Cyclist killed (but not dangerously)

langdang

Following on from the recently obliterated thread (for good legal reasons!)


"But Judge Moran also advised the jury the defence case had showed three key elements to prove a charge of dangerous driving were absent — drink, defective vehicle and speed."
Examiner

It would appear that making risky manoeuvres despite only a few half hours practice in the local GAA car park is not dangerous. So reading between the lines here, acting like a chimp in control of a vehicle is not dangerous driving in Ireland, and those damn cyclists should stay off the road...

I would say speed was present - he couldn't safely stop in the amount of road that he could see.

Very sad for the family involved, the "not guilty of dangerous driving" for the driver implies that the woman out for a cycle was somehow in the wrong. Adds insult to the loss.

Lumen

"But Judge Moran also advised the jury the defence case had showed three key elements to prove a charge of dangerous driving were absent — drink, defective vehicle and speed."

That is possibly the most retarded thing I've ever read.

Bloody Nipples

Sounds insane from the way they've put it.

ccmp

Crazy call.

Lumen

Now, I don't know whether the "2007" aspect makes this redundant, but...

Road Traffic Act 2010 wrote:

Dangerous driving.

53.— (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and—

(a) in case the contravention causes death or serious bodily harm to another person, he or she is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine not exceeding €20,000 or to both, and


(b) in any other case, he or she is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

(3) In a prosecution for an offence under this section or section 52, it is not a defence to show that the speed at which the accused person was driving was not in excess of a speed limit applying in relation to the vehicle or the road, whichever is the lower, under Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 2004 .

(4) Where, when a person is tried on indictment or summarily for an offence under this section, the jury, or, in the case of a summary trial, the District Court, is of the opinion that he or she had not committed an offence under this section but had committed an offence under section 52, the jury or court may find him or her guilty of an offence under section 52, and he or she may be sentenced accordingly.

From here

niceonetom

Sickening.

langdang

Very sad, it seems the law really is an ass in almost any case where someone (cyclist/pedestrian/driver) was going about their business as usual then next minute blown out of it by a reckless/incompetent/inattentive/etc driver.

Unfortunately part of the problem is that driving is seen as a right, not an entitlement to be earned and maintained by always driving responsibly.

Captain Havoc

Am I right in saying, he's just walked away scott free? Well that's a real deterrent for other learner drivers to always drive accompanied :rolleyes:

Deisetrek

I notice the judge has a very suitable surname for such a verdict , absolutely shocking . We've all been in this situation , opposite side of the road when a vehicle overtakes blatantly disregarding our presence , missing us by a matter of feet . Disgraceful decision , but the way this country is run at the minute is it really surprising that the judicial system is also corrupt to the core as well ?

ILA

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Am I right in saying, he's just walked away scott free? Well that's a real deterrent for other learner drivers to always drive accompanied :rolleyes:

Yep. A jury of his peers acquited him based on the evidence that was presented. Welcome to the Irish Legal System.

Deisetrek wrote:

Disgraceful decision , but the way this country is run at the minute is it really surprising that the judicial system is also corrupt to the core as well ?

Well in fairness it was the juries decision. Perhaps if you don't have confidence in your peers, you should propose a new judicial system?

langdang

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Am I right in saying, he's just walked away scott free? Well that's a real deterrent for other learner drivers to always drive accompanied :rolleyes:

Hard to believe, but certainly within the realms of possibility unfortunately. If anyone comes across a suggestion that this will be retried with a less serious charge then mods should zap this thread too perhaps? It wasn't even charged at the more serious level of "dangerous driving causing death" was it, just dangerous driving?

Lumen

ILA wrote: »

Yep. A jury of his peers acquited him based on the evidence that was presented. Welcome to the Irish Legal System.

Well in fairness it was the juries decision. Perhaps if you don't have confidence in your peers, you should propose a new judicial system?

No, the judge steered the jury towards the verdict. That's normal.

What I don't understand is why. His comments as reported defy all sense, and seem to directly contradict the current law I quoted above.

lukester

It is sickening that our legal process is so utterly ineffective. It's also sickening that we have unprepared learner drivers being unleashed on our roads, each one in command of what is effectively a deadly weapon.

