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

The state of comments online about road traffic deaths and cycling

Options
1…457910

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Sorry for posting Dublin live, but a car crashes into a shop on George's St and no one seems interested on Dublin Live facebook. He must have been pissed.

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/gardai-crash-dublin-traffic-ireland-19218954

    It's hilarious really. Bring a cyclist into the equation and they'd all be foaming at the mouth.


  • Options
    #183
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,917 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ^^^ that is the incident where a car and a building collided apparently

    https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1323933493903187971


  • Options
    #184
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,420 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    ^^^ that is the incident where a car and a building collided apparently

    https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1323933493903187971

    Building didn't indicate I bet


  • Options
    #185
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Normally that street is packed with people. Lots of people could have been hurt or killed. When the usual mouth breathers are giving out about how dangerous cyclists are, this is the kind of thing they need to be shown. Although I doubt it'd change their mentality.


  • Options
    #186
    begbysback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Sorry for posting Dublin live, but a car crashes into a shop on George's St and no one seems interested on Dublin Live facebook. He must have been pissed.

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/gardai-crash-dublin-traffic-ireland-19218954

    It's hilarious really. Bring a cyclist into the equation and they'd all be foaming at the mouth.

    He managed to slam into the front of the shop with the back of the car, this says it all, would you like to hazard a guess how fast he was going in reverse whilst drunk?

    also Dublin live links should be banned, absolute clickbait sensationalism of the highest order


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    begbysback wrote: »
    He managed to slam into the front of the shop with the back of the car, this says it all, would you like to hazard a guess how fast he was going in reverse whilst drunk?

    also Dublin live links should be banned, absolute clickbait sensationalism of the highest order

    No idea how drunk they were but i saw a car the other day driving at least 90km/h in a 50km zone.


  • Options
    #188
    begbysback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    No idea how drunk they were but i saw a car the other day driving at least 90km/h in a 50km zone.

    Sounds like bad speed limit marking, would it be safe enough to increase limit to 60 or 80?


  • Options
    #189
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    begbysback wrote: »
    Sounds like bad speed limit marking, would it be safe enough to increase limit to 60 or 80?

    well if they just made all the speed limits higher, speeding wouldn't be an issue


  • Options
    #190
    begbysback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    well if they just made all the speed limits higher, speeding wouldn't be an issue

    Now, now monk, you are implying that a reduction in speed limits would make speeding more of an issue? How’s about we propose to have accurate speed limits?


  • Options
    #191
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    begbysback wrote: »
    Now, now monk, you are implying that a reduction in speed limits would make speeding more of an issue? How’s about we propose to have accurate speed limits?

    no idea wtf you're on about now


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    https://www.thejournal.ie/witness-appeal-hit-and-run-newbridge-5261815-Nov2020/

    3 RIPs, for a murder. No one condemning dangerous driving.


  • Options
    #193
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Well it's pretty crazy isn't it. Zero interest in it at all. It is just totally accepted that you can kill someone in a car. It needs to change.


  • Options
    #194
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,420 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Well it's pretty crazy isn't it. Zero interest in it at all. It is just totally accepted that you can kill someone in a car. It needs to change.

    Imagine if pushing someone off a cliff was a "gravity accident"


  • Options
    #195
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,753 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    https://www.thejournal.ie/witness-appeal-hit-and-run-newbridge-5261815-Nov2020/

    3 RIPs, for a murder. No one condemning dangerous driving.
    There have been a few more comments since. A few more RIPs and plenty of condemnation of drivers involved in hit and run collisions. All of it fair, IMHO.

    But hey, it seems as though without any knowledge of the case, you've established as fact that the driver set out to cause the death of the pedestrian. Because intent to kill is a requirement for anything to be called murder. I would be interested to hear how you determined that it was murder and by what means you ruled out manslaughter.

    Although it's possible that this pedestrian was one of the up to 70% of pedestrians that cause their own deaths (source) due to their own actions, given that the driver fled the scene we can infer that they were culpable and looking to evade due responsibility.
    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Well it's pretty crazy isn't it. Zero interest in it at all. It is just totally accepted that you can kill someone in a car. It needs to change.
    Can you be more specific? Who exactly is defending hit-and-run drivers? Or those who commit vehicular murder?
    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Imagine if pushing someone off a cliff was a "gravity accident"
    I suspect in most such cases, mens rea is fairly easy to show.


  • Options
    #196
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,424 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    Although it's possible that this pedestrian was one of the up to 70% of pedestrians that cause their own deaths (source) due to their own actions, given that the driver fled the scene we can infer that they were culpable and looking to evade due responsibility.

    Except that's not what that PowerPoint slideshow says. It doesn't say that they 'caused their own deaths'. It says that they are 'culpable or part-culpable'. And it doesn't define what culpable means. And it notes the limitations of the small sample size. And it's not peer reviewed.


  • Options
    #197
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    https://www.thejournal.ie/witness-appeal-hit-and-run-newbridge-5261815-Nov2020/

    3 RIPs, for a murder. No one condemning dangerous driving.

    Man stop reading the fooking Journal, let alone the comment section.

