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

'Van driver fined €500 for running over and killing nun'

whiskeyman

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/van-driver-fined-500-for-running-over-and-killing-nun-70-31054656.html

When I saw the headline, I couldn't believe it... but reading the facts, I feel for the poor driver here.
The nun walked out on the road, with no green pedestrian light.
The driver wasn't going above the limit.
Perhaps he could have reacted quicker, but the nun didn't seem right at all.
No doubt he has suffered huge emotional turmoil after this.

As expected, it's a pretty poorly written and bad headline by the indo...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rosie Rant

What an awful tragedy. Very sad for everyone involved.

That headline is disgusting. Also, it seems to me that the picture they chose seems to paint the poor driver in a bad light as well. He is squinting in the sun but it almost looks like he is sneering or winking. If you look close enough you can see the pain in his eyes, but it's as if they tried to make him look as bad as they possibly could. I can just imagine the vultures standing around the table going through a pile of photos they'd taken of him, trying to find the one that best reflects their "juicy" headline.

Lapin

Tearin It Up wrote: »

The driver must always give way to whoever has the right of way, and once a pedestrian steps out they have right of way.

Well what kind of a screwed up rule is that?

Does it go back to the days of asses and carts or what?

Or maybe the times when car drivers had to follow some health and safety jobsworth walking in front of them with a red flag?

SeanW

Tearin It Up wrote: »

The driver must always give way to whoever has the right of way, and once a pedestrian steps out they have right of way.

Then why bother with lights?

Dravokivich

Tearin It Up wrote: »

A controlled junction is not a junction???

A junction is a junction with or without traffic lights/pedestrian lights, its a junction.

Just because it has lights, you don't ignore the rules of the road.

The driver must always give way to whoever has the right of way, and once a pedestrian steps out they have right of way.

That isn't right.

I've spent a while going through my quoted posts to find this;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86455332&postcount=16

A response I got, because i mistakenly thought the same thing.

It contains a link to the following

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

Which states

(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.

(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.

Pedestrians do not have right of way, wherever they choose to cross the road.

Tokyo

Tearin It Up wrote: »

The driver must always give way to whoever has the right of way, and once a pedestrian steps out they have right of way.

"If I truly believe in the lord Jesus as i step into this traffic, he will protect me from dange...." *thwap*

Flippant as my example might seem, it highlights that there's a little more to it than that.

[Deleted User]

Several years ago my brother was driving along a dual carriage way at night when a guy ran a cross the road in front of him. He hit the guy causing very serious injury. The guy ended up in a wheelchair.
It took a year to come to court and my brother was cleared of any wrong doing. The incident was caught on a traffic camera.
They guy took a civil case for damages which was also thrown out.
That was in the UK. Am sure if this incident happened in the UK, there would be no fine and no conviction.

DeadHand

Disgraceful headline from the Indo demonising a decent man.

DeadHand

Deleted User wrote: »

Several years ago my brother was driving along a dual carriage way at night when a guy ran a cross the road in front of him. He hit the guy causing very serious injury. The guy ended up in a wheelchair.
It took a year to come to court and my brother was cleared of any wrong doing. The incident was caught on a traffic camera.
They guy took a civil case for damages which was also thrown out.
That was in the UK. Am sure if this incident happened in the UK, there would be no fine and no conviction.

Yes, because the UK has generally sensible judges. Unlike us.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Several years ago my brother was driving along a dual carriage way at night when a guy ran a cross the road in front of him. He hit the guy causing very serious injury. The guy ended up in a wheelchair.
It took a year to come to court and my brother was cleared of any wrong doing. The incident was caught on a traffic camera.
They guy took a civil case for damages which was also thrown out.
That was in the UK. Am sure if this incident happened in the UK, there would be no fine and no conviction.

In this case though, the man plead guilty to the charge. Did your brother plead guilty?

The Judges decision here was fair IMO.

Dravokivich

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In this case though, the man plead guilty to the charge. Did your brother plead guilty?

The Judges decision here was fair IMO.

It reads like he was led by the Garda's comments to plead guilty.

qt3.14

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Unfortunately, the moment she stepped out, she had the right of way. I wonder was it his admission of guilt, or the above that drew the conclusion of 'failure of observation'.

Either way its a horrihle thing to live with.

Deleted User wrote: »

I rarely ask anyone to back up their statements, but can you point me to legislation which makes this so?

No such thing as a right of way in road laws. You've a license to proceed with caution. Bit of a wierd way of making sure it's a bit of everyones fault when things go wrong.

darkpagandeath

Is running over a nun worse than running over a normal person ? Don't get the title.

Egginacup

cronin_j wrote: »

I'm sorry but im calling this as bull****, a Judge is there to serve the laws of Ireland, not fine someone to make them feel better. If he wanted to do that he should have gave him the number of a councillor.

Ah, you know what, we can't all be as tough and macho as you. You have all the answers.

Egginacup

mike_ie wrote: »

Found guilty in a court of law because he looks like he wants to feel guilty?

Well what was he found guilty of that has everyone up in arms?

Dravokivich

Egginacup wrote: »

Well what was he found guilty of that has everyone up in arms?

He wasnt determined to be guilty. He wrongfully pleaded it.

GLaDOS

I do get the impression the man was fairly overcome with guilt over the incident. He may have misremembered how much attention he took away from the road to look at the green light, memory is a fickle thing.

Hopefully he moves on for this, sounds likes he's been punished plenty.