Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

Weepsie

And there's a f*cking car ad autoplaying on the article in the indo.

The defendent has recently lost a brother (it's in the public domain), did they go for a woe is me story,

"The accused’s partner, Jessica Donohoe, who was a passenger in the car, said she had seen “a wobble” among the group of cyclists just before the impact."

F*ck that. I presume if she could see them from her side of the car, he could have seen them and confirm that he was driving on the wrong side of the road. The DPP 100% better be appealing that.

As we all know, planning to kill someone, do it with a car.

Large bottle small glass

Bigus wrote: »

I wonder if it was a Dublin centric Jury that were more attuned to cyclists and their vulnerability, would they have had a different attitude ?

Or was it simply a sh1t hot, well paid Private barrister vs a low paid public servant light weight, who wasn’t fighting Tonya’s side with rigor.

I know the family well and will report back with some first hand insight , when things settle.

Prosecuting barrister are usually top tier.

Getting prosecutions in criminal cases is really hard. The defence team will have had weeks and maybe months to go over the book of evidence; the prosecution can't use evidence not in that book.

They can't decide to ask Garda to change report because you think it's nonsense. You can't ask a witness are they not more certain.

You just present the evidence.

Smee_Again

Sadly not surprised by the verdict. I’m not one to normally go against a jury verdict but this feels wrong, but given the AGS report not guilty was inevitable really.

micar

The partner said she saw the cyclist wobble. That means she was still on the bike.

How then did AGS come to the conclusion that the cyclist was either falling or already on the ground.

Tell me how

micar wrote: »

The partner said she saw the cyclist wobble. That means she was still on the bike.

How then did AGS come to the conclusion that the cyclist was either falling or already on the ground.

Very crude but probably something to do with indicators of collision either on the car or the poor misfortune who passed away.

Larbre34

So basically, the DPP went against a Garda report to proceed with a prosecution? Something doesn't sound right about that take.

RIP by the way, that was a most dreadful accident, no matter what the outcome of the case.

eeeee

Larbre34 wrote: »

So basically, the DPP went against a Garda report to proceed with a prosecution? Something doesn't sound right about that take.

RIP by the way, that was a most dreadful accident, no matter what the outcome of the case.

Except it wasn't an accident. The driver was driving dangerously, without due care and attention. and killed someone due to their own actions.
That's not an accident.
There's nothing accidental about coming round a corner at speed over the wrong side of the road into a group of cyclists.

The fact that they got away with it despite multiple eyewitnesses attesting to their illegal and murderous driving is an absolute travesty to put it mildly.

CramCycle

Larbre34 wrote: »

So basically, the DPP went against a Garda report to proceed with a prosecution? Something doesn't sound right about that take.

RIP by the way, that was a most dreadful accident, no matter what the outcome of the case.

A good friend of mine is a forensic scientist in France, formerly worked in Scotland. Had a really disturbing conversation at a wedding with him about how inaccurate and outdated some of the techniques used here are in regards to estimating speed, position etc. in a RTC. Hands up the conversation was 5 years ago now.

As I said to a friend earlier today, if you ignored vehicular manslaughter, he admitted to enough FCNs to get his license taken off him, on the record, in court. I am physically upset, what's the point in following the rule of law when decisions like this are made.

Condolences to her friends and family, it is not justice by any stretch.

Fian

Weepsie wrote: »

And there's a f*cking car ad autoplaying on the article in the indo.

The defendent has recently lost a brother (it's in the public domain), did they go for a woe is me story,

"The accused’s partner, Jessica Donohoe, who was a passenger in the car, said she had seen “a wobble” among the group of cyclists just before the impact."

F*ck that. I presume if she could see them from her side of the car, he could have seen them and confirm that he was driving on the wrong side of the road. The DPP 100% better be appealing that.

As we all know, planning to kill someone, do it with a car.

there is no appeal against an acquittal. The DPP can appeal against an overly lenient sentence by a judge, but not against this jury verdict.

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

A good friend of mine is a forensic scientist in France, formerly worked in Scotland. Had a really disturbing conversation at a wedding with him about how inaccurate and outdated some of the techniques used here are in regards to estimating speed, position etc. in a RTC. Hands up the conversation was 5 years ago now.

