Suspended sentence for driver that destroyed cyclist's physical capability

boombang

I see some outrage on boards regarding drivers vs cyclists, but this one completely perplexes me.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/suspended-sentence-for-driver-as-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk-1.3073078

Driver nearly kills a woman, leaves her totally wrecked for life and isn't given time? Completely unreal sentencing.

Drivers setting off on journeys without lights is something I see a lot and I flag them/flash them if I see them at it. This shows you how dangerous it can be.

The poor woman.

Lumen

I'd imagine the insurance payout will be substantial, if it hasn't been already.

And that cost will be mostly borne by everyone except the driver.

Wishbone Ash

The piece doesn't really say if it was dark or twlight. I suspect he may have been driving with 'parking' lights on (as many older generation drivers do to 'save the battery') as it refers to lack of headlights.

Did the cyclist make a right turn across his path?

I love Sean nos

No mention of what colour the car was.

boombang

boombang wrote: »

I see some outrage on boards regarding drivers vs cyclists, but this one completely perplexes me.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/suspended-sentence-for-driver-as-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk-1.3073078

Driver nearly kills a woman, leaves her totally wrecked for life and isn't given time? Completely unreal sentencing.

Drivers setting off on journeys without lights is something I see a lot and I flag them/flash them if I see them at it. This shows you how dangerous it can be.

The poor woman.

I know her very well. I was at her wedding. Its heart breaking whats happened to her. Meanwhile yer man is still allowed drive.

jimmycrackcorm

boombang wrote:

Driver nearly kills a woman, leaves her totally wrecked for life and isn't given time? Completely unreal sentencing.

It's a typical accident not unlike others involving cars and the sentencing reflects this. The purpose is to sentence for the cause of the circumstances, not the outcome.

Plenty of other people have had all too similar accidents with a different outcome. The difference here is the scope of the cyclist injuries are more severe than normal.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The piece doesn't really say if it was dark or twlight.

It happened just before 7pm in early Feburary. It was pretty much dark.

jive

Terrible accident and feel sorry for all involved, hopefully the woman can regain some semblance of a good life. Having said that, not paying attention and operating a motor vehicle resulting in the complete eradication of someone's quality of life doesn't stack up to the sentence handed down.

It's something people do every day, drive, so they get complacent. A lack of law enforcement and lenient sentencing perpetuate the issue. In fairness to the driver, it's something most people will do at some stage without such severe consequences.

Ironic that from all talk about cyclists with no lights, 1 motor vehicle with no lights did more damage than all those cyclists ever will.

erica74

That's a pretty standard punishment in Ireland for what happened.
Obviously horrendous for the woman and her friends and family. No matter what you may think of the driver, and I'm not defending him or his driving, he didn't set out that evening to cause those injuries and he will have to live with that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
I would imagine the civil case will result in a large award to the woman, which will hopefully go some way towards giving her some quality of life.

I love Sean nos

jive wrote: »

Ironic that from all talk about cyclists with no lights, 1 motor vehicle with no lights did more damage than all those cyclists ever will.

If it wasn't a core element of the case, it probably wouldn't have been mentioned. When a number of pedestrians were killed in RTCs at the beginning of the year, none of the media reports mentioned the vehicle lights or why they were not sufficient to avoid the collision.

HivemindXX

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's a typical accident not unlike others involving cars and the sentencing reflects this. The purpose is to sentence for the cause of the circumstances, not the outcome.

Plenty of other people have had all too similar accidents with a different outcome. The difference here is the scope of the cyclist injuries are more severe than normal.

I think this is a huge problem. We have a situation where driving without your lights on is basically no problem. I imagine in most cases the worst that might happen is that a guard will give you a verbal warning. Then when this carelessness kills someone the argument is that all the driver really did was drive without his lights on, which is no big deal. Just because their inattention ruined lives doesn't make a difference, it's not the outcome that matters.

I think the suspended prison sentence is not unreasonable for this case though. The real outrage is that this driver isn't banned for a few years.

I love Sean nos

Garda Murphy said the main contributing factor to the incident was that Ms Duncan was unable to see Mr Faherty’s car because he did not have his lights on.

A strange statement. Would him not being able to see her, despite her lights, not be the main contributing factor?

Faherty (63), of Elton Walk, Ard na Greine, Dublin, pleaded guilty last February at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to one count of careless driving causing serious harm.

