Suspended sentence for killing cyclist

seamus

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

Should have been banned from driving for life, although in practical terms, what is the likelihood of ever getting insurance with a conviction of that nature on your record ?

Insurers are obliged to quote. As a country we've decided in our infinite wisdom that even if the insurers deem someone far too risky a driver to cover, that the poor crayter needs a car and is entitled to be quoted.

It'll be several thousand though at least.

BikeRacer

kub wrote: »

The cyclist RIP was cycling across an exit off a dual carriageway which has a 120 kmh limit.
As in he was going straight on while the car was exiting off the road at the exit.

A very sad accident occurred, by all means that lady should have been watching the road like a hawk.
She was not, this is something which she will always regret and have to live with.
Many have wondered what a cyclist was doing on that road in the first place.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to pull this up for the bullsh*t that it is.

I'm from the area and live just off one of the slipways going from east to west. I cycle on the dual carriageway on every spin to get home and it's by far and away the safest part of my spin. It has a 120kph limit the whole way but It also has a massive 3-4m wide hard shoulder, and as it's an N road I'm perfectly entitled to be there.

As far as I know he wasn't going across a slipway, he was in the hard shoulder when this woman drifted into it.

I do regularly see cyclists on it that do cut across the slipways which imo is sheer lunacy. If you go up the exit slipway hard shoulder, through the roundabout and down the enter slipway hard shoulder it's much,much safer.

magicbastarder

Lumen wrote: »

I agree that a lifetime driving ban is appropriate. Sure, it changes your lifestyle a bit but there are loads of people who don't drive, managing fine with public transport and even....cycling.

she can sell her house and move somewhere she's less dependent on a car.

actually, a friend of mine *did* sell his house after being involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian. there was no blame attached -the victims friends, who witnessed the incident, said he was not to blame at all, but he sold his house and moved because he did not want to have to drive along that road again.

Macy0161

BikeRacer wrote: »

I do regularly see cyclists on it that do cut across the slipways which imo is sheer lunacy. If you go up the exit slipway hard shoulder, through the roundabout and down the enter slipway hard shoulder it's much,much safer.

I don't know the road in question, but I've had more issues at roundabouts than crossing slips when carrying on on a dual carriage way (which I do regularly).

Tigger

kub wrote: »

The cyclist RIP was cycling across an exit off a dual carriageway which has a 120 kmh limit.
As in he was going straight on while the car was exiting off the road at the exit.

A very sad accident occurred, by all means that lady should have been watching the road like a hawk.
She was not, this is something which she will always regret and have to live with.
Many have wondered what a cyclist was doing on that road in the first place.

Is it that stupid road that’s a dual carriage way but has a 120kmph limit
It should have nn classed a motorway and then the cyclist wouldn’t be there
The people who allowed it are also negligent in my opinion
As far as I recollect the road was built and speed limited as a motorway but in order for slow vehicles to be allowed use it it isn’t a motorway with the stipulations that would apply.

ford2600

This idea that it was a moment's inattention is nonsense.

If she was traveling at 120km/h limit (33m/s) and driving on an effective motorway she will have a sight distance of traffic somewhere in the region of 300m to a 1000m plus. If a moments (lets call it 1 second) caused accident, wtf was she doing for the previous 9 seconds (minimum)?

Bad habits(maybe driving to close to car in front), poor observation put her in a position where a look behind proved fatal for the cyclist.

The psychology at play here is significant; it's easy to get behind the jailing of a drunk driver/reckless speed/dangerous defective car but when its just a "moments inattention" sure it could be any of us; that goes for Gardaí, lawyers and judge. The Garda's evidence was a "momentary lapse of concentration with catastrophic consequences" which is nonsense; she never saw the cyclist. On a motorway grade road in broad daylight.

Thud

Peatys wrote: »

As for a custodial sentence being a deterrent to other drivers, not killing someone is a greater deterrent.

is it though? i doubt any close pass drivers think "hey i could possibly kill this cyclist by passing close to them"
I think any drivers that have killed someone will obviously be devastated after the fact but highly doubt it comes into the thoughts of most drivers.

Macy0161

Thud wrote: »

is it though? i doubt any close pass drivers think "hey i could possibly kill this cyclist by passing close to them"
I think any drivers that have killed someone will obviously be devastated after the fact but highly doubt it comes into the thoughts of most drivers.

I'd say it depends.

