Suspended sentence for driver that destroyed cyclist's physical capability

Lindt Chocolatier

When you take driving lessons and do your driving test in this country you are taught to look out for hazards and more vulnerable road users. It's not just a matter of driving along when you have right of way no matter what. If he couldn't see what was in front of him he should have turned on his lights. It's more than a mistake - he is an incompetent driver and shouldn't still be on the road imo.

ED E

Lindt Chocolatier wrote: »

When you take driving lessons and do your driving test in this country you are taught to look out for hazards and more vulnerable road users. It's not just a matter of driving along when you have right of way no matter what. If he couldn't see what was in front of him he should have turned on his lights. It's more than a mistake - he is an incompetent driver and shouldn't still be on the road imo.

Correction: She couldnt see him seems to be more of an issue.

DanDublin1982

Very sad set of circumstances this.

andreoilin wrote: »

I drive with my lights on no matter what time of day it is. I've had strangers knock on my window and point it out to me, it really confuses some people.

Same here and always have done. I remember when I was learning my driving instructor saying it was good practice and its just stuck with me ever since. The RSA often run ads on having your lights on but I've never heard a serious discussion on it being made mandatory at all times.

In fact I've recently started applying the same logic on the bike and am lighting up on all journeys now.

boombang

I think the driver should be banned. He's proven to cause catastrophic injuries to somebody and I think that's enough to say he should deal with buses and taxis. I don't get why judges seem so receptive to the imposition of driving bans have on people's lives.

Even though leaving the lights off is an relatively innocent mistake (not drunk driving or speeding), we still have to recognise that simple errors can have grave consequences and people need to take responsibility.

Regarding the punishment reflecting the consequences. I understand the principle that the punishment should reflect the act not the consequences, but I don't agree with it. We all make some driving goofs (I drove without lights briefly in a unfamiliar rental recently), but I think if your victim is unlucky enough to suffer very grave consequences then I think you really need to serve at least a few months. I know it's not consistent with the intention of the driver, but if we need to provide an effective deterrent.

riemann

Lindt Chocolatier wrote: »

It's more than a mistake.

How exactly is it more than a mistake? I would say once a week on average, I see a driver in Dublin driving without their lights on when they should.

This always occurs in an area where other drivers lights and/or street lights provide illumination to a level where said driver doesn't notice his own lights aren't lighting his path. For example this would never happen on a dark country lane. In addition it always occurs at the start of said drivers journey, as soon as it is brought to his/her attention they will turn on their lights and kick themselves for being an idiot.

It's a simple mistake, one I have made and one I am unlikely to make again when I read a story like this where the potential consequences are made apparent.

What kind of a punishment do you feel would be appropriate for someone whose crime was failing to turn on his car lights?

Unfortunately nothing can turn back the clock, I'm sure if this man is anything like the majority of people I know, this incident will haunt him for the rest of his life, and is a far worse sentence than any driving ban or jail term.

the_pen_turner

where did this accident happen.
was there street lights there.
i dont think he could drive 200m if it was pitch black.

magicbastarder

riemann wrote: »

What kind of a punishment do you feel would be appropriate for someone whose crime was failing to turn on his car lights?

no, no, and thrice no.
you are failing to see what our justice system is for, or should be for. and you seem to be limiting the damage to just failing to turn on his lights, which if you don't mind me saying, is a little odious.

here's a hypothetical situation. let's say every night, i get drunk and go driving in my car. if i'm caught on a random night, i'm done for drunk driving. everyone accepts that, and condemns me for it, and the courts condemn me for it too.

let's say one night, before the gardai catch me, i hit and kill a pedestrian. it may - or may not - be the case that the circumstances of the crash mean that the collision was beyond my control. i may have been drunk or sober, but the fault was with the pedestrian, and i just happen to be unlucky enough to be drunk at the time.

in that circumstance, are you saying that the driver should *only* be charged with being over the limit? that it was a matter of blind luck whether or not a pedestrian stepped out in front of the car? or will we agree that the driver of the car - every time he or she turns the key in the ignition - accepts that they are driving a machine with a more than proven capability of causing death or serious injury, and should accept their responsibility lest their inattention causes same?

riemann

magicbastarder wrote: »

you are failing to see what our justice system is for

Quite the contrary, it is you who is letting your emotions overrule your critical thinking.

