Disgraceful article in today's Irish Times

KamiKazi

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its called an accident for a reason ffs.

Cop on will ye. Just because someone gets fatally injured doesn't change the nature of the incident.

Yes an accident that could have been prevented IF she hadn't driven dangerously!

RosieJoe

I was involved in a similar accident many moons ago in the car. Girl coming out of a driveway pulled out too far, car coming up the road clipped here and came across the road and crashed into me. 5 cars involved in total, 2 written off and 4 people carted off to hospital.

Only differences between this and the court case was the fatality and the conditions.

There was not mention of careless driving or dangerous driving, it was deemed and accident. This is how I see the case from the article.

Edit: It was also pointed out that speed was the big unknown. How do we know now that he wasn't speeding or driving too fast for the conditions? We could also argue that he should have been driving more cautiously due to the fog/dark/rain and that he should have anticipated that the car may pull out! There are way too many what ifs for us to judge this correctly.

--amadeus--

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its called an accident for a reason ffs.

Cop on will ye. Just because someone gets fatally injured doesn't change the nature of the incident.

They no longer call them accidents for a reason.

The driver admitted to being at fault. I know I'm repeating myself and others but:

- Driver is in very poor weather conditions, wet and foggy with reduced visibility

- All drivers *should* be aware that wet conditions increase braking distances and to allow other road users and themselves more time and space (it's one of teh fundamentals in the theory test)

- She admits that she saw the light from an oncoming vehicle but she pulled out anyway. This created the dangerous situation where another road user died.

No-one is claiming the woman did this deliberately or intentionally. It was a mistake and a miscalculation on her part. However her driving caused a fatally dangerous situation to arise and is therefore dangerous driving and yes she should be convicted.

elaverty

RosieJoe wrote: »

I was involved in a similar accident many moons ago in the car. Girl coming out of a driveway pulled out too far, car coming up the road clipped here and came across the road and crashed into me. 5 cars involved in total, 2 written off and 4 people carted off to hospital.

Only differences between this and the court case was the fatality and the conditions.

There was not mention of careless driving or dangerous driving, it was deemed and accident. This is how I see the case from the article.

Edit: It was also pointed out that speed was the big unknown. How do we know now that he wasn't speeding or driving too fast for the conditions? We could also argue that he should have been driving more cautiously due to the fog/dark/rain and that he should have anticipated that the car may pull out! There are way too many what ifs for us to judge this correctly.

And how do we know that he wasnt only doing 20kph,,,it brings up the argument that is going on at the minute with the HIVIZ law the RSA are trying to bring in,,,,just because people look dosnt mean they see

RosieJoe

elaverty wrote: »

And how do we know that he wasnt only doing 20kph,,,it brings up the argument that is going on at the minute with the HIVIZ law the RSA are trying to bring in,,,,just because people look dosnt mean they see

We assume he wasn't doing 20kph 'cos if he was he'd have had a better chance of avoiding the collision and/or surviving.

elaverty

RosieJoe wrote: »

We assume he wasn't doing 20kph 'cos if he was he'd have had a better chance of avoiding the collision and/or surviving.

If something pulls out infront of you when you are doing 20kph you have a very high chance of hiting it,you can still have a collision with it,It depends on how close you were to the object when it pulled out into your pathway,,,You dont and obviously have never riden a motorcycle,,as i said earlier there is a difference between Looking and seeing...

RosieJoe

elaverty wrote: »

If something pulls out infront of you when you are doing 20kph you have a very high chance of hiting it,you can still have a collision with it,It depends on how close you were to the object when it pulled out into your pathway,,,You dont and obviously have never riden a motorcycle,,as i said earlier there is a difference between Looking and seeing...

Congrats lad, you obviously know me well to say that I have never ridden a bike!

seamus

--amadeus-- wrote: »

- She admits that she saw the light from an oncoming vehicle but she pulled out anyway. This created the dangerous situation where another road user died.

Not only did she pull out anyway, but she pulled out slowly;

He said that Ms Clancy had travelled just over 10 metres over 2.4 to 2.6 seconds across the road when the collision occurred.

That's 14-15km/h. So either she pulled out quite literally right in front of him, or she pulled out far too slowly, travelling less than 15km/h despite knowing that the weather was poor and a vehicle was coming up behind her.
I would consider that dangerous driving.

One thing which isn't clear is whether she had lights on to warn approaching traffic that she was there. I find it hard to believe that a motorcyclist in the described conditions wouldn't massively scrub their speed (i.e. down to crawling pace) if they saw a pair of headlights waiting to pull out.