He got a suspended sentence, but kept his licence? Any points for leaving someone in a coma?

cython

I love Sean nos wrote: »

A strange statement. Would him not being able to see her, despite her lights, not be the main contributing factor?


He got a suspended sentence, but kept his licence? Any points for leaving someone in a coma?

Not necessarily, based on this description:

The Irish Times wrote:

Garda Keith Murphy said Ms Duncan had been cycling on the left side of the road when she decided to turn right at a junction with Greencastle Road. Both parties had a green light.

I take it from the piece that she was turning right across his path (the statement that both parties had a green light suggests they were travelling in opposite directions), and collided with the car that she couldn't see due to no illumination on same. The article also makes reference to her bike colliding with his car (admittedly this kind of description can be skewed), suggesting that she was the one who should (and presumably would) have yielded right of way, had she only been able to see the car.

I love Sean nos

cython wrote: »

I take it from the piece that she was turning right across his path (the statement that both parties had a green light suggests they were travelling in opposite directions), and collided with the car that she couldn't see due to no illumination on same. The article also makes reference to her bike colliding with his car (admittedly this kind of description can be skewed), suggesting that she was the one who should (and presumably would) have yielded right of way, had she only been able to see the car.

So she cycled into the side of his car because she couldn't see it?

Jakey Rolling

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's a typical accident not unlike others involving cars and the sentencing reflects this. The purpose is to sentence for the cause of the circumstances, not the outcome.

Plenty of other people have had all too similar accidents with a different outcome. The difference here is the scope of the cyclist injuries are more severe than normal.

+1 on this, the courts should not be sentencing depending on the outcome, unfortunate as it is, but on the severity or intention of the cause.

Take this example with 2 different outcomes:

I am distracted by kids in the back seat and end up taking a sharp bend too fast, causing my car to leave the road.

Outcome 1: I crash into a lampost, no one injured.
Outcome 2: I crash into a bus stop, killing 6 people and maiming 4 others.

In the first case, it's unlikely to go to court.
In the second case people will be calling for me to be jailed for 10 years.

Same offence (careless driving), so why not lock me up for 10 years given the first outcome?

As it happens I found myself driving around town without lights a few weeks ago - I always have the lights on auto mode but my wife had borrowed the car and switched them to off. Could have been me going to prison...

Wishbone Ash

I love Sean nos wrote: »

So she cycled into the side of his car because she couldn't see it?

I suspect, from her serious injuries sustained, she was in front of the car at the point of impact.

Wishbone Ash

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

As it happens I found myself driving around town without lights a few weeks ago...

One thing that puzzles me is why drivers driving without lights don't notice a dark dashboard.

buffalo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I suspect, from her serious sustained, she was in front of the car at the point of impact.

I'm trying to work this one out, because the headline says 'bike hit car'. Are there more details on how the collision occurred?

Jakey Rolling

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

One thing that puzzles me is why drivers driving without lights don't notice a dark dashboard.

Bright lights in the town, dashboard illumination set to low as most driving done in the pitch black countryside. Kicked myself for not noticing alright. Should I be up for a long prison sentence?

LollipopJimmy

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

One thing that puzzles me is why drivers driving without lights don't notice a dark dashboard.

More and more newer cars have lights on the dashboard even when the lights are off. It's ridiculous

cython

I love Sean nos wrote: »

So she cycled into the side of his car because she couldn't see it?

I didn't witness it, so I'm not in a position to confirm either way, nor would I be so blunt as to anyway. I was simply highlighting how the testimony offered in court, and the accepted facts in the case explained how the ability to see the cyclist could reasonably not have been a factor.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

One thing that puzzles me is why drivers driving without lights don't notice a dark dashboard.

Depends on the model of car; my own car (by default, it can be changed to be the opposite, or to be the same regardless of your lights) actually has brighter illumination with lights off than with on, as without the lights you wouldn't see the dials in daylight, while with the reduced ambient light at night you can see them perfectly with the reduced illumination

I love Sean nos

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I suspect, from her serious sustained, she was in front of the car at the point of impact.

cython wrote: »

the ability to see the cyclist could reasonably not have been a factor.

These two statements are in conflict.

jcd5971

Deleted User wrote:

I know her very well. I was at her wedding. Its heart breaking whats happened to her. Meanwhile yer man is still allowed drive.

