'Van driver fined €500 for running over and killing nun'

whiskeyman

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/van-driver-fined-500-for-running-over-and-killing-nun-70-31054656.html

When I saw the headline, I couldn't believe it... but reading the facts, I feel for the poor driver here.
The nun walked out on the road, with no green pedestrian light.
The driver wasn't going above the limit.
Perhaps he could have reacted quicker, but the nun didn't seem right at all.
No doubt he has suffered huge emotional turmoil after this.

As expected, it's a pretty poorly written and bad headline by the indo...

Mint Aero

Looks like a nice guy, very sad for him as he has to live with that.

Tokyo

If anything, the driver shouldn't have been fined €500. Poor man was obeying every rule of the road, and the nun walked straight out in front of him in complete disregard to pedestrian lights and traffic.

I'm not sure how looking at the green light in the moments before the accident was deemed to be a "failure of observation". NOT looking at the light to check if he had right of way would be a failure of observation, surely?

Lollipops23

I feel bad for the guy; obviously it's not nice that someone died, but shouldn't there be a case for reckless walking? Perhaps she wasn't in her right mind, but plenty of pedestrians saunter out in front of traffic without a care in the world.

Tearin It Up

If someone steps out onto the road without a care in the world, how is it always the drivers fault?

You need eight eyes while driving, two on the front, two on the back, two on either side of your head and its still not enough.

Tefral

So because he didn't see her he gets fined €500. Can someone explain this to me? How has this been his fault? The judge mentioned disqualification even (Even if he didn't disqualify him, it was still on the cards)

jimgoose

Unfortunately this kind of thing happens now and then and it's no-one's fault, just a horrible stupid accident. Be careful out there, kids.

O.A.P

That man has done nothing wrong and this will take him along time to get over if ever,
What has been achieved by giving him a 500 fine on top ?

bb1234567

If I was yer man who killed the nun I would sue the independent for that headline, makes him sound like a criminal who got away with murder.

freelancerTax

jimgoose wrote: »

Unfortunately this kind of thing happens now and then and it's no-one's fault, just a horrible stupid accident. Be careful out there, kids.

er.... from reading it, its completely the nuns fault

Akrasia

It's a stupid decision. If it was the drivers fault, a 500 euro fine would be an insult, if it wasn't the drivers fault, then the fine and judgement against him is an injustice.

How do these judges get to the position they are in when they seem to lack any judgement skills

jimgoose

freelancerTax wrote: »

er.... from reading it, its completely the nuns fault

"...Sheehy was looking at the green light in the moments before the accident and had made a “failure of observation” to see Sr Power..."

Not completely. Pedestrians do stupid things. Elderly nuns do even stupider things. As I said, it was a horrible accident, and she's dead.

Ave Sodalis

Akrasia wrote: »

How do these judges get to the position they are in when they seem to lack any judgement skills

In fairness, it's Martin Nolan. He's made plenty of questionable decisions.

Jesus that's awful

The poor fella. Bad enough that he has to live with seeing the image of knocking someone down who completely ignored the red light, but he's at a financial loss on top of it?

That's bloody sickening.

Skerries

He probably thought she was a zebra crossing

Tokyo

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus that's awful

The poor fella. Bad enough that he has to live with seeing the image of knocking someone down who completely ignored the red light, but he's at a financial loss on top of it?

That's bloody sickening.

Indeed. It's not so much the money that bothers me (I'm sure the man doesn't care right now whether it's €5 or €5000), but rather it's the idea it's going to put in his head for the rest of his life - always dwelling on the fact that 'well if they fined me then maybe there was something I could have done to prevent it'. Not right to do that to a person in circumstances like that IMO.

Gongoozler

mike_ie wrote: »

If anything, the driver shouldn't have been fined €500. Poor man was obeying every rule of the road, and the nun walked straight out in front of him in complete disregard to pedestrian lights and traffic.

I'm not sure how looking at the green light in the moments before the accident was deemed to be a "failure of observation". NOT looking at the light to check if he had right of way would be a failure of observation, surely?

The failure of observation is not seeing her walking out in front of the traffic.

As a road user you have responsibility to be watchful for those things.

Tokyo

Gongoozler wrote: »

The failure of observation is not seeing her walking out in front of the traffic.

As a road user you have responsibility to be watchful for those things.

Officer: What colour was the light when you approached it?
Driver: I have no idea, I was looking at the road....
Officer: So you weren't paying attention to the relevant traffic signals then?!


