Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

carfinder

magicbastarder wrote: »

that is due process. justice is different.

No, a verdict was given - that is justice. Your pronouncement that justice is different is, just your opinion (you can play the semantics game all day but it wont change the facts)

07Lapierre

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.

Real justice would have called the drivers of the illegally parked cars to explain themselves!

Large bottle small glass

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.

The Garda evidence put impact near centre of road; I have no idea how right or wrong that is but it was the evidence of the Forensic report.

The Accused's evidence(or what he was going to say according to defence counsel) was he got back into his own side of road at impact.

The other cyclist's evidence was he was coming more into their side of road as they met him.

The Garda evidence on impact point is more consistent with his version.

The prosecuting barrister (I've no idea how good or bad he is) is stuck with that evidence. He can't ask Garda to recheck/amend report. Even if he chose not to use Garda report he would have to show it to the defence team.
The cards are really stacked in favour of an Accussed.

None of cycling group saw impact so there was no evidence to counter
*impact point
*evidence(of passenger in car) in relation to wobble or whether Deceased was upright or not at impact

Beyond reasonable doubt is a very high bar; when the prosecuting evidence has holes it is nearly impossible.

I've been involved in only a few criminal cases, but its been enough to rid me of any idealistic idea of justice.

Posters looking for appeals, for evidence to be disregarded etc would lead me to think they have no idea how criminal courts work or how many people responsible for someone's death(irrespective of circumstances) never get prosecuted.

tomasrojo

carfinder wrote: »

No, a verdict was given - that is justice. Your pronouncement that justice is different is, just your opinion (you can play the semantics game all day but it wont change the facts)

There are errors of impunity, and quite often. I don't even know what your point is at this stage.

AndrewJRenko

carfinder wrote: »

The subject matter was the trial of the driver for causing the death of a cyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend, so yeah, my comment related to the driver:rolleyes:

Just added in the few bits you omitted there.

The cyclist was Tonya McEvoy btw.

https://twitter.com/CoryHendersonG/status/1398003982543511556

CramCycle

ED E wrote: »

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....

One of our club does, I have gotten used to using one now as well, which is sad in and of itself.

I also have to say, like it or not, large bottle small glass is correct, and that is how the system works, but I certainly don't call it justice. It would be nice if the gardai started cracking down on those parking on a bend, but they probably won't. It would be nice if they handed out the driver, who I would have reasonable faith did not do anything intentionally, a load of FCNs for the multiple offences he seems not to have been charged with and he might be more careful in future or that he does lose it.

On a personal note, if it was me, whether found innocent or guilty, I don't think I would have the stomach to drive a car again. They claim time heals all wounds, but as a neighbour of mine said, that is not remotely true, you get more used to it, but it doesn't get any better, condolences to everyone who knew her.

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

Real justice would have called the drivers of the illegally parked cars to explain themselves!

That was something I was thinking about this morning, have there every been cases where there were consequences for owners of parked cars deemed to have contributed to a collision ?

I think I recall one but not confident that I'm remembering the particular case correctly or if it as just something someone posted in the near miss thread that had happened to them.

Rechuchote

I wonder has the church built a bigger car park so drivers won't park illegally along the roadside.
I wonder if the roads are to be rebuilt to get rid of that very dangerous bend.
I wonder if the DPP will appeal the verdict. Edit: reading back on the thread, I see the DPP can't do that.)