As I said to a friend earlier today, if you ignored vehicular manslaughter, he admitted to enough FCNs to get his license taken off him, on the record, in court. I am physically upset, what's the point in following the rule of law when decisions like this are made.

Condolences to her friends and family, it is not justice by any stretch.

I was about to say I recalled someone on here before mentioning the standard of forensics here vs other places. Something that stuck in my mind when you mentioned it before.

I remember getting driving lessons and on the first day the instructor explaining about obstacles on our side of the roads, parked cars bin day etc. as there were a few about the area we were driving. Easy to play armchair detective here I know but from the sounds of the reporting the guy just gunned it around the cards without proper care as to whether the roads was clear.

fat bloke

Am I the only one who reads "jury" and thinks "drivers"?

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

A good friend of mine is a forensic scientist in France, formerly worked in Scotland. Had a really disturbing conversation at a wedding with him about how inaccurate and outdated some of the techniques used here are in regards to estimating speed, position etc. in a RTC. Hands up the conversation was 5 years ago now.

As I said to a friend earlier today, if you ignored vehicular manslaughter, he admitted to enough FCNs to get his license taken off him, on the record, in court. I am physically upset, what's the point in following the rule of law when decisions like this are made.

Condolences to her friends and family, it is not justice by any stretch.

Don't think AGS routinely check phones to see if they were in use at the time of the accident crash. They really should.

fat bloke

fat bloke wrote: »

Am I the only one who reads "jury" and thinks "drivers"?

Ah now, I'd like to think we're better that here! Most of us will rightly disagree with the verdict based on what was reported but we have no idea what was presented fully in court to them except for media reports. Most people exist out side of the car vs bikes / newstalk social media cyclists are dirt bubble and I'm sure most of the Jury could empathise with the victim and her family but came to the decision they did for what ever reason but I doubt it was because they were drivers.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah now, I'd like to think we're better that here! Most of us will rightly disagree with the verdict based on what was reported but we have no idea what was presented fully in court to them except for media reports. Most people exist out side of the car vs bikes / newstalk social media cyclists are dirt bubble and I'm sure most of the Jury could empathise with the victim and her family but came to the decision they did for what ever reason but I doubt it was because they were drivers.

Based on the typical level of empathy shown by the typical driver on the road, I disagree with you strenuously.

magicbastarder

micar wrote: »

The partner said she saw the cyclist wobble. That means she was still on the bike.

How then did AGS come to the conclusion that the cyclist was either falling or already on the ground.

there was a case of a fatality on an i think N road a few years back; not involving a cyclist, but of a motorist striking a pedestrian fatally in the dark. it was a 100km/h stretch, the motorist told the gardai he reckoned he'd been doing 90km/h, but the gardai concluded he'd been doing (IIRC) 45-55km/h.
the notion of someone driving at that speed in a 50km/h zone with no traffic is unusual, let alone in a 100km/h zone, but even though the motorist himself confirmed he was doing 90, the garda forensic team concluded he was doing approximately half that.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Based on the typical level of empathy shown by the typical driver on the road, I disagree with you strenuously.

Would you listen to yourself man ffs. It's as bad as the people who say we all run reds on or bikes.

mightyreds

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah now, I'd like to think we're better that here! Most of us will rightly disagree with the verdict based on what was reported but we have no idea what was presented fully in court to them except for media reports. Most people exist out side of the car vs bikes / newstalk social media cyclists are dirt bubble and I'm sure most of the Jury could empathise with the victim and her family but came to the decision they did for what ever reason but I doubt it was because they were drivers.

I would like to see the facts too before going overboard also. I've cycled this road plenty of times I also drive it daily to work and have been there during mass times.

It's about an 87 degree turn it's as close to 90 degree as you'll get, at mass time leading up to the bend the right hand side is completely blocked with parked cars making it single lane then when you round the bend the cars are parked on the left so you have to switch sides. How fast could a normal driver take that I'm not sure but on a normal day I'm taking it in low 20s without the cars parked.

He should have been more alert to the dangers at mass time it's a complete mess but how fast you could take that I'm not sure. I'm sure there was some sort of testimony to that I'd like to see.

