Disgraceful article in today's Irish Times

Hotblack Desiato · 25-10-2011 9:55am #1

I'm disgusted reading this article, they might as well say he deserved to die
because he was on a bike.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1025/1224306445993.html

Notice how the capacity of the bike is mentioned (but not the car) and there
is an implication the bike was speeding even though there was no evidence of
that.

A disgrace and all involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Dublin_Gunner · 25-10-2011 10:04am

The article isn't that bad, and you should focus on the charge she was acquitted of - dangerous driving.

Exiting from a side road / gateway into another vehicles path which is already on the 'main' road immediately places Ms. Clancy at fault for the accident, of this I'm certain there will be no defence.

The issue is if there was any criminal wrongdoing that caused the accident - of which there wasn't.

I also fail to see where there is any implication that the motorcycle was speeding.

It was a very unfortunate accident that sadly resulted in the death of Mr. Hayes, but nothing more.

A tragic accident, and the verdict is fair.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-10-2011 10:26am

Oh come on. What do you call this?

Lorcan Connolly, for Ms Clancy, asked the jury not to criminalise his client. He said the speed of the motorcycle “is the big unknown” in the case.

So very carefully he gets the message he wants across while not actually saying it in so many words.

And what's all that nonsense about her not speeding or being drunk? So what? She still caused a death.

I sometimes wonder what you actually have to do to be convicted of dangerous driving in this country? Anything short of premeditated murder is 'just an accident' 'so sad' and no-one is ever held accountable.

Dublin_Gunner · 25-10-2011 10:34am

ninja900 wrote: »

Oh come on. What do you call this?

So very carefully he gets the message he wants across while not actually saying it in so many words.

And what's all that nonsense about her not speeding or being drunk? So what? She still caused a death.

I sometimes wonder what you actually have to do to be convicted of dangerous driving in this country? Anything short of premeditated murder is 'just an accident' 'so sad' and no-one is ever held accountable.

Yes, it was unknown (as stated by the DEFENCE, you know, the guy trying to get his client off the charge), that's all that was said. That's hardly an implication.

To be convicted on dangerous driving, you have to er, drive in a dangerous manner. She pulled out of a side road / gateway, and caused an accident.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason.

Let me hypothesise for a moment - what if he was travelling at 100mph or so? We don't know, there is no evidence to suggest what speed the motorcycle was travelling at, and that was stated.

Now, surely if a forensic examination of Ms. Clancy's vehicle was ordered, the speed of the motorcycle could be estimated.

As Ms. Clancy appeared to be unhurt, with not much damage to her car (at least it wasn't mentioned) we can assume that the motorcycle wasn't travelling at extreme speed.

This case was not to determine if Ms. Clancy was at fault for the accident - she was. It was to determine if there was criminal wrongdoing involved - i.e dangerous driving leading to a fatal RTA.

Now take your motorcycle hat off (pardon the pun) for second and look at this logically. This was an accident, a tragic one, but nothing more.

Cuddlesworth · 25-10-2011 12:07pm

What if he was speeding? I pulled out of my old estate once, looked to the right and saw the traffic a good bit down the road just pulling off from the lights. I started pulling out, taking care to watch in front as their was a pedestrian crossing with kids on it. I get a fright and a beep from a R1 that swerved to avoid me. Thing is, after a second of "Oh **** I nearly killed him", I copped that he had nearly killed himself. He pushed that R1 to the limit leaving those lights, he become unpredictable and nearly plowed into a car because of it.

Since in this case, we don't know the speed of the bike we can't really say their was enough negligence to blame the car driver.

harrythehat · 25-10-2011 12:12pm

You definitely have a chip on your shoulder mate. I've read that article twice now and I can't find anything that indicates that he basically deserved to die because he was on a bike.

carsQhere · 25-10-2011 12:30pm

The tone is set in the use of the "1,000 cc motorcycle" when the capacity of the bike is irrelevant. It could've been a 1,200 cc motorcycle which sounds even more impressive but might be a laid back cruiser in reality, so the use of the capacity is pejorative in this instance.

Dublin_Gunner · 25-10-2011 1:01pm

carsQhere wrote: »

The tone is set in the use of the "1,000 cc motorcycle" when the capacity of the bike is irrelevant. It could've been a 1,200 cc motorcycle which sounds even more impressive but might be a laid back cruiser in reality, so the use of the capacity is pejorative in this instance.