When I'm out with my children cycling on the roads, we get plenty of space from overtaking cars. When I'm solo, or a group of adults on the other hand. My conclusion is that drivers think about the consequences of killing a child, but don't think or care about the consequences of killing their dad.

And the courts effectively back that view with sentences like this.

schemingbohemia

It was interesting that the Judge essentially ignored the Garda evidence by saying it was at the higher end of carelessness. A longer suspended sentence and a 10 year driving ban would have been more appropriate.
It's important to note that Judges will have in mind any appeal that may be made and there is absolutely no chance of a lifetime driving ban being upheld on appeal.

seamus

Thud wrote: »

is it though? i doubt any close pass drivers think "hey i could possibly kill this cyclist by passing close to them"

They're also not going to think, "Hey, I could go to jail by passing close to them".

People make mistakes because they assume they won't. This is why penalties for speeding and drink-driving tend to be more effective than penalties for crashing. Because you don't have to crash or "make a mistake" to be penalised for your poor driving.

You go on the road under the assumption that you won't crash. So specific penalties for crashing are not going to stop people from crashing.

This is why we should continue to turn the screws on punishment for poor driving and making it easier and easier to lose your licence and harder and harder to obtain one. Dialling up the penalties for people who crash isn't really going to stop people from crashing. We need to dial up the penalties for behaviour that causes crashes.

magicbastarder

ireland has locked itself into a culture of car dependency which will take decades to break, even if the willpower was there to do so.
the spread of rural populations - people not willing to live in a village, but wanting to live a mile outside it just because they can - means that nothing will change in the countryside for decades to come. and there's no sign of any serious budget being made available to local authorities in urban areas to actually redesign infrastructure.

Tenzor07

magicbastarder wrote: »

ireland has locked itself into a culture of car dependency which will take decades to break, even if the willpower was there to do so.the spread of rural populations - people not willing to live in a village, but wanting to live a mile outside it just because they can - means that nothing will change in the countryside for decades to come. and there's no sign of any serious budget being made available to local authorities in urban areas to actually redesign infrastructure.

True! No MPD law still, no serious levels of sentencing for death by careless/dangerous driver, little or no cycle infra... “People are risking their lives every time they leave their homes,” said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/unnecessary-deaths-caused-by-low-spend-on-cycling-infrastructure-1.2837200

Thud

there's probably a few hundred people out there in Ireland who have killed a cyclist, unless you know one you will likely never hear from them out of respect for the victims family/stress/guilt, i think that group (if victims permission was given) could send a very strong message to drivers..."i've killed a cyclist..it ruined my life...don't join my club"

this woman tells her story of an accidental death but took 40yrs
http://www.bbc.com/news/stories-42309681

I think its such an unlikely event that most drivers probably don't ever consider it

ted1

Addle wrote: »

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

all she need do if she kills a cyclist is to pout, look sad in the courtroom.

Her life is devastated.

In what way , let’s put it in context, my kids are devastated when Justin Beiber gets a new girlfriend.

mr spuckler

Macy0161 wrote: »

When I'm out with my children cycling on the roads, we get plenty of space from overtaking cars. When I'm solo, or a group of adults on the other hand. My conclusion is that drivers think about the consequences of killing a child, but don't think or care about the consequences of killing their dad.

I've said this here before. there's a very noticeable difference in the amount of space I'm given when I have my son in the trailer behind me versus when I cycle solo.

selwyn froggitt

Killing by driving has been something treated so leniently for so long in this country, this is just another example.
This over lenient sentence really doesn't send out much of a deterent does it.

This suspended sentence and only a 5 year driving ban is a bloody disgraceful decision in my opinion.

Like many other posters on here, I think a lifetime driving ban would not be unreasonable and also how about some useful number of hours of community service for the rest of her natural life, every month for directly causing the death of this cyclist

Was She even handed down a fine?, why not strip her of her assets and give the money to that poor man’s Widow and Daughter.

CramCycle

DELETED

buffalo

This one did get a custodial sentence, but only a four year driving ban!?

Judge Martin Nolan sentenced Cayabyab to two years in jail. He said he was doing so with some regret, as Cayabyab, who is originally from the Philippines, seemed to be a good man who had genuine remorse and had learned his lesson.

...

The judge said anyone who takes alcohol and drives, takes a huge risk of incarceration and of harming other road users.