Sorry for her obviously.
But he has had his punishment. He has been through the court system and had his sentence delivered.
As it's a suspended sentence and no loss of licence that would indicate no malice or serious misbehavior from the driver.
He also has to live with the consequences of his actions.

Again in no way playing down the victims new life outlook.
But sometimes an accident is just that.

No more gombeens

A couple of months ago a driver who drove through a red light, killed a cyclist and drove off got approximately 2 and a half years in jail .
No deterrent to dangerous driving there.

amcalester

No more gombeens wrote: »

A couple of months ago a driver who drove through a red light, killed a cyclist and drove off got approximately 2 and a half years in jail .
No deterrent to dangerous driving there.

Drove through a red lightning while breaking the speed limit.

Was he already banned from driving too?

Edited:

That driver had 3 previous driving bans and was banned at the time.

Sentence was increased on appeal by the DPP to 6 years with 2.5 years suspended.

magicbastarder

She did not impose a ban on his driving after hearing he uses his car on a daily basis

you what?

Robert Faherty (63) was driving without headlights when Grainne Duncan’s bike hit his car

again,wtf?

magicbastarder

Ms Duncan ... only became aware of her situation recently

that's incredibly sad.

wordofwarning

I hope the DPP gets involved. This is so ridiculous.

He was driving without headlights, but it was not dangerous driving? The judge did not revoke his license, as he uses his car on a daily basis. Where is the logic in that?

I have a feeling, if that guy was young and from a working class area like Ballymun or Finglas, that the Judge would have given the same sentence. A 20 year old from Finglas, if he did the same thing. It would not have been seen as a momentary lapse.

Look at this case where the guy fell asleep at wheel, but it is also unacceptable but beyond his control. The Judge decided to give him two years in jail to send out a message that it is unacceptable.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0510/787419-anthony-handley-olivia-dunne/

Yet someone drives without lights, destroys a woman's life and does not as so much get his license revoked? It is beyond ****ed up. Does the judge want people to know you can do whatever you like on the roads, as long as your excuse is good, you use your car daily and you are old with a sick relative?

Driving without license is on par with high treason, driving without light is now acceptable?

magicbastarder

wordofwarning wrote: »

Driving without license is on par with high treason, driving without light is now acceptable?

i suppose the legal difference is one is wilful, the other is accidental.
and the judge probably thinking 'whoops, i've done the same myself'.

jive

wordofwarning wrote: »

.
Driving without license is on par with high treason, driving without light is now acceptable?

I'm sure this is something most people have done at some stage, as there are traffic lights I assume the road has some kind of street lighting and it wasn't just pure darkness.

My lights are always on auto. I dropped my car in for an NCT a few months ago, they changed the lights to off. Next time I drove my car I didn't realise the lights were off for about 200m or so in a street lit area. If I ended up in court for dangerous driving I'd feel fairly hard done by tbh, even though I was totally in the wrong. Not the easiest thing to notice when for 4 years I hadn't touch the light setting on the dash.

Terrible consequences for the driver in question but he had only left his house, it could happen to anyone.

meeeeh

This is one of the best arguments for law requiring car lights on during the day. Then the switch is left 'on' constantly or people get into habit to switch lights on when sitting into the car. This was not dangerous driving because of disregard for others, it was an unintentional mistake that caused huge harm to another person.

wtlltw

meeeeh wrote: »

This is one of the best arguments for law requiring car lights on during the day. Then the switch is left 'on' constantly or people get into habit to switch lights on when sitting into the car. This was not dangerous driving because of disregard for others, it was an unintentional mistake that caused huge harm to another person.

True, but car manufacturers should make it a norm. Sadly it's an added extra on most cars, when in reality it should be already added.

bucketybuck

I'm probably in a minority but I think the punishment was appropriate.

His crime was to drive without headlights. Thats his crime. He didn't plan murder or rob anyone or menace anyone or commit fraud or any of hundreds of other heinous possible crimes, instead he forgot to put his headlights on.

And it was his only crime, because in all other aspects he drove perfectly well that day, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't drive through a red light, he didn't cause this woman to swerve in front of him, he drove exactly as he should do except for the detail that he had forgotten to put his headlights on.

If thats his crime and if that deserves prison then so do the thousands of others who make that mistake at one time or another, lock them all up. But if the crime of not turning your headlights on isn't a crime punishable by prison, then why imprison this man just because the consequences were more severe for him and for this woman than for the thousands of others for whom nothing happened?