You'll have to excuse me if I can't follow your analogies. I suggest sticking to the facts and circumstances surrounding this one, like the judge did.

He had no lights in an illuminated city. She cycled into him, according to the report. Tragic, both at fault.

Anongeneric

riemann wrote: »

Quite the contrary, it is you who is letting your emotions overrule your critical thinking.

You'll have to excuse me if I can't follow your analogies. I suggest sticking to the facts and circumstances surrounding this one, like the judge did.

In sticking with the facts of this case:

Cars have a number of operational features which you must engage to operate legally, among them headlights when required,(poor visibility), as a safety feature to prevent you from hitting something you don't see and to prevent other road users from hitting you because they cannot see you.
The driver in this case drove for 200 meters without engaging his lights and in so doing has destroyed a woman's life.

Nobody is suggesting that he be given 10 years, but I certainly think some custodial sentence was warranted here to provide a deterrent and make drivers face up to their responsibilities when operating 2 tonnes of steel where other vulnerable road users are. And he absolutely should be banned from driving.

Kaisr Sose

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 read your post above and my first instinct was shame on you for not taking into account the impact of this on the injured party ( all sentencing is supposed to do so) and then I decided to read on a bit in the thread and see if there was substance to neglecting the impact on the victim. I kept reading, seen some more nonsensical arguments for leniency etc. There is none cause for leniency. The onus is on the driver to drive in a safe manner and while they are doing so, they are also responsible for the roadworthiness of the vehicle, right there while driving it. If it's not lit up, they are liable for that, innocent error or not.
So my first though was correct, it's not correct not to take into account the impact on the victim, and it's not appropriate that there was no driving ban imposed. People get banned for far less, often when nobody was injured. The ban is given to penalise the driver for breaking the law, and in this case the vehicle was not roadworthy when the lights were off. It's therefore driving without due care and attention (at best). How many of us that cycle have noticed the sheer number of vehicles driving with defective lighting? This country is gone beyond a joke...you are practically ridiculed for obeying the rules of the road.

magicbastarder

riemann wrote: »

Quite the contrary, it is you who is letting your emotions overrule your critical thinking.

You'll have to excuse me if I can't follow your analogies. I suggest sticking to the facts and circumstances surrounding this one, like the judge did.

Considering you listed the offence as just leaving their headlights off, I can understand you might have trouble following analogies.

jcd5971

funkey_monkey wrote:

You're embarassing yourself. Why was he not fully observant? If he was he would have seen a bicycle with a light on it and a cyclist wearing a high-vis top cycling towards him and then across his path.

Somewhere in the middle of your 2 differing opinions lies the probable truth of what happened.

Anongeneric wrote:

Could I please ask you you out of sympathy to that poster if nothing else please delete this post and don't post again.

Why should he not post his opinion?
If it's an honestly held opinion and not a troll comment (which this clearly is not) then why should he censor himself.

Frankly the fact that another poster knows the victim has no bearing on the discussion. This is a discussion a reasonable amount of conflicting arguments are to be expected. Personally I'd avoid the thread if I knew someone involved, but the poster who knows the victim chose to post here and to be fair to him/her has not raised an issue.

jcd5971

funkey_monkey wrote:

Can you expand on what you mean by "your 2 differing opinions"?

Well one of you is saying the "blame" is on the cyclist for not seeing/hearing the car.

The other one of you maintains it was squarely the driver to "blame".

I believe that in all likelihood there was a degree of "blame" in both parties that contributed to a tragedy for all involved.
I would agree with some that as the driver of a machine the driver does have a greater duty of care, but I think this is a tough case, and personally don't see how a custodial sentence or even a loss of driving privileges would help here

BlinkingLights

The case is tragic and the outcome is horrific for the cyclist. However, none of us actually sat through the evidence and we are not really in a position to make a judgement.

Using the road as a cyclist, a pedestrian or a driver is potentially dangerous. Your are depending on people to make split second judgements, to not forget to do a whole load of different things and you have to accept that humans are not perfect and will occasionally make mistakes.

To me this sounds like a tragic accident that could have been prevented if everything had been perfect. However, sometimes you just have to accept that things can go horribly wrong and without anyone having intended that to happen.

