Meanwhile on the Roads...

There was nothing about my reply that was a rant, and I already explained to you that 'commission of which' does not have the meaning you believe it to. You've repeatedly ignored that, and ignored all the other evidence and explanation, to keep holding on to the opinion that the original Judge erred in law to apply a driving disqualification order - even though all available evidence shows that the appeal was only on the severity and not on a point of law.

My contribution was to write the following:

>It's called an 'ancillary disqualification order', Judges can apply a driving ban for virtually any conviction in which a vehicle was used in the commission of a crime.

>S27 of revised Road Traffic Act 1961

There is nothing 'fine' about the points being discussed as magicbastarder alluded to, as only one of us is discussing. I've tried my best, to explain, at length where your thinking is going wrong and you've refused at every stage to actually discuss the issue.

To put it to bed, the relevant cases are DPP V Sweeney (where an ADO was applied when someone was convicted of fraudulently selling a stolen van, overtured on appeal) heard in the Court of Appeal in 2014 and Conroy V AG heard in the Supreme Court in 1965.

Conroy v AG:

>One must not lose sight, however, of the real nature of the disqualification order which is that it is essentially a finding of unfitness of the person to hold a driving licence. Apart from the statutory minimum which is imposed in certain cases, this is a matter which must be determined by the Court in the light of evidence which it hears on this aspect of the case and in the light of that evidence it may determine what period of disqualification is appropriate….

>Though it may have punitive consequences, disqualification cannot be regarded as punishment in the sense in which that term is used in considering the gravity of an offence by reference to the punishment it may attract upon conviction such as imprisonment or a fine, but rather is a finding of unfitness….

>the fundamental question governing the making of a disqualification order in relation to non-motoring offences is whether the offender has, in the words of Walsh J in Conroy, so abused his right to drive on a public road “by exercising it in the furtherance of criminal activities” that he is thereby “unfit to exercise the right to drive a motor car.”…

DPP v Sweeney:

>Held by the Court in light of the applicable legislation and case-law including Conroy v. Attorney General [1965] I.R. 411 that the disqualification power in s. 27 could be exercised in cases other than motoring offences only where there was evidence that there was either an offence relating to a motor vehicle or where a motor vehicle was used in the commission of a crime such that in either case the trial judge could properly conclude from the facts proved or admitted in relation to the commission of the offence that the accused was unfit to exercise his right to drive a motor car on a public highway.

And here we are. Ancillary disqualification orders as a result of road rage (which in this case, manifested as a physical assault). So much time wasted. I really will bow out now, and make use of the ignore feature as you've made it clear you aren't here to actually use this as a discussion forum.

😀.

I'm sure she also lost her no claims bonus and the insurance payout was massive.. so if this careless driver does try and get insurance again in 2 years that it's so expensive she won't be able to afford to drive again.

The thing about this incident is that this guy on the bike was almost killed, if you punched someone and broke some bones in a street fight you'd get 5 years behind bars but do this in a car and you get almost get away with it.

Having a licence from another EU state is no defence at all, and would fly in the face of the rules around EU driving licences.

Now when this person's DQ expires she may be asked to provide a certificate of competency before driving again, whether she goes back to her own country for this or does the test here, I don't know.

That poor guy who was driven over twice by a woman, it really shook me. IMO there should have been a far more harsh punishment for her, including jail.

No amount of cycle lanes or road markings are going to cut out this level of stupidity by a driver.

I can only hope that the guy benefits from a shipload of compensation from her insurer.

Best of luck on the road, fellow cyclists. By God we need it.

100%
A 300hp tractor with 3 mowers on it was in front of me for 20mins yesterday on a backroad- openly on the phone.
A taximan in town Wednesday was messing with 2 phones stuck to his windscreen all the way down Pearse St.

Earlier that day a plumber in Whitehall went straight up the bus lane to skip the queue onto Griffith Avenue, skimming past me and another cyclist in the process.
A truck driver at M1 headed for M50 cut off 2 cars as he gambled on just making the slip yesterday.

None of these chaps would have a job without a licence. Clearly none of them are worried about getting caught doing illegal and very dangerous things while driving.

Also had a Learner (on his own) try to overtake me in a 60 while i was doing a little over 60 and an oncoming car. He gave up at last second and tailgated me until the next junction.

Turning around last year and dropping every rural speed limit to 60kph is not going to improve safety without actually policing anything.

Was on the M1 on a bus, high up. Passed by an HGV truck to our left. The driver had his right knee up to the window, foot resting where the keys go, playing with a phone with his left hand. His right hand on steering wheel. The truck was longer and taller than our bus, and had a company name on it

Ah no, come on- she wrote a letter saying she was sorry.

Don't worry about the fact she hit him with such force head on that she left him with brain damage , a severed ear & other life long injuries & kept going.

Then went home & put her child to bed .

Agreed, the level of callousness she showed in her subsequent actions and lies are shocking to read tbh. She admitted she'd hit a cyclist because she wasn't looking but still tried to claim he wasn't 'visible'.

Trying to claim she's remorseful after the fact that she tried to get away with causing life changing injuries just adds insult. Nothing will dissuade me from thinking she was (as usual), on her phone.