Officer: What colour was the light when you approached it?
Driver: It was green - I distinctly remember looking up at it as I approached it.
Officer: So you weren't paying attention to the road in front of you then?!


It's seemingly all too easy to point the finger at the driver of the van, because he was the one with the vehicle. But the failure of observation here was the nun's - failure to observe the red pedestrian light, failure to observe the big van coming towards her, failure to observe what every other witness observed before the incident - that she was about to get killed if she didn't take care.

Drivers have a responsibility to be watchful for potential hazards. But so do pedestrians.

Ghekko

Nuns must think they are invincible. I witnessed one driving through a red light almost knocking down a school child. I stood screaming at her while she gave out to the child!! She claimed her light was green. It most definitely was not. After effing her out of it she left, the poor child was left looking green after it.

Gongoozler

Gongoozler wrote: »

The failure of observation is not seeing her walking out in front of the traffic.

As a road user you have responsibility to be watchful for those things.

The woman was a road user too and failed to take proper precautions, she failed to obey the rules of the road which resulted directly in her death.

arayess

i can't believe he is only 43.
looks loads older.

tayto lover

The article does not mention the age of the deceased nun.
I wonder was her age the cause of her walking out in front of the van?
She might have been elderly and not tuned in.

jimgoose

tayto lover wrote: »

The article does not mention the age of the deceased nun.
I wonder was her age the cause of her walking out in front of the van?
She might have been elderly and not tuned in.

It says she was 70, not that old.

Viper_JB

arayess wrote: »

i can't believe he is only 43.
looks loads older.

I'd imagine an incident like this would take a few years from you...

Tearin It Up

There should be jaywalking fines in this country.

There's fines for drivers and cyclists, why not pedestrians?

Gongoozler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The woman was a road user too and failed to take proper precautions, she failed to obey the rules of the road which resulted directly in her death.

And I'm sure everyone knows that it was her fault. No body is disputing that. my point was that road users have a responsibility to watch out for things like this. I agree they shouldn't have to but thing is they do.

One thing I hate about cycling through the city is having to watch for people walking out onto the road, but I have to.

ScumLord

That article is quite the roller coaster. Headline makes out that someone got away with a €500 fine for murdering someone. Then we find out it was an accident that was mostly the nuns fault and now we can rage about the driver being convicted over someone else mistake.

Mint Sauce

Unfortunately, the moment she stepped out, she had the right of way. I wonder was it his admission of guilt, or the above that drew the conclusion of 'failure of observation'.

Either way its a horrihle thing to live with.

Gongoozler

Gongoozler wrote: »

And I'm sure everyone knows that it was her fault. No body is disputing that. my point was that road users have a responsibility to watch out for things like this. I agree they shouldn't have to but thing is they do.

One thing I hate about cycling through the city is having to watch for people walking out onto the road, but I have to.

If everybody knows that it's her fault then the driver should not have been fined.

I agree that we need to take responsibility to observe the road we are using, of course we do - it goes without saying but it's absolutely impossible to see every single thing at all times and as such everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions so when someone else's recklessness causes an accident like this, the other party should not be blamed.

Mint Sauce

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Unfortunately, the moment she stepped out, she had the right of way.

I rarely ask anyone to back up their statements, but can you point me to legislation which makes this so?

biko

Trust the Indo to sensationalise the whole tragic accident. Blackards.

SeanW

Obviously some of ye have never encountered the cycling fraternity on boards here - they would almost certainly demand that the van driver be punished more.

BattleCorp

jimgoose wrote: »

Unfortunately this kind of thing happens now and then and it's no-one's fault, just a horrible stupid accident. Be careful out there, kids.

It's not no-one's fault. It was the nun's fault.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Unfortunately, the moment she stepped out, she had the right of way.

That's only true if she stepped onto a zebra crossing

Tefral

Deleted User wrote: »

I rarely ask anyone to back up their statements, but can you point me to legislation which makes this so?

Well you do have a duty of care to other road users. But I think this whole thing is stretching that, you have a duty of care to yourself too!

Under the 1993 roads act

Road users' duty of care.

67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—

(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,

(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

Tokyo

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Unfortunately, the moment she stepped out, she had the right of way.

That rule applies to zebra crossings, not pedestrian crossings.

Rules of the Road: Section 18 - Safe crossing places (pg 197)

jimgoose

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not no-one's fault. It was the nun's fault.

