TD Ciaran Cannon hit by SUV, suffers serious injury

Squidgy Black

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360939#Comment_119360939

No the DPP didn’t say that the driver was in the right, they said they didn’t have sufficient evidence to prosecute. Completely different to saying the driver was innocent and in the right.

Do you think the cyclist just teleported into the space he was turning into? Ignorance doesn’t grant the driver immunity, that’s like me turning right in my car across your path and saying well you should’ve seen me turning so why didn’t you stop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360892#Comment_119360892

Eh? Nonsense

Think of it this way, instead of a cyclist and a bike lane, think of it as a dual carriageway and a car coming up the inside lane.

Do you still think the driver crossing the lanes would be in the right? Of course not

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360976#Comment_119360976

It’s not a dual carriageway so less of the hypotheticals please…

but as per your usual schtick on this subject no cyclist evidently has any role to play in road safety…

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360892#Comment_119360892

Driving by braille. You couldn't make it up.

DPP and Garda turned a blind eye maybe.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360990#Comment_119360990

Legally speaking, the same principles apply

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361039#Comment_119361039

again, cyclist slows down to check if a car who may not be of the ability to view them is turning, which is a fact they’d be cognisant of this is avoided..

how could the Garda turn a blind eye, they referred it to the DPP whom would have reasonably believed on the evidence that the driver wasn’t as fault.

Flinty997

They ignore atrocious driving all day long everywhere. Nothing new about this. If it wasn't a TD they might not even have noted it all. Some might consider the lack of enforcement tacit approval for abysmal driving.

What you saying is at every junction, and driveway as a driver you should slow down in case another driver cuts across you without looking and without warning. Because if the driver doesn't slow down, they might as well have caused the accident.

Flinty997

Basically this...

A taxi driver speeds through a red light without even looking
And the passenger says, "whoa, what are you doing?! That was a red!"
The driver replies, "don't worry about it. My cousin, he does it all the time."


The passenger sits back until the driver blows through another red. He practically leaps out of his seat,
 "what are you doing?! You'll get us killed!"
The driver waves him off, "nonsense. My cousin, he does it all the time."


Then they come to a green light and the driver slams on the brakes and creeps into the intersection before taking off again. 
Now the passenger is livid.
"What was that?! That light was green!"
The driver nods and then shrugs before replying.
"My cousin. He mighta been coming."

Formatting and quoting is so broken on this heap of a site.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361065#Comment_119361065

It's not that they don't believe driver is not at fault, it's that it might not meet the threshold to get a successful prosecution.

If he'd hit someone running across the junction though, it would be treated differently

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361183#Comment_119361183

well the video footage is clear. So the evidence I’d guess is sufficient to decide to prosecute or not.

they’ve decided not to…

im on that bike I’m slowing down before that turn and stopping if required.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360892#Comment_119360892

The driver was in the lane and turning before the other car stopped. The driver was all kinds of wrong.

Why is the standard of being supremely cautious applied to cannon and not to the person in the massive suv who has essentialy bullied the car ahead in yielding.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361219#Comment_119361219

And if you're in the car your blindly making a turn or are we applying double standards to different road users?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361219#Comment_119361219

Not clear if you're blind

magicbastarder

this is not difficult. if you hit oncoming traffic while executing a right hand turn, you're at fault.

i would bet my bottom dollar the insurance company agreed with this, and paid out.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357933#Comment_119357933

A cyclist on the road is not equivalent to a worker in the workplace. It would be equivalent to a member of the public in the workplace.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357858#Comment_119357858

I've tried and failed on that channel. They are very selective about which road deaths involving commercial vehicles they choose to investigate. They refuse to take third party reports of incidents. They won't give you any feedback about their response to any incident you do report. They will try to pass off any road safety issue to the Gardai, though they have no provision in law to support this approac.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360176#Comment_119360176

Maybe it was because the person making the decision took a 'it could have been me' approach that we see often voiced in court or in the media in cases like this - relating to the driver and solely to the driver.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357996#Comment_119357996