It also must be said, his lack of lights was a major factor in this accident, but it was not the only factor, harsh as it may seem the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation.

ED E

How do you not notice your lights are off at 7PM on a february evening? Its pretty obvious once you're midway through dusk.

Tenzor07

Article and comments on the Journo: http://jrnl.ie/3375303

meeeeh

ED E wrote: »

How do you not notice your lights are off at 7PM on a february evening? Its pretty obvious once you're midway through dusk.

It can happen in well lit area.

magicbastarder

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm probably in a minority but I think the punishment was appropriate.

His crime was to drive without headlights. Thats his crime. He didn't plan murder or rob anyone or menace anyone or commit fraud or any of hundreds of other heinous possible crimes, instead he forgot to put his headlights on.

And it was his only crime, because in all other aspects he drove perfectly well that day, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't drive through a red light, he didn't cause this woman to swerve in front of him, he drove exactly as he should do except for the detail that he had forgotten to put his headlights on.

If thats his crime and if that deserves prison then so do the thousands of others who make that mistake at one time or another, lock them all up. But if the crime of not turning your headlights on isn't a crime punishable by prison, then why imprison this man just because the consequences were more severe for him and for this woman than for the thousands of others for whom nothing happened?

It also must be said, his lack of lights was a major factor in this accident, but it was not the only factor, harsh as it may seem the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation.

punishment was appropriate - that he didn't even get a sniff of a driving ban?

'he didn't plan to murder or rob anyone' etc; i very much doubt any driver who causes death or serious injury (with one exception i can think of recently) sets out to cause that harm; intent should not be confused with culpability.

'the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation'; you're saying she should have been able to see an unlit car in the dark?

I love Sean nos

bucketybuck wrote: »

And it was his only crime, because in all other aspects he drove perfectly well that day, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't drive through a red light

He was only 200m from his house. Give him a chance.

spyderski

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm probably in a minority but I think the punishment was appropriate.

His crime was to drive without headlights. Thats his crime. He didn't plan murder or rob anyone or menace anyone or commit fraud or any of hundreds of other heinous possible crimes, instead he forgot to put his headlights on.

And it was his only crime, because in all other aspects he drove perfectly well that day, he wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't drive through a red light, he didn't cause this woman to swerve in front of him, he drove exactly as he should do except for the detail that he had forgotten to put his headlights on.

If thats his crime and if that deserves prison then so do the thousands of others who make that mistake at one time or another, lock them all up. But if the crime of not turning your headlights on isn't a crime punishable by prison, then why imprison this man just because the consequences were more severe for him and for this woman than for the thousands of others for whom nothing happened?

It also must be said, his lack of lights was a major factor in this accident, but it was not the only factor, harsh as it may seem the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation.

What a complete BS argument. People are fined and banned from driving everyday for driving while drunk, even though they have not crashed or done anyone any harm, and may well not have.

The intention in that case is completely irrelevant, but the action breaks that law, and has proscribed consequences. It should be the same for this careless driver.

meeeeh

spyderski wrote: »

What a complete BS argument. People are fined and banned from driving everyday for driving while drunk, even though they have not crashed or done anyone any harm, and may well not have.

Driving drunk or even over tired is knowingly endangering others. This was a genuine mistake. That being said people not having lights on is one of my pet peeves​.

bucketybuck

magicbastarder wrote: »

'the victim was also guilty of a lack of observation'; you're saying she should have been able to see an unlit car in the dark?

Its an emotive subject but come on, there were traffic lights so I assume there were street lights, so why try to make out that it was pitch black?

If there were streetlights then even without headlights the car would have been visible to some extent, and even without headlights I would expect a cyclist to hear the car that was clearly just yards away. A lack of headlights did not render that car completely invisible to the eye and ear, and had the cyclist been fully observant before crossing the junction she would have seen and heard something coming.

I have every sympathy for this woman and wish her well, but I think the point is valid, the lack of headlights were a major factor in this happening but they were not the only factor.

spyderski wrote: »

What a complete BS argument. People are fined and banned from driving everyday for driving while drunk, even though they have not crashed or done anyone any harm, and may well not have.

And are people fined and banned everyday for forgetting to turn on their headlights? Because that was the point...

Anongeneric

erica74 wrote: »

That's a pretty standard punishment in Ireland for what happened.
Obviously horrendous for the woman and her friends and family. No matter what you may think of the driver, and I'm not defending him or his driving, he didn't set out that evening to cause those injuries and he will have to live with that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
I would imagine the civil case will result in a large award to the woman, which will hopefully go some way towards giving her some quality of life.

I'm not having a go here, this is a genuine question.
In this case the driver appears to be a fairly harmless type and hasn't been in trouble with the law.
The phrase 'he/she will have to live with it on their conscience for the rest of their lives' is frequently used with people of a similar background involved in an incident like this, and people seem to genuinely believe that this is sufficient punishment.

If he had been from say Corduff, in receipt of social welfare and fathered numerous kids with numerous mothers would people still believe that his conscience was punishment enough.

Again this is a genuine question, I would like to hear peoples opinions.

Personally I think this sentence is a disgrace, fair enough it was only carelessness but it was carelessness that has destroyed someone else's (and their family's) lives.

Damien360

The judge did not ban him on grounds of his ill father in galway. Surely the judge heard of public transport. At 63, the man is not far away from his free travel pass.

I don't agree he should get jail for careless driving, even given the outcome. He did not knowingly do this nor did he drink drive. But, he should have lost his license. I suspect his insurance premium for the coming years will make that happen anyway !

Tenzor07

bucketybuck wrote: »

If there were streetlights then even without headlights the car would have been visible to some extent, and even without headlights I would expect a cyclist to hear the car that was clearly just yards away. A lack of headlights did not render that car completely invisible to the eye and ear, and had the cyclist been fully observant before crossing the junction she would have seen and heard something coming.

I have every sympathy for this woman and wish her well,

The faux sympathy and victim blaming is strong in this one...

magicbastarder

i have driven in the dark having forgotten to turn my lights on. that was over 15 years ago; about ten years ago i got into the habit of turning on the lights no matter the lighting conditions.

however; if i had been in a collision with another road user, and the primary cause of the accident was me driving without lights, i like to think i'd have taken it on the chin and would have admitted that the accident was my fault.
would i like to think - in this hypothetical situation - that i would emerge essentially without sanction from this event (remember that a suspended sentence is *far* more of a punishment for someone in employment or seeking employment, and the motorist here is 63)? the thought is kinda disturbing. the law is predicated on people being held responsible for their actions, or inactions.

if we're willing to forgive people for forgetting to turn their lights on because hey, it can happen to anyone - we should remember that hey, it happened because we forgot the most basic element of driving during lighting up hours. and there was no sanction on the driver continuing to drive as a result.

andreoilin

I drive with my lights on no matter what time of day it is. I've had strangers knock on my window and point it out to me, it really confuses some people.

HivemindXX

Let's take an example.

Yesterday someone comes around a corner while they are looking at their phone texting. They drift across the road then they look up and jerk the wheel, swerving back on to their own side of the road and drive on their way.

Today someone comes around a corner while they are looking at their phone texting. They drift across the road then they look up and jerk the wheel, swerving back on to their own side of the road and hit and kill a pedestrian standing at the side of the road.

It seems that quite a few people on here think that the outcome is irrelevant and the punishment in both cases should be exactly the same. What should this punishment be? A few penalty points and a small fine? Is the driver just unlucky that someone happened to be standing there?

Lots of people seem to think the outcome is relevant when they are deploying the "sure there was no real harm done" defence. Hopefully nobody here is that hypocritical.

AnneFrank

Was it really necessary to put these people's names up here forever more? And to then slate a man who made a mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life. Accidents happen on the hour, and every hour. This one just happened at the wrong place, at the wrong time

bucketybuck

Tenzor07 wrote: »

The faux sympathy and victim blaming is strong in this one...

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think you have much sympathy for her based on your post.

If this is the level of discourse in here then I'll leave you to it.

Anongeneric

AnneFrank wrote: »

Was it really necessary to put these people's names up here forever more? And to then slate a man who made a mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life. Accidents happen on the hour, and every hour. This one just happened at the wrong place, at the wrong time

A poster earlier mentioned that he/she knows the victim in this accident
(just to be clear that's the woman who's life has been destroyed).

Could I please ask you you out of sympathy to that poster if nothing else please delete this post and don't post again.

magicbastarder

AnneFrank wrote: »

Was it really necessary to put these people's names up here forever more? And to then slate a man who made a mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life. Accidents happen on the hour, and every hour. This one just happened at the wrong place, at the wrong time

good god.