There is a systemic failure in our driver education system- the sooner we have obligatory minimum hours of driving lessons and a basic competence pre-test off-road before a learner is even allowed drive on the road, the better.

There also need to be enforced severe sanctions for learner drivers who drive unaccompanied.

seamus

Lumen, I don't know if that section of the 2010 Act has been enacted yet. However, the wording of that section hasn't changed from the previous Act.

Definitely seems like a ridiculous call from the judge. The guy drove without due regard for the traffic which which was on the road at the time. A clear case of dangerous driving according to the road traffic act.

Caroline_ie

A learner's permit is not a driving licence. You are not allowed to drive with it, you are supposed to use it to learn accompanied of a full licence holder. This man should not have been driving in the 1st place. He could have been a 16 years old, what would have happened then.

mloc123

Just to put up a counter argument here...I was young and stupid once, driving since I was 18 etc..


He acted stupidly no doubt and with a terrible outcome, something he will have to live with forever. But what good will come of sending him to prison?

He overtook a slow moving vehicle, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk. How visable was the cyclist? Every night I see ninjas out, dressed in black, no lights, not even a magical high-viz vest.

DirkVoodoo

mloc123 wrote: »

Just to put up a counter argument here...I was young and stupid once, driving since I was 18 etc..


He acted stupidly no doubt and with a terrible outcome, something he will have to live with forever. But what good will come of sending him to prison?

He overtook a slow moving vehicle, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk. How visable was the cyclist? Every night I see ninjas out, dressed in black, no lights, not even a magical high-viz vest.

True. The only good that might come from this is we might see some actual enforcement of the provisional license rules and requirements for a minimum number of hours driving under instruction before being allowed to take your test. Far too many learner drivers just take off their L plates and start driving, I mean there is zero enforcement. In 10 years driving I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have been stopped and asked to present my license.

"I need it for a job" is not an excuse.

Captain Havoc

mloc123 wrote: »

He acted stupidly no doubt and with a terrible outcome, something he will have to live with forever. But what good will come of sending him to prison?

He overtook a slow moving vehicle, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk. How visable was the cyclist? Every night I see ninjas out, dressed in black, no lights, not even a magical high-viz vest.

Because not sending him to prison has sent a message to all learner drivers that nothing will happen you if you have an accident. It has also set a precedent in law so no one else will get done for this either.

It was daylight, so ninja theory is out.

ILA

Lumen wrote: »

No, the judge steered the jury towards the verdict. That's normal.

What I don't understand is why. His comments as reported defy all sense, and seem to directly contradict the current law I quoted above.

The law can't be applied retrospectively, thats one thing I always took out of my lectures.

It's just a bad situation, which happened due to the laughable enforcement of the road traffic legislation, a absolute lack of driver training, and the fact that someone thought after a few hours practice they could overtake a vehicle.

I know when I started out with my few hours practice, there was no way I would consider driving on the road, and certainly wouldn't dream of overtaking.

ILA

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

True. The only good that might come from this is we might see some actual enforcement of the provisional license rules and requirements for a minimum number of hours driving under instruction before being allowed to take your test.

Dream on, I'm afraid.

mloc123

Captain Havoc wrote: »

It was daylight, so ninja theory is out.

6.50am? I was out at 6.50 this morning, pitch dark. Even in the summer its 'muggy' at that time.
Edit: http://www.galway.net/about/daylight.html, August at 6.50 would be dawn and visability would be poor IMO

The provisional licence mess has gone on for years. The fact you drive to your test with a L plate on and 30 minutes later you are magically transformed into a safe driver is nonsense too... but thats what it is.

Also, was he on a first or second licence? It was 2007, he may well have had his second licence from 2005 where it would have fallen under the old 'no supervision' on a second rule?

Point is, we don't know all the facts.

Lumen

ILA wrote: »

The law can't be applied retrospectively, thats one thing I always took out of my lectures.

Seamus indicated above that the wording of the law has not changed w.r.t dangerous driving.

mloc123 wrote: »

Just to put up a counter argument here...I was young and stupid once, driving since I was 18 etc..

He acted stupidly no doubt and with a terrible outcome, something he will have to live with forever. But what good will come of sending him to prison?

That's an issue for sentencing, not verdict.