Its really making something of nothing though. It could also be viewed in another context - he's a serious biker, not someone on a 125cc hairdryer or scrambler.

It could be a Harley for all I know, but it really doesn't matter.

The accident was the lady's fault, there is no question of this. The simple fact was was she criminally negligent?? They have decided no, she wasn't.

The article also quite clearly states that Ms. Clancy said she saw the light in the distance but deemed it [herself] safe to exit onto the road when obviously it was not - otherwise the accident would not have happened.

The OP is making something of nothing.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-10-2011 2:10pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Yes, it was unknown (as stated by the DEFENCE, you know, the guy trying to get his client off the charge), that's all that was said. That's hardly an implication.

I disagree, it was clearly intended to sow doubt in the minds of the jury. But that's his job, my problem is with the article and the distinctly odd statement the judge made.

To be convicted on dangerous driving, you have to er, drive in a dangerous manner. She pulled out of a side road / gateway, and caused an accident.

Is seeing a light approaching, on a foggy day when distances are hard to judge, and pulling out anyway, not dangerous?

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason.

I'm a motorcyclist who has seen this sort of thing happen for years and I'm thoroughly sick of it.

This case was not to determine if Ms. Clancy was at fault for the accident - she was. It was to determine if there was criminal wrongdoing involved - i.e dangerous driving leading to a fatal RTA.

Again, what would she have had to do? Blindfold herself? She looked, saw something approach in poor visibility, and pulled out anyway. Anyone who's ever ridden a motorcycle is well aware of how dangerous this scenario is.

Now take your motorcycle hat off (pardon the pun) for second and look at this logically. This was an accident, a tragic one, but nothing more.

Again, what does a road user have to do to not have it trivialised as 'just an accident'?

KamiKazi · 25-10-2011 2:59pm

Absolute joke that she wasn't convicted of anything, it seems dangerous driving laws don't apply when the other motorist is a bike!

Dublin_Gunner · 25-10-2011 3:04pm

KamiKazi wrote: »

Absolute joke that she wasn't convicted of anything, it seems dangerous driving laws don't apply when the other motorist is a bike!

And if the other vehicle had have been a car?? She still would not have been convicted.

Motorcyclists need to stop acting like they're some sort of ridiculed minority group.

Just because an accident happens (as does 100's of times per day) doesn't mean anyone is guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

Mr. Presentable · 25-10-2011 3:07pm

She ought to be charged with driving without due care. The evidence cites poor visibility "fog" yet she witnessed a light far enough away to give her time to cross the road.

The article also mentions the motorcyclist had just recovered from another serious accident. There is a definite tone in the piece that he may not have been without contribution.

Article is not "disgraceful".

daenerysstormborn3 · 25-10-2011 3:10pm

That is ridiculous that she received no punishment whatsoever. Not even a token few penalty points or a donation to the family. That is a joke!

I do think that the defence were trying to call the speed of the motorbike into question to apportion some of the blame onto the biker but yet no mention of whether he was travelling within the speed limit for the road. That alone is trying to point to him recklessly speeding.

unclebill98 · 25-10-2011 5:30pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

And if the other vehicle had have been a car?? She still would not have been convicted.

Motorcyclists need to stop acting like they're some sort of ridiculed minority group.

Just because an accident happens (as does 100's of times per day) doesn't mean anyone is guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

While I do agree the article has a small anti biker hint to it let's just go with your point.

If it was two cars. She did not take due car when pulling out. She admits she pulls out of that gate many times, so assumed it was ok. The on coming car should have been able to stop and both should have been exercising extreme caution giving the weather conditions. We can only prove one did not, her.

Maybe the other road user has questions to answer, however he is dead.

I suppose no jail sentence or criminal conviction is going to bring back the deceased. Would the dead person family had a impact statement read out? Maybe they said she has a big enough burden for the rest of her life without a conviction.

Dublin_Gunner · 25-10-2011 6:42pm

unclebill98 wrote: »

While I do agree the article has a small anti biker hint to it let's just go with your point.

