Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Meanwhile on the Roads...

1192022242554

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,356 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    Yeah, its a small first step when it would be so easy to just do the right thing from the off. But but but, the 'poor hard pressed motorists'.

    It'll make it a lot harder for them to criticise lack of hi viz/ helmets using the "if it would save just one life"/ "if it would make you even a tiny bit safer" why wouldn't you? line when they wring their hands at the new technology. And they can hardly lecture people to wear hi viz etc if they decide to decry the new laws as "nanny state gone mad".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,525 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Saw an unmarked Hyundai Tuscon pulling over a driver for mobile phone use on the N11 this morning near Leopardstown.

    I was on bus behind it, and he'd been hovering between bus lane and left hand traffic lane for a couple of km before that. Had been watching thinking it was a driver acting strangely until the blues lit up.

    Cars were stopped in traffic queuing at lights when he stopped the unmarked car beside her, turned on the lights, and got out pointed at her, gestured that she should pull over into the bus stop and made a mobile phone typing gesture at her.

    Certainly looked like he was out actively policing for mobile phone use as opposed to having happened upon her.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 690 ✭✭✭ARX




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Mefistofelino


    It would be interesting to see if the increase in rates and the types of crashes that we are seeing here are being replicated across Europe. Purely in the realms of "anecdata" but I'm just back from travelling through several European countries and whether driving or cycling, I felt that there had been an increase in **** road behaviour. France, in particular, seems to have deteriorated.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,356 ✭✭✭Paddigol




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Mefistofelino


    Some day, researchers will show that the biggest threat to road safety was not speed, drugs or phone use, but the court system.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 152 ✭✭knockoutned


    Well at least Nolan is bring consistent with his approach to inattention on the road, as he said in another ruing discussed above that courts generally take a sympathetic view



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,356 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    Nobody really wants to see these kind of drivers in what are already overcrowded jails. It's the decision not to disqualify him that gets me - the logic being that, shur he'll be hit with a huge premium anyway. Is it possible to miss the entire point of road safety any more than that??



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭Large bottle small glass


    That's precisely who we should be jailing. Safety at pedestrian crossing need to be sacrosanct.

    It's nothing but luck that girl didn't suffer a brain injury or die.

    The fear of jail and huge fines for directors/business owners when their employees died in industry/construction was a game changer in driving down deaths in those sectors.

    It all was a factor in reducing drink driving which as bad as it is today was a much more normalised behaviour 20 years ago.

    Part of the criminal justice system has to provide deterrents and also say to victims "your life matters".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,356 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    We're into a whole other discussion when we get into the merits/ demerits of custodial sentences, let alone who the precious few available prison spaces should be reserved for. And I'm not for a moment suggesting that I'd have shed a tear for him if he had been jailed - it would have been karma personified. But even just taking away his licence, saying "you are not fit to drive a vehicle", would have the same effect of jailing him in so far as he is off the road and physically cannot cause that kind of injury for the same period of time. It's such an easy sentence to reach - there's no cost to the exchequer, there's no fear of a violent criminal being left out of jail for lack of space, there's no hand wringing about his life being ruined and not being able to survive in prison… nobody reasonable would suggest that disqualification was an unfair sentence.

    But even that seems like too difficult a step for that judge to take.

    If people genuinely feared losing their licence for serious RT offences - and that penalty being enforced - I think it would have an immediate impact on driver behaviour.

    But of course; 1) we have a judiciary who seem reluctant to make a finding of dangerous driving and 2) we have a judiciary who think a fine is an appropriate penalty for people who routinely ignore the requirement for tax, insurance, NCT etc.

    Maybe by talking about jailing him or not I'm distracting from the real issue as far as I see it - I just cannot fathom how a judge could reach a conclusion that this individual's behaviour behind the wheel is good enough to justify him continuing to enjoy the right to drive a car. He's basically saying, "that was very naughty of you - now think about that when you drive home from Court today".



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I just cannot fathom how a judge could reach a conclusion that this individual's behaviour behind the wheel is good enough to justify him continuing to enjoy the right to drive a car.

    What you wrote in bold above @Paddigol is partner the problem in this country. Being able to drive is actually a privilege but is treated by the courts as a right. A right that we seem to find very difficult to take from someone in any minute manner



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭Large bottle small glass


    I spoke to a lot of weekly drink drivers who stopped drink driving for fear of jail; not fines, or driving suspensions the fear of jail.

    Scaffolding/demolition deaths weren't unusual events until directors of major firms realised that a workers death could mean loss of liberty. Agriculture deaths continue as its mostly farmers killing themselves or their family members

    I've been in a few of our prisons they are not pleasant places; they are a wonderful deterrent to regular people. It's terrifying and shameful. You are going to have to jail very few people; the message gets out pretty quickly.

    Huge fines linked to company turnover focus attention to.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,121 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Not that shocking? Some counties score so low on deaths annually that a simple statistical blip would easily take them over their annual death toll.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,100 ✭✭✭fat bloke


    Wrt Judge Nolan. I see on The Journal there that he's given another suspended sentence for child p0rnography possession with the judgement that the public shame is punishment enough and a custodial sentence would serve no purpose. The courts seem to take a similar view on road deaths caused by dangerous driving or inattention, that incarceration is not merited and that the guilt of having killed someone is prison enough.