    If cycling didnt increase my commute x3 i would do it no issue. I also dont fancy cycling at 3am in fairness.


  • Options
    #198
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Man stop reading the fooking Journal, let alone the comment section.

    If cycling didnt increase my commute x3 i would do it no issue. I also dont fancy cycling at 3am in fairness.

    It's pretty much the only free news source for Ireland these days. But yes best avoided I think, it frustrates me too much.


  • Options
    #199
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,445 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    actually, would be an interesting subscription model - pay five quid a month to access the journal, and the only difference is the comments are switched off...


  • Options
    #200
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,753 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Except that's not what that PowerPoint slideshow says. It doesn't say that they 'caused their own deaths'. It says that they are 'culpable or part-culpable'. And it doesn't define what culpable means. And it notes the limitations of the small sample size. And it's not peer reviewed.
    No, 70% of pedestrian fatalities were caused by the pedestrians own actions. Joint culpability (error by both driver and pedestrian) was only established in 2% of cases. The methodology and sources for the data were clear. But just like the international context, the data and evidence contradicts your narrative. :rolleyes: I'm sorry you don't like facts, evidence, data or context, but that does not make them any less true. :rolleyes:

    But I don't think someone who blindly accepts specious claims of specific intent to kill - as you did by thanking the post below - is in a position to split hairs.
    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    https://www.thejournal.ie/witness-appeal-hit-and-run-newbridge-5261815-Nov2020/

    3 RIPs, for a murder. No one condemning dangerous driving.
    Because that is what has been claimed here. That the driver in this case specifically set out to intentionally kill the pedestrian. This is of course possible, but I doubt that the poster or any of the users who thanked it have the slightest shred of evidence to back up this claim.

    I ask the poster and the cycling circle jerk here, do you have evidence of intent to kill? Because that is a prerequisite for an accusation of murder.


  • Options
    #201
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,917 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    SeanW wrote: »
    Because that is what has been claimed here. That the driver in this case specifically set out to intentionally kill the pedestrian. This is of course possible, but I doubt that the poster or any of the users who thanked it have the slightest shred of evidence to back up this claim.

    I ask the poster and the cycling circle jerk here, do you have evidence of intent to kill? Because that is a prerequisite for an accusation of murder.
    I'm not familiar with that case but one could argue that if a driver drives recklessly in full knowledge that they share the road with vulnerable road users, then surely they are carrying out their actions knowing a potential outcome, no matter how unlikely.
    One could also use the example of shooting randomly into a street. Chances are that you won't hit someone but there is still a risk of it happening.
    On that basis and given the mantra over the years about "Speed Kills" and so on, a driver cannot say that they didn't set out to kill someone if they manage to do so. very few road traffic incidents are accidental. Most are the end result of a bad decision, usually by the driver.
    So to murder someone requires intent. Surely driving dangerously, knowing there is a remote possibility of killing someone, also shows intent?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,445 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i've always been sceptical of the gardai's ability to properly investigate RTCs since that case where a driver struck a pedestrian on an N road; the driver told the gardai he was doing about 90km/h (IIRC), and the gardai concluded that he was actually doing - i think - 45-50km/h.

    the fact that they trusted their own forensics (which reached a ludicrous conclusion) over the word of the driver himself was just *weird*. i'll see if i can dig out the details.


  • Options
    #203
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,917 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I think for a long time there was a no-blame attitude to fatalities where the driver was killed because they didn't want to cause offence to the deceased's family.


  • Options
    #204
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,753 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with that case but one could argue that if a driver drives recklessly in full knowledge that they share the road with vulnerable road users, then surely they are carrying out their actions knowing a potential outcome, no matter how unlikely.
    One could also use the example of shooting randomly into a street. Chances are that you won't hit someone but there is still a risk of it happening.
    On that basis and given the mantra over the years about "Speed Kills" and so on, a driver cannot say that they didn't set out to kill someone if they manage to do so. very few road traffic incidents are accidental. Most are the end result of a bad decision, usually by the driver.
    So to murder someone requires intent. Surely driving dangerously, knowing there is a remote possibility of killing someone, also shows intent?
    "Intent" to do what? In most jurisdictions, murder comes in two degrees. First degree murder is premeditated, i.e. planned in advance. Second degree need not have been planned (e.g. it can be a spur-of-the-moment thing), but the actual killing itself specifically must still have been deliberate. AFAIK Any other case of unlawful killing is specifically covered by manslaughter in most jurisdictions.

    In the case of an accusation of vehicular murder, a second degree murder would still require the driver to have been aware of the pedestrian and actively decided to kill them. So far as I am aware, this has not been established in this case.


  • Options
    #205
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,424 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    No, 70% of pedestrian fatalities were caused by the pedestrians own actions. Joint culpability (error by both driver and pedestrian) was only established in 2% of cases. The methodology and sources for the data were clear. But just like the international context, the data and evidence contradicts your narrative. :rolleyes: I'm sorry you don't like facts, evidence,
    The report doesn't say that deaths were caused by pedestrian's actions. The methodology is extremely unclear, as there is no definition of 'culpability' - the key factor in the report.

