Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

carfinder

tomasrojo wrote: »

I can guess, but I'm not looking. I've got a good idea of this person's character now.

Debate the issue not the man - if you are capable of engaging in rational debate!

mr spuckler

carfinder wrote: »

I do think that this thread is a massive echo chamber though!

You literally only have to read the below post and see how many of the people you're 'debating' with liked it in order to challenge your statement above. There's been plenty of objective commentary here and some more emotive reactions which is also understandable, if one cares to consider another point of view.

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

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

mr spuckler wrote: »

You literally only have to read the below post and see how many of the people you're 'debating' with liked it in order to challenge your statement above. There's been plenty of objective commentary here and some more emotive reactions which is also understandable, if one cares to consider another point of view.

Yeah, we know what carfinder is doing and what he is. It's not subtle.

AndrewJRenko

carfinder wrote: »

Objectively, justice was served no matter what way you phrase it

Except for the bit about the dangerous driver, speeding on the wrong side of the road around a blind bend, who killed a female cyclist and walked away free. That's the bit that suggests that justice wasn't served.



Does anyone know what it's like on Sunday mornings outside the church - same bunch of illegal parkers?

magicbastarder

folks, enough of the tit for tat. that's an order, it's not becoming and it's tedious.

Seth Brundle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does anyone know what it's like on Sunday mornings outside the church - same bunch of illegal parkers?

I haven't travelled past the church on a Sunday in some time but if it like any other church in Ireland then there'll be loads of badly & illegally parked cars outside.

Dowee

carfinder wrote: »

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!

The points raised in my post were the reported details from the case.

The assessment that an appropriate speed would have prevented the death of a young woman, is indeed opinion, but a reasonable one I would have thought. Although it all depends on one's motivations, whether or not they want to listen to a reasonable opinion.

My collective species statement was a general one (not in relation to this thread) based on how a large percentage of people view "cyclists". Your attempted connection to strawman and subsequent irony comment is most ironic.

Paddigol

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)

This will be my first and last post on the subject - the fact that you believe the victim in this case received justice says everything about the way people view their right to drive their cars as they see fit. "I hit and injured a pedestrian... I was just driving as I would any other day of the week... poor me, I'll never get over the shock".

I've no reason to believe that the driver is a decent person. That he has suffered emotionally and mentally, as any normal, decent person would, knowing that their actions resulted in the unintended death of another. That he will live uneasily with her death on his mind for the rest of his life.

But all of that is to completely miss the point, and if that point can't be seen or understood by a reading of any most basic report of the case, then I'm not going to waste my breath explaining it.

CramCycle

carfinder wrote: »

Debate the issue not the man - if you are capable of engaging in rational debate!

MOD VOICE: Same goes for you, if you dismiss facts reported in the papers as opinions again, it will be seen that you are not willing to engage in reasonable discussion. If you disagree we can continue this discussion via PM only

Rechuchote

Perhaps it should be the norm for all cycling clubs to do deals to get a bunch of front- and rear-mounted cameras wholesale and sell them to members for a reasonable price.

Perhaps convex mirrors should be mounted at those bends as a first action, and the parishioners of Rathcoffey should have some meetings and talk about how the roads could be changed and parking provided so that these bends would not be so dangerous.

If our country had a decent justice system, cameras would be mounted on such bends which could *automatically* issue fines to drivers breaking the speed limits or parking dangerously.

Surely none of us actually wants the driver to suffer harm to his mind, soul or heart; what we want is for everyone on these bends, and on others around the country, to drive safely. If drivers reading this thread don't think it's horrible that a young woman in her thirties going for a spin with her club should be killed, what if it were a child being led in to Mass by the hand?

Getting back to the road, I simply can't understand why a road like this isn't changed to eliminate the Z of bends.

Edit: sorry, I've forgotten how to make an image actually show on here.

Oh wait, I think I've remembered - you click the link then add the page it leads to? Kludgy!

Thelonious Monk

Carfinder was on a thread in current affairs about cyclists recently spewing his anti cyclist bile. I've seen people like him on facebook etc before. Have no doubt in your mind he's glad this guy got away with it and that a cyclist was killed (or an actual woman as she was). They are sickos.