As someone mentioned the death knell for the case was the forensics basically saying she fell in front of the car how true that is, is anyone's guess unless employed in the field.

TheChizler

They needed reasonable doubt and the report gave it

Larbre34

fat bloke wrote: »

Am I the only one who reads "jury" and thinks "drivers"?

And that right there is why the extreme cycling lobby zealots gets such bad press.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

And that right there is why the extreme cycling lobby zealots gets such bad press.

Don't be so hyperbolic people will always find a reason to hate others who are different from them.

I hope within my lifetime we will get to a stage where we can remove the human from behind the wheel and eliminate crashes such as the one mentioned entirely.

In the meantime however we should lobby for all motorised vehicles to have dash cams and for the Garda to random stop checks to make sure they are installed and working. Then we can eliminate the he shed she said bul**** of these trials.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

And that right there is why the extreme cycling lobby zealots gets such bad press.

Trolling reactions to the treatment of a death on the roads is a new low, even for you

Lumen

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

Prosecuting barrister are usually top tier.

Usually.

Tombo2001

Larbre34 wrote: »

And that right there is why the extreme cycling lobby zealots gets such bad press.

The thing is - its an entirely fair comment.

How often do we read the comments section of a story about a pedestrian or cyclist fatality- and the persons thoughts are with the poor family and the poor driver......

It is absolutely fair to think that the jury will be able to empathise/relate more with the driver than with the victim. Because they are drivers, and because they have not been victims of dangerous driving.

But no, not allowed think that, just makes you a zealot.

Tombo2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah now, I'd like to think we're better that here! Most of us will rightly disagree with the verdict based on what was reported but we have no idea what was presented fully in court to them except for media reports. Most people exist out side of the car vs bikes / newstalk social media cyclists are dirt bubble and I'm sure most of the Jury could empathise with the victim and her family but came to the decision they did for what ever reason but I doubt it was because they were drivers.

The acid test would be if a jury of commuter or club cyclists would reach the same result.

Have you not read social media commentary about cyclists? What drivers routinely say about cyclists? Has that passed you by? You think this is some lunatic fringe - if so why is it so common place?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you listen to yourself man ffs. It's as bad as the people who say we all run reds on or bikes.

Unanimous verdict in one hour - driver on the wrong side of the road - what other conclusion can you come to?

Have a look at the responses to any RSA post about cycling on Facebook or Twitter and tell me how much empathy you find there.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

In the meantime however we should lobby for all motorised vehicles to have dash cams and for the Garda to random stop checks to make sure they are installed and working. Then we can eliminate the he shed she said bul**** of these trials.

Routinely checking phones for activity after serious incidents like this should e standard procedure also.

p15574

Weepsie wrote: »

"The accused’s partner, Jessica Donohoe, who was a passenger in the car, said she had seen “a wobble” among the group of cyclists just before the impact."

If I saw a car heading at speed towards me on the wrong side of the road, I think I might wobble a bit too. What difference does that make anyway? She was on the correct side of the road.

Unbelievable verdict.

Weepsie

It also fails to take account, that there is a precedent in case law somewheret that road users should expect bikes to wobble.

It's possible it was in the UK, but I'm nearly sure there was a case here about 10-15 years ago too and I'd have been directing that to be disregarded.

Thelonious Monk

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The thing is - its an entirely fair comment.

How often do we read the comments section of a story about a pedestrian or cyclist fatality- and the persons thoughts are with the poor family and the poor driver......

It is absolutely fair to think that the jury will be able to empathise/relate more with the driver than with the victim. Because they are drivers, and because they have not been victims of dangerous driving.

But no, not allowed think that, just makes you a zealot.

This is so true, any time a ped or cyclist is killed I always see comments like "oh the poor driver must be in bits" etc. It's because they're thinking that they have seen pedestrians and cyclists doing stupid things and now look what they've done to the poor driver by causing an accident, and that they could have been that driver.
I would imagine this happens among the courts too.

fat bloke

Larbre34 wrote: »

And that right there is why the extreme cycling lobby zealots gets such bad press.

I spilled my tea on my laptop - careless.

I struck and killed a person with my car - not careless.


Clearly you couldn't care less.