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

That was something I was thinking about this morning, have there every been cases where there were consequences for owners of parked cars deemed to have contributed to a collision ?

i don't recall any, but i don't think it'd be a good idea, would be my initial reaction.
those using the road are obliged to drive/cycle to the conditions, regardless of whether those conditions are legally warranted, for want of a better way of phrasing it.

if someone *was* driving dangerously, it'd probably allow them shirk some of the responsibility for their own actions were someone else - even they had been a dick in how they placed their car - were found to be at fault even though they themselves were not present.
i've probably not explained that well, hope you get my gist though.

magicbastarder

Rechuchote wrote: »

I wonder if the DPP will appeal the verdict.

double jeopardy applies. unless there's a major procedural issue with the first case, you're not allowed be tried for the same thing twice.

magicbastarder

Rechuchote wrote: »

I wonder has the church built a bigger car park so drivers won't park illegally along the roadside.

i would be very surprised. often churches simply won't have room to build car parks, they were built long before anyone in the congregation would have had a car, so the land was never required or acquired.

one place i know of where you've to be careful at mass time is donaghmore church near ashbourne on the swords-ratoath road. it's an 'accident' waiting to happen - lots of parking and chopping and changing at mass time, on a bend.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4939606,-6.3703198,3a,75y,299.24h,84.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suEd0heripaQiKFpnqFVW0g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuEd0heripaQiKFpnqFVW0g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D90.6746%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

carfinder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just added in the few bits you omitted there.

The cyclist was Tonya McEvoy btw.

https://twitter.com/CoryHendersonG/status/1398003982543511556

The identity or photo of the cyclist is irrelevant to the trial of the motorist and has nothing to do with the administration of justice - and I am glad of that. I didn't omit anything from my own post - pretty poor debating tactic to be honest

Rechuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would be very surprised. often churches simply won't have room to build car parks, they were built long before anyone in the congregation would have had a car, so the land was never required or acquired.

If they have any decency, local landowners could do a deal to sell land to the church, and parishioners to fund it. Hell, I'd throw a few quid into a GoFundIt for the purpose.

And the local council and the road traffic authorities really should change the layout of the roads there after a fatal crash.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rathcoffey+Catholic+Church/@53.3355069,-6.6776791,542m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48677b088888f479:0x96d5c557bfc8cfcb!8m2!3d53.3366222!4d-6.676317

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would be very surprised. often churches simply won't have room to build car parks, they were built long before anyone in the congregation would have had a car, so the land was never required or acquired.

one place i know of where you've to be careful at mass time is donaghmore church near ashbourne on the swords-ratoath road. it's an 'accident' waiting to happen - lots of parking and chopping and changing at mass time, on a bend.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4939606,-6.3703198,3a,75y,299.24h,84.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suEd0heripaQiKFpnqFVW0g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuEd0heripaQiKFpnqFVW0g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D90.6746%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

I know that church very well. Have you been to the blessing of the graves? My god, your heart would be in your mouth, with all the articulated trucks coming at you. And there would be a fair volume of traffic coming from Swords over to Ashbourne.

A near neighbour of mine was killed while jogging on that road when I was growing up, it really shook up the neighborhood.

CramCycle

Rechuchote wrote: »

I wonder has the church built a bigger car park so drivers won't park illegally along the roadside.

Doubtful but even a direction at mass asking parishioners not to park there would be the moral thing to do. Those with mobility issues to park on the church grounds and those without to park at the local national school (a few minutes walk away, 5 according to google maps which frequently overestimates time taken in regards walking or cycling)

I wonder if the roads are to be rebuilt to get rid of that very dangerous bend.

It is not the bend that is dangerous, CCTV or speed cameras with an application to get the speed reduced to the NTA would be very beneficial. Really shouldn't be driving round that bend without the cars parked there at anymore than 30kmph anyway, and that's only because if you say 20kmph, people lose their minds.

I wonder if the DPP will appeal the verdict.

They cannot afaik.

carfinder

tomasrojo wrote: »

There are errors of impunity, and quite often. I don't even know what your point is at this stage.

I think your debating tactic is to feign ignorance because you're unable to deal with the logical points I'm making. Its a known, lazy and disingenuous tactic and I expected more of you, but c'est la vie!

Tombo2001

carfinder wrote: »

The identity or photo of the cyclist is irrelevant to the trial of the motorist and has nothing to do with the administration of justice - and I am glad of that. I didn't omit anything from my own post - pretty poor debating tactic to be honest

What do you want to achieve here?

