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

No jail for driver who deliberately drove through cyclist at traffic lights

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Rechuchote
    Registered Users Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭Rechuchote


    paddy no 11 wrote: »
    What's the cycle hatred about? Have sociologists looked at this? Personally think it's a jealousy thing and certain people who think it's necessary to ape everything that's English and bring it here

    It seems to be part of a complex of opinions: I've noticed that people who hate "f***ing cyclists" also hate "migrants", and often women.

    As for the court case, I'm surprised that someone who used a car as a weapon while having a temper tantrum is allowed to drive again. He'd be safer from himself on a bike.


  • Options
    #93
    bmc58
    Registered Users Posts: 2,812 ✭✭✭bmc58


    is_that_so wrote: »
    There'll just be an attachment of earnings.
    Yeah! €25 a week for the eight years.What a punishment.


  • Options
    #94
    bmc58
    Registered Users Posts: 2,812 ✭✭✭bmc58


    Rechuchote wrote: »
    It seems to be part of a complex of opinions: I've noticed that people who hate "f***ing cyclists" also hate "migrants", and often women.

    As for the court case, I'm surprised that someone who used a car as a weapon while having a temper tantrum is allowed to drive again. He'd be safer from himself on a bike.

    Be safer for us all if he was in jail for a while,time for him to mull over his actions.


  • Options
    #95
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    bmc58 wrote: »
    Be safer for us all if he was in jail for a while,time for him to mull over his actions.
    The driver or Judge Nolan?


  • Options
    #96
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,138 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    CramCycle wrote: »
    If you wanted to push it, either the Gardas Super (although they possibly told them not to pursue). or failing that GSOC.

    Thats where I am at.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,439 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    plodder wrote: »
    I don't like this idea of trying to pay off victims, though a promise of 10K in two years, isn't worth a whole lot. And six previous convictions means he's used up all his second chances in my book. It's a disgraceful sentence from the judge.


    There is a fundamental issue here. You shouldn't be able to buy justice.



    Any question of compensation should be a civil matter. This is a criminal trial. He shouldn't be able to buy his way out of it.

    mikemac2 wrote: »
    Don't the Brits have local magistrates doing much of what our district court judges do

    It isn't paid and I suppose is largely done by retired people who want to fill their time. Dunno if its better than what we have though.
    Honestly, we don't need well-meaning volunteers providing important public services. Limiting something to volunteers means effectively limiting to a 'comfortable' social class - those who can afford to volunteer, and who aren't working to put bread on the table.


  • Options
    #98
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    paddy no 11 wrote: »
    What's the cycle hatred about? Have sociologists looked at this? Personally think it's a jealousy thing and certain people who think it's necessary to ape everything that's English and bring it here
    i don't think the English angle is really relevant. it's simple psychology (uninformed opinion alert!) - it's that being in a car isolates you from the world around you, especially if you're listening to a certain (cough) 'current affairs' radio station which is portraying you as some sort of victim; but really driving a car isolates you from the effect of driving a car, and limits your ability to communicate with those around you.
    genuinely, the majority of the interactions i've had with drivers which have ended well are those where communication has been possible - so usually warm summer days where an open window (or on two occasions, a convertible car with the top down) has facilitated a little bit of explanation. the ones where a driver is shouting at you through a closed window rarely end well.


  • Options
    #99
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    There is a fundamental issue here. You shouldn't be able to buy justice.



    Any question of compensation should be a civil matter. This is a criminal trial. He shouldn't be able to buy his way out of it.

    This is the thing I find weird, I know from breaches of the SHWW Act that compensation is not (or should not be) a mitigating factor in sentencing. They are two separate things, there is the criminal case and if the other party wants, there is a civil case but the civil case is completely separate and cases have been overturned based on a judge taking compensation into account in sentencing, as it has nothing to do with a criminal case.


  • Options
    #100
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭Fian


    compensation offered to a victim is normally a mitigating factor, since it shows remorse and also goes some way to redress the harm done to the victim. Of course in an RTA there is an insurance company and a pretty straightforward avenue to obtain compensation in the civil context. I understand minor soft tissue injuries so perhaps the victim didn't bother pursuing a claim, though it seems a pretty straightforward case for punitive damages. Maybe civil case in abeyance until criminal case concluded.


  • Options
    #101
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,136 ✭✭✭plodder


    I thought I read that the victim had already received compensation from a civil action and this is in addition.

    In any case, criminal actions are supposed to be taken on behalf of society in general, not least because in this case the guy is a clear danger to others potentially in future, a point that seems to have been completely ignored by the judge.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,138 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    plodder wrote: »
    I thought I read that the victim had already received compensation from a civil action and this is in addition.

    In any case, criminal actions are supposed to be taken on behalf of society in general, not least because in this case the guy is a clear danger to others potentially in future, a point that seems to have been completely ignored by the judge.

    This is interesting as I was told by a solicitor that an insurance company won't pay compensation for injury where a driver is convicted of a traffic offence that resulted in that injury. Would be nice to know other people ls experience of this.


  • Options
    #103
    Eamonnator
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭Eamonnator


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    This is interesting as I was told by a solicitor that an insurance company won't pay compensation for injury where a driver is convicted of a traffic offence that resulted in that injury. Would be nice to know other people ls experience of this.

    In 2003, my wife and I were involved in a traffic collision. Our car was written off and we were both injured. We were 100% in the right. Insurance company paid compensation for car and our injuries. The driver of the other car was convicted of Careless Driving.
    Tbh I don't understand the logic of that solicitors statement. I reckon, if the driver is convicted of an offence, it would incentivise the insurance company to pay compensation.


  • Options
    #104
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    This is interesting as I was told by a solicitor that an insurance company won't pay compensation for injury where a driver is convicted of a traffic offence that resulted in that injury. Would be nice to know other people ls experience of this.
    Get yourself a different solicitor!


  • Options
    #105
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,138 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Get yourself a different solicitor!

    I was surprised at what they said too and I may have taken it up wrong. I will ask for clarification. Insurance companies will insert anything in their small print to avoid having to indemnify a policy holder.

    The guy is a good solicitor. Althouhj there are
    lot of poor ones, one should not be so quick to make assumptions.


  • Options
    #106
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,439 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    This is interesting as I was told by a solicitor that an insurance company won't pay compensation for injury where a driver is convicted of a traffic offence that resulted in that injury. Would be nice to know other people ls experience of this.


    I'm only guessing, but could it be that the other driver has breached their 'agreement' with their own insurer, so their own insurer is no longer liable? The liability would pass back to the driver themselves, and be very unlikely to ever be paid out.

    Fian wrote: »
    compensation offered to a victim is normally a mitigating factor, since it shows remorse and also goes some way to redress the harm done to the victim.
    Or it shows that the person has access to family money to buy their way out of justice.


  • Options
    #107
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I'm only guessing, but could it be that the other driver has breached their 'agreement' with their own insurer, so their own insurer is no longer liable? The liability would pass back to the driver themselves, and be very unlikely to ever be paid out.

    I think the situation there is that the insurer pays out to the victim but then pursues the formerly-insured for the money.


  • Options
    #108
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭Fian


    cdaly_ wrote: »
    I think the situation there is that the insurer pays out to the victim but then pursues the formerly-insured for the money.

    exactly.

    And bear in mind MIBI is there to cover people injured by an uninsured or unidentified driver, so there is cover for people even if they are injured by someone joyriding in a stolen car. Or people injured by someone riding an uninsured e-scooter for that matter.


Advertisement