He said Cayabyab may not have expected pedestrians to be on the road at that time, but anyone driving in a built up area should always expect pedestrians and he was going much too fast.

The judge also disqualified him from driving for four years. He said he felt Cayabyab was a man with a conscience.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0425/957191-drink-drive-clonsilla/

fritzelly

Didn't have much of a conscience when he got into the car whilst drunk

Stepping Stone

BikeRacer wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to pull this up for the bullsh*t that it is.

I'm from the area and live just off one of the slipways going from east to west. I cycle on the dual carriageway on every spin to get home and it's by far and away the safest part of my spin. It has a 120kph limit the whole way but It also has a massive 3-4m wide hard shoulder, and as it's an N road I'm perfectly entitled to be there.

As far as I know he wasn't going across a slipway, he was in the hard shoulder when this woman drifted into it.

I do regularly see cyclists on it that do cut across the slipways which imo is sheer lunacy. If you go up the exit slipway hard shoulder, through the roundabout and down the enter slipway hard shoulder it's much,much safer.

The issue with that road is that it was exclusively designed for vehicles and not cyclists. To clarify, it was designed to motorway standards and is not in reality a safe place to be in the hard shoulder (pedestrian, cyclist or in a vehicle). It is as safe as any motorway hard shoulder.

I know people who cycle it a lot and use it for training as it is relatively straight and has a hard shoulder.

I am not attaching any blame to the victim here, absolutely none but I do think that the authorities (council & NRA) have a case to answer for not reviewing the activities on this stretch of road, like cycling and implementing appropriate bylaws to prevent it. Realistically, they are the experts, not the people who are on it daily and the buck should stop with them. Also not absolving the driver of any responsibility here, I just think that the authorities have a case to answer.

When I travelled the N25 east after the tunnel, you would occasionally find the Gardaí preventing cyclists (rarely) from cycling up and merging. If you know the road, you know that there is no hard shoulder and it is insanely fast, especially at rush hour. Again, this kind of thing needs to be reviewed. The experts are the ones who should foresee danger where the rest of us don’t.

Kaisr Sose

JPCN1 wrote: »

Custodial sentences should be reserved for repeat or violent offenders.

Not when it comes to the RTA. As a vulnerable road user. I don’t want to be sharing the roads repeat traffic offenders. As this episode shows, some traffic behaviors/offences and ensuing outcomes, are not things that should be left happen again and again....

The judiciary need to wake up to that. There is no plan B for a life lost.

CramCycle

Stepping Stone wrote: »

The issue with that road is that it was exclusively designed for vehicles and not cyclists. To clarify, it was designed to motorway standards and is not in reality a safe place to be in the hard shoulder (pedestrian, cyclist or in a vehicle). It is as safe as any motorway hard shoulder.

I know people who cycle it a lot and use it for training as it is relatively straight and has a hard shoulder.

I am not attaching any blame to the victim here, absolutely none but I do think that the authorities (council & NRA) have a case to answer for not reviewing the activities on this stretch of road, like cycling and implementing appropriate bylaws to prevent it. Realistically, they are the experts, not the people who are on it daily and the buck should stop with them. Also not absolving the driver of any responsibility here, I just think that the authorities have a case to answer.

When I travelled the N25 east after the tunnel, you would occasionally find the Gardareventing cyclists (rarely) from cycling up and merging. If you know the road, you know that there is no hard shoulder and it is insanely fast, especially at rush hour. Again, this kind of thing needs to be reviewed. The experts are the ones who should foresee danger where the rest of us don’t.

This again goes back to the campaigns for cycling infrastructure. UIt was demoted to an N road because there were not reasonable alternatives for other road users who cannot safely use a motorway. For some reason though, rather than building this infrastructure for the most vulnerable, and then classifying it a motorway (or more sensibly, doing it at the time you built the motorway). I agree with you, while the driver is 100% at fault here, there is blame in excess of the 100% of this accident, relating to all possible accidents on that road that falls at the feet of the NRA or county councils. If they could not build the supporting infrastructure, they should have dialled down the speed limit and knowing that it was a road that people would like try to pass the speed limit, put permanent average speed cameras on every entrance/exit and be done with it.

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Not when it comes to the RTA. As a vulnerable road user. I don’t want to be sharing the roads repeat traffic offenders. As this episode shows, some traffic behaviors/offences and ensuing outcomes, are not things that should be left happen again and again....

The judiciary need to wake up to that. There is no plan B for a life lost.