As be playsin' you, chief.

easygoing1982

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I rarely ask anyone to back up their statements, but can you point me to legislation which makes this so?

i don't know anything about legislation but I'd have to agree. As i driver i always say the pedestrian has right of way. The driver is always wrong when a pedestrian is involved.

i don't agree with it and morally and every other way the driver was not at fault but technically he was in the wrong.

It's the same when your driving along minding your own business when driver in front bangs on the breaks for no reason and you go in to the back of them. Technically it's your fault when in fact they're in fault.

Mint Sauce

mike_ie wrote: »

That rule applies to zebra crossings, not pedestrian crossings.

Rules of the Road: Section 18 - Safe crossing places (pg 197)

As a driver, you still have a responsibility towards them, regardless of the type of crossing.

Tearin It Up

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I rarely ask anyone to back up their statements, but can you point me to legislation which makes this so?

Page 121 of the rules of the road, from the rsa.ie

Right of way
You must always yield to pedestrians already crossing at a junction.

It wouldn't let me attach the PDF. But someone else posted the rules if the road.

Pedestrians have right of way.

YFlyer

Its a nightmare around the campus at Univerity of Limerick with people walking out in front of vehicles without looking.

Tearin It Up

Tearin It Up wrote: »

Page 121 of the rules of the road, from the rsa.ie

Right of way
You must always yield to pedestrians already crossing at a junction.

It wasn't a junction.

ColeTrain

That headline really is sensationalist. They could have easily went with something like 'Man fined after hitting nun who failed to observe pedestrian crossing', not as juicy though.

easygoing1982

easygoing1982 wrote: »

i don't know anything about legislation but I'd have to agree. As i driver i always say the pedestrian has right of way. The driver is always wrong when a pedestrian is involved.

i don't agree with it and morally and every other way the driver was not at fault but technically he was in the wrong.

It's the same when your driving along minding your own business when driver in front bangs on the breaks for no reason and you go in to the back of them. Technically it's your fault when in fact they're in fault.

That's an entirely different scenario.

If you keep the correct distance from the car in front you will not hit the back of it.

If someone walks out in front of you, you cannot control your stopping distance.

ohnonotgmail

[Father Jack]
Nuns! Nuns! Reverse! Reverse!
[/Father Jack]

Dravokivich

easygoing1982 wrote: »

i don't know anything about legislation but I'd have to agree. As i driver i always say the pedestrian has right of way. The driver is always wrong when a pedestrian is involved.

i don't agree with it and morally and every other way the driver was not at fault but technically he was in the wrong.

It's the same when your driving along minding your own business when driver in front bangs on the breaks for no reason and you go in to the back of them. Technically it's your fault when in fact they're in fault.

They don't. It's just a very common misconception. Another boardsie had linked me legislation which refuted it.

It's doesn't matter if you are a driver, you don't decide or have a choice in reference to Right of Way, you have to abide by it. in this circumstance it was determined by the traffic lights. From what I read there was no clear reason for the van driver to think it would be unsafe to proceed while they had green.

That's what it boils down to.

From my reading of the article, the blame towards the driver and the reason for his acknowledgement of guilt was entirely placed by the Garda who attended the scene. Surely they can't be doing that?

anncoates

Don't think it's always the case that the driver is adjudged to be in the wrong. I know somebody that knocked down and killed somebody (similar situation, they just ran out, no speeding etc) and wasn't punished AFAIK.

gramar

ColeTrain wrote: »

That headline really is sensationalist. They could have easily went with something like 'Man fined after hitting nun who failed to observe pedestrian crossing', not as juicy though.

Most Indo headlines have little bearing to what is actually in the story.

The man has been harshly treated in my opinion. If the nun had walked out 200 yards ahead of him then he has a duty of care given the time he'd have to react and take evasive action. If she walks out 10 feet ahead, he can't be held responsible as there was nothing he could have reasonably been expected to do to avoid the collision.

Ave Sodalis

YFlyer wrote: »

Its a nightmare around the campus at Univerity of Limerick with people walking out in front of vehicles without looking.

On campus, they're all zebra crossings and you've to give way. I don't walk straight out because I've seen too many people nearly be hit by drivers who don't realise this. At the same time, I've had drivers get angry at me because I hesitated and wasted a second of their time slowing down a bit more.

Tearin It Up

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It wasn't a junction.

It was a junction

http://www.thejournal.ie/road-crash-tallaght-1027086-Aug2013/

Tearin It Up

Tearin It Up wrote: »

It was a junction

http://www.thejournal.ie/road-crash-tallaght-1027086-Aug2013/

A controlled junction with pedestrian lights, it's not the same thing.