If it was two cars. She did not take due car when pulling out. She admits she pulls out of that gate many times, so assumed it was ok. The on coming car should have been able to stop and both should have been exercising extreme caution giving the weather conditions. We can only prove one did not, her.

Maybe the other road user has questions to answer, however he is dead.

I suppose no jail sentence or criminal conviction is going to bring back the deceased. Would the dead person family had a impact statement read out? Maybe they said she has a big enough burden for the rest of her life without a conviction.

The vehicle on the road would always have the right of way over a vehicle exiting a side road / gateway.

While the other vehicles speed may have been a factor of contributory negligence to a small extent, it certainly doesn't take away from the fact the the lady in question was at fault for the accident.

My thoughts would be similar to your own - the woman did not intentionally endanger the mans life, she did not drive in a manner that would be deemed 'dangerous'. She made an error of judgement, whcih in this case unfortunately caused a fatal RTA.

It is tragic, but to have her criminalised would be a step too far in this instance IMO.

The reason I hd brought up the hypothesis of it being another car was to show there was no ill manner toward or bias against the motorcyclist - the result of the case would have been the same.

Please Kill Me · 25-10-2011 6:58pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Motorcyclists need to stop acting like they're some sort of ridiculed minority group.

Why?? We are!!! :mad:

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I do think that the defence were trying to call the speed of the motorbike into question to apportion some of the blame onto the biker but yet no mention of whether he was travelling within the speed limit for the road.

Well, yeah, cos if he WAS doing the proper speed limit, then it would have been her fault. And we couldn't have that now could we? God forbid!

Dublin_Gunner · 25-10-2011 7:06pm

Please Kill Me wrote: »

Why?? We are!!! :mad:

lol I love your honesty! (although I do admit some people have a blatant dislike for motorcyclists for some reason)

Please Kill Me wrote: »

Well, yeah, cos if he WAS doing the proper speed limit, then it would have been her fault. And we couldn't have that now could we? God forbid!

The accident WAS her fault!!! Good jebus!!!! The case was a criminal case, not a civil case to decide liability! Liability has already been established, if it hadn't there would have been no criminal case against her!

Please Kill Me · 25-10-2011 7:13pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

lol I love your honesty! (although I do admit some people have a blatant dislike for motorcyclists for some reason)

In my experience, a LOT of people have a big dislike for motorcyclists. I really don't know why. Unlike that knob on the other thread who said it was because they overtook him at speed (boo-hoo) I think it's jealousy to a degree. While they're stuck in traffic, we can sail through. It's a small part of it I reckon.

Anyway, I don't want to take from the thread. The girl should have got a fine, point, something FFS!!!

daenerysstormborn3 · 25-10-2011 7:20pm

Please Kill Me wrote: »

In my experience, a LOT of people have a big dislike for motorcyclists. I really don't know why. Unlike that knob on the other thread who said it was because they overtook him at speed (boo-hoo) I think it's jealousy to a degree. While they're stuck in traffic, we can sail through. It's a small part of it I reckon.

Anyway, I don't want to take from the thread. The girl should have got a fine, point, something FFS!!!

I completely agree.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-10-2011 9:41pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

My thoughts would be similar to your own - the woman did not intentionally endanger the mans life

If she did, surely a manslaughter charge would have been appropriate?

she did not drive in a manner that would be deemed 'dangerous'. She made an error of judgement, whcih in this case unfortunately caused a fatal RTA.

So I ask - again - what would she have to do for it to count as 'dangerous' in your view?

By your reckoning nobody could ever be convicted of dangerous driving (we're almost there, but not yet.) If there was intent to cause harm it should be manslaughter, no intent and according to you it's 'just an accident'.

Well 'accidents' can have very serious consequences, and society needs to register its disapproval of those who endanger life on the roads through recklessness or carelessness - none of them meant to cause an 'accident' but nonetheless they did.

In the UK she would be doing time right now.

Dublin_Gunner · 25-10-2011 10:37pm

ninja900 wrote: »

If she did, surely a manslaughter charge would have been appropriate?

So I ask - again - what would she have to do for it to count as 'dangerous' in your view?

By your reckoning nobody could ever be convicted of dangerous driving (we're almost there, but not yet.) If there was intent to cause harm it should be manslaughter, no intent and according to you it's 'just an accident'.