Sometimes horrible things happen and you can't really just pillory someone for not being 100% perfect. That's just the nature of life and the human condition. Mistakes happen, tragedies happen and all we can really do is our utmost to reduce that probability.

If you have a situation where if someone makes an error with horrible consequences that they are immediately thrown in prison for 20 years or something like that, you'd have a country where nobody would do anything ever. We'd all just have to sit at home typing on our computers.

amcalester

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The case is tragic and the outcome is horrific for the cyclist. However, none of us actually sat through the evidence and we are not really in a position to make a judgement.

Using the road as a cyclist, a pedestrian or a driver is potentially dangerous. Your are depending on people to make split second judgements, to not forget to do a whole load of different things and you have to accept that humans are not perfect and will occasionally make mistakes.

To me this sounds like a tragic accident that could have been prevented if everything had been perfect. However, sometimes you just have to accept that things can go horribly wrong and without anyone having intended that to happen.

Sometimes horrible things happen and you can't really just pillory someone for not being 100% perfect. That's just the nature of life and the human condition. Mistakes happen, tragedies happen and all we can really do is our utmost to reduce that probability.

If everything had been perfect or just one thing completely in control of the driver, namely his lights?

BlinkingLights

amcalester wrote: »

If everything had been perfect or just one thing completely in control of the driver, namely his lights?

Yeah, he forgot to put on his lights.

The guy is a human, not a machine. I doubt he went out with the intention to turn his lights off so that he could cause an accident.

It's an error. It happened. The court assessed the case and came out with what looks like a reasonable judgement, given the circumstances.

Errors happen, people have horrible accidents, planes crash and sometimes there is really no point in trying to punish someone as a result of all of that. It's just part of the risk we all take in getting up in the morning, walking out the door and dealing with a complicated world full of fast moving objects and all sorts of other risks.

I really can't see how putting the guy away for an error is serving any purpose. It certainly would not be in the public interest or serve the public good and would just mean we'd have a legal system that was all about doling out eye-for-an-eye style punishments rather than actually looking at the full facts and circumstances around a particular case and coming up with a reasonable and reasoned judgement.

A society cannot really function if the justice system operated in the manner being wished for by some posters on this thread.

amcalester

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Yeah, he forgot to put on his lights.

The guy is a human, not a machine. I doubt he went out with the intention to turn his lights off so that he could cause an accident.

It's an error. It happened. The court assessed the case and came out with what looks like a reasonable judgement, given the circumstances.

Errors happen, people have horrible accidents, planes crash and sometimes there is really no point in trying to punish someone as a result of all of that. It's just part of the risk we all take in getting up in the morning, walking out the door and dealing with a complicated world full of fast moving objects and all sorts of other risks.

I really can't see how putting the guy away for an error is serving any purpose. It certainly would not be in the public interest or serve the public good and would just mean we'd have a legal system that was all about doling out eye-for-an-eye style punishments rather than actually looking at the full facts and circumstances around a particular case and coming up with a reasonable and reasoned judgement.

A society cannot really function if the justice system operated in the manner being wished for by some posters on this thread.

It was an error but a completely avoidable one, that's the point I'm trying to make.

I don't think the driver deserves a custodial sentence but I do think he should be off the road for a period.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

magicbastarder

jcd5971 wrote: »

I believe that in all likelihood there was a degree of "blame" in both parties that contributed to a tragedy for all involved.

i still don't see how a cyclist - who had taken all reasonable precautions - can be found partly to blame for an unlit car crashing into her.

the_pen_turner

In my opinion she is as much responsible as he is. .she left her lane without making sure it was clear to do so. Even the judge states that she hit the car.
I fail to see how he could see enough to drive 200m but she couldn't see him.

Of course he should have his lights on but it isn't the only Contributing factor.

I feel sorry for both parties here. He did nothing I tent ion a lot like drinking or phone use etc. And she wore all the right gear and was light up

Kaisr Sose

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The case is tragic and the outcome is horrific for the cyclist. However, none of us actually sat through the evidence and we are not really in a position to make a judgement.

Using the road as a cyclist, a pedestrian or a driver is potentially dangerous. Your are depending on people to make split second judgements, to not forget to do a whole load of different things and you have to accept that humans are not perfect and will occasionally make mistakes.

