Journalism and cycling

rubadub · 17-10-2018 5:50pm

The jury of three women and three men returned a verdict of accidental death and made a recommendation that all cyclists wear helmets.

no recommendations for motorists so?

Any other recommendations? chastity belts?

17-10-2018 6:34pm

Well reading that sure ruined my day. Never ceases to amaze me some of the bolloxology seen in our courts.

Seth Brundle · 17-10-2018 6:41pm

ED E wrote: »

No punishment, wasn't prosecuted.

But given the outcome in the Coroners Court the gardai wont take it further.

ED E · 17-10-2018 6:53pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But given the outcome in the Coroners Court the gardai wont take it further.

As I understand it the coroner only gets it in absence of a prosecution.

Seth Brundle · 17-10-2018 7:28pm

ED E wrote: »

As I understand it the coroner only gets it in absence of a prosecution.

Either way a man is dead because somehow a driver saw a cyclist ahead of him yet still managed to knock him down and kill him but let's not make the old man feel worse than he may already do.
The cyclist's family saw no justice!

tomasrojo · 17-10-2018 7:58pm

Martin Porter was making the argument two or so years ago in the UK that cycling cases shouldn't use juries. It was this sort of thing he had in mind. Look how they contorted themselves to absolve the driver and blame the cyclist (which is what the references to hiviz and helmets is really about).

tomasrojo · 17-10-2018 8:03pm

Incidentally, I used to be of the opinion, mentioned already, that it was worth pursuing "safety" strategies that you don't really believe in, on the grounds that authorities might be more likely to pursue the person who harms you. I don't believe this anymore. I think they'll "attaboy" your departed soul in an aside, if that, and talk about how traumatised the driver is.

RacoonQueen · 17-10-2018 8:10pm

mr spuckler wrote: »

aaaaggggghhhh, just NO again.

the whole report makes me really angry. he said he saw the cyclist ahead of him and yet the lack of hi-viz is referenced for some reason. he said the cyclist didn't move off his line and yet they can't say who collided with who. what does it take to create any accountability for killing cyclists?

It's nonsense. Blood boiling nonsense.

The incident happened somewhere around here, on a road I presume he cycled every day and would have been well aware of any bad patches of road he needed to avoid etc road looks like it's in good condition and plenty of space to overtake safely once traffic isn't coming in other direction. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2924365,-6.2931545,3a,75y,23.37h,88.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv9bGbmDkJ6zx_avbbcWfuw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Even if the cyclist had adjusted their position, the mere fact the two met means the car did not overtake safely.
They either pulled out too late, pulled back in too early or did not leave ample space when overtaking.

I'm sure the driver and his wife have not had a great time since the death themselves, awful thing to be 'responsible' for, even if the law doesn't agree. From the report, it sounds like they know the driver was at fault.

Seth Brundle · 17-10-2018 8:17pm

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I'm sure the driver and his wife have not had a great time since the death themselves, awful thing to be 'responsible' for, even if the law doesn't agree. From the report, it sounds like they know the driver was at fault.

Yes he is probably mentally tortured but it's his fault IMO.
If we look at the recent videos of taxi drivers deliberately swerving towards cyclists, if and when one of these idiots is successful and kills a cyclist they may well get off because the cyclist wasn't wearing a high viz vest on a bright June morning with good visibility.
We have to get out of the habit of coming up with nice outcomes for the sake (in many RTAs) of the deceased or in this case the driver.

Duckjob · 17-10-2018 8:45pm

It's just another way in which we look more and more like the island people of Europe when it comes to protecting our road users.

In Netherlands when there is a road fatality, a thorough investigation is done to FIND THE CAUSE and then concrete actions are taken to try to prevent the same circumstances happen again.

Here, we have this useless box ticking exercise where no blame is assigned to anyone except the unfortunate victim (useful as they can't argue back). We then forget about it until the next time, and rinse and repeat.

It achieves absolutely NOTHING!!!

On a sidenote,

I came across the recent taxi chasing cyclist up on the footpath story on several international sources FB groups/cycle blogs etc.

My only hope for change in Ireland at this point is that we start getting enough international attention/criticism on how backward our road culture is, and how little our government is doing to sort it, that they get embarrassed and shamed into moving their arses to do something, because they sure as hell don't seem motivated to do anything to risk disturbing the "car-is-king" status quo by themselves.

AndrewJRenko · 17-10-2018 10:19pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It wasn't an accident. It was a completely avoidable incident.

I was going to post my views, but I can't better this.

Rechuchote · 18-10-2018 7:21am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No that's not good enough.
From the article we don't see that the driver has been banned so what punishment, if any, has there been for a dangerous manouvre that resulted in a death?
The driver came up behind the cyclist. He may not have intended to hit him; but he did hit him, causing death. The driver did not overtake safely.
If it was a child on their bike, would the man have given more space and if not why not?
It wasn't an accident. It was a completely avoidable incident.

