Merrion Gates hit-and-run "Genius" gets a €500 fine

Run_to_da_hills

He got away lightly considering the disruption he caused that day.

"A truck driver who fled the scene after he crashed into overhead Dart cables at a level crossing in Dublin has been fined €500.

About 800m of wiring was torn away after being snagged by a crane on a lorry passing through the Merrion gates, Dublin 4, on December 30th, 2009. It had been the most significant damage to overhead lines in a single incident in the history of the Dart and disrupted services for about 15,000 commuters for a day and a half.

Eamon Cosgrove (47), Grove Lodge, Bay Lane, Kilshane, Dublin, was fined after he pleaded guilty yesterday to careless driving and failing to remain at the scene after a collision".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0720/1224320449774.html

foggy_lad

He only got fined €500 but I would hate to be him renewing his insurance!

Run_to_da_hills

foggy_lad wrote: »

He only got fined €500 but I would hate to be him renewing his insurance!

Would a claim not be just a claim irrespective of damages on his ncb?

His conviction of careless driving and leaving the scene wouldn't help his insurance.

Icaras

He was fined because he fled the scene, could he be charged for the damaged he caused also i.e. replacement wire, labour to fit it etc?

Losty Dublin

Presumably his insurance would have covered Irish Rail for the materials and labour in making good the damage he caused as well as that to the crane; there would also be hiring of buses to fill in for rail services and professional fees to take on board. The conviction would affect his insurance risk far more than the claim IMO. His only saving grace was that the incident happened during the Christmas holidays when road and rail traffic is far lighter than normal.

foggy_lad

Icaras wrote: »

He was fined because he fled the scene, could he be charged for the damaged he caused also i.e. replacement wire, labour to fit it etc?

His insurance will have covered all the expense and IE should be claiming for loss of earnings.

Cookie_Monster

Reckless / dangerous driving and all he gets is a €500 fine FFS! Take his licence for 10 years!!

Ben D Bus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Reckless / dangerous driving and all he gets is a €500 fine FFS! Take his licence for 10 years!!

He was done for careless driving. Not reckeless or dangerous driving. You can argue that the charge was wrong. But he cant be punished for something he was not found guilty of.

dowlingm

IE would be seeking civil damages so would be a different case, taken against his insurer.

IE cannot win - if they grade separate the stupid truckers hit the bridges. If they create full barrier crossings (at significant expense) the gates are stolen or rammed through.

dermo88

Those who have long term experience of me as a poster know damn well I'll say something right wing and nasty about this gob$hite after being soaked by rain at Bray on a winters night due to the antics of this clown.

flyingsnail

dermo88 wrote: »

Those who have long term experience of me as a poster know damn well I'll say something right wing and nasty about this gob$hite after being soaked by rain at Bray on a winters night due to the antics of this clown.

Don't worry, you don’t have to say it we are all already thinking it.

gsxr1

dermo88 wrote: »

Those who have long term experience of me as a poster know damn well I'll say something right wing and nasty about this gob$hite after being soaked by rain at Bray on a winters night due to the antics of this clown.

+1

dermo88

Something like:

"Someone should string that 'illegitimate' to the cables with the voltage on. Do the world a favour"

Thats actually what I did say that night when I was told on the way to Bray.

Caused no end of smiles, which was fine on the bus. But then the Greystones Bay platform, sat a cozy 3 piece 22000 that night to bring us south. Shielding us initially was a DART set. We passed that and then ran 100 meters as fast as feasibly possible to get to her.

Thats when I swore of out childrens sight. Having emigrated, I'd forgotten how utterly SAVAGE Irish winters were when they are stormy and thawing.

patrickbrophy18

Cannot believe that it is only a measly €500. Are you sure that it isn't €500K?

In any case, that "Genius:rolleyes::mad:" caused a huge amount of disruption. If my memory serves me correctly, it lasted a good few days resulting in unnecessary changes at Booterstown for the bus. I know, that the Irish Times says a day and a half. However, I remember it lasting over half a week. Eamon Cosgrove should have been fined the value of the loss made to both Irish Rail and Dublin Bus as well as those to passengers affected.

