Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety *warning* infractions given liberally for trolling etc

Madd Finn

Victim blaming can be a dangerous pursuit in Ireland. Just ask George Hook!

Another example was aired on Prime Time last Thursday. It concerns the outrage felt by the family of one Shane O'Farrell of Monaghan, killed while cycling on a main road back in 2011. The motorist who hit him failed to stop and was subsequently apprehended and charged with several offences relating to the incident. He was convicted of leaving the scene of the accident but cleared of the more serious charge of dangerous driving.

Family of hit-and-run victim criticise judge's report (rte.ie)

What angered the family was that the driver, a Lithuanian national, was at the time on bail for numerous petty offences and should not have been at liberty, they say, to drive on the night of the accident. Their request for an inquiry into how the man was at liberty resulted in a retired judge examining the case to recommend if any further enquiries were necessary.

Although his report has not yet been officially published, Prime Time got its hands on a copy and announced on Thursday that he does NOT recommend a further enquiry. What further enraged the family was the judge's comment that the cyclist had been "negligent" by cycling at night while wearing dark clothing and with no lights on his bicycle, front or rear.

This they say "Blames Shane for his own death." They say the focus should be on the driver and his previous actions which should have seen him remanded in custody at least, or at best serving a jail term for another offence for which he had been convicted but had managed to avoid because of an administrative foul up.

They maintain that Shane O'Farrell was legally entitled to be cycling the road on a summer's evening while the driver should not have been there at all.

I can sympathise with anyone who has lost a family member, especially at the young age of 23 but using a harder head instead of a softer heart, I think the family is wrong.

It is an offence to cycle at night without lights on your bicycle. That is simply fact. So the cyclist was breaking the law. It is also negligent, in my view, for an experienced cyclist to be cycling on any road, let alone a main national route after dark without adequate visible clothing. O'Farrell was wearing an armband and had reflective strips on the pedals of his bike. Not enough, but that's just my opinion.

The family points out that it was a summer evening. Well it was. August 2nd, to be precise and the collision occurred at about 10:15pm. Consulting an almanac, albeit for this year but the times won't vary greatly, reveals that sunset occurs in Carrickmacross at 9:23pm on that date. So it would be well dark at 10:15.

There is no doubt that the driver was a scrote. And a foreigner. He had been arrested numerous times for petty theft such as shoplifting. The car he was driving had no insurance or NCT. He was subsequently jailed for other offences and deported from Ireland, although he is now free to return should he wish. But the judge pointed out that his previous offences were not of a violent nature, nor had he ever threatened violence. Remanding petty criminals in custody while awaiting trial would quickly fill the country's jails and the man had never failed to show up for a court appearance. And anyway, none of this had anything to do with the collision on a main road in Monaghan.

One takes a risk any time one ventures on to the road on a bicycle. Cyclists, and I am one as well as being a frequent motorist and pedestrian, have a responsibility to mitigate that risk to themselves AT LEAST up to the minimum requirements of the law. Which was not done in this case. Whether he was hit by a pious elderly nun who had failed to see him in the gloom or by a feckless drug-dependent immigrant--as he was--their culpability for the accident should be assessed on the evidence of the crash alone. There was reasonable doubt that the driver had been driving dangerously and so he was acquitted. His behaviour elsewhere should not be an issue, I'm afraid.

lawrencesummers

What time did the accident occur? I see 10:15pm

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058303227/cyclists-responsibility-for-their-own-safety

The comments by the judge are not surprising at all. It is a very unfortunate situation but the facts are numerous incompetent judges allowed that man to walk knowing he had no respect for the law and incompetent members of the gardai allowed that man to continue to drive without insurance or nct.

It shows that as every day passes the law here means less and less.

SeanW

Oh boy, you've just kicked off a hornets nest OP. I'm sure someone from the cycling lobby will be along to remind you that everything bad ever is the fault of Ireland's 2.8 million drivers, who are collectively, individually and uniquely responsible for everything since the Black Death.