You used the word vindictive in your opening gambit - nobody is wishing revenge on the driver.

You said that the driver never set out to hurt anybody - nobody here said that he set out to hurt anybody.

You are arriving into a forum where people are clearly feeling down and upset, and you are putting the boot in......

Why?

tomasrojo

carfinder wrote: »

I think your debating tactic is to feign ignorance because you're unable to deal with the logical points I'm making. Its a known, lazy and disingenuous tactic and I expected more of you, but c'est la vie!

Yes, you're super-logical. You're one of Ireland's finest legal minds. I should know better than to parry blades with you.

Johnny Jukebox

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 .

You're absolutely right; However, I think most posters on this thread cannot reconcile how a motorist can kill a vulnerable road user and be found blameless by the state.

Personally, I hope the "most stressful experience of his life" rots his soul.

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What do you want to achieve here?

You used the word vindictive in your opening gambit - nobody is wishing revenge on the driver.

You said that the driver never set out to hurt anybody - nobody here said that he set out to hurt anybody.

You are arriving into a forum where people are clearly feeling down and upset, and you are putting the boot in......

Why?

Yes, he comes in here -- people here personally knew the deceased -- and carries on like the biggest dick at a junior freshman debating society

carfinder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, you're super-logical. You're one of Ireland's finest legal minds. I should know better than to parry blades with you.

Its ok Tomas, someday you will hopefully manage to engage in an adult conversation regarding an important topic without childishly feigning ignorance or resorting to the lowest form of wit - sarcasm - but alas, not today!

tomasrojo

carfinder wrote: »

Its ok Tomas, someday you will hopefully manage to engage in an adult conversation regarding an important topic without childishly feigning ignorance or resorting to the lowest form of wit - sarcasm - but alas, not today!

You can read my last point, if you don't like sarcasm

Dowee

carfinder wrote: »

It seems many here wanted the driver to be convicted, regardless of his culpability because the cyclist died.

I've read nothing of the sort and it certainly isn't how I feel about it. If I've missed some examples of this please show them to me.

My issue is that the evidence of the case shows:
- He was driving at an inappropriate / possible excessive speed (based on witness statements.
- The road situation required increased care and attention when navigating it due to the corner and parked cars causing an obstruction.
- He was on the wrong side of the road either wholly or partially, due to the obstructions.
- Given the above, he should have been driving at an slow speed. Max 30kmph.
- Had he been driving at that speed (and lets not forget the evidence suggests he was well over it) he would have been able to "deal with the unexpected" and this young woman would at worst have suffered an injury and at best not been hit at all.

It is for the reasons above that I feel he was culpable. I won't speak for any others but I suspect their thoughts aren't too far from mine on it.

This is a human tragedy, not a cyclist tragedy. If she had been skateboarding down the road I would feel the same way.

It hardly needs restating but people who cycle are not an ethnic group who are all of the same mindset, we also walk, drive, live normal lives etc. It's only morons that think we are some sort of collective consciousness Borg like species.

carfinder

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

You're absolutely right; However, I think most posters on this thread cannot reconcile how a motorist can kill a vulnerable road user and be found blameless by the state.

Personally, I hope the "most stressful experience of his life" rots his soul.

Pretty vindictive comment there Johnny - I hope he moves on with his life and recovers from the stress that the incident and the trial caused to him.

Seth Brundle

carfinder wrote: »

Pretty vindictive comment there Johnny - I hope he moves on with his life and recovers from the stress that the incident and the trial caused to him.

...again sympathy for him and nothing for the Tonya or her family & friends.
Says a lot about you :rolleyes:

CramCycle

carfinder wrote: »

I think your debating tactic is to feign ignorance because you're unable to deal with the logical points I'm making. Its a known, lazy and disingenuous tactic and I expected more of you, but c'est la vie!

