nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Fatal Collisions

s1ippy

I feel like it's at least the third time this week I've read that somebody who took somebody else's life with their careless driving is being "treated for shock" at the scene.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-75-dies-after-being-hit-by-van-in-co-cork-1.4365623

A pedestrian is dead because someone dropping a child off at football thought nothing of lashing their van around the car park without due consideration for those around them. The sympathy I have for the deceased man's family vastly outweighs that which I have for the "shocked" van driver. His carelessness caused the entire issue.

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/09/26/gardai-believe-man-may-have-died-in-traffic-collision-while-riding-electric-scooter-on-slane-navan-road/

Hit and runs are also ten a penny lately. If someone I knew ever confided in me that they were responsible for murdering somebody on the road and fleeing the scene, I would straight away report them no matter who they were to me. Scum.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/576277/limerick-school-shows-its-love-for-pupil-injured-in-road-collision.html

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-dies-crash-co-mayo-5214360-Sep2020/

There are more injuries and fatal crashes just from today's news. Two more young people injured by pricks on the road, one now dead.

Why don't people wake the hell up and drive with consideration for those around them. Then they wouldn't be so shocked because they wouldn't end up killing someone.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Thelonious Monk

It is very strange though how it's so normalised. Even the Deliveroo guy who was mown down a few weeks ago, 4 kids ran away from the car in question and now we hear nothing about it and there have been no arrests. Another person died last night in a crash and there are 3 comments on the Journal, 2 RIPs and a "Thoughts and prayers". It's a bit like gun deaths in USA, people just accept them.

RobbieMD

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Just so you are aware, suffering from shock is not the same as being "shocked". Shock is a life threatening medical condition.

The legislation around hit and runs needs updating. It should be an arrestable offence with a power of detention so that less serious incidents can be investigated as efficiently as fatal ones with a higher punishment too.

The legislation was updated in 2014. If injury is caused then the driver can be arrested and detained.

Slowyourrole

RobbieMD wrote: »

The legislation was updated in 2014. If injury is caused then the driver can be arrested and detained.

Is that the legislation around dangerous driving?

RobbieMD

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Is that the legislation around dangerous driving?

No the 1961 act was amended in 2014 and the offence of hit and run was expanded upon. It’s an arrestable offence on its own merits without involving the specific offence of Section 53 dangerous driving.

Ned Led Zeppo

What about all the eighty and ninety year old drivers that are still around.
Go to any Super Value shops on a Friday, and see these drivers that can barely
get out of their cars never mind get back in, some even request passers by to help
them get out and get back in. It beggars belief.

Podge_irl

mrsdewinter wrote: »

It's good to raise the issue of road safety but could you have the grace to remember that each and every one of us could find ourselves at the heart of a tragedy that we certainly didn't set out to cause.

And it is this sentiment that sees drivers involved in fatal collisions repeatedly escape any serious punishment. It's a joke.

Jim Gazebo

RobAMerc wrote: »

Seriously ? I know you are upset and saddened by the news of the death of your friend - but I think you are looking to paint a picture here that may not exist, and your choice of language does nothing for the people remaining - their lives have been impacted horrendously by the tragic events too.

No where does it say the driver was lashing around or driving carelessly and you using that language does nothing but show your own emotional impact. It doesn't mean its true and is very unfair to the driver.
Despite what you hear Accidents do happen !

Absolutely agree. This is heartbreaking for everyone involved, not many, if anyone, out there that reverses a van hoping to hit someone... So sad for all involved.

Strumms

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It has just been normalised that people die at the hands of motorised vehicles every couple of days. Can you imagine some new machine that people started using made 3 people's heads explode a week or something? Because that's what's happening really.

I agree. It has been normalized.

I’ve also said it before in other threads. The actual quality of driving, or the lack of it, especially as pertains to having care and consideration to and for your fellow motorist and pedestrians as well as the rules of the road has plummeted to depths way beyond and below those I’ve seen before.

The observance of stop signs, traffic lights, right of way in particular, parking (on and at corners in particular too) are an ever seemingly optional consideration for many drivers.

More then ever I’m coming to junctions, recently in Finglas, back of the airport Beaumont and Whitehall where there are flowers, cards, jerseys pinned to a fence or other fixture in tribute to somebody who lost their life in a road traffic incident. Four road fatality incidents in months in about four square kilometers.

I’m using the word ‘incident’ as opposed to ‘accident’ because all be it a motorist isn’t going out of their way to kill or injure anybody, if they partake in standards of driving that can and do endanger other road users, that’s not an accident, the incident is a result of behavior, standards and a lack of care towards others.

amadangomor

It's the inappropriate speed that I don't get. Like flying into a car park braking at the last minute to stop where they are parking.

Having young children this annoys the fk out of me. Car parks are full of pedestrians getting in and out of cars, small children who are hard to see etc.

In my estate there can be dozens of children out playing and you know how unpredictable they can be. Most people crawl but you still get eejits belting it, even doing a rodeo over the speed bumps. Should be an IQ test for the driving licence.