This case sounds like it reflects poorly on both. The driver should not have been driving without insurance. But the cyclist should have made sure that they were visible.

Madd Finn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120795619#Comment_120795619

This site (Sunrise and sunset times in Carrickmacross, August 2011 (timeanddate.com) ) says sunset in Carrickmacross on that date was at 21:23, nearly an hour before the estimated time of the collision. So if it was not pitch dark, it would still have been murky enough to have made cycling with a light a legal necessity.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120795619#Comment_120795619

It might have been bright ( according to weather reports for that year it was more likely overcast )

https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/ie/monaghan/EGAA/date/2011-8-2

And legally 10.15 PM the cyclist was required to have lights as Sunset was at 9.28

https://dateandtime.info/citysunrisesunset.php?id=2962568&month=8&year=2011

and the RotR page 263

Lighting-up hours The period that starts one half-hour after sunset on any day and expiring one half-hour before sunrise on the next day.

Now not withstanding all that legalise, it's a shocking indictment of the levels of punishment meted out for petty criminality in Ireland and it's "slap on the wrist" judicial system.

I see it myself all too often!

Some cyclists have little regard for their own safety &

no regard for the consequences of their own actions or inactions!

It's the same with motor cyclists & scooter riders!

Motor cyclists under taking you in cycle lanes, cyclists & scooters

coming towards you in a non contra flow cycle lanes!

But who gives a flying fcuk!

Alkers

The lack of lights contributed to the likelihood of the incident occuring, sure.

However, that scumbag didn't even stop. Didn't even report the incident. Left your man to die on the side of the road. That essentially wiped out any chance of the cyclist surviving. That's the worst crime here and the others (lack of insurance, lack of lights) are insignificant in comparison

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120792119#Comment_120792119

Tbh i think the cyclist could have been lit up like a Christmas tree and it wouldn't have made any difference, the driver was as high as a kite. Everyone else who passed Shane was able to see him so i think it's pretty ignorant of the judge to apply it as a contributing factor, let alone the major one.

I remember an RTE report on the matter, one judge declared on releasing him on bail that if he was to appear in court again (he did), that he was to be informed (he wasn't) and he would revoke it. I can understand the family's anger here, we've all been annoyed by cyclists not being properly lit but we've still seen them, this guy drove completely over Shane and continued on.

To conclude that he may not have been seen is concluding that the driver was in possession of full faculty at the time. That to me is a disgusting finding.

Silent Shrill

It really does not matter who was the car driver, as this type of incident is quite common. The greater part of this OP's post shows many flaws across the board.

How many times, (as car drivers), have you been driving along between 60-80 k.p.h., and you start going into a sweeping bend, but can only see so far ahead, and about 20-30 cyclists come hurtling towards you, some on your side of the road? It's happened to me 3 times.

How many videos show cyclists getting knocked over by drivers sitting roughly 1 foot from them by their side?

I personally could not count the number of times I have witnessed cars in front of me passing cyclists far too close.

Cyclists with no lights?.....yep, seen that plenty.

All the above was quite acceptable in the 70's, 80's, etc., but we are now dealing with bikes that reach the speeds of a 125 motorbike. I, as a motorcyclist as well as a car driver, have to wear a crash helmet, not a pod on top of my head. I wear suitable clothing to protect myself. My motorbike has to meet roadworthy standards, (although not legally enforced in Ireland, motorbikes need no NCT cert or similar), my brakes have to be able to stop me reasonably well.

So here we have pushbikes that reach 125cc motorbikes speed, (or even 50cc), yet have rubber brake pads, many on a disc. I wonder how well those 20-30 cyclists I mentioned above would have been able to stop if they suddenly face a tractor with a trailer of hay?

Electric bikes that do 60kph.....and not even legal to wear a helmet on a bike. Bikes sold without lights, (which in this technological age is ridiculous, they could easily incorporate led's into the bike).