Either-way, it is an absolute joke that there is such a high level tolerance and leniency towards perpetrators in this country.

patrickbrophy18

Oh, one other thing. Eamon Cosgrove should be banned from driving permanently for being such a coward in the first place.:mad:

CIE

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Cannot believe that it is only a measly €500. Are you sure that it isn't €500K?

In any case, that "Genius:rolleyes::mad:" caused a huge amount of disruption. If my memory serves me correctly, it lasted a good few days resulting in unnecessary changes at Booterstown for the bus. I know, that the Irish Times says a day and a half. However, I remember it lasting over half a week. Eamon Cosgrove should have been fined the value of the loss made to both Irish Rail and Dublin Bus as well as those to passengers affected.

Either-way, it is an absolute joke that there is such a high level tolerance and leniency towards perpetrators in this country.

The sad thing is, the backlash is going to be so much worse, even for the country.

UnknownSpecies

A huge ban would be a bit harsh to be honest. Does the man really deserve his livelihood taken away from him for a big error in judgement. We all mess up, nobody died, his insurance company foots the bill, end of story.

Cookie_Monster

dorgasm wrote: »

A huge ban would be a bit harsh to be honest. Does the man really deserve his livelihood taken away from him for a big error in judgement. We all mess up, nobody died, his insurance company foots the bill, end of story.

he's supposed to be a professional driver and doesn't even know the height of his vehicle and he fled the scene, a further crime. A ban is definitely warranted IMO

UnknownSpecies

Perhaps a year ban wouldn't be so harsh but the 10 year ban people were suggesting would be a bit much in my eyes anyway.

bk

No a 10 year ban is exactly what is needed, would make other truck drivers much more careful in future.

patrickbrophy18

dorgasm wrote: »

A huge ban would be a bit harsh to be honest. Does the man really deserve his livelihood taken away from him for a big error in judgement. We all mess up, nobody died, his insurance company foots the bill, end of story.

The fact still remains that driving is part of his profession. The same goes for truck drivers, bus drivers, tractor drivers or anyone operating heavy machinery as part of their day to day work lives. In this case, Eamon Cosgrove (who happens to fit this description) set a very bad example to those in similar fields. I will +1 Cookie_Monster in saying that fleeing the scene is a further crime and a further bad example too.

Moreover, the nuisance which he caused to commuters on the days following the accident adds a whole lot of extra weight to the severity of the crime. The otherwise unnecessary repair work carried out also added negative equity to Irish Rails pocket. While I'm a bit shady of the economics, I'm pretty sure that the honouring of rail tickets by Dublin Bus also set them back money. Given that both companies are funded by the tax payer, Eamon Cosgrove caused a considerable dent in their pockets too.

Either-way, what Eamon Cosgrove did is incredibly serious (and dangerous:eek:) and completely unacceptable. In fact, I think a permanent ban on driving and a face value fine would be a lenient penalty. In a lot of other countries, he would have been facing prison time on top of a ban and a hefty fine.

CIE

dorgastric wrote: »

A huge ban would be a bit harsh to be honest. Does the man really deserve his livelihood taken away from him for a big error in judgement. We all mess up, nobody died, his insurance company foots the bill, end of story

Absurd. Not the end of the story by a long shot. Insurance rates now go up, along with the costs of whatever a lorry carries (this gets spread around the entire industry; it does not target the causative owner-operator or firm). That cost gets passed on to customers, potentially making such products unaffordable, which can also potentially lead to a loss of sales, which then results in innocent people's jobs being lost who had nothing to do with wantonly destroying railway infrastructure like "the man" in question did. Meanwhile, "the man" gets to potentially do something worse behind the wheel of a lorry rather than be properly punished for his misdeeds and forbidden to ever drive a lorry again. Yes, he does deserve his livelihood taken away from him, and perhaps his freedom as well, especially for leaving the scene of his destruction (which means he didn't want to take responsibility for it; a really bad character flaw).

Hilarious that the concept of punishment escapes people's minds now. Are there that many bleeding hearts around?

dowlingm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

he's supposed to be a professional driver and doesn't even know the height of his vehicle

We must remember though that *this* case notwithstanding, I believe there have been occurrences where the council resurfaced the road underneath IE structures causing the clearance to fall below the signed height. Not *every* driver is guilty - but most probably are. Even when they are it's a good bet the idiot prosecutor will fail to have the accident scene measured, case dismissed...