Cuddlesworth

RosieJoe wrote: »

Congrats lad, you obviously know me well to say that I have never ridden a bike!

Is this you?

RosieJoe

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Is this you?

God no, this is me

Please Kill Me

--amadeus-- wrote: »

- She admits that she saw the light from an oncoming vehicle but she pulled out anyway. This created the dangerous situation where another road user died.

This is the clincher for me. She admitted seeing it, but pulled out anyway!! THIS is why she should be done! Why would any normal, sane person see an oncoming vehicle, and then just pull out?? It happens to me at least once a day! A car coming out of a junction will stop, look right at me, and pull out anyway!!

There's many a dented door in Dublin as a reminder for dopes who do this! :mad:

elaverty

RosieJoe wrote: »

Congrats lad, you obviously know me well to say that I have never ridden a bike!

Well that shut me up fairly quick,,,,i dont know what to say now,,:o

RosieJoe

elaverty wrote: »

Well that shut me up fairly quick,,,,i dont know what to say now,,:o

How about "You're still an idiot!"

elaverty

RosieJoe wrote: »

How about "You're still an idiot!"

OK ILL SAY IT,BUT REMEMBER YOU DID TELL ME TOO,,,,Your still a idiot..

They say when you can admit something about yourself your half way there to recovery,,,so congratulations on admiting it


Anyway this is geting to petty for me now,,so ill leave it to you to go of Topic :D

Nodster

Sadly a life was lost in this incident, but on the positive side, it might highlight the consequences of any cage driver reversing out they're gate that 'accident do happen'

JohnnyCrash

Nodster wrote: »

Sadly a life was lost in this incident, but on the positive side, it might highlight the consequences of any cage driver reversing out they're gate that 'accident do happen'

Nowhere in the article did it say that the driver reversed out of the gate.It says at least 3 times that the person pulled out of the gate.Surely "pulling out" isnt reversing?Its not justifying the case,a life was lost either ways,but people should read the facts closely before assuming.

JohnnyCrash

TheUsual wrote: »

Reversing onto a main road is illegal in Ireland.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

This was a case of accidental murder, the woman will have to live with the murder for the rest of her life.
And it was murder.

It wasnt mentioned anywhere that the driver reversed onto the road.Look it up if you dont believe me.

Hotblack Desiato

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Swerving in and out of traffic, purposefully driving on the wrong side of the road, racing on public roads etc would be dangerous in any situation.

OK now I'm certain you're trolling.

The rest of your post is just patronising, and wrong into the bargain.

Dublin_Gunner

ninja900 wrote: »

OK now I'm certain you're trolling.

The rest of your post is just patronising, and wrong into the bargain.

lol

It appears I may actually been the only one talking sense.

Noone has even considered the fact that the cyclist may have been speeding.

Anyway, I'm out, enough of listening to the rubbish after giving numerous explanations.

Hotblack Desiato

seanybiker wrote: »

Sorry man but that is biggest hape of bollix I ever heard.

I know lads on bikes that have got a massive amount of money from people driving out in front of them.
1 fella I know is only 25 now and he had 3 crashes and he is after making thousands off them. We joked with him that he was out looking for people to hit into. 3 bike crashes and he has a fair whack of his mortgage paid off. he got 18000 +/- a few yoyo's for one crash.

He's right and you're wrong. Having compensation awarded against you (in reality, against your insurer) is totally different from being charged with an offence.

Hotblack Desiato

wellboytoo wrote: »

I think the OP is definitely over reacting, if anything he has missed the one implication in the article no one has mentioned , the poor victim was just after recovering from another accident, on a bike one supposes.......

Even if it was on a bike, why are you assuming it was his fault?

Why don't you show a little respect, he did nothing wrong and now he's dead.

Hotblack Desiato

RosieJoe wrote: »

How about "You're still an idiot!"

Have some respect, this is a thread about a tragic death.

wellboytoo

ninja900 wrote: »

Even if it was on a bike, why are you assuming it was his fault?

Why don't you show a little respect, he did nothing wrong and now he's dead.

WTF, you started the thread about the dead man, you picked holes in a lady who probably does not sleep at night because she killed a guy in an accident, but you see fit to be judge and jury on her, but through some silly blind loyalty to a fellow biker whom you seem to think is beyond criticism , you accuse me of showing no respect.
I am assuming nothing, just pointing out that you chose to look at the article very subjectively, and it could be looked at another way.
You do not know he did nothing wrong no one does but him and he's dead, so show some brains.