The point is, a badly driven car is a dangerous thing. You'd think judging by the recent fuss over mandatory lessons that driving was a human right. It isn't. If you can't do it responsibly, don't do it at all.

I also drove like an arse when I was younger, but if I killed someone I'd still expect to go to jail.

Obviously we only have two newspaper reports to go on, so this all at face value.

Caroline_ie

Was you man allowed to drive during these 4 years before the trial? Was he allowed to sit his exam?
Would a learner doctor who accidentally kills a patient by admistering regulated drugs, on his own to a patient when he's not allowed to practice medicine yet get away with it? I know it's a far fetched comparison ....

mloc123

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

True. The only good that might come from this is we might see some actual enforcement of the provisional license rules.... Far too many learner drivers just take off their L plates and start driving, I mean there is zero enforcement.

"The only good that might come from this is we might see some actual enforcement of the bike light rules... far too many cyclists just do not cycle with lights and there is zero enforcement."

Just offering a counter point, just because we all cycle do not presume the cyclist is always right and the driver is always wrong etc..

Lumen

mloc123 wrote: »

6.50am? I was out at 6.50 this morning, pitch dark. Even in the summer its 'muggy' at that time.
Edit: http://www.galway.net/about/daylight.html, August at 6.50 would be dawn and visability would be poor IMO

We did this in the deleted thread yesterday. It wasn't dawn, it was 30-45 minutes after sunrise, so broad daylight.

Besides which, safe driving means driving to the conditions. When driving is not safe, it's dangerous. If you can't see clearly, don't overtake.

Captain Havoc

mloc123 wrote: »

6.50am? I was out at 6.50 this morning, pitch dark. Even in the summer its 'muggy' at that time.

The provisional licence mess has gone on for years. The fact you drive to your test with a L plate on and 30 minutes later you are magically transformed into a safe driver is nonsense too... but thats what it is.

Also, was he on a first or second licence? It was 2007, he may well have had his second licence from 2005 where it would have fallen under the old 'no supervision' on a second rule?

Point is, we don't know all the facts.

It had been daylight for 30-40mins

We are transformed into safe drivers before our tests, not everyone on an L plate is unsafe. The test proves that we are competent drivers.

He got his first learner permit a few weeks before.

mloc123

Lumen wrote: »

The point is, a badly driven car is a dangerous thing. You'd think judging by the recent fuss over mandatory lessons that driving was a human right. It isn't. If you can't do it responsibly, don't do it at all.

My point is, who is to say the car was badly driven? We don't know both sides of the story.

Captain Havoc

mloc123 wrote: »

My point is, who is to say the car was badly driven? We don't know both sides of the story.

I think the point is, it shouldn't have been driven at all.

seamus

mloc123 wrote: »

My point is, who is to say the car was badly driven? We don't know both sides of the story.

I would say that a car crashing into oncoming traffic has been badly driven.

It's an easy thing to avoid doing.

Lumen

mloc123 wrote: »

My point is, who is to say the car was badly driven? We don't know both sides of the story.

No, we don't. However, the judges comments as reported suggest that the if you're not speeding or drinking and your vehicle is well-maintained, any deaths you cause by inept driving are not your fault.

Which is utterly indefensible horseshít, even ignoring the fact that he wasn't accompanied.

droidus

Lumen wrote: »

No, we don't. However, the judges comments as reported suggest that the if you're not speeding or drinking and your vehicle is well-maintained, any deaths you cause by inept driving are not your fault.

Which is utterly indefensible horseshít, even ignoring the fact that he wasn't accompanied.

Absolutely. The lesson here is clear. You can make any sort of dangerous or ill-judged manoeuvre in a car and kill someone as long as you're not drunk, speeding or have a defective vehicle and the victim is a cyclist.

By this standard, the lunatic bus driver who tried to kill me the other day would probably have gotten off scot-free if he'd succeeded.

Ryath

mloc123 wrote: »

My point is, who is to say the car was badly driven? We don't know both sides of the story.

Of course it was driven badly if he overtook without being able to see far enough down the road to safely complete the manoverve. The guy should have pleaded guilty and taken responsibilty for his actions. The judges directions to the jury are a joke.