Jammyc

Not that I'm advocating leniency, but I'm wondering was the rest of the story not quoted for any reason or was it just by chance?

Garda Victoria Montgomery told Judge Alan Mitchell at Dublin District Court that Cosgrove turned his lorry on to the Merrion gates. A crane on his lorry had not been lowered properly and there was a collision with overhead cables, Judge Mitchell was told.

Cosgrove left the scene, but contacted gardaí the next day to make a statement. Garda Montgomery accepted Cosgrove was “shocked” at what happened and that it had devastating effects on him.

In pleading for leniency, Cosgrove’s lawyer said his marriage had since broken down and that he had had a successful business delivering containers but that this had failed. The court heard he was remorseful and that he had made “a terrible error” in not retracting the crane. The judge was asked to note Cosgrove had no previous convictions nor any penalty points.

The lawyer said it was “a panic situation”, as Cosgrove had pulled in down the road but felt intimidated as people were coming out of houses and taking photographs.

The judge said he had clearly suffered sufficient trauma.

I don't know about ye, but I can sympathise and while I feel that 500 euro is an absolutely measly figure, the bashing and name calling is uncalled for and unhelpful.

coylemj

The lawyer said it was “a panic situation”, as Cosgrove had pulled in down the road but felt intimidated as people were coming out of houses and taking photographs.

He was 'intimidated' by residents of D4 talking photographs after he snagged a railway power line so he fled! At least the solicitor gave good value for money, coming up with that one. By any chance was it the famous 'Mr. Loophole' flown in from the UK for the day - the guy who gets all the footballers and comedians off speeding charges?

CIE

Jammyc wrote: »

Not that I'm advocating leniency, but I'm wondering was the rest of the story not quoted for any reason or was it just by chance?

Garda Victoria Montgomery told Judge Alan Mitchell at Dublin District Court that Cosgrove turned his lorry on to the Merrion gates. A crane on his lorry had not been lowered properly and there was a collision with overhead cables, Judge Mitchell was told.

Cosgrove left the scene, but contacted gardaí the next day to make a statement. Garda Montgomery accepted Cosgrove was “shocked” at what happened and that it had devastating effects on him.

In pleading for leniency, Cosgrove’s lawyer said his marriage had since broken down and that he had had a successful business delivering containers but that this had failed. The court heard he was remorseful and that he had made “a terrible error” in not retracting the crane. The judge was asked to note Cosgrove had no previous convictions nor any penalty points.

The lawyer said it was “a panic situation”, as Cosgrove had pulled in down the road but felt intimidated as people were coming out of houses and taking photographs.

The judge said he had clearly suffered sufficient trauma.

I don't know about ye, but I can sympathise and while I feel that 500 euro is an absolutely measly figure, the bashing and name calling is uncalled for and unhelpful

What? :mad:

That part of the story was not quoted because it is judicial equivocation. The judge presiding over this case should be defrocked and disbarred for taking heed of sob stories that constitute hearsay and lack relevance, and instead focused on the facts of the case. "Panic situation" as in a criminal wanting to escape punishment for the evil he's committed? That happens all the time. Not worthy of a shred of sympathy whatsoever, and no excuse whatsoever for fleeing.

coylemj

CIE wrote: »

The judge presiding over this case should be defrocked and disbarred for taking heed of sob stories that constitute hearsay and lack relevance, and instead focused on the facts of the case.

++1 That's precisely why the issue of disqualification was taken out of the hands of judges in the case of a conviction for drink driving.

Lawyers should be compelled to produce proof when they make the type of submissions made in this case - the guy's marriage broke up and his business collapsed, so based on those (unsubstantiated) facts the judge decided that he had suffered 'sufficient trauma' and doesn't need to be punished any more.

There was a time down in the Bridewell courts where every time a gurrier was up on a charge, his (free legal aid) solicitor would ask the judge to not impose a custodial sentence because his (clearly unemployable) client had a job interview the following day. This lead the late DJ O'hUadhaigh to wrly remark that job prospects appeared to be better for the youths appearing before him than was the case with the general population, given the levels of unemployment at the time!