P.C.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its called an accident for a reason ffs.

Cop on will ye. Just because someone gets fatally injured doesn't change the nature of the incident.

Yes, it is an accident, but you seem to have a problem with someone taking the blame.

wellboytoo wrote: »

WTF, you started the thread about the dead man, you picked holes in a lady who probably does not sleep at night because she killed a guy in an accident, but you see fit to be judge and jury on her, but through some silly blind loyalty to a fellow biker whom you seem to think is beyond criticism , you accuse me of showing no respect.
I am assuming nothing, just pointing out that you chose to look at the article very subjectively, and it could be looked at another way.
You do not know he did nothing wrong no one does but him and he's dead, so show some brains.

We can not assume that she does not sleep at night. Please do not transpose your feelings onto her.

ninja900 wrote: »

Have some respect, this is a thread about a tragic death.

Yes, it is a thread about a newspaper article about a road traffic death, however the post you quoted was directed at another poster, not you.


Everyone is now warned!

Keep it clean, and about the article in the paper.

Thank you!

Hotblack Desiato

wellboytoo wrote: »

WTF, you started the thread about the dead man, you picked holes in a lady who probably does not sleep at night because she killed a guy in an accident, but you see fit to be judge and jury on her, but through some silly blind loyalty to a fellow biker whom you seem to think is beyond criticism , you accuse me of showing no respect.

What the article said, and what you said, was in my opinion very unfair to a man who after all can't present his side of the story.

We know that she did something very stupid - under conditions of poor visibility she saw a light approach but still pulled out anyway, we know this because she admitted this. The only question is whether that warrants a dangerous driving conviction or not, in my view it does and imo the bar is set far too high in this country in relation to getting convictions for driving offences which caused serious injury or death.

There is no evidence that the rider was speeding or doing anything wrong, we do know his light was on so he was making an effort to be seen - the sadly ironic thing is that he was actually seen.

You and the Irish Times have no right to blacken his name with innuendo about what he might have done in a previous accident (for all we know, he was entirely blameless) and we have no evidence whatsoever that he was doing anything wrong in relation to this incident, yet it feels like it's his reputation on trial not the admitted actions of the woman.

KamiKazi

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

lol

It appears I may actually been the only one talking sense.

Noone has even considered the fact that the cyclist may have been speeding.

Anyway, I'm out, enough of listening to the rubbish after giving numerous explanations.

Let me translate this post for the rest of the forum:

"I've lost this argument and am now leaving this thread in order to save face."

wellboytoo

I'm bored with this, good bye

Flyin Irishman

ninja900 wrote: »

Even if it was on a bike, why are you assuming it was his fault?

Why don't you show a little respect, he did nothing wrong and now he's dead.

That's a huge assumption to make.

The real tragedy of this story is that someone has lost their life, and a family has lost a loved one. And I agree that all we know about the accident is that the car driver is guilty of making a very stupid decision, and was at fault for the accident.
That, in no way, means that the bike rider, was not also guilty of poor desicions, and partly at fault. He may have been speeding, he may not have been allowing for the fact that he too had poor visibility, he may not have been paying due care and attention - or he may have been riding perfectly safely, and just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact of the matter is that we dont know, and will never know.

But just because we know one party (the car driver) is guilty or at fault, does not instanlty vindicate the other party. Unfortunatley there is not always a guilty party and an innocent party, and considering that we will never know any more about what caused this terrible accident maybe our thoughts should lie more with the devastation the man's family must be experiencing and less about trivially trying to place blame through speculation.

Ride Safe

Tigger

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

The article isn't that bad, and you should focus on the charge she was acquitted of - dangerous driving.

Exiting from a side road / gateway into another vehicles path which is already on the 'main' road immediately places Ms. Clancy at fault for the accident, of this I'm certain there will be no defence.

The issue is if there was any criminal wrongdoing that caused the accident - of which there wasn't.

I also fail to see where there is any implication that the motorcycle was speeding.

It was a very unfortunate accident that sadly resulted in the death of Mr. Hayes, but nothing more.

A tragic accident, and the verdict is fair.

she pulled out in front of a bike and killed him, howq isa that not dangerous
was she driving?

i note that aside from a commernt on a concept bike this is the first time you've posted here
just to back up a person who drove out in front of someone and killed them

good logs...

i hope she loses lots and lots of sleep not a lot to ask for when a life is lost of a man on his way to work:mad::mad::mad: