Uninsured driver hit cyclist in Dublin, fled scene gets community service

Lemming

tombliboo83 wrote: »

I believe this gets to the crux of the matter of our mistrust of the judicial system. Should a range of mandatory minimum sentences be brought in across the board, thus taking away discretion and mitigation that always comes into play in a judgement?

Having had similar conversations around the use of minimum mandatory sentencing - albeit regards different circumstances - with family & friends who are involved with the criminal justice system, and whatever else one may think about this case or the sentence handed out, you have hit the nail on the head. Judges, as I understand it, generally dislike mandatory sentences not least because it takes away their power of discretion in "their courtroom" which on the surface may seem like absurd king-of-the-castle playground mentality, but because it removes their ability to decide upon a case based on the merits (or demerits as it may be) of said case. No two cases - even where the circumstances of whatever event is under scrutiny - will ever play out identical; hence why one person gets 3 years, another gets 3 months community service sometimes. That said though, sentencing guidelines might seem to me to be a better idea rather than mandatory sentencing in an attempt to bring some level of consistency across the board.

Regardless, whatever about how out of touch the judge may be or whether they were having an off-day or whatever, if the DPP don't appeal the absurd leniency of the sentence, it will say much regards the state's view towards cyclists.

Lumen

The courts are generally very lenient unless compensating an ex minister for a passing comment on national radio.

Sticks and stones may hurt our bones but words are worth half a million.

average_runner

Lumen wrote: »

The courts are generally very lenient unless compensating an ex minister for a passing comment on national radio.

Sticks and stones may hurt our bones but words are worth half a million.

Courts also very good for giving claims to idiots

tomasrojo

There's aways a strong element of psychology in decision making, including legal judgements.

In particular, "there but for the grace of God go I" looms large in the mind of jurors and judges who drive, which is most of them.

magicbastarder

i really don't get the 'i panicked and fled' argument. is there any other context where this is tolerated?

eeeee

magicbastarder wrote: »

i really don't get the 'i panicked and fled' argument. is there any other context where this is tolerated?

Panicked, fled, was followed, but somehow didn't notice either the severity of the hit he gave the woman or the taxi following him. These severe awareness issues question his fitness to ever have a license. ffs. this case enrages me.

Wishbone Ash

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's aways a strong element of psychology in decision making, including legal judgements.

In particular, "there but for the grace of God go I" looms large in the mind of jurors and judges who drive, which is most of them.

If we were all honest, I don't think there would be too many of use who have not had a close shave while driving through our own inattention so I'd tend to agree with you. I could have killed a cyclist while driving a truck up through Drumcondra one wet Friday evening a good few years ago. I still think about it even though there was no actual collision.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i really don't get the 'i panicked and fled' argument. is there any other context where this is tolerated?

I suppose it is an instinctive action when frightened and panicked - not something someone thinks about at the time. And I say that as the victim of a hit and run while cycling. I wouldn't hold any ill will towards the young driver who struck me. She got an awful fright and simply panicked at the time. I'm not in any way excusing it just explaining it.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

If we were all honest, I don't think there would be too many of use who have not had a close shave while driving through our own inattention so I'd tend to agree with you. I could have killed a cyclist while driving a truck up through Drumcondra one wet Friday evening a good few years ago. I still think about it even though there was no actual collision.

I suppose it is an instinctive action when frightened and panicked - not something someone thinks about at the time. And I say that as the victim of a hit and run while cycling. I wouldn't hold any ill will towards the young driver who struck me. She got an awful fright and simply panicked at the time. I'm not in any way excusing it just explaining it.

Fair play to you there, I'd like to think I'd be as forgiving but I probably wouldn't, couldn't say really unless it happened to me.

A lot of initial response to scary/threatening situations is triggered automatically in the brain and chemical and hormone levels at any given time in an individual play a role.

Maybe if a person had a stick and a tiger came at them 99 times out of a hundred they'd whack it on the nose with the stick however no matter how brave the individual there will always be at least once where he/she turns and runs.

People are unaware that they are not always in control of their actions, no matter what they might think......

There's a bunch of glands in the brain and elsewhere that are almost primordial of which we know little about (again, despite thinking we do).

henryporter

After reading the physical and mental problems his victim has had to deal with since the accident I can only say that the Judge in this case seems to be totally removed from reality - hopefully neither her or any of her family will have to suffer such a tragic event. I can only suggest that anyone feeling aggrieved will write to their local TD and Charlie Flanagan to complain about the leniency which gives other imbeciles license to treat vulnerable road users with equal disregard

jimmycrackcorm

Wishbone Ash wrote:

I suppose it is an instinctive action when frightened and panicked - not something someone thinks about at the time. And I say that as the victim of a hit and run while cycling. I wouldn't hold any ill will towards the young driver who struck me. She got an awful fright and simply panicked at the time. I'm not in any way excusing it just explaining it.

I was also a victim of a bit and run when cycling. I would not hold any ill will against a driver who stops after but someone who hits another and leaves them injured on the road should not get any benefit from an excuse about being panicked.

Tenzor07

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I suppose it is an instinctive action when frightened and panicked - not something someone thinks about at the time..

Or like in this court case, where the driver didn't have any of the legal requirements for using a motor vehicle on the road, realised this and the fact that he's in serious 5h1t, so does a runner like a coward!

tomasrojo

My wife was a victim of a hit-and-run when she was a child. She's ok now, but maybe we need very harsh penalties to counteract the urge to flee the scene. In particular, if there are no other witnesses, there's a high chance it'll kill the victim.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I was also a victim of a bit and run when cycling. I would not hold any ill will against a driver who stops after but someone who hits another and leaves them injured on the road should not get any benefit from an excuse about being panicked.

I've only ever been hit with a mirror on the hand (bit sore but nothing more) but honestly there will be a least one person who is decent, caring, benevolent, kind, helpful person etc. etc. etc. who WILL flee at some stage or at some time.

Such a persons normal brain activity has shut down and they are then doing something which is anathema to them and without free will or rational thought, it happens although albeit rarely.

I don't know this case and haven't read about it so I am not saying that this occurred here, I'm just saying if you get my meaning.....

Rezident

It's things like this that convinced me that there is really only one rule of the road for a cyclist: get home safely. Everything else is subjective.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

Do we need different laws though? Perhaps. Do we need different penalties for certain crimes? I would say yes. Do we need the laws to treat behaviour on the roads more seriously? I would say definitely.

I understand the reasoning of some judges of giving less than the wanted or needed punishment so that appeals will fail. This to me shows graver issues where they cannot stand by the courage of their convictions. This said you hear legal eagles in Ireland who wouldn't touch being a judge with a barge pole, it is almost as if it is not the height of the sector as some would have you believe. Over the years, the statements from some judges have been so far beyond the way in which they are meant to function is unbelievable. John Neilan in Longford is a prime example of a judge who is not only fit to be sitting but also should have faced some time in the defendants seat.

Deleted User wrote: »

Such a persons normal brain activity has shut down and they are then doing something which is anathema to them and without free will or rational thought, it happens although albeit rarely.

I don't know this case and haven't read about it so I am not saying that this occurred here, I'm just saying if you get my meaning.....

Happened in a local petrol station where a person forgot their wallet, they shut down, locked themselves in the car and refused to respond or get out for 45 minutes. The gardai came down to explain to the driver that they were not going to get arrested. Same on the canal one day, car T boned a cyclist and drove off but parked up the road and walked back, apologising, saying they were not even sure why they went on. They never went out of sight but for the first 100m, they were going to leave. Then they obviously realised and stopped. I can forgive anyone who comes back. It is the ones who have to be chased down that need a longer mandatory sentence.

CramCycle

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Or like in this court case, where the driver didn't have any of the legal requirements for using a motor vehicle on the road, realised this and the fact that he's in serious 5h1t, so does a runner like a coward!

And got less of a punishment than a driver who has done similar but was insured, did have a full license and did not run. This really is a great advert for, run, it will all work out for you. It really does feed into the worst of our behavioral instincts, the ones that modern society is meant to help us overcome.

tomasrojo wrote: »

My wife was a victim of a hit-and-run when she was a child. She's ok now, but maybe we need very harsh penalties to counteract the urge to flee the scene. In particular, if there are no other witnesses, there's a high chance it'll kill the victim.

100%, the only mitigating factor in any of these cases should be the behaviour after the fact. if a driver, as described in the article, jumps out of there car and runs over to help the victim, calls the ambulance and confesses to everything, then a judges opinion should come into play. If on the other hand, if they run, never come back or simply show no signs of decency, then the mandatory sentence must come into play, it may be the difference between a vehicular assault charge or manslaughter if there are no witnesses.

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

I've only ever been hit with a mirror on the hand (bit sore but nothing more) but honestly there will be a least one person who is decent, caring, benevolent, kind, helpful person etc. etc. etc. who WILL flee at some stage or at some time.

Such a persons normal brain activity has shut down and they are then doing something which is anathema to them and without free will or rational thought, it happens although albeit rarely.

I don't know this case and haven't read about it so I am not saying that this occurred here, I'm just saying if you get my meaning.....

That's the point I was making but you phrased it much better.

(I should have said earlier that the Gardai informed me that the hit and run driver in my accident returned to the scene about 30 mins later. I was in the back of an ambulance at the time so didn't see her. The Gardai said she was in shock and very frightened.)

Mercian Pro

Some more details of the original case back last June here: http://www.beat102103.com/news/young-driver-panicked-collided-cyclist-drove-off/

A few new bits of information - while Mr Rattigan claimed to have seen the injured cyclist stand up before he drove off, other witnesses who looked after her stated that she was lying on the ground. A panic induced illusion perhaps? I had wondered if Mr Rattigan had handed himself in at a Garda Station after feeling some remorse but he seems to have only done so after being contacted by a Garda.

At least there are no reports of high-viz or helmets being used in his defence!

jaxxx

What the f is wrong with judges in this country... and the so-called 'justice' system as a whole for that matter.

mrcheez

Curious, what have previous convictions been like for fleeing a scene after hitting a pedestrian crossing the road, for example?

Links to previous cases if you have them please, thanks.

Lumen

mrcheez wrote: »

Curious, what have previous convictions been like for fleeing a scene after hitting a pedestrian crossing the road, for example?

Links to previous cases if you have them please, thanks.

Do your own research please, thanks!

plodder

It just shows the disgusting state of lawlessness this country is in, that something like this would be considered at the low end of the scale. Whatever about "not seeing" a cyclist and colliding with them, but to leave the scene with no regard or effort to take any responsibility for it is such a terrible message to send out. But, it's no surprise, I've seen similar accidents between cars, where the party at fault just drives off. Fake number plates make them untraceable. Fair play to the taxi driver who pursued this guy though. They aren't all bad clearly.

Tombo2001

To be honest, I dont know if cyclists should be taking this personally - as I think its more a courts issue than a cycling issue.

There was a child near us who was killed crossing a pedestrian crossing by a driver who broke the lights, was speeding / didnt brake and fled the scene; and was in an uninsured car. He was on his way to by drugs. Guy was already in prison for another crime at the time of sentence, and the judge gave him a concurrent sentence - i.e. in practical terms he was found guilty and was not given a punishment.

Ever since then I've pretty much given up personally on expecting justice from the courts - you might get it, but there's a strong chance you won't.

What an awful thing it must be to have this terrible thing happen to you - and the court system i.e. the arbiter appointed by the state - is saying yes, we know this happened to you; but for the person who did it to you......we dont see the need to give them any meaningful punishment.

One of the comments on Facebook said it all - if it was a judge he had hit, it would be a whole different story.

el tel

Would this judgement in this court set a legal precedent?

Tombo2001

el tel wrote: »

Would this judgement in this court set a legal precedent?

I'd say there is plenty of precedent for dangerous driving convictions being punished with suspended sentences and community service.

el tel

Tombo2001 wrote: »

To be honest, I dont know if cyclists should be taking this personally - as I think its more a courts issue than a cycling issue.

There was a child near us who was killed crossing a pedestrian crossing by a driver who broke the lights, was speeding / didnt brake and fled the scene; and was in an uninsured car. He was on his way to by drugs. Guy was already in prison for another crime at the time of sentence, and the judge gave him a concurrent sentence - i.e. in practical terms he was found guilty and was not given a punishment.
.

This is Ireland: the driver's only crime was speeding.

Tombo2001

el tel wrote: »

This is Ireland: the driver's only crime was speeding.

Speeding isnt a crime unless someone is standing with a speedometer in their hand as the incident happens .... afaik anyway. I dont think either bystander observation or CCTV is admissible for evidence of speeding.

mrcheez

Lumen wrote: »

Do your own research please, thanks!

So there aren't any examples? Fair enough

CramCycle

mrcheez wrote: »

So there aren't any examples? Fair enough

Google is pretty handy for this sort of thing.

magicbastarder

probably posted already - hit and run in tallaght last night, teenager in intensive care:

http://irishcycle.com/2018/02/05/teenager-in-icu-after-hit-and-run-driver-smashes-bicycle/