Well 'accidents' can have very serious consequences, and society needs to register its disapproval of those who endanger life on the roads through recklessness or carelessness - none of them meant to cause an 'accident' but nonetheless they did.

In the UK she would be doing time right now.

There really is very little point in continuing this debate with you, as you have a completely biased view of the incident owing to the deceased being a motorcyclist.

But, let me try to explain in some simple terms what I understand would be considered dangerous:

Swerving in and out of traffic, purposefully driving on the wrong side of the road, racing on public roads etc would be dangerous in any situation.

IMO pulling out of a driveway is not dangerous driving - however in this case the lady did it at a time when it was unsafe to do so, and made an error i njudgement - this is hardly a criminal offence!

She may well have been convicted of a lesser charge of driving without due care and attention, who knows.

If you had your way, the criminal courts would be clogged up with every driver who causes an accident.

Its extremely unfortunate and saddening that a person died as a result of this accident - but this happens all too often on our roads. It does not necessarily mean someone was criminally at fault.

I understand my posts are not going to get much support in the 'cycle forum - but trust me, I worked for 6 years as a motor claims handler, and at times had to try and claim compensation for family's of deceased drivers resulting from accidents - including 1 particularly horrific accident involving a motorcyclist who died - speaking to his father daily was not what you want to wake up to do. He was not at fault by the way. Its not nice.

But not every who causes an accident is criminally in the wrong, now matter how shattering the result of the accident may be.

If you really want to get to the nuts and bolts of it you must understand the differences between a criminal, and civil offence.

In very simple terms, a civil offence is when one person causes a definite and measurable loss to another, a criminal offence would obviously imply that a law has been broken.

There was obviously enough there for the DPP to bring a prosecution to court, but jury decided on the balance of evidence there was not enough clear evidence to prove she had broken any law.

This does not absolve her of the civil offence of being at fault for an RTA.

Duiske · 25-10-2011 11:25pm

I think the problem in this case lies with the DPP, and not the car driver or her defence. Solely based on what I have read about the case i think a charge of careless driving would have been more appropriate, but even that would be difficult to prove. A witness described the weather conditions as "awful".

“You couldn’t see anything in the distance,” she said. “It was foggy, extremely dark and raining.”

Going by the driving conditions that morning and the tragic fact that the jury were only ever going to get one side of the story, a conviction for dangerous driving was going to be almost an impossibility. I guess the DPP is caught between a rock and a hard place with these cases. If a person was charged with careless driving people would say it was being too lenient. If charged with the more difficult to prove dangerous driving and cleared, people will say they should at least have been charged with careless driving.

By the way, just noticed that tomorrow will be the 1st anniversary of Mr Hayes death. Something for both two and four wheeled motorists to bear in mind as they head to work these dark mornings.

--amadeus-- · 25-10-2011 11:29pm

Ok, to make this simpler let's imagine 3 scenarios.

First, a bike is turning right across a line of traffic, thinks he's been flashed to go across but hasn't and there is a collision. It's an accident, bikers fault but no criminal charges would be appropriate.

Second, bike and car driving in stop start traffic. Car driver turns to talk to child in back seat and rear ends bike. Cars fault and driver should be charged with driving without due car and attention.

Third car driver on a wet morning on greasy road surfaces and poor visibility looks, sees an oncoming vehicle light and pulls out anyway, causing a collision (and death). Cars fault and if that isn't dangerous driving then I'm not sure what is? Poor road conditions, limited visibility, she admits she saw the light and still pulled out? Was that really an example of safe driving?

galwaytt · 26-10-2011 12:15am

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

There really is very little point in continuing this debate with you, as you have a completely biased view of the incident owing to the deceased being a motorcyclist.

But, let me try to explain in some simple terms what I understand would be considered dangerous:

Swerving in and out of traffic, purposefully driving on the wrong side of the road, racing on public roads etc would be dangerous in any situation.

IMO pulling out of a driveway is not dangerous driving - however in this case the lady did it at a time when it was unsafe to do so, and made an error i njudgement - this is hardly a criminal offence!

She may well have been convicted of a lesser charge of driving without due care and attention, who knows.

If you had your way, the criminal courts would be clogged up with every driver who causes an accident.