There is no provision in law to suggest that the HSA defer to the Gardai on safety matters. Gardai have specific duties on traffic laws. HSA have specific duties on safe systems of work. There is an overlap between the two, but that doesn't let HSA off the hook. The roadway absolutely IS a workplace if you look at the definitions in the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act. The HSA have no role in controlling who has access to a roadway.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358134#Comment_119358134

While I'd love to see the fleet manager being prosecuted too, there is a good reason for the primary responsibility being on the driver. They need to ensure their vehicle is safe, and they need to refuse to take it out if it is not safe.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360495#Comment_119360495

If you're still using 'accident' terminology, you're definitely asking the wrong question.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361220#Comment_119361220

He hasn’t bullied anyone, anytime I’m driving I ALWAYS leave a junction clear in case a driver or indeed cyclist wants to turn. It’s only a grade A **** who would block it. The DPP rightly don’t prosecute.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361536#Comment_119361536

The old drive "at" someone playing chicken and see who yields right of way.

Well thats never going to end badly is it...

Weepsie

The car turning was already over the line and started turning.

The car in front was moving. The car that stopped wouldn't have been blocking. He should have made progress and might have failed his test for failing to do so.

(8) A driver approaching a road junction and intending to turn right at the junction shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching on the same road from the opposite direction and intending to proceed straight through the junction.

Just because the dpp didn't prosecute, it doesn't mean the driver didn't do anything wrong (they did). We hear all the time of criminal behaviour on our roads being dismissed and this is had set in

Kaisr Sose

That was a very poor decision by the DPP. There was a clear onus on the driver to execute the right turn with caution. I am delighted to see Ciarán is back on the bike again.

Decisions like this set things back in terms of road safety and the willingness of AGS to investigate (though they clearly had to here due to injury arising).

What is abundantly clear is we have no robust system to protect vulnerable road users in law, and the law enforcers are willingly turning a blind eye to poor driving and parking.

Until we have a system change, any campaign for awareness or speed will be just for optics and be totally pointless, which they are. Public convictions though the courts will change behaviour much faster than TV and radio adverts.

There's a dashcam channel I watch occasionally on youtube. It's a bit better than the usual ones of cars who speed into situations or immediately sound the horn instead of lifting the foot or braking and reports the outcomes of submitting reports and videos of **** driving and in some cases cycling. I think a similar 1984 style snitch system here and a mandatory camera in cars and more importantly traffic lights and average speed cameras would do a lot to adjust the behaviour. 3 times in the last few weeks ( 2 in the car, once on the bike) I've had cars blast blast me on the right when I dared stop on an orange/red and thats just the tip of the iceberg of the poor driving I've seen and we've all seen I'm sure.

Flinty997

https://irishcycle.com/2021/06/23/government-minister-dismissive-of-idea-to-upload-video-evidence-of-traffic-crime/

Thus far it's been difficult to get video accepted

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361950#Comment_119361950

Yeah, annoying when you see the system in place in the UK over several constabularies.

They even use some of the footage on channel 5 on a Monday evening at 8pm on that road wars type show

Kaisr Sose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361950#Comment_119361950

We must have a different version of GDPR here than in say Germany or France where where they have all types of tech to monitor traffic in public spaces.

I just don't get this right to privacy in a public space excuse. The courts have already ruled on cctv gathered in a public space, even if illegally recorded, is still evidence. The judges in the Fat Freddy Thompson case ruled the claim of privacy in public was absurd.

The Gardaí arrest lots of people based on cctv... They even ask the public for it and don't care how it was created as long as it helps the investigation and gathering of evidence.

#bananarepublic

Macy0161

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362002#Comment_119362002

This is the big thing, they're not interested in enforcing Road Traffic Laws via video evidence, but as soon as it's a "real" crime they put out a request for dashcam and camera footage.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119361950#Comment_119361950

A video is not evidence under Irish law apparently. You as a witness will sign a statement in front of a garda which is the evidence. The video will support your statement. This is why the portal hasnt happened. The laws on evidence etc need to change.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362002#Comment_119362002

It has nothing at all to do with GDPR.

Kaisr Sose

I am not sure what you refer to as having nothing to do with GDPR. Clearly Ciarán's incident and decision by DPP did not, and I was not saying it had.

