directions), and collided with the car that she couldn't see due to no illumination on same. The article also makes reference to her bike colliding with his car (admittedly this kind of description can be skewed), suggesting that she was the one who should (and presumably would) have yielded right of way, had she only been able to see the car.

So she cycled into the side of his car because she couldn't see it?

Jakey Rolling

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's a typical accident not unlike others involving cars and the sentencing reflects this. The purpose is to sentence for the cause of the circumstances, not the outcome.

Plenty of other people have had all too similar accidents with a different outcome. The difference here is the scope of the cyclist injuries are more severe than normal.

+1 on this, the courts should not be sentencing depending on the outcome, unfortunate as it is, but on the severity or intention of the cause.

Take this example with 2 different outcomes:

I am distracted by kids in the back seat and end up taking a sharp bend too fast, causing my car to leave the road.

Outcome 1: I crash into a lampost, no one injured.
Outcome 2: I crash into a bus stop, killing 6 people and maiming 4 others.

In the first case, it's unlikely to go to court.
In the second case people will be calling for me to be jailed for 10 years.

Same offence (careless driving), so why not lock me up for 10 years given the first outcome?

As it happens I found myself driving around town without lights a few weeks ago - I always have the lights on auto mode but my wife had borrowed the car and switched them to off. Could have been me going to prison...

Wishbone Ash

I love Sean nos wrote: »

So she cycled into the side of his car because she couldn't see it?

I suspect, from her serious injuries sustained, she was in front of the car at the point of impact.

Wishbone Ash

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

As it happens I found myself driving around town without lights a few weeks ago...

One thing that puzzles me is why drivers driving without lights don't notice a dark dashboard.

buffalo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I suspect, from her serious sustained, she was in front of the car at the point of impact.

I'm trying to work this one out, because the headline says 'bike hit car'. Are there more details on how the collision occurred?

Jakey Rolling

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

One thing that puzzles me is why drivers driving without lights don't notice a dark dashboard.

Bright lights in the town, dashboard illumination set to low as most driving done in the pitch black countryside. Kicked myself for not noticing alright. Should I be up for a long prison sentence?

LollipopJimmy

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

One thing that puzzles me is why drivers driving without lights don't notice a dark dashboard.

More and more newer cars have lights on the dashboard even when the lights are off. It's ridiculous

cython

I love Sean nos wrote: »

So she cycled into the side of his car because she couldn't see it?

I didn't witness it, so I'm not in a position to confirm either way, nor would I be so blunt as to anyway. I was simply highlighting how the testimony offered in court, and the accepted facts in the case explained how the ability to see the cyclist could reasonably not have been a factor.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

One thing that puzzles me is why drivers driving without lights don't notice a dark dashboard.

Depends on the model of car; my own car (by default, it can be changed to be the opposite, or to be the same regardless of your lights) actually has brighter illumination with lights off than with on, as without the lights you wouldn't see the dials in daylight, while with the reduced ambient light at night you can see them perfectly with the reduced illumination

I love Sean nos

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I suspect, from her serious sustained, she was in front of the car at the point of impact.

cython wrote: »

the ability to see the cyclist could reasonably not have been a factor.

These two statements are in conflict.

jcd5971

Deleted User wrote:

I know her very well. I was at her wedding. Its heart breaking whats happened to her. Meanwhile yer man is still allowed drive.

Sorry for her obviously.
But he has had his punishment. He has been through the court system and had his sentence delivered.
As it's a suspended sentence and no loss of licence that would indicate no malice or serious misbehavior from the driver.
He also has to live with the consequences of his actions.

Again in no way playing down the victims new life outlook.
But sometimes an accident is just that.

No more gombeens

A couple of months ago a driver who drove through a red light, killed a cyclist and drove off got approximately 2 and a half years in jail .
No deterrent to dangerous driving there.

amcalester

No more gombeens wrote: »

A couple of months ago a driver who drove through a red light, killed a cyclist and drove off got approximately 2 and a half years in jail .
No deterrent to dangerous driving there.

Drove through a red lightning while breaking the speed limit.

Was he already banned from driving too?

Edited:

That driver had 3 previous driving bans and was banned at the time.

Sentence was increased on appeal by the DPP to 6 years with 2.5 years suspended.

magicbastarder

She did not impose a ban on his driving after hearing he uses his car on a daily basis

you what?

Robert Faherty (63) was driving without headlights when Grainne Duncan’s bike hit his car

again,wtf?

magicbastarder

Ms Duncan ... only became aware of her situation recently

that's incredibly sad.

Weepsie

I know it could have happened 99 times over and been less serious, and hence why the thinking is the outcome is not important when applying sentencing in law

But that's just bs. The driver here should have a longer suspended sentence, should be made do some form of community service and be banned from driving.

Look at Garda Twitter, the number of banned drivers they pull up is astounding. Until such stupid leniency is stopped, people will continue to think they can carry on careless as ever.


This case should also put to bed that mandatory hi viz is a nonsense

wordofwarning

I hope the DPP gets involved. This is so ridiculous.

He was driving without headlights, but it was not dangerous driving? The judge did not revoke his license, as he uses his car on a daily basis. Where is the logic in that?

I have a feeling, if that guy was young and from a working class area like Ballymun or Finglas, that the Judge would have given the same sentence. A 20 year old from Finglas, if he did the same thing. It would not have been seen as a momentary lapse.

Look at this case where the guy fell asleep at wheel, but it is also unacceptable but beyond his control. The Judge decided to give him two years in jail to send out a message that it is unacceptable.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0510/787419-anthony-handley-olivia-dunne/

Yet someone drives without lights, destroys a woman's life and does not as so much get his license revoked? It is beyond ****ed up. Does the judge want people to know you can do whatever you like on the roads, as long as your excuse is good, you use your car daily and you are old with a sick relative?

Driving without license is on par with high treason, driving without light is now acceptable?

magicbastarder

wordofwarning wrote: »

Driving without license is on par with high treason, driving without light is now acceptable?

i suppose the legal difference is one is wilful, the other is accidental.
and the judge probably thinking 'whoops, i've done the same myself'.