Its extremely unfortunate and saddening that a person died as a result of this accident - but this happens all too often on our roads. It does not necessarily mean someone was criminally at fault.

I understand my posts are not going to get much support in the 'cycle forum - but trust me, I worked for 6 years as a motor claims handler, and at times had to try and claim compensation for family's of deceased drivers resulting from accidents - including 1 particularly horrific accident involving a motorcyclist who died - speaking to his father daily was not what you want to wake up to do. He was not at fault by the way. Its not nice.

But not every who causes an accident is criminally in the wrong, now matter how shattering the result of the accident may be.

If you really want to get to the nuts and bolts of it you must understand the differences between a criminal, and civil offence.

In very simple terms, a civil offence is when one person causes a definite and measurable loss to another, a criminal offence would obviously imply that a law has been broken.

There was obviously enough there for the DPP to bring a prosecution to court, but jury decided on the balance of evidence there was not enough clear evidence to prove she had broken any law.

This does not absolve her of the civil offence of being at fault for an RTA.

Well, a couple of things on all that, there........

1. There are no no-fault accident's. There is always fault. Some big, some small, but always, fault........
2. And, as surely as you accuse the poster about being biased for being a biker, then I must say your points indicate bias in the opposite way, by failing to recognise that a car driver KILLED a motorcyclist, through negligence. Strip everything else away, and that fact remains.
3. And yes, the courts SHOULD be 'full' of people who cause accidents. That is the reason why we have them, and pay insurance, and for licences, and do tests.
4. I understand your point about the difference between a civil and criminal offence - ...which brings me to the point about pulling out of a driveway. Pulling out of a driveway, when it is NOT safe to do so, is an act of Dangerous Driving, and of causing Death, and is, defacto, a crime. Of course they should feel the brunt of the law. Do you honestly expect that if the biker had killed the woman, that he wouldn't be tarbrushed as some sort of 'criminal', for doing so ? You allude to such bias directly by mentioning swerving, racing, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc.
5. And pulling out of a driveway, when it is not safe to do so, IS dangerous. And that IS an offence. How you fail to see that escapes me.
6. There is nothing 'civil' about killing someone.

Alkers · 26-10-2011 2:34am

If she had ran a red light and caused a biker to die would you think that the dangerous driving charge would be appropriate? Just because there was no intention for her to kill or even hurt anyone does not change the fact that she did.

seanybiker · 26-10-2011 2:41am

KamiKazi wrote: »

Absolute joke that she wasn't convicted of anything, it seems dangerous driving laws don't apply when the other motorist is a bike!

Sorry man but that is biggest hape of bollix I ever heard.

I know lads on bikes that have got a massive amount of money from people driving out in front of them.
1 fella I know is only 25 now and he had 3 crashes and he is after making thousands off them. We joked with him that he was out looking for people to hit into. 3 bike crashes and he has a fair whack of his mortgage paid off. he got 18000 +/- a few yoyo's for one crash.

TheUsual · 26-10-2011 3:20am

Reversing onto a main road is illegal in Ireland.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

This was a case of accidental murder, the woman will have to live with the murder for the rest of her life.
And it was murder.

seanybiker · 26-10-2011 3:50am

TheUsual wrote: »

Reversing onto a main road is illegal in Ireland.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

This was a case of accidental murder, the woman will have to live with the murder for the rest of her life.
And it was murder.

Surely manslaughter.

wellboytoo · 26-10-2011 7:37am

I think the OP is definitely over reacting, if anything he has missed the one implication in the article no one has mentioned , the poor victim was just after recovering from another accident, on a bike one supposes.......

KamiKazi · 26-10-2011 8:59am

So making a mistake that costs another motorist their life isn't dangerous driving???

Then WTF is considered dangerous driving???

FFS...

Dublin_Gunner · 26-10-2011 9:08am

KamiKazi wrote: »

So making a mistake that costs another motorist their life isn't dangerous driving???

Then WTF is considered dangerous driving???

FFS...

Its called an accident for a reason ffs.

Cop on will ye. Just because someone gets fatally injured doesn't change the nature of the incident.

KamiKazi · 26-10-2011 9:11am

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its called an accident for a reason ffs.

Cop on will ye. Just because someone gets fatally injured doesn't change the nature of the incident.