Rechuchote

If a bypass like this were built in Rathcoffey, drivers who weren't attending mass wouldn't be driving around those bends.

magicbastarder

Thelonious Monk, don't post in this thread again for at least a week. any questions, PM me

magicbastarder

Rechuchote wrote: »

If a bypass like this were built in Rathcoffey, drivers who weren't attending mass wouldn't be driving around those bends.

i'd say we'd bankrupt the country if we started straightening all bad bends!

and you're probably into a debate again about where the balance lies between 'bad' roads and driver responsibility.

micar

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does anyone know what it's like on Sunday mornings outside the church - same bunch of illegal parkers?

Wonder will those attending service on Sunday refrain from parking on the road.

Wonder will AGS make a visit to address the parking issue.

Unfair decision by the mod any normal person would come to the the same conclusion from reading through that posters previous posts. He's an apologist for s*** drivers.

magicbastarder

Clear Air Turbulence, a week's holiday for you too. again, don't respond in thread, if you've any questions, PM

magicbastarder

micar wrote: »

Wonder will those attending service on Sunday refrain from parking on the road.

Wonder will AGS make a visit to address the parking issue.

huh. i was just thinking that i should tell my wife that should i ever die in similar circumstances, i want my funeral to be held in the church it happened outside, just to make my stupid ornery point.

Rechuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd say we'd bankrupt the country if we started straightening all bad bends!

and you're probably into a debate again about where the balance lies between 'bad' roads and driver responsibility.

Hey, take it easy, not *all* bad bends, but this one is kind of obvious: a terrible bend with a church on it where every Sunday or holy day of obligation people will park on the roadsides.

magicbastarder

ah yeah, that comment was made a bit flippantly, but the nugget i was trying to get at was that there are *plenty* of bends like that all around the country; many of the churches i cycle past are on junctions.
in fact, would it be safe to say that a church is more likely to be built at a junction than not?

magicbastarder

another one i often pass - not a very busy church, but all three approaches are blind, and the roads are narrow. cars typically would park on the inside of the bend on the main road - i.e. on the right in this view:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5875665,-6.3393924,3a,75y,230.11h,80.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr_8s3gfRy7udmFYG7Eq8mQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

mightyreds

micar wrote: »

Wonder will those attending service on Sunday refrain from parking on the road.

Wonder will AGS make a visit to address the parking issue.

They were there the following week after the accident taking pictures of the parked cars and the then cleared the parkers for about 3 weeks after. I havent been over on a Sunday in a while so not sure what its like now.

Rechuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah yeah, that comment was made a bit flippantly, but the nugget i was trying to get at was that there are *plenty* of bends like that all around the country; many of the churches i cycle past are on junctions.
in fact, would it be safe to say that a church is more likely to be built at a junction than not?

Probably true, but after a death like that surely it would be worth changing it.

Steoller

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah yeah, that comment was made a bit flippantly, but the nugget i was trying to get at was that there are *plenty* of bends like that all around the country; many of the churches i cycle past are on junctions.
in fact, would it be safe to say that a church is more likely to be built at a junction than not?

and also, there are plenty of perfectly straight roads in the country with fatalities to their name. The commonality is not the quality of the road.

On a personal note, the news of this verdict has left me with an absolute pit in my stomach all day. What does a driver have to do to be considered careless, much less dangerous?

mightyreds

Rechuchote wrote: »

If a bypass like this were built in Rathcoffey, drivers who weren't attending mass wouldn't be driving around those bends.

If you look at the map there is 2 near 90 degree turns, the one to the right has space for about 4 cars to go around why couldn't they just widen both at the time they widened the second one is what I'd be asking.

AndrewJRenko

micar wrote: »

Wonder will AGS make a visit to address the parking issue.

I'd make a visit myself, maybe with some photos of Tonya to hand out, while standing on the parking spots, if I thought they were still going to be there.

magicbastarder

the people who parked in those spots are not responsible for her death. what you're suggesting sounds weirdly obnoxious.

Rechuchote

The article I read described them as "illegally parked"?

JimmiesRustled

Rechuchote wrote: »

The article I read described them as "illegally parked"?

Yes. Illegally parked. Irritating and a hindrance. It's still the responsibility of the driver to drive in a safe manner. They didn't cause the driver to act in an unsafe manner, he made that decision himself.

Rechuchote

I'm not blaming them for the lady's death. But if parking is illegal, it's illegal for a reason. That is clearly a dangerous place to park.