CCTV as evidence is challenged as admissible on privacy grounds.Under the Data Protection Act, all CCTV operators are obliged to be registered. CCTV is regarded as personal data under GDPR.

GDPR is cited when CCTV is being used or gathered in evidence. The use of ANPR on roads was also challenged by the DPC under GDPR and ruled to be personally idifiable data.

Meanwhile other countries have no issue with such systems used to monitor traffic or to aid police in the detection of crime or road traffic offences.

In my opinion, it is time we moved on and deployed all technology available to assist AGS, who don't have the resources to keep policing the old fashioned way.

Seth Brundle

CCTV as evidence is challenged as admissible on privacy grounds.Under the Data Protection Act, all CCTV operators are obliged to be registered. CCTV is regarded as personal data under GDPR.

I'm not sure if CCTV is regarded as personal data but its contents may be (depending on what they capture). As for mandatory registration, there is a household exclusion under the act. I have CCTV in my car and on my bike - I'm not expected to be registered with any authority.

GDPR is cited when CCTV is being used or gathered in evidence. The use of ANPR on roads was also challenged by the DPC under GDPR and ruled to be personally idifiable data.

To be fair, GDPR is cited for loads of things, most have nothing to do with GDPR.

The ANPR case was more to do with mass surveillance of the public by AGS without just grounds to do so along with how that personal data was managed (e.g. gardai weren't stopped bringing smart phones into CCTV monitoring rooms).

Meanwhile other countries have no issue with such systems used to monitor traffic or to aid police in the detection of crime or road traffic offences.

We don't really either. Our biggest issue is in how the video evidence is treated. That needs to change.

In my opinion, it is time we moved on and deployed all technology available to assist AGS, who don't have the resources to keep policing the old fashioned way.

Oh I completely agree. The two biggest hurdles are the Dept of Justice not wanting to relinquish any control over the justice system and AGS simply not wanting to be bothered.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358034#Comment_119358034

"Most" is doubtful, but the only voice that matters, the DPP, disagrees with you.

magicbastarder

the DPP are not disagreeing with him, though. nor are they agreeing with him. the DPP have simply decided to not pursue it.

Large bottle small glass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119360553#Comment_119360553

I'll repeat it again for you; IT IS SH!T DRIVING. There is no reasonable person arguing anything else.

My point is about risk reduction; as a motorist/pedestrian I will routinely alert my behaviour (checking, slowing etc) even when ENTILTED NOT TO so as to keep myself free from avoidable risks. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT FAULT/LIABILITY it is about RISK REDUCTION. I'll legally entilted to drive with low quality tyres with 1.6mm thread but I chose to reduce risk by buying higher quality tyres and changing at around 3mm

As such the environment here (which I thought was Galway city) is actually Moycullen is entirely relevant as to how a cyclist should overtake. I would guess from my trips to Moycullen modal share for bikes is 1% or thereabouts i.e. really fcuking scarce. As such overtaking would want to be taken really cautiously, especially in the middle of a 2m channel.

A cyclist in Moycullen is within the exact same rights as someone on a cycle track on the canal in Dublin to overtake here; which one do you think is more at risk and why? Forgetting about law/liability/fault what is the only way to control for the increased risk?

You can discount a FACTUAL matter of seating position (1.6m min from front bumper) if you wish; but as a matter of fact most or all of a cyclist will not be visible to most drivers turning right BEFORE their bumper impinges on their path of travel (1m out from line of cars).

As such the only controls when overtaking in that channel as VULNERABLE road user is

• a very modest speed
• watching for brake light, stopped cars, gaps in traffic
• awareness around junctions/busy entrance

Had that happened here Cannon might have been able to avoid accident; it certainly would have happened if driver turned cautiously.

As a cycling forum you would think, people would have some concern for a discussion around risk reduction for cyclist. No keep harping on about how sh1t the driving is when it isn't even up debate.

Cycling behavior is but some posters outright stating they won't answers questions they don't like and another ignoring the same question asked three times and still waffling on about sh1t driving; 2 days later and no one took to actually answering the questions