Yes an accident that could have been prevented IF she hadn't driven dangerously!

RosieJoe · 26-10-2011 9:27am

I was involved in a similar accident many moons ago in the car. Girl coming out of a driveway pulled out too far, car coming up the road clipped here and came across the road and crashed into me. 5 cars involved in total, 2 written off and 4 people carted off to hospital.

Only differences between this and the court case was the fatality and the conditions.

There was not mention of careless driving or dangerous driving, it was deemed and accident. This is how I see the case from the article.

Edit: It was also pointed out that speed was the big unknown. How do we know now that he wasn't speeding or driving too fast for the conditions? We could also argue that he should have been driving more cautiously due to the fog/dark/rain and that he should have anticipated that the car may pull out! There are way too many what ifs for us to judge this correctly.

--amadeus-- · 26-10-2011 9:55am

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its called an accident for a reason ffs.

Cop on will ye. Just because someone gets fatally injured doesn't change the nature of the incident.

They no longer call them accidents for a reason.

The driver admitted to being at fault. I know I'm repeating myself and others but:

- Driver is in very poor weather conditions, wet and foggy with reduced visibility

- All drivers *should* be aware that wet conditions increase braking distances and to allow other road users and themselves more time and space (it's one of teh fundamentals in the theory test)

- She admits that she saw the light from an oncoming vehicle but she pulled out anyway. This created the dangerous situation where another road user died.

No-one is claiming the woman did this deliberately or intentionally. It was a mistake and a miscalculation on her part. However her driving caused a fatally dangerous situation to arise and is therefore dangerous driving and yes she should be convicted.

elaverty · 26-10-2011 10:08am

RosieJoe wrote: »

I was involved in a similar accident many moons ago in the car. Girl coming out of a driveway pulled out too far, car coming up the road clipped here and came across the road and crashed into me. 5 cars involved in total, 2 written off and 4 people carted off to hospital.

Only differences between this and the court case was the fatality and the conditions.

There was not mention of careless driving or dangerous driving, it was deemed and accident. This is how I see the case from the article.

Edit: It was also pointed out that speed was the big unknown. How do we know now that he wasn't speeding or driving too fast for the conditions? We could also argue that he should have been driving more cautiously due to the fog/dark/rain and that he should have anticipated that the car may pull out! There are way too many what ifs for us to judge this correctly.

And how do we know that he wasnt only doing 20kph,,,it brings up the argument that is going on at the minute with the HIVIZ law the RSA are trying to bring in,,,,just because people look dosnt mean they see

RosieJoe · 26-10-2011 10:29am

elaverty wrote: »

And how do we know that he wasnt only doing 20kph,,,it brings up the argument that is going on at the minute with the HIVIZ law the RSA are trying to bring in,,,,just because people look dosnt mean they see

We assume he wasn't doing 20kph 'cos if he was he'd have had a better chance of avoiding the collision and/or surviving.

elaverty · 26-10-2011 11:09am

RosieJoe wrote: »

We assume he wasn't doing 20kph 'cos if he was he'd have had a better chance of avoiding the collision and/or surviving.

If something pulls out infront of you when you are doing 20kph you have a very high chance of hiting it,you can still have a collision with it,It depends on how close you were to the object when it pulled out into your pathway,,,You dont and obviously have never riden a motorcycle,,as i said earlier there is a difference between Looking and seeing...

RosieJoe · 26-10-2011 11:11am

elaverty wrote: »

If something pulls out infront of you when you are doing 20kph you have a very high chance of hiting it,you can still have a collision with it,It depends on how close you were to the object when it pulled out into your pathway,,,You dont and obviously have never riden a motorcycle,,as i said earlier there is a difference between Looking and seeing...

Congrats lad, you obviously know me well to say that I have never ridden a bike!

seamus · 26-10-2011 11:21am

--amadeus-- wrote: »

- She admits that she saw the light from an oncoming vehicle but she pulled out anyway. This created the dangerous situation where another road user died.

Not only did she pull out anyway, but she pulled out slowly;

He said that Ms Clancy had travelled just over 10 metres over 2.4 to 2.6 seconds across the road when the collision occurred.