To me this sounds like a tragic accident that could have been prevented if everything had been perfect. However, sometimes you just have to accept that things can go horribly wrong and without anyone having intended that to happen.

Sometimes horrible things happen and you can't really just pillory someone for not being 100% perfect. That's just the nature of life and the human condition. Mistakes happen, tragedies happen and all we can really do is our utmost to reduce that probability.

If you have a situation where if someone makes an error with horrible consequences that they are immediately thrown in prison for 20 years or something like that, you'd have a country where nobody would do anything ever. We'd all just have to sit at home typing on our computers.

It's the absence of a driving ban that's the issue for me, and I don't believe people are advocating custodial here. This person may never do this again but this person may be type that regularally forgets things. Like checking mirrors before manoeuvring, indicating prior to turning, checking it's safe to pull out or overtake etc. Mistakes kill / maim / injure... People that make them should have a driving ban imposed.

jcd5971

magicbastarder wrote:

i still don't see how a cyclist - who had taken all reasonable precautions - can be found partly to blame for an unlit car crashing into her.

Look I really really don't want to fault a person who was left with devestating injuries, but she left her lane even the judge pointed this out.

This is not a case of a person just ploughing into a cyclist it's a very nuanced case it's not black vs white.

And I'll reiterate my original sentiment that this was a tragic accident for all involved.

Eamonnator

jcd5971 wrote: »

Look I really really don't want to fault a person who was left with devestating injuries, but she left her lane even the judge pointed this out.

This is not a case of a person just ploughing into a cyclist it's a very nuanced case it's not black vs white.

And I'll reiterate my original sentiment that this was a tragic accident for all involved.

It was not an accident, it was a collision.

jcd5971

Eamonnator wrote:

It was not an accident, it was a collision.

What does this post even mean?

Eamonnator

jcd5971 wrote: »

What does this post even mean?

Road Traffic Collisions have not been referred to as Accidents by the R.S.A. for many years.
Something to do with the fact that accidents are deemed to just happen, whereas collisions are caused.

jcd5971

Eamonnator wrote:

Road Traffic Collisions have not been referred to as Accidents by the R.S.A. for many years. Something to do with the fact that accidents are deemed to just happen, whereas collisions are caused.

Right then.

I am not in a court I'm making a point on a forum, you knew what I meant though.
So have you any comment on the actual content of post you quoted or are you happy enough to sit back and nitpick?

Jimllfixit

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.

Perhaps rather than prison, the driver should be forced to give her half his income for the rest of her life. Save the dear old State a fortune, and she'd have some sort of compensation.

magicbastarder

jcd5971 wrote: »

but she left her lane even the judge pointed this out.

is that quote in the irish times article? or are you referring to the seemingly established fact that she was making a turn?

Fian

I am a bit reluctant to post this, easier to just stay silent.

Drivers have put me in fear of my life and induced rage in me like nothing else I have ever encountered, because they just don't get how vulnerable cyclists are on the road. I have raged at inexperienced kids who think they are great drivers, with no experience, but who put my life on the line, not theirs, by squeezing past me at speed.

From what I can gather, this driver was not speeding, was not reckless, but was careless, because he didn't notice he had failed to put his lights on. I have driven without my lights too, not for long but in urban traffic you can forget and not notice.

Someone convicted of death by dangerous driving generally deserves to go to prison, and most people convicted of it do. This is an unusual case in that a traffic accident resulting in catastrophic consequences give rise to a careless, rather than dangerous, charge.

I don't want to point the finger at the victim, but we need to realise that it appears, based on the reported facts, that she turned into the path of an oncoming car. Maybe she wouldn't have had the car's lights been lit. Maybe the setting sun was in her eyes and the headlights wouldn't have mattered.

This driver messed up. He was not reckless. He was not a boy racer. He ****ed up.

The consequences were catastrophic.

Retribution on him won't make those consequences go away, or reverse them.

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

is that quote in the irish times article? or are you referring to the seemingly established fact that she was making a turn?

Not sure why you use the term "seemingly" when at the very least the journal report (I can't access the IT article behind paywall but pretty sure it concurred) confirms this:

Garda Keith Murphy said that 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.