Cyclists should be lobbying the govt, forcing new rules regarding bike production & meeting specific rules regarding road-worthiness......modernize.

Any fuel driver caught by Garda should be prosecuted, including video evidence provided by the public. It should not be tolerated.

When all the above has been finally ironed out, we can then turn our attention to those electric "pedal" scooters......are they a nightmare or what?

Flinty997

Lots of selective reporting on this.. some things mentioned in some reports and not others...

Judge Haughton also referenced evidence of a "near miss" incident allegedly involving Shane O’Farrell, a lorry and a car shortly before the fatal collision.

and

Gridziuska was stopped in his car by gardaí about an hour before the fatal crash and though it was not roadworthy and had no NCT it was not impounded.

(and no insurance)

People can complain about cyclists with no lights and drivers with no insurance and nct etc. But if we can see it, why don't the Garda enforce any of it.

Burt Renaults

Every single night, I see cyclists on bikes with no lights, wearing dark clothes and with absolutely no lights.

My point is that I see them. Lights or not, if you can't see them, then one of two things are happening: (1) You have appalling observation skills. (2) You have a visual impairment. Either way, you shouldn't be driving until you either learn how to do it properly, or get your eyesight checked.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120797466#Comment_120797466

What you are describing as pushbikes are not bicycles under our laws!

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120797494#Comment_120797494

That begs the question though of how many did you NOT see? Or (probably easier concept) how many would you have seen at a greater distance than you did?

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798171#Comment_120798171

Good point.

@Burt Renaults how many cyclists do you not see & run over or knock down every night?

Spook_ie

Silly point but not unexpected. You don't necessarily run over any cyclist that you don't see.

Perhaps you should stick with the easier concept rather than overtax your mind.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798212#Comment_120798212

Look Spook_ie, You're post is not unexpected. You're a well documented anti-cyclist lobbyist here in boards.ie and you've spent a lot of your time jumping on any threads that mention cycling to attack & victim blame cyclists.

My point isn't silly, your post is. Burt Renaults sees cyclists at night, so do I, I see them cycling in dark clothing, I see them cycling with no lights, I'm a good driver, I pay attention, I've never hit a cyclist.

Spook_ie

Funnily enough I've never hit one either but I can grasp the concept that cyclists can be seen or unseen but not both.

But as I assume a cyclist yourself, do you grasp the easier concept of lights making you easier to spot from a distance, thereby under normal circumstances making you safer? Or do you subscribe to your apparent view that

My point isn't silly, your post is. Burt Renaults sees cyclists at night, so do I, I see them cycling in dark clothing, I see them cycling with no lights, I'm a good driver, I pay attention, I've never hit a cyclist.

Lights on a bicycle are an unnecessary option because you see all cyclists?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798390#Comment_120798390

Most "normal" people don't have an issue with cyclists NOT being hit.

Spook_ie

Oh I'd agree with you there, but the way some people carry on you'd swear that you need to be a card carrying psychopath to drive a car. Just like some people think that cyclists have suicidal tendencies.

Contrary to this I think it's only a small minority of either but they do seem to be the most vocal especially when they try to counter arguments with irrelevance.

tjhook

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120797494#Comment_120797494

I see drivers breaking red lights but I've never been hit by any of them. If you drive/cycle/walk carefully, red light breakers aren't a problem.

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798550#Comment_120798550

Exactly, this thing of condoning dumb behaviour because others will compensate with their superior observational skills or care is...dumb. It just takes one instance. I drive a motorcycle and behave like everyone on the road is an idiot. It has served me well.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798548#Comment_120798548

In this case the cyclist had a legal requirement to have lights.

The driver was stopped by Garda, despite having a litany off issues which should have had him off the road. They let him carry on.

