Minister hit car

irishrover99 · 02-01-2017 2:54pm #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0102/842220-denis-naughten/

And it makes the main headlines on RTÉ

***minister***

Hanwellian · 02-01-2017 2:55pm

There will be a raft of legislation aimed at cyclists soon!

eeguy · 02-01-2017 2:56pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0102/842220-denis-naughten/

And it makes the main headlines on RTÉ

Whats a minsister?
Also, the report says he was hit BY a car, not that he hit a car.
Also, why wouldn't it make headlines?

irishrover99 · 02-01-2017 3:00pm

Hanwellian wrote: »

There will be a raft of legislation aimed at cyclists soon!

Good to see you got my point of posting the link unlike someone else.

irishrover99 · 02-01-2017 3:03pm

eeguy wrote: »

Whats a minsister?
Also, the report says he was hit BY a car, not that he hit a car.
Also, why wouldn't it make headlines?

if I was hit by a car today and it wasn't fatal, would it have made the news?. And my apologies for the spelling mistake. I promise not to do it again

ArmaniJeanss · 02-01-2017 3:07pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

if I was hit by a car today and it wasn't fatal, would it have made the news?. And my apologies for the spelling mistake. I promise not to do it again

Its hardly unreasonable in a democracy that when the people we elect are involved in an incident that it gets reported. Its 'of interest' whereas if it was just you then it would be of no interest (no offence meant).

beauf · 02-01-2017 3:08pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

...And it makes the main headlines on RTÉ..

I would have thought that a minister in any country getting injured would be newsworthy. Not entirely sure why you think it wouldn't.

I dunno which way you meant this, that there will be anti cycling or pro cycling activity as a result. I assume the former if this was meant to be cynical. Somehow I doubt any action will be taken. Everyone seems to want to drive and be stuck in traffic everywhere.

inforfun · 02-01-2017 3:09pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

if I was hit by a car today and it wasn't fatal, would it have made the news?. And my apologies for the spelling mistake. I promise not to do it again

Are you a Minister?

c montgomery · 02-01-2017 3:10pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

if I was hit by a car today and it wasn't fatal, would it have made the news?. And my apologies for the spelling mistake. I promise not to do it again

Well no, your a nobody

Chuchote · 02-01-2017 3:35pm

What's interesting (apart from the fact that another cyclist was struck by a car, poor man, and I hope he's ok) is that it's plainly reported as his being hit by the car from behind. No "but was he wearing a helmet", no "was in collision with", no "damn cyclist probably deserved it".

Ted111 · 02-01-2017 3:45pm

minister hit by car

I hope he hit the car back.

jaykay74 · 02-01-2017 3:52pm

irishrover99 wrote:

if I was hit by a car today and it wasn't fatal, would it have made the news?

Are you trying to pass this as a logical argument? Seriously?

eeguy · 02-01-2017 3:53pm

c montgomery wrote: »

Well no, your a nobody

Maybe he's a Minsister?

irishrover99 · 02-01-2017 4:09pm

jaykay74 wrote: »

Are you trying to pass this as a logical argument? Seriously?

Yes definitely. Should this guys life be taken more seriously than anyone else's. Should he get special attention from the Gardai after an accident than me, maybe he should since I'm a nobody. I can be pretty sure some measure will be taken because of this that possibly would not have if it was me or a nobody.

eeguy · 02-01-2017 4:19pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

Yes definitely. Should this guys life be taken more seriously than anyone else's. Should he get special attention from the Gardai after an accident than me, maybe he should since I'm a nobody. I can be pretty sure some measure will be taken because of this that possibly would not have if it was me or a nobody.

Should it? No.

Will it? Yes.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2017 4:40pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

Yes definitely. Should this guys life be taken more seriously than anyone else's.

he's a public figure and politician. of course it's newsworthy in a way that you being injured is not. i'm surprised that's even worth commenting on.

beauf · 02-01-2017 4:53pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

Yes definitely. Should this guys life be taken more seriously than anyone else's. Should he get special attention from the Gardai after an accident than me, maybe he should since I'm a nobody. I can be pretty sure some measure will be taken because of this that possibly would not have if it was me or a nobody.