    But sure jump on board and keep blaming pedestrians and cyclists. Better hope that no-one points out that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. See if you can find a way to blame pedestrians for those?


  • Options
    #206
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The report doesn't say that deaths were caused by pedestrian's actions. The methodology is extremely unclear, as there is no definition of 'culpability' - the key factor in the report.

    But sure jump on board and keep blaming pedestrians and cyclists. Better hope that no-one points out that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. See if you can find a way to blame pedestrians for those?

    Because it's motorists killing motorist, and dual carriageways and motorways are safer, should we not rip up the cycle lanes and put in more dual carriageways and motorways to save the majority of lives?

    Or at the very least, have a rethink about making village centers CoVid friendly?

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/outdoor-drinking-blackrock-garda-crackdown-19271551.amp


  • Options
    #207
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,424 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Because it's motorists killing motorist, and dual carriageways and motorways are safer, should we not rip up the cycle lanes and put in more dual carriageways and motorways to save the majority of lives?

    Or at the very least, have a rethink about making village centers CoVid friendly?

    https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/outdoor-drinking-blackrock-garda-crackdown-19271551.amp

    And following your same logic, we should stop vaccinations for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis), Hib (Haemophilus influenzae, Polio (Inactivated poliomyelitis) and Hepatitis B because levels of infection are very low, right? You really should think things through.

    We should definitely be rethinking the village centres scheme though, so many missed opportunities to make more of our villages safer.


  • Options
    #208
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    And following your same logic, we should stop vaccinations for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis), Hib (Haemophilus influenzae, Polio (Inactivated poliomyelitis) and Hepatitis B because levels of infection are very low, right? You really should think things through.

    We should definitely be rethinking the village centres scheme though, so many missed opportunities to make more of our villages safer.

    No because your analolgy would be akin to ripping up all the dual carriageways and motorways and replacing them with single carriageways, you really DON'T think things through at all.


  • Options
    #209
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,753 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Because it's motorists killing motorist, and dual carriageways and motorways are safer, should we not rip up the cycle lanes and put in more dual carriageways and motorways to save the majority of
    The "rule" seems to be that you never build dual carriageways or motorways, force village main streets to double up as key national routes, and then act surprised when there are negative consequences associated with it. As the OP did. Oh and then, make sure you blame Irish drivers/people/"planning" or whatever specifically, for things that are general rules across the world. E.g. that routes trying to act as both streets and roads simultaneously (like Main St. Charleville a.k.a the Limerick-Cork road) will fail to function effectively as either and have a bad safety record.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The report doesn't say that deaths were caused by pedestrian's actions. The methodology is extremely unclear, as there is no definition of 'culpability' - the key factor in the report.

    But sure jump on board and keep blaming pedestrians and cyclists. Better hope that no-one points out that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers. See if you can find a way to blame pedestrians for those?
    It was more of a slideshow detailing RSA research, and they addressed all of those issues. The first slides in Section 2 show where they got their data and the first slide in Section 3 outlines culpability. I suspect that these BS objections have more to do with the fact that this data and evidence (like others) contracts your narrative that "Irish drivers = horrible monsters killing everybody that need to be drowned in regulation". I'm sorry that the evidence does not support - indeed expressly contradicts - your prejudice and dogma :rolleyes: but your not liking the facts and evidence does not make them any less true.

    As to blaming pedestrians for fatal collisions involving multiple vehicles, nice strawman. I don't blame them for it because I have no reason to do so nor evidence to back it up. But I do have evidence for the claims that I have actually made:
    • That unless the poster who used the word "murder" has evidence not in the public domain, i.e. an awareness of the pedestrian and an explicit decision by the driver to kill them, then the claim of "murder" is unwarranted. Yet for some reason :rolleyes: neither that poster nor those who thanked their inane post, have provided any evidence of murder vs. manslaughter.
    • That the OPs claims about Journal comments are bizarre. The comments in the hit-and-run arrest article (RIP, scum who hit and run should have 5/10 year minimum prison sentences, good work by the Gardai) are entirely appropriate.
    • That the inherent risks associated with road/motor usage are well managed in this country.
    • That in general (obviously this case being a likely exception) a pedestrian is going to be perfectly fine if they have an ounce of cop-on.


  • Options
    #210
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,264 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    Garda Traffic on Twitter should photograph bikes they see with no lights and apply a fine to, I'd say compliance is not even 30%.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    Garda Traffic on Twitter should photograph bikes they see with no lights and apply a fine to, I'd say compliance is not even 30%.

    They dont even fine cars for breaking lights and speeding and illegally parking and its endemic everywhere. Bicycles with no lights is at worst only going to be a problem for the person on the bike. There are much higher priorities if its safety on the roads that is your concern.
    Also how would they identify people on bikes??


Advertisement