Andrewf20

The situation is a result of a human trait called complacency. Complacency in drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. I've seen it all - speeding drivers in housing estates, cyclists at night with no lights and pedestrians running across dual carriage ways.

Its unfortunate but unlikely to ever be erradicated.

Thelonious Monk

How did you see the invisible cyclists if they had no lights?

Andrewf20

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

How did you see the invisible cyclists if they had no lights?

Street lights.

Thelonious Monk

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Street lights.

Yeah so you could still see them. Anyway i can't remember the last time a cyclist was killed at night in Ireland, it's always during the day.

Strumms

Andrewf20 wrote: »

The situation is a result of a human trait called complacency. Complacency in drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. I've seen it all - speeding drivers in housing estates, cyclists at night with no lights and pedestrians running across dual carriage ways.

Its unfortunate but unlikely to ever be erradicated.

Complacency can not be eradicated true but it can be limited if there is a deterrent.

The only way to fight complacency is to deter it.

At the moment for example the punishment breaking red lights carries 3 penalty points and fine of up to €120... that’s not much of a deterrent. It’s not ANY deterrent at all in fact.

Points ok ‘maybe’ appropriate but the fine is the average price out of a night out in town with drinks, taxis, food.... the fine is eminently affordable therefore NOT any sort of deterrent. The law and the punishment it provides needs to be a deterrent for it to succeed. Therefore keeping the points but jacking up the fine to 350 euros is what I’d want to see happening.

Wishbone Ash

mrsdewinter wrote: »

... but could you have the grace to remember that each and every one of us could find ourselves at the heart of a tragedy that we certainly didn't set out to cause.

No one is saying that any road users set out to cause a tragedy. However, some drivers do cause injury or death by their dangerous, aggressive and illegal behavior.

I cycle with a club in a group a few times weekly. We cycle two abreast which is perfectly legal but some motorists seem to have a problem with other road users behaving legally. I've never experienced a club ride where we didn't have at least one aggressive and dangerous overtaking manoeuvre - it sometimes occurs several times during a ride. Van drivers and 4x4 drivers being the worst offenders - often blaring their horn as the make a 'punishment' pass on a continuous white line approaching a bend.

I'm sure these drivers don't set out to cause any deaths but would you have sympathy for them after a fatal accident? Loss of licence for life should be a minimum consequence.

Spook_ie

Strumms wrote: »

Complacency can not be eradicated true but it can be limited if there is a deterrent.

The only way to fight complacency is to deter it.

At the moment for example the punishment breaking red lights carries 3 penalty points and fine of up to €120... that’s not much of a deterrent. It’s not ANY deterrent at all in fact.

Points ok ‘maybe’ appropriate but the fine is the average price out of a night out in town with drinks, taxis, food.... the fine is eminently affordable therefore NOT any sort of deterrent. The law and the punishment it provides needs to be a deterrent for it to succeed. Therefore keeping the points but jacking up the fine to 350 euros is what I’d want to see happening.

But where do you stop, €350 is eminently affordable by some and legislation doesn't allow for FCPNs to be charged at different rates based on ability to pay, so you'd need to clog up the courts system with RLJs and other offences

magicbastarder

i don't think there should be a fine. instead, the vehicle should be confiscated within one week of the FCPN being issued, for the number of days equivalent to the points issued. so in the above scenario, the vehicle is impounded for three days.

FintanMcluskey

I think also pedestrians need to take personal responsibility, walking on a country road with no hard shoulder and a lack of high visibility clothing is irresponsible.

Also, while growing up on a farm, I was thought that the driver of any vehicle must see you at all times, dont walk accross the path of a reversing vehicle under any circumstances. The pedestrian was responsible for their own safety

I get the impression from comments here the driver has the responsibility for the pedestrians safety

Strumms

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't think there should be a fine. instead, the vehicle should be confiscated within one week of the FCPN being issued, for the number of days equivalent to the points issued. so in the above scenario, the vehicle is impounded for three days.

I think it could work in practice as the deterrent but the cost to launch such a scheme, implement it and operate it would be colossal. The logistical efforts required would be huge on an ongoing basis. You’d need access to more parking, more tow trucks the massive associated costs of those, huge manpower, tow team, admin, security, office costs, just massively cost prohibitive... the likelihood is that would cost many more millions than the simple admin costs involved in saying to somebody via letter... “incident happened xxxxx..pay this big fine, here are your points, don’t do it again, see ... to appeal”...

magicbastarder

well, if we did it now, and policed it, and the rate of law breaking was as it is now, half the vehicles in the country would end up being impounded.
but i suspect if successfully implemented (and that's a challenge, i'll make no argument there), the rate of RLJing, etc., would absolutely plummet.

for someone getting caught speeding once or twice, the points are an abstraction (as long as they remain under the threshold the insurance companies are interested in) and the fine is probably the cost of a night out - in normal times - for many people, so i don't see the current system as much of a deterrent.