It is not feigning ignorance, the poster is responding to your posts, you should possibly try the same rather than deflecting. Errors of impunity is an accepted thing and is often referred to by judges in cases where there hands are tied and the sentence does not fit the crime, or where technicalities get people free. In this case there appears to be no punishment whatsoever for any of the road traffic offences admitted to during the trial as part of the drivers defence. I see no reason for the driver to go to jail here unless it was intentional but there are a multitude of offences that don't seem to have even been brought up, presumably as the DPP felt that the more serious offence was the one to go for, and the others are dealt with administratively unless debated by the Gardai. The time limit for those offences to have a fine/PP/court case handed out though have potentially passed, more legal minds will know better.
Yes people are emotional, because if the driver was driving to the standard we, many of us regular drivers, know to be the legal minimum, Tonya would be here today, spinning around Enniskerry with her clubmates and having chats at Lamb Doyles.
A long story short, no matter what way you phrase it, justice was not done, although it might not even be possible to get justice in a case like this as nothing will correct what has happened. Due process was carried out, regrettably, that is not always the same as justice.

carfinder

Dowee wrote: »

I've read nothing of the sort and it certainly isn't how I feel about it. If I've missed some examples of this please show them to me.

My issues is that the evidence of the case shows:
- He was driving at an inappropriate / possible excessive speed (based on witness statements.
- The road situation required increased care and attention when navigating it due to the corner and parked cars causing an obstruction.
- He was on the wrong side of the road either wholly or partially, due to the obstructions.
- Given the above, he should have been driving at an slow speed. Max 30kmph.
- Had he been driving at that speed (and lets not forget the evidence suggests he was well over it) he would have been able to "deal with the unexpected" and this young woman would at worst have suffered an injury and at best not been hit at all.

It is for the reasons above that I feel he was culpable. I won't speak for any others but I suspect their thoughts aren't too far from mine on it.

This is a human tragedy, not a cyclist tragedy. If she had been skateboarding down the road I would feel the same way.

It hardly needs restating but people who cycle are not an ethnic group who are all of the same mindset, we also walk, drive, live normal lives etc. It's only morons that think we are some sort of collective consciousness Borg like species.

You have a very strange read of the thread in my opinion. Every "issue" you listed above is a subjective opinion that you are attempting to represent as facts but they are not. The case against this driver was unproven and the points you raise are therefore, legally, not facts. I haven't read anything on this thread suggesting that anyone thinks "we" are some sort of collective consciousness Borg like species - so well done with your strawman, the irony of your post is probably lost on you. I do think that this thread is a massive echo chamber though!

07Lapierre

I’d love to know how many of the jurors cycle on a daily basis? How many of them regularly park illegally, how many regularly exceed speed limits and how many “hate” being delayed by “bloody cyclists cycling all over the road”

carfinder

CramCycle wrote: »

It is not feigning ignorance, the poster is responding to your posts, you should possibly try the same rather than deflecting. Errors of impunity is an accepted thing and is often referred to by judges in cases where there hands are tied and the sentence does not fit the crime, or where technicalities get people free. In this case there appears to be no punishment whatsoever for any of the road traffic offences admitted to during the trial as part of the drivers defence. I see no reason for the driver to go to jail here unless it was intentional but there are a multitude of offences that don't seem to have even been brought up, presumably as the DPP felt that the more serious offence was the one to go for, and the others are dealt with administratively unless debated by the Gardai. The time limit for those offences to have a fine/PP/court case handed out though have potentially passed, more legal minds will know better.
Yes people are emotional, because if the driver was driving to the standard we, many of us regular drivers, know to be the legal minimum, Tonya would be here today, spinning around Enniskerry with her clubmates and having chats at Lamb Doyles.
A long story short, no matter what way you phrase it, justice was not done, although it might not even be possible to get justice in a case like this as nothing will correct what has happened. Due process was carried out, regrettably, that is not always the same as justice.

In your opinion, and nothing more. Objectively, justice was served no matter what way you phrase it

carfinder

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...again sympathy for him and nothing for the Tonya or her family & friends.
Says a lot about you :rolleyes:

and your ad hominen says a lot about you