The coroners courts are completely unfit for purpose in investigating "accidents". This should be done by a professional body with expertise and without prejudice.

ford2600 · 18-10-2018 8:33am

The DPP didn't prosecute here, I presume because it would be really difficult to prove.

There was only 3 people at location at time in question; one is dead, one was driver and the driver's spouse. Can you be forced to give evidence against yourself or spouse?

Without witness testimony you are down to physical evidence. What was nature of impact(if any) between car and bicycle? It's possible there was none; car got much too close to cyclist who then lost control and fell. Contact might have been very light (between cyclist and car) as not to leave mark on car. Then defence team can argue there was none.

How do you convict beyond a reasonable doubt in that scenario? We can all guess what probably happened in this scenario but guess don't cut it in a criminal court where the deck is loaded in favour of the Accused. In my very limited knowledge all evidence used to prosecute a case has to be in Book of Evidence, which is handed to defence team well before a trial. The BOE here would be pretty light before some half decent legal team started punching holes in it.

It wouldn't be an easy civil case to win, but it'll probably settle as that seems to be how we, as a society, have generally decided to deal with death/injury on our roads.

As a side note, the driver I least like to meet are old drivers. You very rarely get aggression but very often get a close pass, often at moderate speed, but its often like they have really considered you at all, with no steering input. Compulsory retraining over age of 65 and a new licence application every couple of years might be a worthwhile recommendation

randomname2005 · 18-10-2018 9:05am

ford2600 wrote: »

The DPP didn't prosecute here, I presume because it would be really difficult to prove.

There was only 3 people at location at time in question; one is dead, one was driver and the driver's spouse. Can you be forced to give evidence against yourself or spouse?

Without witness testimony you are down to physical evidence. What was nature of impact(if any) between car and bicycle? It's possible there was none; car got much too close to cyclist who then lost control and fell. Contact might have been very light (between cyclist and car) as not to leave mark on car. Then defence team can argue there was none.

How do you convict beyond a reasonable doubt in that scenario? We can all guess what probably happened in this scenario but guess don't cut it in a criminal court where the deck is loaded in favour of the Accused. In my very limited knowledge all evidence used to prosecute a case has to be in Book of Evidence, which is handed to defence team well before a trial. The BOE here would be pretty light before some half decent legal team started punching holes in it.

It wouldn't be an easy civil case to win, but it'll probably settle as that seems to be how we, as a society, have generally decided to deal with death/injury on our roads.

As a side note, the driver I least like to meet are old drivers. You very rarely get aggression but very often get a close pass, often at moderate speed, but its often like they have really considered you at all, with no steering input. Compulsory retraining over age of 65 and a new licence application every couple of years might be a worthwhile recommendation

I think it depends on what you are trying to make a conviction on. Manslaughter, probably difficult, but driving without due care and attention, driving inconsiderately (I am sure there are legal names for these but am too angry to find exact names). If the accident is close to where Racoon Queen suggested, then you look at how far it was from the kerb - if the distance between the car and kerb was very little then it should be possible to prosecute on a minor offense and at least have some justice for the family if a serious offense is not going to be successful. But there is no desire in the country to prosecute people for motoring offenses.

Macy0161 · 18-10-2018 9:06am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Martin Porter was making the argument two or so years ago in the UK that cycling cases shouldn't use juries. It was this sort of thing he had in mind. Look how they contorted themselves to absolve the driver and blame the cyclist (which is what the references to hiviz and helmets is really about).

You'd wonder what they would be forced to come up with, if he was wearing a helmet and hiviz?

I feel somewhat guilty (as I do think it's feeding into the whole nonsense) but I've reluctantly taken to wearing hiviz on my commutes just so should something happen, the fact I wasn't couldn't be used against me (either in real time, or in the extreme the coroners court).

mloc123 · 18-10-2018 9:20am

So the driver saw him and admitted he saw him and yet they still noted he was not wearing hi-viz.

Am I missing something about the RSA hi-viz vests? Are they made of kevlar or something similar that prevents injury when kit by a car?

Fian · 18-10-2018 9:27am

ED E wrote: »

As I understand it the coroner only gets it in absence of a prosecution.

No. A coroner gets it in cases of road traffic deaths, along with a number of other circumstances. Generally a coroner will adjourn if a prosecution is ongoing.

The verdict of the coroner does not in any way preclude a prosecution should the DPP consider that there is sufficient evidence to bring one.

The evidence the garda gave, which is what annoyed me about this rather than the verdict, would suggest that there is insufficient evidence in his view, since he seems unable to apportion blame for the accident between the cyclist who held his line and the driver who made a decision to overtake him.

CramCycle · 18-10-2018 9:41am

The Garda's evidence indicates he cannot say if the cyclist swerved out or the car in. It really fails to understand that in either case, the car was performing a dangerously close overtake.