+1 there are loads of repeat offenders who have never been caught and in much the same way tax crimes that are less likely to be caught have higher fines associated to reduce risk, so should the same be for motoring offences that can and do result in death.

droidus

This is illuminating

https://twitter.com/NorwichCyclist/status/989866203366723586

TheBoyConor

I agree with the Judge's decision to give her a suspended sentence for the following reasons:
- she is not a danger to society in the sense that she is not a violent criminal nor a sex offender likely to reoffend.
- she plead guilty and expressed remorse for her mistake that had terrible consequences.
- her small children would be deprived of their mother which would affect them negatively both in terms of the lack of her presence and also because they will hold the stigma of being the children whose mother was in prison. I know people will say that Donal's children are without a father, fair enough, but that doesn't make it OK to deprive another family of a mother. You would be punishing the children for something their mother did by imprisoning her.
This could affect their development.
There is the possibility that the children could later sue the state for damages if they can show that the imprisonment caused them developmental harm.

The driving ban of around 5 years is right in my view. We must remember that she has small children that need to go to school, extracurricular activties etc. As above, taking away her licence for too long would cause a profound negative impact on the lives of the children, which is not fair. Realistically, it is likely that she will appeal the ban at a later date and it will be commuted.

I know people will say "oh but if it was a man had done this the outcome would be different, even if he were a father". That may well be the case but to be fair i , a man, think it is justifiable that a woman with young children would get face less severe penalties because, lets be real here, mothers undertake the vast majority of childcare duties and judges know this and their sentence takes this and any possible impacts on the children into account.

The point is that for a mother of young children, any judicial sentence or penalty in a case like this is not solely upon the mother, it is also going to heavily impact upon the young children too.

A mother should never be imprisoned unless she is a violent offender or otherwise a danger to public safety with a high risk of re-offending.

magicbastarder

TheBoyConor wrote: »

There is the possibility that the children could later sue the state for damages if they can show that the imprisonment caused them developmental harm.

i would dearly love to know if there's any precedent for this.

splinter65

boombang wrote: »

This man's death was caused by her inattention. I think you can and should enforce a sense of responsibility.

Ultimately it’s her kids who would be punished by sending her to prison.
I can’t understand why she was doing such a stupid stupid thing in the car.
I cannot take my hands of the steering wheel or my eyes of the road for a millisecond because I’m having to concentrate so hard.

The child of the man killed will be grand without their dad for the rest of their life won't they.

TheBoyConor

Of course it's awful that those kids are without a father. It's terrible.

But taking a mother away from her children, even temporarily by prison is going to do nothing to change that. How would those Donal's childrens lives be made any better or their suffering lessened by taking another mother from her small children?

It's an awful situation, very very sad. But two wrongs don't make a right.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would dearly love to know if there's any precedent for this.

There might not be precedent but lets examine it.

The state and the court have a duty of care to the children of the accused to ensure that they are protected and come to no harm. They must ensure that the sentence does not unnecessarily impact on the innocent small children.

If the court impose a sentence that ends up negatively affecting the children in a tangible way, lets say they develop anxiety or behavioral issues by having their mother taken away. So, they've suffered injury/loss.
I think a strong argument could be made to say that the state neglected their duty of care by imposing a sentence that negatively impacted on the children in a way that was unnecessary when there were alternatives available and as a result the children suffered harm.

But do the courts have an actual duty of care to the children in a case like this? Or is their remit solely to the victim and the accused?

Was She even handed down a fine?, why not strip her of her assets and give the money to that poor man’s Widow and Daughter.

No no no. Because stripping her of her assets would also have a profound negative impact on her small children. They would be severly disadvantaged by for example, not being able to attend third level education as planned because of a lack of funds.
In any case, the victims family will probably have received very very significant sum of compensation from the woman's car insurance policy.

boombang

I don't know how old her kids are, but I would not have a problem in her having a sentence for 3 months deferred for 5 years or so. I don't think having young children should be a literal get out of jail free card.

TheBoyConor

I still think two wrongs don't make a right.

Separating a mother from her children is a very very serious thing and in my mind, is not acceptable unless she is a danger to her children.

I think community service would be appropriate. At least in that way, something good can come of it all. Perhaps she should be made go around to TY and 5th, 6th year students in schools and explain what happened and how important it is to be attentive on the road. Especially since young people are glued to their phones, often while driving.