That's 14-15km/h. So either she pulled out quite literally right in front of him, or she pulled out far too slowly, travelling less than 15km/h despite knowing that the weather was poor and a vehicle was coming up behind her.
I would consider that dangerous driving.

One thing which isn't clear is whether she had lights on to warn approaching traffic that she was there. I find it hard to believe that a motorcyclist in the described conditions wouldn't massively scrub their speed (i.e. down to crawling pace) if they saw a pair of headlights waiting to pull out.

Cuddlesworth · 26-10-2011 11:22am

RosieJoe wrote: »

Congrats lad, you obviously know me well to say that I have never ridden a bike!

Is this you?

RosieJoe · 26-10-2011 11:24am

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Is this you?

God no, this is me

Please Kill Me · 26-10-2011 11:27am

--amadeus-- wrote: »

- She admits that she saw the light from an oncoming vehicle but she pulled out anyway. This created the dangerous situation where another road user died.

This is the clincher for me. She admitted seeing it, but pulled out anyway!! THIS is why she should be done! Why would any normal, sane person see an oncoming vehicle, and then just pull out?? It happens to me at least once a day! A car coming out of a junction will stop, look right at me, and pull out anyway!!

There's many a dented door in Dublin as a reminder for dopes who do this! :mad:

elaverty · 26-10-2011 11:30am

RosieJoe wrote: »

Congrats lad, you obviously know me well to say that I have never ridden a bike!

Well that shut me up fairly quick,,,,i dont know what to say now,,:o

RosieJoe · 26-10-2011 11:34am

elaverty wrote: »

Well that shut me up fairly quick,,,,i dont know what to say now,,:o

How about "You're still an idiot!"

elaverty · 26-10-2011 11:39am

RosieJoe wrote: »

How about "You're still an idiot!"

OK ILL SAY IT,BUT REMEMBER YOU DID TELL ME TOO,,,,Your still a idiot..

They say when you can admit something about yourself your half way there to recovery,,,so congratulations on admiting it

Anyway this is geting to petty for me now,,so ill leave it to you to go of Topic

:D

Nodster · 26-10-2011 2:22pm

Sadly a life was lost in this incident, but on the positive side, it might highlight the consequences of any cage driver reversing out they're gate that 'accident do happen'

JohnnyCrash · 26-10-2011 3:52pm

Nodster wrote: »

Sadly a life was lost in this incident, but on the positive side, it might highlight the consequences of any cage driver reversing out they're gate that 'accident do happen'

Nowhere in the article did it say that the driver reversed out of the gate.It says at least 3 times that the person pulled out of the gate.Surely "pulling out" isnt reversing?Its not justifying the case,a life was lost either ways,but people should read the facts closely before assuming.

JohnnyCrash · 26-10-2011 3:58pm

TheUsual wrote: »

Reversing onto a main road is illegal in Ireland.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

This was a case of accidental murder, the woman will have to live with the murder for the rest of her life.
And it was murder.

It wasnt mentioned anywhere that the driver reversed onto the road.Look it up if you dont believe me.

Hotblack Desiato · 26-10-2011 7:36pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Swerving in and out of traffic, purposefully driving on the wrong side of the road, racing on public roads etc would be dangerous in any situation.

OK now I'm certain you're trolling.

The rest of your post is just patronising, and wrong into the bargain.

Dublin_Gunner · 26-10-2011 7:43pm

ninja900 wrote: »

OK now I'm certain you're trolling.

The rest of your post is just patronising, and wrong into the bargain.

lol

It appears I may actually been the only one talking sense.

Noone has even considered the fact that the cyclist may have been speeding.

Anyway, I'm out, enough of listening to the rubbish after giving numerous explanations.

Hotblack Desiato · 26-10-2011 7:45pm

seanybiker wrote: »

Sorry man but that is biggest hape of bollix I ever heard.

I know lads on bikes that have got a massive amount of money from people driving out in front of them.
1 fella I know is only 25 now and he had 3 crashes and he is after making thousands off them. We joked with him that he was out looking for people to hit into. 3 bike crashes and he has a fair whack of his mortgage paid off. he got 18000 +/- a few yoyo's for one crash.

He's right and you're wrong. Having compensation awarded against you (in reality, against your insurer) is totally different from being charged with an offence.

Disgraceful article in today's Irish Times

Comments