How did you not notice this is how the world and human nature works before now.

feargale · 02-01-2017 5:14pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

if I was hit by a car today and it wasn't fatal, would it have made the news?.

If you were found in a pub after hours and convicted accordingly would it make headlines? Two guesses as to how the minister would fare in the same circumstances.

Two guesses as to whether your passing will match Zsa Zsa Gabor's for headlines. Oh my, what an unfair world we live in. I'd say your only remedy is to start a revolution.

If you want immortality you should cycle up Mount Everest, because you won't get it in boards.ie. Otherwise get over yourself.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 02-01-2017 6:13pm

irishrover99 wrote: »

if I was hit by a car today and it wasn't fatal, would it have made the news?.

Oh stop feeling so precious about yourself.

He's a political & public figure so of course his accident is going to make the news before you or I, that's how it goes.

Looking at the RTE Six One News is appears as though he was very lucky not to have sustained more serious injuries.

I hope he makes a speedy recovery.

Beasty · 02-01-2017 6:46pm

In an attempt to take any heat out of this thread...

D'ya reckon if Min's sister married Irish Rover their first girl would be called Mini Driver?

Oh, and I'll change the thread title now

Moflojo · 02-01-2017 6:47pm

Chuchote wrote: »

What's interesting (apart from the fact that another cyclist was struck by a car, poor man, and I hope he's ok) is that it's plainly reported as his being hit by the car from behind. No "but was he wearing a helmet", no "was in collision with", no "damn cyclist probably deserved it".

The reporting could go one step further and remove the passive language of being hit "by a car". The reality is that he was hit with a car that was under the control of a driver.

I firmly believe that any collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian/cyclist should be treated as a criminal act by default and investigated as such. The driver should be arrested or cautioned and taken for breathalyser and blood tests immediately. If the driver is found to be under the influence of drugs or if any aspect of the driver's paperwork is out of order (license, tax, insurance, NCT) then the collision should be treated as GBH, manslaughter or the appropriate level of corresponding violent crime.

Bigus · 02-01-2017 6:50pm

Beasty wrote: »

In an attempt to take any heat out of this thread...

D'ya reckon if Min's sister married Irish Rover their first girl would be called Mini Driver?

Oh, and I'll change the thread title now

Minor injuries so I can joke inoffensively.

And the driver that hit him was a cyclopath

But I'm sure the community will Raleigh round.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2017 7:07pm

i'm talking your post with a giant pinch of salt.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2017 7:12pm

Moflojo wrote: »

I firmly believe that any collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian/cyclist should be treated as a criminal act by default

i can't see how this would work - you've an immediate presumption that the cause of the collision is on one side, where it could just as easily be on the other. IANAL, but i suspect this would fall on a basic premise of natural justice.
what if the accident was found to have been caused by the pedestrian?
and you're proposing using irrelevant details (tax, NCT, etc.) as a means of imposing a harsher sentence. again, i can't see thie logic or justice in this.

Odelay · 02-01-2017 7:19pm

Moflojo wrote: »

The reporting could go one step further and remove the passive language of being hit "by a car". The reality is that he was hit with a car that was under the control of a driver.

I firmly believe that any collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian/cyclist should be treated as a criminal act by default and investigated as such. The driver should be arrested or cautioned and taken for breathalyser and blood tests immediately. If the driver is found to be under the influence of drugs or if any aspect of the driver's paperwork is out of order (license, tax, insurance, NCT) then the collision should be treated as GBH, manslaughter or the appropriate level of corresponding violent crime.

Tax?? Tax out of date and the driver should be charged with GBH or manslaughter?? What world do you live in?

eeguy · 02-01-2017 7:53pm

Odelay wrote: »

Tax?? Tax out of date and the driver should be charged with GBH or manslaughter?? What world do you live in?

That's way OTT. Out of date tax or insurance doesn't make you a violent driver. Stupid maybe, but not worthy of GBH or manslaughter.