Jammyc

CIE wrote: »

What? :mad:

That part of the story was not quoted because it is judicial equivocation. The judge presiding over this case should be defrocked and disbarred for taking heed of sob stories that constitute hearsay and lack relevance, and instead focused on the facts of the case. "Panic situation" as in a criminal wanting to escape punishment for the evil he's committed? That happens all the time. Not worthy of a shred of sympathy whatsoever, and no excuse whatsoever for fleeing.

Like I said, not advocating leniency, but I just felt it appropriate to make sure that the full story was read.

Also - evil? You make it sound like he burnt down an orphanage or something. I feel pretty damn confident in assuming that he didn't set out that morning with the intention of tearing down the lines at Merrion Gates.

foggy_lad

Jammyc wrote: »

CIE wrote: »

What? :mad:

That part of the story was not quoted because it is judicial equivocation. The judge presiding over this case should be defrocked and disbarred for taking heed of sob stories that constitute hearsay and lack relevance, and instead focused on the facts of the case. "Panic situation" as in a criminal wanting to escape punishment for the evil he's committed? That happens all the time. Not worthy of a shred of sympathy whatsoever, and no excuse whatsoever for fleeing.

Like I said, not advocating leniency, but I just felt it appropriate to make sure that the full story was read.

Also - evil? You make it sound like he burnt down an orphanage or something. I feel pretty damn confident in assuming that he didn't set out that morning with the intention of tearing down the lines at Merrion Gates.

Anything that threatens or damages the "blessed" railway is evil and must be purged.

CIE

Jammyc wrote: »

Like I said, not advocating leniency, but I just felt it appropriate to make sure that the full story was read.

Also - evil? You make it sound like he burnt down an orphanage or something. I feel pretty damn confident in assuming that he didn't set out that morning with the intention of tearing down the lines at Merrion Gates.

He fled the scene. Don't tell me that's not evil. He most definitely intended to flee; whether he intentionally caused the damage he did is not relevant, but running away most definitely is. And the judge's ruling really does highlight a severe problem with the legal system. Of course, now I have to thank you for insisting on the "full story", because it makes the lorry driver look worse than ever and puts a brighter spotlight on the judge.

foggy_brain wrote: »

Anything that threatens or damages the "blessed" railway is evil and must be purged

So it's OK to damage infrastructure just because of its nature? And run away from the damage you caused? If that was meant to be a joke, it wasn't funny.

Jammyc

CIE wrote: »

He fled the scene. Don't tell me that's not evil. He most definitely intended to flee; whether he intentionally caused the damage he did is not relevant, but running away most definitely is. And the judge's ruling really does highlight a severe problem with the legal system. Of course, now I have to thank you for insisting on the "full story", because it makes the lorry driver look worse than ever and puts a brighter spotlight on the judge.So it's OK to damage infrastructure just because of its nature? And run away from the damage you caused? If that was meant to be a joke, it wasn't funny.

It may just be me but I just think that evil is not the appropriate word. I could accept maybe cowardly, stupid, or even arrogant, but I just find evil to be too dramatic.

Yes a 500euro fine is like getting frowned at when you look at the actual crime committed. I agree, the judge was very lenient. I don't agree, however, with the portrayal of the man as a monster.

I will agree to disagree with you.

deandean

The guy was fined €500 for what, €250K or more of damage plus disruption to tens of thousands of commuters.

I think he should have been hit much harder. There's no deterrant in that fine.

Saadly, a truck driver can run over & kill a cyclist in this country and be hit with just a €500 fine.

CIE

coylemj wrote: »

++1 That's precisely why the issue of disqualification was taken out of the hands of judges in the case of a conviction for drink driving.

Lawyers should be compelled to produce proof when they make the type of submissions made in this case - the guy's marriage broke up and his business collapsed, so based on those (unsubstantiated) facts the judge decided that he had suffered 'sufficient trauma' and doesn't need to be punished any more.

There was a time down in the Bridewell courts where every time a gurrier was up on a charge, his (free legal aid) solicitor would ask the judge to not impose a custodial sentence because his (clearly unemployable) client had a job interview the following day. This lead the late DJ O'hUadhaigh to wryly remark that job prospects appeared to be better for the youths appearing before him than was the case with the general population, given the levels of unemployment at the time!

Can't speak as a judge, but if a lawyer came out with all this evidence of "trauma" then it would seem to me that it is incumbent on the legal system to place this allegedly traumatised person (who should not have been behind the wheel of a lorry due to said trauma) in a mental institution for a very long time in order to mitigate the potential damage that such a person could potentially cause again if let back into society willy-nilly. But instead, a slap on the wrist ensues and we now have a "traumatised" lorry driver on the loose once more, and who knows what he may damage next and try to run away from? because due to his "traumatised" state, he obviously won't be able to help himself.

CIE

Jammyc wrote: »

It may just be me but I just think that evil is not the appropriate word. I could accept maybe cowardly, stupid, or even arrogant, but I just find evil to be too dramatic.

Yes a €500 fine is like getting frowned at when you look at the actual crime committed. I agree, the judge was very lenient. I don't agree, however, with the portrayal of the man as a monster.

I will agree to disagree with you.

Cowardice, stupidity and arrogance are exhibitions of evil. Especially when they culminate in fleeing the scene of the destruction of infrastructure by a vehicle one is operating, which is an act of evil in and of itself compared to actually hitting the infrastructure in question, which is properly regarded as accidental damage; running away is malicious. You can't call cowardice, stupidity, arrogance and fleeing examples of good, could you?

Jammyc

CIE wrote: »

Cowardice, stupidity and arrogance are exhibitions of evil. Especially when they culminate in fleeing the scene of the destruction of infrastructure by a vehicle one is operating, which is an act of evil in and of itself compared to actually hitting the infrastructure in question, which is properly regarded as accidental damage; running away is malicious. You can't call cowardice, stupidity, arrogance and fleeing examples of good, could you?

Absolutely not. I would call them bad, though.

I think I'm going a little off topic, so I'll debate this no further but to reiterate my point - I agree that he was very underpunished. If its anything to go by, anyone with a mean streak could decide to save 500 quid and head out on a rampage destroying IE's infrastructure.

foggy_lad

deandean wrote: »

The guy was fined €500 for what, €250K or more of damage plus disruption to tens of thousands of commuters.

I think he should have been hit much harder. There's no deterrant in that fine.

Saadly, a truck driver can run over & kill a cyclist in this country and be hit with just a €500 fine.

What about the motorist who causes a death by simply making an error of judgement? Should they be jailed for life for murder? What value do you put on a life and what penalty is sufficient? What if the motorist was only young or was having a bad day week or year? What about someone who ends up crippled themselves, have they paid enough through their own injuries?

Obviously the driver was under tremendous stress and pressure at the time if the incident and this must be taken into account or we may as well go back to the days if public executions and hanging drawing and quartering offenders for the slightest misdemeanors.

Long may ye all be so bloody perfect!

end of the road

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Eamon Cosgrove should have been fined the value of the loss made to both Irish Rail and Dublin Bus as well as those to passengers affected.

why? if he was, we'd never see all of it. whatever about the value of irish rail and dublin bus the value of the effected passengers is irrelevant as they have other ways to travel living in dublin and they would get over it anyway once the disruption is finished.

Cookie_Monster

foggy_lad wrote: »

What about the motorist who causes a death by simply making an error of judgement? Should they be jailed for life for murder?

depends on the nature of the error to be honest. If it was a serious enough error that shouldn't happen if they were able to drive properly then you could probably list it as manslaughter. A learner out for the the first time could conceivable make a massive error of judgement and do a lot of damage (as could anyone else tbh).

What value do you put on a life and what penalty is sufficient? What if the motorist was only young or was having a bad day week or year?

what should age have to do with it or the fact that they were having a bad day? You need to take responsibility for your actions, deliberate or not and having a bad day is a pretty ropey excuse for anything serious.

What about someone who ends up crippled themselves, have they paid enough through their own injuries?

nope, not at all. sustaining injury is hardly reason not to prosecute someone for a crime, especially if someone else was hurt by it.

