Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,748 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,501 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    Tefral
    Registered Users Posts: 4,313 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭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)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    It's not no-one's fault. It was the nun's fault.

    As be playsin' you, chief.


  • Options
    #38
    easygoing1982
    Registered Users Posts: 341 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Mint Sauce
    Registered Users Posts: 29,294 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Tearin It Up
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 449 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #43
    ColeTrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #45
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,156 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


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


  • Options
    #46
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #47
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    Tearin It Up
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 449 ✭✭Tearin It Up


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It wasn't a junction.

    It was a junction

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


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    sup_dude wrote: »
    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.

    I don't drive myself. However, seen plenty of times people walking straight out across the road without looking. Often the drivers have to jam on the brakes.

    Seen some using the speedbumps off campus as zebra crossings :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #53
    spiralism
    Registered Users Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭spiralism


    Needs to be a Jaywalking offence in Ireland or at least more of a legal responsibility for their own safety on pedestrians.


  • Options
    #54
    brummytom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,572 ✭✭✭✭brummytom


    Sad story all round. Not quite sure why so many posters are desperate to blame the nun.. It was just an accident, they happen, unfortunately.


  • Options
    #55
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    Some good comments on the Indo FB page.


    'Hope he doesn't make a habit of it'.

    'He'd be in jail right now if he ran over a water meter'.


  • Options
    #56
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    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 kind of guy that he seems to be I'd say he would want some kind of punishment even if he was in no way at fault. The judge may have picked up on his grief and determined that a token punishment would help him.


  • Options
    #57
    Tokyo
    Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Egginacup wrote: »
    The kind of guy that he seems to be I'd say he would want some kind of punishment even if he was in no way at fault. The judge may have picked up on his grief and determined that a token punishment would help him.

    Found guilty in a court of law because he looks like he wants to feel guilty?


  • Options
    #58
    Tearin It Up
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 449 ✭✭Tearin It Up


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    A controlled junction with pedestrian lights, it's not the same thing.

    A controlled junction is not a junction???

    A junction is a junction with or without traffic lights/pedestrian lights, its a junction.

    Just because it has lights, you don't ignore the rules of the road.

    The driver must always give way to whoever has the right of way, and once a pedestrian steps out they have right of way.


  • Options
    #59
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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


    Is the word compassion absent in your vocabulary? It very possible the judge found him completely NOT-at-fault but issued a punishment to help him come to terms with what happened.

    Some people feel that if they get away scot free with something that is bitterly regrettable then they feel guilty even more and find it harder to get over it. Whereas a small bit of punishment helps with the process of atonement.

    Why are people so intolerant and dogmatic?


  • Options
    #60
    Tefral
    Registered Users Posts: 4,313 ✭✭✭Tefral


    brummytom wrote: »
    Sad story all round. Not quite sure why so many posters are desperate to blame the nun.. It was just an accident, they happen, unfortunately.

    Tragic yes, however I would hazard a guess that its because most of us drive around hoping that the law will protect us if someone else causes the accident.

    Personally speaking, even being brought to court would cause me stress. I couldn't even possibly imagine how crap id feel if I was involved in killing someone even if i wasn't to blame and then a fine on top of that....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Tefral
    Registered Users Posts: 4,313 ✭✭✭Tefral


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Is the word compassion absent in your vocabulary? It very possible the judge found him completely NOT-at-fault but issued a punishment to help him come to terms with what happened.

    Some people feel that if they get away scot free with something that is bitterly regrettable then they feel guilty even more and find it harder to get over it. Whereas a small bit of punishment helps with the process of atonement.

    Why are people so intolerant and dogmatic?

    I'm sorry but im calling this as bull****, a Judge is there to serve the laws of Ireland, not fine someone to make them feel better. If he wanted to do that he should have gave him the number of a councillor.


Advertisement