magicbastarder

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I cycle with a club in a group a few times weekly. We cycle two abreast which is perfectly legal but some motorists seem to have a problem with other road users behaving legally. I've never experienced a club ride where we didn't have at least one aggressive and dangerous overtaking manoeuvre - it sometimes occurs several times during a ride. Van drivers and 4x4 drivers being the worst offenders - often blaring their horn as the make a 'punishment' pass on a continuous white line approaching a bend.

twice yesterday on a 75km ride (on my own so the 'two abreast' example doesn't apply), oncoming motorists had to brake hard because someone decided to overtake me into said oncoming traffic. in neither case had the overtaking motorist had to wait for more than maybe 10 seconds, and in both cases if they'd have waited another 5 seconds or so there'd have been a clear overtaking opportunity as the road straightened out.

magicbastarder

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I think also pedestrians need to take personal responsibility, walking on a country road with no hard shoulder and a lack of high visibility clothing is irresponsible.

at all times, or just at night?

Andrewf20

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah so you could still see them. Anyway i can't remember the last time a cyclist was killed at night in Ireland, it's always during the day.

I don't see why that's a measure of anything? I never said they were invisible. I was out walking the last time it happened. The probability of them getting hit would higher without lights.

Strumms

Spook_ie wrote: »

But where do you stop, €350 is eminently affordable by some and legislation doesn't allow for FCPNs to be charged at different rates based on ability to pay, so you'd need to clog up the courts system with RLJs and other offences

It’s affordable, it should be affordable. Though it’s a hell of a deterrent and will make people say... “ok, I don’t want to be or need to be 350 quid light, got whatever.. kids going back to school, car insurance due, xx kid starting music lessons, dentist to pay for or whatever ‘living’ expenses.

Rubberchikken

It works both ways imo. Drivers have a major responsibility to be aware of where they're driving and their speed, attention etc. Pedestrians have a responsibility to be aware of where they are and they're actions.

Drivers in car parks are sometimes beyond understanding. How they can drive the way they do in such a confined space is beyond me.

I reverse into spots always. At least there's some chance of seeing idiot drivers/pedestrians when leaving.

Duckjob

Ned Led Zeppo wrote: »

What about all the eighty and ninety year old drivers that are still around.
Go to any Super Value shops on a Friday, and see these drivers that can barely
get out of their cars never mind get back in, some even request passers by to help
them get out and get back in. It beggars belief.

You don't normally see them ripping up and down the car park like they're in The Fast and the Furious though.

I visited my local shopping centre yesterday. There's a one way system in the car park I was parked in.

Coming back to my car I see a lady in some tanky SUV casually doing about 30kph down the lane between the cars - the wrong way. Zero f**ks given by her. She just couldn't be arsed to take the extra couple of seconds to drive around the correct way to the exit. I could only imagine a family with kids crossing to go the shops, making the mistake of only checking for traffic from the direction it should be coming from and getting milled out of it by this stupid selfish f****r.

magicbastarder

Rubberchikken wrote: »

It works both ways imo. Drivers have a major responsibility to be aware of where they're driving and their speed, attention etc. Pedestrians have a responsibility to be aware of where they are and they're actions.

that, on the face of it, suggests a false equivalence. the burden of responsibility has to fall incredibly heavily on the driver.

[Deleted User]

Keep in mind we know little/nothing of the circumstances of the stories posted in the OP - for example - the chap on the scooter should never have been on the N51 in the first place, it's a tight, winding road, with no hard shoulder. I appreciate it's a horrible situation for all involved, but that accident was not just the driver's fault.

I myself nearly killed two hitch-hikers on that very same stretch of road about 3-4 weeks ago. Two morons walking in not just the dark, but in fog, with no lights, no hi-vis, no anything. Stumbling around, walking in the darkness with a thumb out. I only seen them by sheer luck and was extremely close to colliding with them.

Had I knocked them down and killed them both, I wouldn't have accepted any responsibility for their deaths.

A chap on an electric scooter, on a narrow, bendy 100kph road was an accident waiting to happen. I wouldn't be pointing my finger at the driver just yet.

El Tarangu

+1 to the OP

It really enrages me when I read the report, as is the case with the first link you posted, about a collision between a 1-tonne plus vehicle and a vulnerable road user:

The driver of the van ... was uninjured in the incident

- of course the driver was f**king uninjured - a driver of a car or van or truck that hits a cyclist or pedestrian is never injured, they have a huge metal and glass structure to protect them, whereas a vulnerable road user has (at best) a couple of inches of styrofoam.

Mentioning that 'the driver was uninjured' lends to this false narrative that the risks are somehow equal for each road user.

Beltby

magicbastarder wrote: »

that, on the face of it, suggests a false equivalence. the burden of responsibility has to fall incredibly heavily on the driver.

Funny that. In a warehouse, the forklift usually has the right of way. In other words, the onus is on the person walking to stay clear while it's moving.

The forklift operator has a duty to operate the machine safely too, of course.