Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

magicbastarder

TheChizler wrote: »

They needed reasonable doubt and the report gave it

begs the question as to whether the jury are allowed discard the testimony of the expert forensic garda witness? i assume they are, and i assume the jury's deliberations are not made available, so that couldn't be used as grounds for appeal if they had convicted, could it?

the fact that the forensics claimed she may already have fallen, when no witnesses made any claim that effect (as far as i understand anyway) would immediately rule out that evidence for me.

Dowee

Am I the only that thinks it is somewhat irrelevant if she wobbled or was lying in the road (which I seriously doubt, primarily because I personally know and have spoken to a person that was there with the group), the issue here is he was obviously driving at an inappropriate speed for the circumstances. Otherwise he would have been able to stop.

The cars parked blocking his side of the road are not a mitigating factor, yet they seem to have been considered so, he was not "forced" to drive on the wrong side of the road, he chose to and it would appear (based on testimony) he did so at an inappropriate speed for the circumstances.

The verdict in this case disgusts me.

ED E

Do any riders use a camera when on a club spin? I used to use on commuting but not really on club spins. Cams with suitable battery lifespans are available if you so wish.


Won't stop you being killed, might get a conviction....

hesker

fat bloke wrote: »

Am I the only one who reads "jury" and thinks "drivers"?

There but for the grace of God go I.

Posted here before but this article by a lawyer in the UK is a good read and speaks about this car culture and the effect it has on court cases.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html?m=1

mightyreds

Dowee wrote: »

Am I the only that thinks it is somewhat irrelevant if she wobbled or was lying in the road (which I seriously doubt, primarily because I personally know and have spoken to a person that was there with the group), the issue here is he was obviously driving at an inappropriate speed for the circumstances. Otherwise he would have been able to stop.

The cars parked blocking his side of the road are not a mitigating factor, yet they seem to have been considered so, he was not "forced" to drive on the wrong side of the road, he chose to and it would appear (based on testimony) he did so at an inappropriate speed for the circumstances.

The verdict in this case disgusts me.

Only thing I'd disagree with is the cars parked on the road, I've been up there on mass mornings to get by your forced into a single lane situation only other option is turn around, also after the bend your up hill and onto a blind spot so more than likely would not see cyclists/car till your basically right on top of each other. But as you said speed I would be crawling if I was driving at that stage for fear of coming on a car or group of cyclists.

Dowee

mightyreds wrote: »

Only thing I'd disagree with is the cars parked on the road, I've been up there on mass mornings to get by your forced into a single lane situation only other option is turn around, also after the bend your up hill and onto a blind spot so more than likely would not see cyclists/car till your basically right on top of each other. But as you said speed I would be crawling if I was driving at that stage for fear of coming on a car or group of cyclists.

Point taken, my issue is with the use of the word "forced" and the parked cars being considered a mitigating factor. They are 100% not. As you pointed out you should be driving at a crawling pace. This clearly was not the case here.

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

begs the question as to whether the jury are allowed discard the testimony of the expert forensic garda witness? i assume they are, and i assume the jury's deliberations are not made available, so that couldn't be used as grounds for appeal if they had convicted, could it?

the fact that the forensics claimed she may already have fallen, when no witnesses made any claim that effect (as far as i understand anyway) would immediately rule out that evidence for me.

She was at the back of the group, so very possible none of the cyclists saw the actual moment of impact and couldn't dispute it.

I took a spin out to Rathcoffey last night, the grim weather suited my mood just fine.

Pinch Flat

Very tragic case and a disgraceful outcome. if you ever have any doubt that Ireland is first and fore most a car dominated country, and that you can drive without impunity if you're driving careless, at excessive speed and recklessly, this verdict is it.

AndrewJRenko

buffalo wrote: »

She was at the back of the group, so very possible none of the cyclists saw the actual moment of impact and couldn't dispute it.

I took a spin out to Rathcoffey last night, the grim weather suited my mood just fine.

It's also very likely that a car coming at speed on the wrong side of the road caused the riders in front of her to wobble, swerve or brake, resulting in her own wobble. That's still down to the driver, not down to her.