Gulliver

langdang wrote: »

"But Judge Moran also advised the jury the defence case had showed three key elements to prove a charge of dangerous driving were absent — drink, defective vehicle and speed."

I'm a motorist, not a cyclist and I think this is a disgrace. This is the whole problem with driving laws. I've seen so many moronic acts committed by people at legal speeds (and 99% certain no drink and car working ok) that the charge of dangerous driving should be just that - you are unfit to control a vehicle. Speeding should be a separate offence with stackable punishment.

As far as I can see the driver did not check was the way clear, so therefore he is in the wrong.

Lumen

Gulliver wrote: »

This is the whole problem with driving laws...the charge of dangerous driving should be just that - you are unfit to control a vehicle. Speeding should be a separate offence with stackable punishment.

The law is nice and simple. Dangerous driving is driving which is dangerous to the public. Speeding is a separate offence, more like a contravention of licence conditions (hence strict liability).

The problem (at face value) is not the law, it's the judge. It's also nothing to do with cyclists per se, other than that a cyclist happens to have been on the receiving end this time.

droidus

Lumen wrote: »

The law is nice and simple. Dangerous driving is driving which is dangerous to the public. Speeding is a separate offence, more like a contravention of licence conditions (hence strict liability).

The problem (at face value) is not the law, it's the judge. It's also nothing to do with cyclists per se, other than that a cyclist happens to have been on the receiving end this time.

I would hope thats true. But as has been seen in recent threads here, there seems to be some some kind of unconscious public assumption (amongst morons) that if a cyclist is involved in an accident they must bear some responsibility or complicity for, or in what happened, even if its the fact that they were simply there.

Lumen

droidus wrote: »

I would hope thats true. But as has been seen in recent threads here, there seems to be some some kind of unconscious public assumption (amongst morons) that if a cyclist is involved in an accident they must bear some responsibility or complicity for or in what happened, even if its the fact that they were simply there.

Fortunately we have the judiciary to steer juries away from such ill-considered notions, equipped as they are with finely honed legal minds, flawless knowledge of the law and a dispassionate jurisprudential perspective.

Oh, wait...

Cabaal

So he had no driving license and obviously couldn't see ahead of him during the overtaking and thats not dangerous, this country is fecked up sometimes.

redmaxi

I can never understand why these threads on death are allowed. A woman is dead, have a bit of respect for the family besides debating the whole thing in a public forum.

Deisetrek

redmaxi wrote: »

I can never understand why these threads on death are allowed. A woman is dead, have a bit of respect for the family besides debating the whole thing in a public forum.

Everyone sympathises here with the family , the issue here is the disgraceful treatment of that family by the warped opinion of a so called judge , and the wider repucussions for the cyclists on this public forum . Nobody here has shown a lack of respect , just shock ........

BostonB

I don't get this verdict at all. Someone dead, because someone was driving who shouldn't have been. Yet no ones responsible. The legal system is broken.

English Bob

Leaving the legality aside I feel that this tragedy needs to be highlighted in a sensitive way to show how vulnerable cyclists are when drivers are careless.
I'm sure everyone with any humanity will feel compassion & will be very aware of being respectful to the families involved. Both the drivers family & cyclists family.

BostonB

Bob, Even if you are lit like a Christmas tree, doing everything right. You can still be knocked down. Theres a culture of irresponsible driving habits, and little enforcement/judgments.

Captain Havoc

BostonB wrote: »

Bob, Even if you are lit like a Christmas tree, doing everything right. You can still be knocked down. Theres a culture of irresponsible driving habits, and little enforcement/judgments.

I don't think I'm the only person on this forum who was knocked down looking like a Christmas tree.

BostonB

I think many cyclists and drivers have an unrealistic idea of how well cyclists can be seen, even in day light. A wide B pillar, or bad angle, or blind spot is all it takes. So drivers need to be the habit of looking more carefully. But they won't unless they are heavily penalized for not looking, not dismissing it as an accident. Though obviously sometimes its a genuine accident. But this one was avoidable if the driver had been obeying the law. They wouldn't have been driving. Its as simple as that. If there were more cyclists then drivers would be more aware of them. Thus it would be safer for cyclists. But judgments like this simply give out all the wrong messages does not encourage people to cycle. Even though accidents/deaths are very rare. But its lack of enforcement/judgement once again.

superrdave

Lumen wrote: »

No, the judge steered the jury towards the verdict. That's normal.