The enforcement system seems to be more focused on the cyclist than the litany of failures this case highlighted within the enforcement system of both drivers and cyclists.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798550#Comment_120798550

Not everyone avoids being hit by a driver simply by being careful.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798702#Comment_120798702

Which is why the GSOC have advised discaplinary measures against 3 Gardai,

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/gsoc-recommends-disciplinary-action-after-investigation-into-cyclist-s-death-1.3793007

The enforcement system isn't focused on the cyclist ( I don't believe you can prosecute a dead person ) but is and should only be focused on the causative reasons behind the fatality, driver, cyclist, Gardai and courts system.

According to reports the inquest was furnished with incomplete documentation and the whole thing would seem to be a **** show

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30896394.html

Coroner’s court on cyclist’s death given incomplete data

A coroner’s court into the death of Shane O’Farrell was not provided with the full and unredacted versions of statements given by the driver who killed the 23-year-old student.

Flinty997

There is enforcement of cyclists in form of fixed penalty fines

1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.
2. No front lamp or rear lamp lit during lighting-up hours on a pedal cycle.
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
4. Cyclist proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated.
5. Cyclist proceeding past cycle traffic lights when red lamp is lit.
6. Cyclist failing to stop for a School Warden sign.
7. Cyclist proceeding beyond a stop line, barrier or half barrier at a railway level crossing, swing bridge or lifting bridge, when the red lamps are flashing

If you don't enforce it, it will be ignored.

magicbastarder

one thing which i don't think has been mentioned in the thread (but mentioned in one of the linked reports) is that the driver in this case, despite being given a six month sentence, did not serve it, due to a courts service administration error. which is shocking.

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798608#Comment_120798608

#metoo

Most people: (Cyclists and Motorists) have a very loose relationship with the rules of the road. The enforcement that is done seems to be on speeding or possibly using a mobile phone.

It should really be enforcement on competence, lane discipline, observation, dangerous and selfish driving (including the fitness of a vehicle or bicycle to be used on a public road).

It should also be noted that Ireland is one of the only countries on the world where a death on the road makes national news.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798830#Comment_120798830

It's was a year before the accident. So had no bearing on it. Other than it's another failure of the system.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798830#Comment_120798830

Shocking yes but given the early release (revolving door) policy, would he have actually been behind bars at the time?

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798390#Comment_120798390

I'm not a cyclist, I'm a motorist. A realistic motorist that pays attention, see's cyclists, knows the rules of the road and doesn't jump on every thread on boards.ie that mentions cycling to victim blame injured and killed by careless motorists.

Not my idea of fun. But hey, there's all sorts.

Macy0161

I do cycle, and run lights whenever I am on the bike (day or night), except for when racing.

However, whatever the contributory factor of the person being hit after lighting up time, the person driving knew that he had had hit something/ someone and didn't stop. For me, this is the far bigger crime and I don't see anything the person on the bike did or didn't do in anyway mitigates that. What the cyclist did or didn't do also doesn't mitigate the roadworthiness and legality of the car the person was driving.

On the wider point, it could've been someone walking the hard shoulder, with no legal requirement to do anything but walk facing the traffic (assuming there's no footpath).

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798960#Comment_120798960

Funny that you'll still consider jumping on pretty much any thread I'm contributing to with some throw away comment about me being a cyclist hater, when you have no idea about me at all. But still in future I'll try to ignore you if you'll do me the same favour

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120798977#Comment_120798977

Your cyclist hating posts speak for yourself Spook. You've been at the negativity for years.

Ignore me all you like, but I'll keep pulling you up & educating you.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799088#Comment_120799088

If only you were educating me instead of just being an interruption to a discussion.

BTW When did you give up the cycling?

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799134#Comment_120799134

Look at you pulling up stats, researching daylight hours, looking up the weather to see if it was dull, going to every effort to apply blame to the man that was tragically killed by a scumbag just because he was a cyclist. You should stop doing this, it's not a good luck, your efforts would be better used in a helpful way.

I gave up commuting when I changed working conditions before covid. But being an ex commuter cyclists gives me a much broader perspective as a road user. I'm much more aware than you are and have much more consideration towards other road users.