Fúcks sake folks, this is insane. She went out for a Sunday morning spin and never came home, because this idiot couldn't drive safely round a bend.

tomasrojo

Yeah, if you're on the wrong side of the road you should surely, if you're "careful", at the very least drive slowly?

11-0 acquittal.

tomasrojo

He was "forced" to drive on the wrong side of the road, but she wasn't "forced" to wobble.

Weepsie

We live in a country in which someone, with a ban, can drink a litre of vodka, be coked up and kill a toddler only gets 5 years in prison. That's a pretty low bar for completely destroying a family.

We have the case of someone who in cork who should have been banned from driving forever but wasn't because she needs the car for work or whatever.

The guy who left a garda in a wheelchair by purposely reversing into him didn't serve all of the 7 years he got.


If there's no deterrent, it won't stop, and there really is no deterrent. I've twice had interactions with detectives in the last 2 years, basically trying to bully me off the road because I called out their sh!tty driving and behaviour. I've had great stuff with those i've reported stuff to, but it's complete pot luck at this stage.

Tombo2001

You'd be hard pushed to see the Jurys logic when you read this testimony.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/car-came-around-bend-dangerously-fastbefore-death-of-cyclist-tonya-mcevoy-drivers-trial-hears-40469497.html

I guess dangerously fast is nonetheless within the legal speed limit.

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You'd be hard pushed to see the Jurys logic when you read this testimony.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/car-came-around-bend-dangerously-fastbefore-death-of-cyclist-tonya-mcevoy-drivers-trial-hears-40469497.html

I guess dangerously fast is nonetheless within the legal speed limit.

Also, the speed limit doesn't really apply when you're driving on the wrong side of the road.

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You'd be hard pushed to see the Jurys logic when you read this testimony.

You can really see the strategy there: four abreast, yadda yadda

JOHN_70

The text in italics below is from the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act

A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public.

I can't understand the logic of the jury in this case at all.

If parked cars require the driver to move out over the white line then the driver should be reacting to the conditions in front of him by slowing down to crawl in a situation where visibility was reduced by the sharp bend.

BTW, being within the speed limit is not a defence to careless/dangerous driving charges.

carfinder

While it can be expected that discussions in this forum would have a natural bias in favour of cyclists, the commentary is disappointingly vindictive. It seems many here wanted the driver to be convicted, regardless of his culpability because the cyclist died. The issue has been decided by a jury and, justice has been served whether ye guys like the outcome or not. I have no doubt in my mind that the motorist did not set out to hurt anyone and the jury, having heard the evidence did not convict the motorist - a big relief for him and his family - I'd imagine it was the most stressful experience of his life and I'm glad, for him, that its all over .

a_squirrelman

carfinder wrote: »

While it can be expected that discussions in this forum would have a natural bias in favour of cyclists, the commentary is disappointingly vindictive. It seems many here wanted the driver to be convicted, regardless of his culpability because the cyclist died. The issue has been decided by a jury and, justice has been served whether ye guys like the outcome or not. I have no doubt in my mind that the motorist did not set out to hurt anyone and the jury, having heard the evidence did not convict the motorist - a big relief for him and his family - I'd imagine it was the most stressful experience of his life and I'm glad, for him, that its all over .

Ah yeah, he isn't dead though.

Weepsie

His dangerous driving is the only reason the cyclist is dead. Had he been driving to the conditions, this wouldn't have happened.

F*ck him personally. What he is going through is nothing to what Tonya McEvoy's family have endured, and the others there.

I've been on a cycle in which someone died. Thankfully it was not because of any sort of collision, but it is a horrible experience. The other 11 cyclists will have been left with scars too. My dad was also nearly killed by a drunk driver. IF you saw my dad's car, you'd wonder how anyone came out alive. a month in an induced coma and the other guy got a slap on the wrist. So again, f*ck him. His carelessness (being kind here) is the reason someone is dead.