Garda Murphy said that the main contributing factor to the accident was that Ms Duncan was unable to see Faherty’s car because he did not have his lights on.
“I think that she may have noticed the car when she went to make the turn, but by then it was too late,” garda Murphy said.

“It would have been completely safe for her to make the turn if there had not been oncoming traffic,” he added.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think we can say the fact is established, not just seemingly established??

kaymin

I presume this is the junction where it happened:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3915427,-6.1948627,3a,75y,285.88h,77.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slWrUdyqLsBPFTJOy3fE3Uw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&hl=en

There are street lights on this stretch of road so it seems to me both parties contributed to the incident.

CramCycle

jcd5971 wrote: »

Right then.

I am not in a court I'm making a point on a forum, you knew what I meant though.
So have you any comment on the actual content of post you quoted or are you happy enough to sit back and nitpick?

I think it's clear he means there is a party or parties we can attribute blame too rather than insinuating it was an unavoidable decision of chance.

magicbastarder

cython wrote: »

Not sure why you use the term "seemingly" when at the very least the journal report (I can't access the IT article behind paywall but pretty sure it concurred) confirms this:


For the purposes of this discussion, I think we can say the fact is established, not just seemingly established??

i used the word seemingly because the irish times reported that the cyclist hit the car, not vice versa. as in, just because it's written in a court report does not make it fact.

magicbastarder

kaymin wrote: »

There are street lights on this stretch of road so it seems to me both parties contributed to the incident.

street lights in dublin tend to be monochromatic and as such mute colour difference, so visibility is usually down to shading.

maybe we should expect cyclists to see unlit cars at night, as a result. i just get the impression that if it was a car which had its lights on, which hit an unlit cyclist, we would not be having this debate. yet we're arguing about cyclists having to keep their eyes out for unlit cars at night, and being responsible if they don't see them. maybe we could also blame the cyclist for not having the reflexes of a cat also, and leaping over the bonnet of the car when she finally realised the collision was inevitable, but you'd rightly accuse me of being facetious.

kaymin

magicbastarder wrote: »

street lights in dublin tend to be monochromatic and as such mute colour difference, so visibility is usually down to shading.

maybe we should expect cyclists to see unlit cars at night, as a result. i just get the impression that if it was a car which had its lights on, which hit an unlit cyclist, we would not be having this debate. yet we're arguing about cyclists having to keep their eyes out for unlit cars at night, and being responsible if they don't see them. maybe we could also blame the cyclist for not having the reflexes of a cat also, and leaping over the bonnet of the car when she finally realised the collision was inevitable, but you'd rightly accuse me of being facetious.

All road-users should be looking out for the unexpected not just cyclists though for cyclists its most important given they're the most vulnerable. I'm a motorcyclist btw and assuming the worst from other drivers is essential to my survival!

AnneFrank

Due to the human condition, there will Always be accidents, even with the best intentions.

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

i used the word seemingly because the irish times reported that the cyclist hit the car, not vice versa. as in, just because it's written in a court report does not make it fact.

True enough it doesn't, but unless you're looking to impugn the Garda's (presumably sworn, which is enough on its own to get a conviction in some cases) testimony when there is no apparent incentive for him to have falsified it, and you have facts and evidence of your own to back this up (in which case you should be on your way to the authorities, not arguing here!), then it's not a big stretch to draw the conclusion that the cycle did in fact turn.....

magicbastarder

I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

Allah snackbar

What gets me is the fact he was able to drive 200 metres without lights , he wouldn't have been able to do this without street lighting or illumination of some sort , there are a number of factors we don't know about but it seems there was enough light to drive and see the road but not enough for the cyclist to see the car ? Had she earphones in making it harder to hear any car coming ? Was he paying full attension to the road even though he had no lights on ? I've done it a couple of times in built up areas and the fact I didn't have my lights on meant I had enough light to drive , it's a tragic accident and I feel truly sorry for the victim but I also think the sentence was about right , maybe he should have lost his licence but a jail sentence would have been severe

Leroy42

kaymin wrote: »

All road-users should be looking out for the unexpected not just cyclists though for cyclists its most important given they're the most vulnerable. I'm a motorcyclist btw and assuming the worst from other drivers is essential to my survival!

Perfectly true, but when an accident occurs because one of the parties did not follow the rules why would we start to blame the other person?

And the end of the day, the person was found guilty of this and being the one to blame. Then the judge decided that they had probably learnt their lesson and sure don't they have a live to live so everyone get back to the way things wer before the accident and learn from it.

Expect of course the cyclists whose life is destroyed, major impact on those who love and cared for them. Their dreams, their ambitions, their hopes and desirers.

So the person whose fault this was suffers nothing more that some stress, regret and some negative impact to their standing. The victim gets a life sentence. Call that justice, cause I don't.

I hope the victim can sue this person to cover any and all costs they are going to now have to pay. They shouldn't now be expected to rely on the state to help them.

Beasty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I hope the victim can sue this person to cover any and all costs they are going to now have to pay. They shouldn't now be expected to rely on the state to help them.

That's what the driver's insurance is there to cover. There should be no need for further court cases.

Wishbone Ash

Jimllfixit wrote: »

Perhaps rather than prison, the driver should be forced to give her half his income for the rest of her life. Save the dear old State a fortune, and she'd have some sort of compensation.

Isn't that why we are obliged to have 3rd party motor insurance for?

kaymin

Leroy42 wrote: »

Perfectly true, but when an accident occurs because one of the parties did not follow the rules why would we start to blame the other person?

And the end of the day, the person was found guilty of this and being the one to blame. Then the judge decided that they had probably learnt their lesson and sure don't they have a live to live so everyone get back to the way things wer before the accident and learn from it.

The lack of lights was the main contributing factor but not the only factor. Arguably the cyclist did not display due observation which was a contributing factor particularly as the car should have been visible given the road was lit.

Kaisr Sose

Beasty wrote: »

That's what the driver's insurance is there to cover. There should be no need for further court cases.

This may end up in civil litigation through the courts. The insurance company has no personality to protect and no ego. It will want to get the best deal it can for itself - same way the State / HSE end up in court trying to defend medical negligence etc.

Evd-Burner

Wishbone Ash wrote:

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

My dashboard is lit more when the lights are off vs when they are off!

But the daytime running lights would be on at least which would help.

Johngoose

I'd imagine the age of the driver was a factor, we assume older drivers drive slower.If it had been a young 21 year old male driver, the judge probably would have jailed him.

ThisRegard

kaymin wrote: »

The lack of lights was the main contributing factor but not the only factor. Arguably the cyclist did not display due observation which was a contributing factor particularly as the car should have been visible given the road was lit.

It's easy enough to miss a car without lights at night. People tend to look for headlights and street lighting and other forms of lighting can reflect off the car almost making it blend into the background or seen as a parked car. I don't know the age or model but I guess it had no DRLs.

tayto lover

I wonder why the cyclist didn't hear the car approaching even if it was unlit and why the car driver didn't see the bicycle which was lit. Was speed a factor?
Did the accident happen in a place with street lighting?
God love the poor cyclist. Terrible injuries for such a simple accident.

OleRodrigo

tayto lover wrote: »

I wonder why the cyclist didn't hear the car approaching even if it was unlit and why the car driver didn't see the bicycle which was lit. Was speed a factor?
Did the accident happen in a place with street lighting?
God love the poor cyclist. Terrible injuries for such a simple accident.

That junction is usually busy so the sound of traffic would be constant.

From the POV of a motorist heading towards Malahide, a cyclist crossing into Greencastle road would look the same as a cyclist approaching the junction to wait until traffic cleared. You cant distinguish between someone making a turn and someone lining themselves up to turn, until the last moment.

Its perfectly understandable that you wouldn't see a car with no lights in an otherwise illuminated road, because you don't expect to see it.

Same as a right turning motorist swinging across the path of an oncoming cyclist because they were only expecting to see cars. Happens all the time.

Beasty

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

This may end up in civil litigation through the courts. The insurance company has no personality to protect and no ego. It will want to get the best deal it can for itself - same way the State / HSE end up in court trying to defend medical negligence etc.

Given some of the court payouts we have seen in Ireland I suspect not. The insurance company will be very keen to avoid the sort of publicity a case like this would probably attract, and I would guess would be keen to do whatever is necessary to avoid that.