Suspended sentence for driver that destroyed cyclist's physical capability

funkey_monkey

riemann wrote: »

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.

The difference would appear to be that they were still being observant and seen you and the other road users.

There is usually not a single factor involved in a crash. If you have ever watched Air Crash Investigation you will have heard the narrator saying regularly that air crashes are normally due to a chain of events.

Event 1:The driver did not have his lights on.
Event 2: Whatever caused the driver not to see the cyclist.
Event 3: Whatever caused the cyclist not to see the car.
Event 4: At what point did they become aware of each other and what stopped them taking evasive action?
Event 5: etc...

The difference in your scenario is that you seen them and probably they seen you too. The chain of events leading to you crashing into those cars did not happen. They did in this instance.

That is why it is more than a mistake - the mistake was only the first link in the chain. 2 - 4 could still have brought a better outcome. But why didn it not?

I don't mean to be hard on the driver - I was just trying to point out what I believe to be the difference betwene your observations and this awful collision.

I think most peoples frustration on this thread is related to my previous post which is the lack of understanding in the public of the ratinoale in judges sentencing.

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.

Weepsie

There have been 41 posts since my last. And before and after there have been a few posts along these lines

"I was dropping car in for next...my wife was driving and switched the lights...ah sure I'd only left and was about to turn them on... Etc etc

But you didnt. You either forgot, or ignored the law and expected to get away with it.

Far too much leniency and just wrong interpretation of the law in this country

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.

funkey_monkey

jcd5971 wrote: »

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

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

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?

funkey_monkey

jcd5971 wrote: »

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".

If you are talking about http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103424434&postcount=50 then what I was doing there was presenting a counter argument to a deeply unbalanced post and pointing out the flaws that the poster presented.

The point about the cyclist not hearing the car was not a direct reference to this crash - it was providing a rationale as why a person would not hear a car.

I did not 'squarely' blame the driver.

If you are referring to this:

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.

Then this was a direct counter argument to the posters comment which would appear to absolve the driver of any responsibility:

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.

In this post (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103425315&postcount=62) I think I was fairly balanced in responsibility.

If you watched the YT I posted on pg 3 you would know what I thought of this collision.

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.