    Also - there's a bizarre take on the investigation into that accident in which 4 teens were killed last year. Excessive speed was not considered a factor it states, and then goes on to say there was torrential rain and the car was travelling at 75kph in a 50kph zone.??! So 50% over the posted limit and clearly no account taken for the weather and road conditions.

    It's hard to see or follow the logic. :(



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    In terms of the incident where the car skidded off the road, surely this was in part to the dangerous rear tyres (on a RWD car)...

    the two rear tyres on Mr McSweeney’s eight-year-old BMW 4 Series had tread depths below the legal limit of 1.6mm with the wires on the left rear tyre exposed.

    Anyone who has driven a RWD car on ice or snow will understand the ease at which the car can spin when grip is gone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭Large bottle small glass


    The Clonmel tragedy was one where people including on this site were calling to know what happened immediately, sensitives of the families be damned.

    The likely factors as ever were pretty mundane (worn tyres and inappropriate speed for weather conditions).

    The deviation left onto kerb wasn't explained; it was either likely a steering input or loss of control due to standing water/worn tyres.

    What wasn't mentioned in reporting was the road drainage. A new footpath with kerb had been installed 5 years or so ago. This wouldn't have been ever an issue except for the heaviest of rainfall.

    It's about 300m from bend they rounded to Hillview tennis club, but its an almost level section of road, and unless road drainage outlets were optimal I'd expect some standing water given rainfall reported. Prior to new footpath water would have been were footpath now is.

    That's not a criticism of the road authority but it's the reason good tyres are essential and driving to conditions.

    Coroner's courts are pretty restrained by legislation and supreme court decisions in what they look at and what findings they can come to.

    Calling it a mountain road is a bit of false reporting. It is the road's name but the collision site is about 30m asl. It's a pretty civilised mountain road above collision location; moderate gradients, decent surface, good lane widths.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Listening to the details, I was surprised at the main takeaway/ headline of the weather conditions. Well above posted speed limit, with illegal tyres, and it gets put down to the weather conditions? Awful tragedy for the families, but really nothing will be learned or change with that takeaway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,525 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    In instances like this there always seems to be a desire from the Coroner's Court to spare the feelings of the deceaseds' families. Whilst understandable to a degree, it really does a dis-service to the whole purpose of holding an inquiry to then ignore the controllable factors that lead to these deaths (i.e. the tyres and the speed).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,590 ✭✭✭hesker


    I heard there was Garda assessment of speed based on various pieces of evidence and it was well below speed limit. Also it had been raining very heavily beforehand



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    It was calculated by gardaí that it was being driven at speeds of 51 kilometres per hour and 75 kph at different points on the hill, in a zone that was governed by a 50kph speed limit.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0711/1459361-accidental-death-verdicts-at-inquest-into-clonmel-crash/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭Large bottle small glass


    There a massive margin of error in that type of method for determining speed.

    Assuming one CCTV source, your perspective doesn't allow for accuracy at various points along the road. The fps in modern CCTV is helpful.

    Given the way evidence was presented I'd have little faith in the Garda forensic report regarding speed calculation.

    Loss of control was likely due to ponding due to flash flood type weather, inappropriate speed and near bald tyres especially on rwd drive. The media don't present multi factorial stories as they don't sell.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I've told this story before but a friend of mine went on to forensics after college, got trained in Scotland, worked there for a long time and now works for the French police force. Apparently the main methodologies (and I know little about it) that the Gardai use are not looked upon as accurate enough at all and (the example he gave was in dry conditions so maybe not relevant here), could severely underestimate speed in a forensic analysis of a crash. This was a good few years ago so may not still be true.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    I don't want to focus too much on the individual case(s), as I can't imagine as a parent what the families are going through.

    However, in general there is a massive tendancy to downplay the factors that are in the control of people driving - inappropriate speed, roadworthiness of the vehicle, distracted driving. Instead it becomes about the road infrastructure, weather, other external factors. It just explains the mindset, and why it won't change in the State.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,121 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    What data did they have to hand to conclude speeds at two different times? Sure, they could make some sort of a fist of calculating at the point the car left the road, but at other points too?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭Large bottle small glass


    bar you have cctv close to perpendicular with road and synchronised to each other and have a significant gap between still it's a exercise fraught with error.

    If he got the the higher speed from one camera pointing toward 3 poles the margin of error is massive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,713 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Yep, the problem with this story is accuracy of the speed estimate, not the unroadworthy vehicle.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    A fair point, the wires were coming through on at least one tyre from my reading of the report. My father would have given me a slap if I rolled up to the house with a tyre like that on the car. I am not saying he was right, but he also wasn't wrong.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,121 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    There can be more than one 'problem' with a story. Pointing out one problem does not negate the other.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,925 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    his phone, “was mounted on his steering wheel on top of the airbag… driving at 70mph on the motorway and didn’t notice the Interceptors travelling alongside recording the evidence of his dangerous driving”

    I don't understand how the phone was on top of airbag, was phone fixed to steering wheel?



Advertisement