Obviously the driver was under tremendous stress and pressure at the time if the incident and this must be taken into account or we may as well go back to the days if public executions and hanging drawing and quartering offenders for the slightest misdemeanors.

maybe he should have taken that into account before sitting in such a vehicle. Driving is a privilege afforded, not a right and abuse of privilege in any form should mean it's revoked. Again he has to take responsibility for the situation regardless of how stressed he may have been that day.

Long may ye all be so bloody perfect!

indeed, I'm sure you'd be the first one on here bitching if some clown crashed into a Carlow train and blocked the line for a day or two.

Capt'n Midnight

foggy_lad wrote: »

What about the motorist who causes a death by simply making an error of judgement? Should they be jailed for life for murder? What value do you put on a life and what penalty is sufficient? What if the motorist was only young or was having a bad day week or year? What about someone who ends up crippled themselves, have they paid enough through their own injuries?

€500 is no additional deterrent compared to the costs of motor tax, annual NCT / servicing and insurance never mind fuel costs.

I don't remember the incident with the cyclist offhand

BUT that motorist would not have been fined if they driving with due care and attention etc. because we only fine people who have been found guilty.


Back on to topic

Have bridge strikes reduced since their 10 fold increase during the boom ?
And how will a €500 fine change other truckers behaviour ?

CIE

foggy_lad wrote: »

What about the motorist who causes a death by simply making an error of judgement?

Should they be jailed for life for murder? What value do you put on a life and what penalty is sufficient? What if the motorist was only young or was having a bad day week or year? What about someone who ends up crippled themselves, have they paid enough through their own injuries?

Obviously the driver was under tremendous stress and pressure at the time if the incident and this must be taken into account or we may as well go back to the days if public executions and hanging drawing and quartering offenders for the slightest misdemeanors.

Long may ye all be so bloody perfect!

Self-righteous bleeding-heart rubbish, all of that. And that's aside from the flagrant straw men and other logical fallacies.

As a "motorist" for 25 years, I can tell you that it is one colossal "error in judgement" to cause the death of someone when you're behind the wheel of a car; only by driving very dangerously does that happen. Nobody gets charged with "murder" for such a thing unless it's proven that there was intent to kill. There is the charge of "dangerous driving causing death", and that is a quite serious offence.

Unless you're a complete "egypt" whose head is not focused in reality, it's very hard to make such a lapse in judgment as either causing someone's death due to your driving, or ripping down overhead wires et cetera on a railway with a crane that you failed to secure like a responsible adult is supposed to. And anyone, anyone who flees the scene of an accident has passed the border of merely being a fool into being a wicked, malicious, antisocial person who is capable only of thinking of oneself.

What the hell happened to being an adult and taking responsibility? "Stress and pressure" me foot; all adults experience that, but not all adults act like little children and try to run away when they make a mess! Being an adult means taking care of your own business, which includes reading road signs, making sure that cranes are not loose on the backs of lorries, and if an accident ensues that is your fault, never running away like a hardened criminal. If this man's wife has split up with him, then there are most likely more skeletons in this man's closet that will pop up in the future (which shouldn't have any bearing on this case, but the man is free to make other such "errors in judgement" when experiencing "stress and pressure" now; there is such a thing as a "loose cannon").

coylemj

CIE wrote: »

As a "motorist" for 25 years, I can tell you that it is one colossal "error in judgement" to cause the death of someone when you're behind the wheel of a car; only by driving very dangerously does that happen.

Complete tosh!

We've all had near misses with cyclists and pedestrians and when we read the court cases, sometimes you can't help but say - 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

CIE

coylemj wrote: »

Complete tosh!

We've all had near misses with cyclists and pedestrians and when we read the court cases, sometimes you can't help but say - 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

Complete tosh on your part, never mind it not being what I was talking about (here come the straw men again). Ever heard of the concept of fault? "Near-misses with cyclists and pedestrians" do not fall into the category of a driver suffering from an "error in judgement" and striking someone. If you have not yet learned the concept of "defencive driving", then perhaps you should turn in your céadúnas tiomána, with all due respect.