Suspended sentence for driver that destroyed cyclist's physical capability

jive

wordofwarning wrote: »

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

I'm sure this is something most people have done at some stage, as there are traffic lights I assume the road has some kind of street lighting and it wasn't just pure darkness.

My lights are always on auto. I dropped my car in for an NCT a few months ago, they changed the lights to off. Next time I drove my car I didn't realise the lights were off for about 200m or so in a street lit area. If I ended up in court for dangerous driving I'd feel fairly hard done by tbh, even though I was totally in the wrong. Not the easiest thing to notice when for 4 years I hadn't touch the light setting on the dash.

Terrible consequences for the driver in question but he had only left his house, it could happen to anyone.

meeeeh

This is one of the best arguments for law requiring car lights on during the day. Then the switch is left 'on' constantly or people get into habit to switch lights on when sitting into the car. This was not dangerous driving because of disregard for others, it was an unintentional mistake that caused huge harm to another person.

wtlltw

meeeeh wrote: »

This is one of the best arguments for law requiring car lights on during the day. Then the switch is left 'on' constantly or people get into habit to switch lights on when sitting into the car. This was not dangerous driving because of disregard for others, it was an unintentional mistake that caused huge harm to another person.

True, but car manufacturers should make it a norm. Sadly it's an added extra on most cars, when in reality it should be already added.

bucketybuck

I'm probably in a minority but I think the punishment was appropriate.

His crime was to drive without headlights. Thats his crime. He didn't plan murder or rob anyone or menace anyone or commit fraud or any of hundreds of other heinous possible crimes, instead he forgot to put his headlights on.

And it was his only crime, because in all other aspects he drove perfectly well that day, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't drive through a red light, he didn't cause this woman to swerve in front of him, he drove exactly as he should do except for the detail that he had forgotten to put his headlights on.

If thats his crime and if that deserves prison then so do the thousands of others who make that mistake at one time or another, lock them all up. But if the crime of not turning your headlights on isn't a crime punishable by prison, then why imprison this man just because the consequences were more severe for him and for this woman than for the thousands of others for whom nothing happened?

It also must be said, his lack of lights was a major factor in this accident, but it was not the only factor, harsh as it may seem the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation.

ED E

How do you not notice your lights are off at 7PM on a february evening? Its pretty obvious once you're midway through dusk.

Tenzor07

Article and comments on the Journo: http://jrnl.ie/3375303

meeeeh

ED E wrote: »

How do you not notice your lights are off at 7PM on a february evening? Its pretty obvious once you're midway through dusk.

It can happen in well lit area.

magicbastarder

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm probably in a minority but I think the punishment was appropriate.

His crime was to drive without headlights. Thats his crime. He didn't plan murder or rob anyone or menace anyone or commit fraud or any of hundreds of other heinous possible crimes, instead he forgot to put his headlights on.

And it was his only crime, because in all other aspects he drove perfectly well that day, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't drive through a red light, he didn't cause this woman to swerve in front of him, he drove exactly as he should do except for the detail that he had forgotten to put his headlights on.

If thats his crime and if that deserves prison then so do the thousands of others who make that mistake at one time or another, lock them all up. But if the crime of not turning your headlights on isn't a crime punishable by prison, then why imprison this man just because the consequences were more severe for him and for this woman than for the thousands of others for whom nothing happened?

It also must be said, his lack of lights was a major factor in this accident, but it was not the only factor, harsh as it may seem the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation.

punishment was appropriate - that he didn't even get a sniff of a driving ban?

'he didn't plan to murder or rob anyone' etc; i very much doubt any driver who causes death or serious injury (with one exception i can think of recently) sets out to cause that harm; intent should not be confused with culpability.

'the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation'; you're saying she should have been able to see an unlit car in the dark?

I love Sean nos

bucketybuck wrote: »

And it was his only crime, because in all other aspects he drove perfectly well that day, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't drive through a red light

He was only 200m from his house. Give him a chance.

spyderski

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm probably in a minority but I think the punishment was appropriate.

His crime was to drive without headlights. Thats his crime. He didn't plan murder or rob anyone or menace anyone or commit fraud or any of hundreds of other heinous possible crimes, instead he forgot to put his headlights on.

And it was his only crime, because in all other aspects he drove perfectly well that day, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't drive through a red light, he didn't cause this woman to swerve in front of him, he drove exactly as he should do except for the detail that he had forgotten to put his headlights on.

If thats his crime and if that deserves prison then so do the thousands of others who make that mistake at one time or another, lock them all up. But if the crime of not turning your headlights on isn't a crime punishable by prison, then why imprison this man just because the consequences were more severe for him and for this woman than for the thousands of others for whom nothing happened?

It also must be said, his lack of lights was a major factor in this accident, but it was not the only factor, harsh as it may seem the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation.

What a complete BS argument. People are fined and banned from driving everyday for driving while drunk, even though they have not crashed or done anyone any harm, and may well not have.

The intention in that case is completely irrelevant, but the action breaks that law, and has proscribed consequences. It should be the same for this careless driver.

meeeeh

spyderski wrote: »

What a complete BS argument. People are fined and banned from driving everyday for driving while drunk, even though they have not crashed or done anyone any harm, and may well not have.

Driving drunk or even over tired is knowingly endangering others. This was a genuine mistake. That being said people not having lights on is one of my pet peeves​.

bucketybuck

magicbastarder wrote: »

'the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation'; you're saying she should have been able to see an unlit car in the dark?

Its an emotive subject but come on, there were traffic lights so I assume there were street lights, so why try to make out that it was pitch black?

If there were streetlights then even without headlights the car would have been visible to some extent, and even without headlights I would expect a cyclist to hear the car that was clearly just yards away. A lack of headlights did not render that car completely invisible to the eye and ear, and had the cyclist been fully observant before crossing the junction she would have seen and heard something coming.

I have every sympathy for this woman and wish her well, but I think the point is valid, the lack of headlights were a major factor in this happening but they were not the only factor.

spyderski wrote: »

What a complete BS argument. People are fined and banned from driving everyday for driving while drunk, even though they have not crashed or done anyone any harm, and may well not have.

And are people fined and banned everyday for forgetting to turn on their headlights? Because that was the point...

funkey_monkey

I love Sean nos wrote: »

He was only 200m from his house. Give him a chance.

Doesn't matter whether it was 200 metres or 200 miles. He didn't give her a chance, did he?

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.

...

The court heard Ms Duncan was wearing a high-vis jacket and a helmet and had a light on her bike at the time of the incident.

No, the main contributing factor was that Mr Faherty's car did not have its lights on which would have illuminated the cyclist's hi-vis top.
Having the lights on would have enabled her to see him and not make the fateful right turn. It would also have given him the opportunity to see her top and take avoiding action avoiding or at least reducing the speed of impact of the collision.
For me, it all comes back to him not having his lights on. It is the first and most important factor in this collision.

A pure nonsensical statement from the guard.

He did not have his lights on which caused her to make the judgement that that it was safe to make the turn - and it wasn't. That might be part of judgement here - she made a right hand turn when it was not safe. I don't agree with this, but I'm trying to think what the judges thought process was for this outcome.

This sprung staight to my mind when I read about this:

Anongeneric

erica74 wrote: »

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'm not having a go here, this is a genuine question.
In this case the driver appears to be a fairly harmless type and hasn't been in trouble with the law.
The phrase 'he/she will have to live with it on their conscience for the rest of their lives' is frequently used with people of a similar background involved in an incident like this, and people seem to genuinely believe that this is sufficient punishment.

If he had been from say Corduff, in receipt of social welfare and fathered numerous kids with numerous mothers would people still believe that his conscience was punishment enough.

Again this is a genuine question, I would like to hear peoples opinions.

Personally I think this sentence is a disgrace, fair enough it was only carelessness but it was carelessness that has destroyed someone else's (and their family's) lives.

Damien360

The judge did not ban him on grounds of his ill father in galway. Surely the judge heard of public transport. At 63, the man is not far away from his free travel pass.

I don't agree he should get jail for careless driving, even given the outcome. He did not knowingly do this nor did he drink drive. But, he should have lost his license. I suspect his insurance premium for the coming years will make that happen anyway !

Tenzor07

bucketybuck wrote: »

If there were streetlights then even without headlights the car would have been visible to some extent, and even without headlights I would expect a cyclist to hear the car that was clearly just yards away. A lack of headlights did not render that car completely invisible to the eye and ear, and had the cyclist been fully observant before crossing the junction she would have seen and heard something coming.

I have every sympathy for this woman and wish her well,

The faux sympathy and victim blaming is strong in this one...

magicbastarder

i have driven in the dark having forgotten to turn my lights on. that was over 15 years ago; about ten years ago i got into the habit of turning on the lights no matter the lighting conditions.

however; if i had been in a collision with another road user, and the primary cause of the accident was me driving without lights, i like to think i'd have taken it on the chin and would have admitted that the accident was my fault.
would i like to think - in this hypothetical situation - that i would emerge essentially without sanction from this event (remember that a suspended sentence is *far* more of a punishment for someone in employment or seeking employment, and the motorist here is 63)? the thought is kinda disturbing. the law is predicated on people being held responsible for their actions, or inactions.

if we're willing to forgive people for forgetting to turn their lights on because hey, it can happen to anyone - we should remember that hey, it happened because we forgot the most basic element of driving during lighting up hours. and there was no sanction on the driver continuing to drive as a result.

andreoilin

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.

funkey_monkey

bucketybuck wrote: »

If there were streetlights then even without headlights the car would have been visible to some extent

Going by that logic, then the cyclist (wearing a high-vis top) would also have "been visible to some extent". Probably a greater extent as she HAD her lights on and a high-vis top.

and even without headlights I would expect a cyclist to hear the car that was clearly just yards away.

I would not. Weather conditions, noise from other sources, wind etc can all make it difficult to hear engines. If she was clearly just yards away and he was just 200m into his journey how or why did he not see her and stop?

A lack of headlights did not render that car completely invisible to the eye and ear, and had the cyclist been fully observant before crossing the junction she would have seen and heard something coming.

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.

I have every sympathy for this woman and wish her well, but I think the point is valid, the lack of headlights were a major factor in this happening but they were not the only factor.

I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think you have much sympathy for her based on your post.

And are people fined and banned everyday for forgetting to turn on their headlights? Because that was the point...

They should be because it is against the law to drive at night without lights. Reason being that you could cause a collision and someone could get killed or seriously injured. Oh wait...
However, when you do cause a death or injury then that has to be taken into account and in this scenario the variation between being detected with no lights on (fine, etc) is not significant enough when the worst 9or almost worst) possible outcome did occur.

HivemindXX

Let's take an example.

Yesterday someone comes around a corner while they are looking at their phone texting. They drift across the road then they look up and jerk the wheel, swerving back on to their own side of the road and drive on their way.

Today someone comes around a corner while they are looking at their phone texting. They drift across the road then they look up and jerk the wheel, swerving back on to their own side of the road and hit and kill a pedestrian standing at the side of the road.

It seems that quite a few people on here think that the outcome is irrelevant and the punishment in both cases should be exactly the same. What should this punishment be? A few penalty points and a small fine? Is the driver just unlucky that someone happened to be standing there?

Lots of people seem to think the outcome is relevant when they are deploying the "sure there was no real harm done" defence. Hopefully nobody here is that hypocritical.

AnneFrank

Was it really necessary to put these people's names up here forever more? And to then slate a man who made a mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life. Accidents happen on the hour, and every hour. This one just happened at the wrong place, at the wrong time

bucketybuck

Tenzor07 wrote: »

The faux sympathy and victim blaming is strong in this one...

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think you have much sympathy for her based on your post.

If this is the level of discourse in here then I'll leave you to it.

Anongeneric

AnneFrank wrote: »

Was it really necessary to put these people's names up here forever more? And to then slate a man who made a mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life. Accidents happen on the hour, and every hour. This one just happened at the wrong place, at the wrong time

A poster earlier mentioned that he/she knows the victim in this accident
(just to be clear that's the woman who's life has been destroyed).

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

magicbastarder

AnneFrank wrote: »

Was it really necessary to put these people's names up here forever more? And to then slate a man who made a mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life. Accidents happen on the hour, and every hour. This one just happened at the wrong place, at the wrong time

good god.

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.

funkey_monkey

Widening this out a bit...

At the very least I think this case shows the degree of disconnection between the public and the court system.

What we are getting here is the press reporting of the case. They have a word limit for which to summarise the key points of the trial and the summations and in so many cases they naturally focus in on a certain part of the trial.

What is really needed is for the judge to produce a report availabe for all the public to read/listen in order to understand how and why they came to this conclusion in its entirety. Did they consider it an acceptable sentence? Were they bounded by the law? Was there mitigating circumstances?

How many times have there been threads on here and elsewhere wondering how 'people got off lightly' with what seemed to be very clear cut charges.
I would have thought that at the very least the scribings of the court stenographer during summation should be made available when translated into longhand.