I still use the bike for various stuff, bakery, butcher, shops, short runs etc...

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799377#Comment_120799377

Yes I do my research when people post non researched things.

Was it bright and he would be easily visible, maybe but the weather conditions were (according to research ) overcast and it was after lighting up time.

If it wasn't some Lithuanian scumbag driving but a fairly respectable business man would we be having this discussion at all, if someone posted that it was "probably" bright at that time then yes I would still be posting the research.

The truth matters even if it's not a welcome truth

Flinty997

Can't say you're not a cyclist if you keep re-cycling the same dogma every other thread. Must be taxing...

Flinty997

Anyway you'd have to say it's thrown the failure of enforcement of all road users into the spotlight.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799425#Comment_120799425

I have no doubt you do your research, you'd go to the ends of the earth to apportion blame to the victim.

Nice.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799429#Comment_120799429

Not sure if that's aimed at me or not because I never say I'm not a cyclist.

If it is what's the relevance to the discussion about lack of enforcement?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799450#Comment_120799450

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799425#Comment_120799425

Reports mention other drivers seeing and avoiding the cyclist. Described as near misses or such. That it was 100 limit was also mentioned.

Which suggest to me there was a multitude of factors at play. Cyclists requiring lights is a requirement for a reason. Good reason.

Even with lights cyclists would do well not to assume they can be seen. As someone else suggested, assume the worst.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799495#Comment_120799495

No reason to reply to it if you don't identify with it.

The primary issue is the lack of enforcement. The driver would not have been allowed through a check point. The cyclist would not have ignored the rules about lights .

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120795619#Comment_120795619

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799474#Comment_120799474

If anyone is trying to apportion blame in any direction then it's yourself.

I reply to someone who said it would've still been bright at 10.15pm with the record that says it was more likely to have been overcast and that would make a cyclist without lights more difficult to see ( unless you have Rambo superpower and can see everything at all times ) that's not apportioning blame that's citing records to allow people to make their own minds up as to if it was bright or not.

EDIT

BTW still waiting for you to actually educate me about something in this thread ( or any thread to that matter )

Macy0161

Those factors may mitigate the hitting of the person on a bike. They do not mitigate the leaving the scene. They do not mitigate having an unroadworthy vehicle.

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120797219#Comment_120797219

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799588#Comment_120799588

If you read my first post about this I do say that the levels of punishment handed out were/are a "slap on the wrist"

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120797494#Comment_120797494

This really is an over-simplification.

It is quite possible to have perfect vision, and to not see a cyclist (or a motorcyclist, or a PPT user) who is fully dressed in dark clothes, after dark. Or not see them until the very last minute.

To argue otherwise, is ridiculous.

I literally cannot understand the stubborn nature of cyclists in particular, who declare that they are perfectly visible after dark in all situations, and refuse to wear high viz. Fair enough. Don't wear it. But it's your own life you're putting at greater risk, with this attitude. On your own head be it.

I won't even let my cats out without high viz collars.

Weepsie

Whilst I always use lights, A driver should be able to see a cyclist, with or without lights, but it's far too common that people are driving without their lights on, or thinking drls are the same.

Am I doing this right?

Macy0161

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799839#Comment_120799839

Reflective detail is pretty much standard on cycling gear. But lights, as per the legal requirement*, are better than a builders vest. The discourse is skewed that too many utility cyclists see the builders vest as the requirement over lights.

*only to say that most LED bike lights don't meet the lens size minimum requirements(?!) of the 1963 Act! We unfortunately don't have a defined standard, unlike Germany.

Flinty997

Lights are vastly superior to Hi Viz. Hence they are the legal requirement and not Hi Viz.

Can't understand people who can't grasp such a simple thing.

As MAcy says its derailing the conversation to be about Hi Viz when it should be about lights. So well done those that do it, your spreading bad information.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120799839#Comment_120799839

Need a video of cat cycling in Hi Viz or it didn't happen.