Unfortunately accidents happen. No one goes out with the express intention of hurting another, and few are that negligent that someone gets hurt as a return of their action or lack of.

I do agree that the onus is on the motorist to drive safely. They're in the more powerful vehicle and they are the one (usually) attempting to manoeuvre around the cyclist.

Moflojo · 02-01-2017 8:04pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

and you're proposing using irrelevant details (tax, NCT, etc.) as a means of imposing a harsher sentence. again, i can't see thie logic or justice in this.

I think they're relevant because they dictate whether the vehicle (and potentially the driver) should have been on the road in the first place. At the very least it suggests a basic lack of due care or responsibility by the driver. If a child accidentally shot himself with an unregistered or unlicensed firearm do you think the penalty for the firearm owner would be more harsh than if the firearm was properly licensed?

realdanbreen · 02-01-2017 8:11pm

Chuchote wrote: »

What's interesting (apart from the fact that another cyclist was struck by a car, poor man, and I hope he's ok) is that it's plainly reported as his being hit by the car from behind. No "but was he wearing a helmet", no "was in collision with", no "damn cyclist probably deserved it".

Like a lot of cyclists he probably thought the fact that he had colourful lycra and a helmet on made him somehow safe. Cycling into a low bright sun or cycling in poor conditions on public roads is asking for trouble. Common sense should prevail.

amcalester · 02-01-2017 8:20pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Like a lot of cyclists he probably thought the fact that he had colourful lycra and a helmet on made him somehow safe. Cycling into a low bright sun or cycling in poor conditions on public roads is asking for trouble. Common sense should prevail.

So it's the minister's own fault that he was hit because he may have been wearing a helmet and Lycra while cycling with the sun at his back?

Have you a source for this?

07Lapierre · 02-01-2017 8:22pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Like a lot of cyclists he probably thought the fact that he had colourful lycra and a helmet on made him somehow safe. Cycling into a low bright sun or cycling in poor conditions on public roads is asking for trouble. Common sense should prevail.

Victim blaming is alive and well eh?

Moflojo · 02-01-2017 8:23pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Like a lot of cyclists he probably thought the fact that he had colourful lycra and a helmet on made him somehow safe. Cycling into a low bright sun or cycling in poor conditions on public roads is asking for trouble. Common sense should prevail.

Shtahp.

If the conditions are poor or there's a low bright sun it's up to all road users, including drivers, to adjust their behaviour according to the conditions. If a driver is blinded by the sun they are obliged to stop, slow to a safe speed, or wear appropriate eyewear.

mal1 · 02-01-2017 8:25pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Like a lot of cyclists he probably thought the fact that he had colourful lycra and a helmet on made him somehow safe. Cycling into a low bright sun or cycling in poor conditions on public roads is asking for trouble. Common sense should prevail.

Oh, you really should explain further about these rogue cyclists asking for trouble by cycling in the direction of the sun. This is a ground breaking stuff.

realdanbreen · 02-01-2017 8:26pm

amcalester wrote: »

So it's the minister's own fault that he was hit because he may have been wearing a helmet and Lycra while cycling with the sun at his back?

Have you a source for this?

No. I suggested that cycling into a winter bright sun on a public road equates to cycling in unsuitable conditions.

07Lapierre · 02-01-2017 8:29pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

No. I suggested that cycling into a winter bright sun on a public road equates to cycling in unsuitable conditions.

Rubbish!

realdanbreen · 02-01-2017 8:30pm

Moflojo wrote: »

Shtahp.

If the conditions are poor or there's a low bright sun it's up to all road users, including drivers, to adjust their behaviour according to the conditions. If a driver is blinded by the sun they are obliged to stop, slow to a safe speed, or wear appropriate eyewear.

Agreed. However if you end up in hospital or worse as a result of a collision with a car there's not much consolation in being in the right.

Eamonnator · 02-01-2017 8:31pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

No. I suggested that cycling into a winter bright sun on a public road equates to cycling in unsuitable conditions.

