Suspended sentence for driver that destroyed cyclist's physical capability

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.

ED E

With mental issues she'll be outside of the IB so its private settlement or court. I suspect both parties would much rather the former.

Kaisr Sose

Beasty wrote: »

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.

Going OT here on insurance issues when the welfare of the victim / injured party is much more important in the short term. I truly wish she gets the best care possible and makes as much a recovery as is possible from where she is now.

If the insurance company don't want this to go to court, they have to offer a fair settlement (one the courts would impose) and then the upside for them is to save on the court costs. That's win-win. The experience is that the insurance company will attempt to get out for less because that's the business they are in.

AndrewJRenko

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?

It's not really a nitpick - it is an important and necessary culture change;

http://crashnotaccident.com/

The term 'accident' is designed to eliminate responsibility for drivers. The RSA and Gardai have moved on from this many years ago. We need to follow and change this culture.

ED E

Thought everyone would know it after this gem of a film.

Eamonnator

^^^^^^^
I knew, I heard it before.

jimmycrackcorm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The term 'accident' is designed to eliminate responsibility for drivers. The RSA and Gardai have moved on from this many years ago. We need to follow and change this culture.

It's not absolving responsibility. The insurance payout will assign responsibility. The term accident reflects imperfection in humans. There offs no case where a human can operate with a 100% guarantee of avoiding failure.

Where we recognize more significant factors then the term used changes hence the difference between accidental killing and manslaughter.

Interesting link posted but the argument it makes about crashes doesn't acknowledge that the term is used liberally with vehicles also.

Pinch Flat

Allah snackbar wrote: »

What gets me is the fact he was able to drive 200 metres without lights

Driving without lights is quite common. In the winter months, you'll see one or two on any given day.

I saw a car at the lights at O'Connell bridge sometime during last winter - it was dark and the car lights were off. I knocked on the window and pointed this out to the driver - She thanked me for pointing this out, but explained that it was a new car she just picked up, so hadn't worked out how the lights work - like it was a perfectly rational reason. I cycled off perplexed.

ford2600

"pleaded guilty last February at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to one count of careless driving causing serious harm"

That's a key point in this, he pleaded guilty to careless driving; custodial sentences for careless driving would be rare enough I would think.

If the DPP had decided to prosecute him on a more serious charge, there is a good chance he would have got off it. The burden of proof is high in criminal cases. It would have been open to the Accused's lawyers to
*cross examine prosecution witnesses as to who had priority at junction
*the ambient lighting level and whether one could see an non illuminated body/car
* call their own engineers and witness's to conditions on the evening

From the cyclist point of view, watching for oncoming traffic was just one of the things she needed to do to take turn safely. It would be easy enough to miss an unlit car especially if you were scanning/looking for a lit one.

Awful outcome from a simple mistake.

I love Sean nos

funkey_monkey wrote: »

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

Sorry for not making myself clear. I'm not on his side, not one bit. I'm responding to the people who say that apart from the lack of lights, he was driving perfectly. His driving might deliver a very different result if evaluated again once with more distance covered.

AndrewJRenko

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Driving without lights is quite common. In the winter months, you'll see one or two on any given day.

I saw a car at the lights at O'Connell bridge sometime during last winter - it was dark and the car lights were off. I knocked on the window and pointed this out to the driver - She thanked me for pointing this out, but explained that it was a new car she just picked up, so hadn't worked out how the lights work - like it was a perfectly rational reason. I cycled off perplexed.

It's not unusual to find drivers in newer, bigger, fancier cars running on DRLs only, so front lights are on but no back lights at all. Often the driver has no idea how to fix this behind hitting a few buttons and seeing what happens.

ford2600 wrote: »

It would be easy enough to miss an unlit car especially if you were scanning/looking for a lit one.

Awful outcome from a simple mistake.

Obviously, it's easy to be wise after the event, but I'd have thought it would be quite hard to miss an unlit car, unless the car came up at a high speed or something. But I guess unless you were at that particular location with that particular level of lighting, you'll never really know.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's not absolving responsibility. The insurance payout will assign responsibility. The term accident reflects imperfection in humans. There offs no case where a human can operate with a 100% guarantee of avoiding failure.

Where we recognize more significant factors then the term used changes hence the difference between accidental killing and manslaughter.

Interesting link posted but the argument it makes about crashes doesn't acknowledge that the term is used liberally with vehicles also.

It's not about a 100% guarantee of avoiding failure. It is about doing the big things that will get you to a 90% guarantee or maybe evening 95% or 98% guarantee. The big things like slowing down, putting the phone down, not drinking and driving all make a big difference. In most cases, there is a clear, preventable cause - like this guy driving with no lights on.

It is not an unavoidable accident. It is a very avoidable collision.

THe professionals who work in the sector - Gardai, Ambulance, Fire, RSA - all get this. It's time for others to get on board too.

Chuchote

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.

Is that what you'd say if a driver hit a cyclist who had no lights?

Evd-Burner wrote: »

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.

Not all cars with daytime running lights have *back* lights lit during the daytime, so they wouldn't light up at night automatically.