What I don't understand is why. His comments as reported defy all sense, and seem to directly contradict the current law I quoted above.

The judge summarised what the defence case was, not his opinion on the matter. He probably also advised them not to take into account statements of opinion from counsel or from him in relation to matters of fact, as they are the judges of fact, but every judge says this to every jury, so it doesn't get reported. The judge probably spoke to the jury for a good thirty minutes, if not more, yet this one line gets quoted out of context and it looks like he told them to find him not guilty.

Personally, from the little I know, it looks like a disgraceful verdict. But we have not sat through two days of argument and counter argument and aren't in the same position to judge as the men and women of the jury, who are probably all motorists and may not contain a single cyclist. Such is life.

superrdave

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Because not sending him to prison has sent a message to all learner drivers that nothing will happen you if you have an accident. It has also set a precedent in law so no one else will get done for this either.

That doesn't work. Deterrence sentencing is ineffective because think either it won't happen to them or they won't get caught. It's like the death penalty; it has no appreciable effect on the number of murders or other capital offences..

BostonB

superrdave wrote: »

...But we have not sat through two days of argument and counter argument and aren't in the same position to judge as the men and women of the jury, who are probably all motorists and may not contain a single cyclist. Such is life.

I think thats irrelevant. The Driver shouldn't have been on the road.

superrdave

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think the point is, it shouldn't have been driven at all.

That makes him guilty of driving, but not of dangerous driving.

CramCycle

mloc123 wrote: »

6.50am? I was out at 6.50 this morning, pitch dark. Even in the summer its 'muggy' at that time.
Edit: http://www.galway.net/about/daylight.html, August at 6.50 would be dawn and visability would be poor IMO

During the summer, visibility is normally very high at this time having been out myself in it. It might be muggy if cloudy or it's before 6 but generally visibility is great at this time.

Lumen wrote: »

No, we don't. However, the judges comments as reported suggest that the if you're not speeding or drinking and your vehicle is well-maintained, any deaths you cause by inept driving are not your fault.

This is just my opinion but it has been reiterated to me several times. Judges live outside the world of common sense most of the time and seem to often suffer a massive disconnect from reality. I have heard many cases over the years of this as I'm sure so have others (my local judge John Neilan being a great example), just google his name.

superrdave

BostonB wrote: »

I think thats irrelevant. The Driver shouldn't have been on the road.

Of course not. But that does not mean what he did was dangerous driving, within the meaning of the statute. The fact he should not have been on the road is actually irrelevant, much as that statement might grate. If the driver had been a fifty year old taxi driver with thirty years experience and a clean licence doing exactly the same thing, it would not change the nature of the act; either the driving was dangerous or it wasn't. It could be argued because of his inexperience, him doing a certain act was more dangerous than if someone much more experienced was doing it but trying to convince a jury of motorists of that would be very very difficult.
Unfortunately, in this case, because of the high standard of proof, he wasn't convicted of dangerous driving causing death. The new offence of careless driving causing death (not quite in force yet), with a possible two year penalty, may well have caught him if it had been in force then.

BostonB

superrdave wrote: »

Of course not. But that does not mean what he did was dangerous driving, within the meaning of the statute. The fact he should not have been on the road is actually irrelevant, much as that statement might grate. If the driver had been a fifty year old taxi driver with thirty years experience and a clean licence doing exactly the same thing, it would not change the nature of the act; either the driving was dangerous or it wasn't. It could be argued because of his inexperience, him doing a certain act was more dangerous than if someone much more experienced was doing it but trying to convince a jury of motorists of that would be very very difficult.
Unfortunately, in this case, because of the high standard of proof, he wasn't convicted of dangerous driving causing death. The new offence of careless driving causing death (not quite in force yet), with a possible two year penalty, may well have caught him if it had been in force then.

My comment was in response to their being no cyclists on the jury. Nothing to do with dangerous driving.

How is not dangerous. He killed someone. That suggests it was dangerous.

At the very least he drove knowing he wasn't allowed to, had no official training, had no experience. But drove anyway. I would have expected a charge of something like reckless endangerment if such exists.