Meanwhile on the Roads...

@fat bloke does have a fair point, both in jury and judge determined rulings that driving offences are often given much more lee way than many other type of offences. I think someone here once it as an unconscious bias because many drivers routinely breach road traffic laws, there is a perception of, that could easily have been me.

But it could have been, the issue with a driver dominated culture, it might be very hard for a jury, or even a judge to be impartial. It is the reason when driving in built up areas, we drive slower, because these things are possibilities. No different than cycling, if you see a large crowd on the pavement, you move over to a primary or even right of primary position in the laneway. If you are driving a vehicle that does not have that leeway to maneuvre, you proceed a lot more slowly and remain alert.

Like everyone else here, I wasn't at the trial, so I cannot comment but the Super believed there was enough to charge the defendant, the DPP agreed, so there is reasonable grounds to state those with expertise and experience believed a threshold was met that there was substantiative evidence that he was driving carelessly. Being declared not guilty does not change that. It doesn't mean he was, just that a jurys vote does not mean he wasn't.

Wasn't there, and the article is vague enough in how they state it, nothing seems to imply the witnesses disagreed with the forensic investigator. The article states:

During the trial, Kevin White SC, defending, put it to forensic collision investigator Garda Gerard Dowd that some witnesses had described the woman as appearing to trip, fall forward, or be blown over.

Gda Dowd agreed with counsel that there was an extreme weather warning in place on the day.

All we know is that the truck struck her. Did she fall before he made the turn, did she fall as he made the turn, did she trip, and fall directly under the body, we simply do not know, and we do not know if the witnesses disagree with the forensic analyst or not. All we know is that the defence solicitor phrased it, I am sure factually, in a way that was most likely to sway a jury into finding in his clients favour. In a jury trial, the judge will guide the jury on matters of law but in the end, the jury will make the decision based on what was presented (with obvious caveats).

My point specifically wasn't this trial, just that in many legal cases in Ireland, drivers tend to get much more leeway than many think appropriate and I suspect it is due to that bias I mention, the horrible feeling that some members of the judiciary will get, that could have been me. Judges throwing out speeding fines because they felt it was a trap, commenting on drivers only being marginally over the limit when a crash occurred, understanding that someone has to get to work to excuse uninsured driving, using neutralising language on phone use such as, glanced away…., just for a split second…., and so on.

Sorry, maybe I miscommunicated on this. It's a quote from the defence, same one I quoted. That might have been in the Garda report. The DPP might have thought, well she had fallen over before the truck turne, so it's not relevant. They may have pointed this out and it's not in the journal report. My point was the same as yours, we weren't there (court or the scene), whatever the actual story. Doesn't take away from what appears to be a bias in the judicial system, to be more lenient on motorists, not specifically this case (the woman might have tripped and fell into the truck and the minor bump on the noggin was what done it, not his fault at all).

100% there is no leeway (past a calibration MOE, which I understand is under +/-1kmph). So if your ticket says 109kmph, you were doing 109kmph. Your speedo might marginally overestimate the speed, with valid reasons to do so, but GoSafe vans do not take that into account for a variety of what is hopefully obvious reasons.