Would it be OK, if cyclists tacked into the Sun from an angle, ( like sailors tack into the wind)

realdanbreen · 02-01-2017 8:33pm

Eamonnator wrote: »

Would it be OK, if cyclists tacked into the Sun from an angle, ( like sailors tack into the wind)

I guess if it keeps you out of hospital in plaster of Paris then go for it!

eeguy · 02-01-2017 8:42pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Cycling into a low bright sun or cycling in poor conditions on public roads is asking for trouble. Common sense should prevail.

I've seen some stupid comments on this site, but this is right up at the top!

"Jaysus Mick can you pick me up? I started cycling on a nice cloudy day, but the sun is out at a low angle and now I can't get back on the bike!"

Does this also apply to pedestrians too? Should we all stay away from the road when the sun is out, on the off-chance a driver is blinded and ploughs into us, since it'll be our fault for not using the ol' "common sense"?

P_1 · 02-01-2017 8:42pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

No. I suggested that cycling into a winter bright sun on a public road equates to cycling in unsuitable conditions.

Equine excrement

Chips Lovell · 02-01-2017 8:45pm

Go back and get some more driving lessons. If you can't see the road ahead of you the onus is on you to slow down to a safe speed.

Jimmy Garlic · 02-01-2017 8:49pm

Is the car alright?

magicbastarder · 02-01-2017 8:50pm

Beasty wrote: »

Oh, and I'll change the thread title now

is the new title suggesting the minister was at fault?

magicbastarder · 02-01-2017 8:54pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Cycling into a low bright sun or cycling in poor conditions on public roads is asking for trouble. Common sense should prevail.

so if there's a sufficient problem that cyclists and pedestrians cannot safely use the roads near sunrise or sunset, the answer is clear - we need to close the roads during these dangerous periods.

also worth mentioning that it's a more general issue than cycling into a low sun, it's more specifically finding yourself between that low sun and a car, regardless of the direction you are going.

we need to remove the obvious menace of car drivers from the roads in these periods.

Ryder · 02-01-2017 8:56pm

Eamonnator wrote: »

Would it be OK, if cyclists tacked into the Sun from an angle, ( like sailors tack into the wind)

Do you not do this anyway?

ED E · 02-01-2017 8:57pm

Lets hope the silver lining in all this is Ross will get a clattering from Naughtens wife to get a proper action plan regarding cycling in place.

doolox · 02-01-2017 9:00pm

Mr Naughtens late father , Liam, was also a road traffic accident victim, killed in an accident in 1996.

We all need to be very careful out on the road as it is frightening to think of two members of the same family having accidents on our roads although thankfully this event was not fatal.

Eamonnator · 02-01-2017 9:06pm

Ryder wrote: »

Do you not do this anyway?

In the heat of the moment, I forgot, that I did.
I always try and have a tailwind on the way home.

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2017 9:08pm

doolox wrote: »

Mr Naughtens late father , Liam, was also a road traffic accident victim, killed in an accident in 1996.

We all need to be very careful out on the road as it is frightening to think of two members of the same family having accidents on our roads although thankfully this event was not fatal.

THey are rarely 'accidents'.
http://crashnotaccident.com/

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2017 9:08pm

ED E wrote: »

Lets hope the silver lining in all this is Ross will get a clattering from Naughtens wife to get a proper action plan regarding cycling in place.

That's possible. But it is also possible that somebody will use this incident to push mandatory helmets or mandatory hi-vis or other nonsense diversions from the real issues that impact road safety. Be careful what you wish for.

PukkaStukka · 02-01-2017 9:15pm

According to RTE news, he's still in Portuncula hospital this evening.

Chuchote · 02-01-2017 9:20pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

No. I suggested that cycling into a winter bright sun on a public road equates to cycling in unsuitable conditions.

You're right, except that it's not cycling into a winter bright sun on a public road that's dangerous - it's driving any vehicle from moped to artic to tractor, and also walking, cycling, etc.

But perhaps this nasty crash may spur the local council to put in protected cycleways, which would mean the cars couldn't get at the cyclists in that low sun or at other times.

Minister hit car

Comments