Driving the way he did as described would see him fail a test ffs

I've no doubt that he is in some sort of anguish, but the stress of it all is a direct consequence of his actions and no more. It's an astonishing verdict. The witness statements of the passenger seem to have been given far more creedence than anything else,

tomasrojo

Yeah, boo f'in hoo for him

Lumen

carfinder wrote: »

While it can be expected that discussions in this forum would have a natural bias in favour of cyclists...I'd imagine it was the most stressful experience of his life and I'm glad, for him, that its all over .

Thanks carfinder, maybe you can find him a new car to run over his next victim with?

]

magicbastarder

carfinder wrote: »

The issue has been decided by a jury and, justice has been served whether ye guys like the outcome or not.

are you that naive to believe that the outcome of a court case always results in 'justice'?
you're satisfied with every single verdict and sentence ever handed down in a court case in ireland?

AndrewJRenko

carfinder wrote: »

While it can be expected that discussions in this forum would have a natural bias in favour of cyclists, the commentary is disappointingly vindictive. It seems many here wanted the driver to be convicted, regardless of his culpability because the cyclist died. The issue has been decided by a jury and, justice has been served whether ye guys like the outcome or not. I have no doubt in my mind that the motorist did not set out to hurt anyone and the jury, having heard the evidence did not convict the motorist - a big relief for him and his family - I'd imagine it was the most stressful experience of his life and I'm glad, for him, that its all over .

I think people wanted him convicted because he drove head on into a cyclist at speed on the wrong side of the road, and tried to use parked cars as the excuse for his dangerous driving.

This might give some understanding of the impact of the loss to Tonya's family.

https://twitter.com/NeilGerardFox/status/1398027075500613639?s=19

JimmiesRustled

carfinder wrote: »

The issue has been decided by a jury and, justice has been served whether ye guys like the outcome or not.

The fact that a jury came to a decision has no implication on justice being served or not being served.

Justice being served would be proper punishment or punishment fitting the damage/crime etc which isn't the case in slightest here.

mr spuckler

carfinder wrote: »

While it can be expected that discussions in this forum would have a natural bias in favour of cyclists, the commentary is disappointingly vindictive. It seems many here wanted the driver to be convicted, regardless of his culpability because the cyclist died. The issue has been decided by a jury and, justice has been served whether ye guys like the outcome or not. I have no doubt in my mind that the motorist did not set out to hurt anyone and the jury, having heard the evidence did not convict the motorist - a big relief for him and his family - I'd imagine it was the most stressful experience of his life and I'm glad, for him, that its all over .

It's interesting that you only express concern for the driver in your entire post. Not one mention of Tonya or her family and what they've been through. But you know, the poor driver.

RobbieMD

Lumen wrote: »

He looks traumatised alright.

What I will say is, I’ve seen plenty of photojournalists specifically try to provoke a reaction or tell a joke to a defendant outside the courts to get a good shot.

I wouldn’t view this picture as being reflective of the defendant. It’s one of the reasons when juries are empanelled, they’re told to only rely on the evidence presented before the courts and disregard outside reporting.

carfinder

JimmiesRustled wrote: »

The fact that a jury came to a decision has no implication on justice being served or not being served.

Justice being served would be proper punishment or punishment fitting the damage/crime etc which isn't the case in slightest here.

No, justice is a citizen being judged for his actions by a jury of his peers - that is what happened here and some of ye guys are having a hard time accepting that justice has, in this case, been served. I trust the judgement of a jury who were allowed to examine the evidence over a virtual lynch mob any day!

carfinder

mr spuckler wrote: »

It's interesting that you only express concern for the driver in your entire post. Not one mention of Tonya or her family and what they've been through. But you know, the poor driver.

The subject matter was the trial of the driver, so yeah, my comment related to the driver:rolleyes:

tomasrojo

carfinder wrote: »

No, justice is a citizen being judged for his actions by a jury of his peers - that is what happened here and some of ye guys are having a hard time accepting that justice has, in this case, been served. I trust the judgement of a jury who were allowed to examine the evidence over a virtual lynch mob any day!

You're a really brilliant guy and such a grown-up

magicbastarder

carfinder wrote: »

No, justice is a citizen being judged for his actions by a jury of his peers

that is due process. justice is different.