If the minimum passing legislation had been enacted rather than excused on inability to enforce it live. We would have an easy and obvious conviction that would clearly indicate to other non cyclist what is and is not OK.

JMcL · 18-10-2018 9:58am

ford2600 wrote: »

Compulsory retraining over age of 65 and a new licence application every couple of years might be a worthwhile recommendation

Over the age of 60 you can only renew up until your 70th birthday, and thereafter it's a 3 year license along with a "fitness to drive" cert (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driver_licensing/renewing_a_full_driving_licence.html) - and from what I can see, it'd seem you'd have to be pretty bad not to get one of those - of course it's all down to how good/obliging your GP is.

It is shocking though that you get handed a driving license at age 18 and effectively retain it to the grave with no further training/testing required except in the most exceptional circumstances - drivers should at least be required to redo the test if they rack up 12 points. In France, you don't even have to renew - you can still be driving at age 80 with a picture of your 18 year old self on the license (though the only real difference here is that it's a bit of a revenue raising exercise)

Macy0161 · 18-10-2018 10:06am

I wouldn't be convinced its down to age and competence, as age and driving culture thing. I've had the arguements regarding two a breast with relations that used to cycle tour in their youth. Many really can't get their head around anything other than hitting is fine - I can only assume it goes back to days with less traffic, slower speeds, less agression on the roads....

RobbieMD · 18-10-2018 11:06am

randomname2005 wrote: »

I think it depends on what you are trying to make a conviction on. Manslaughter, probably difficult, but driving without due care and attention, driving inconsiderately (I am sure there are legal names for these but am too angry to find exact names). If the accident is close to where Racoon Queen suggested, then you look at how far it was from the kerb - if the distance between the car and kerb was very little then it should be possible to prosecute on a minor offense and at least have some justice for the family if a serious offense is not going to be successful. But there is no desire in the country to prosecute people for motoring offenses.

I don't know if a family would feel justice was done though, if the person responsible for the death of their loved one, was issued a ticket for 2points and an €80 fine though.

Also I would imagine motoring offences are probably the most common offence prosecuted in Ireland.

RacoonQueen · 18-10-2018 11:51am

JMcL wrote: »

Over the age of 60 you can only renew up until your 70th birthday, and thereafter it's a 3 year license along with a "fitness to drive" cert (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driver_licensing/renewing_a_full_driving_licence.html) - and from what I can see, it'd seem you'd have to be pretty bad not to get one of those - of course it's all down to how good/obliging your GP is.

It is shocking though that you get handed a driving license at age 18 and effectively retain it to the grave with no further training/testing required except in the most exceptional circumstances - drivers should at least be required to redo the test if they rack up 12 points. In France, you don't even have to renew - you can still be driving at age 80 with a picture of your 18 year old self on the license (though the only real difference here is that it's a bit of a revenue raising exercise)

You can also take into account that there is a % of drivers in this age range say 60 plus (and younger?) who never did any driver training or took a test.
The worst driver I know, in their 70s filled in a form and ticked boxes and has every category of licence.

Fian · 18-10-2018 11:56am

France appears to be proposing registration plates for bicycles?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/18/france-considers-mandatory-bicycle-ownership-register-thefts

Each cycle frame would be marked “in a readable, indelible, permanent and unforgeable way in a clearly visible place”, the draft text says.

The registration number will be in a form that can be verified by an optical reader.

TheChizler · 18-10-2018 11:59am

Fian wrote: »

France appears to be proposing registration plates for bicycles?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/18/france-considers-mandatory-bicycle-ownership-register-thefts

Seems like a standardised version of the existing serial number really.

Fian · 18-10-2018 12:09pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Seems like a standardised version of the existing serial number really.

Ah maybe so. I was interpreting "optical reader" to mean autmatic number plate recognition devices in police cars, but it is probably something handheld now i think about it.

All the same a mandatory registration system still seems like a bit of overkill to me tbh.

magicbastarder · 18-10-2018 12:40pm

looks like a $50 solution to a $5 problem?
will probably create as many issues as it solves. especially when bikes often change hands for no money, being passed within families or between friends.

AndrewJRenko · 18-10-2018 3:06pm

ford2600 wrote: »

As a side note, the driver I least like to meet are old drivers. You very rarely get aggression but very often get a close pass, often at moderate speed, but its often like they have really considered you at all, with no steering input. Compulsory retraining over age of 65 and a new licence application every couple of years might be a worthwhile recommendation

Fully agree, except maybe the compulsory retraining and retesting should start a bit earlier, say about 25?

Macy0161 · 18-10-2018 3:13pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fully agree, except maybe the compulsory retraining and retesting should start a bit earlier, say about 25?

I think there's definitely a case for a theory test every renewal. If you have extra classes (like I do), that means every 5 years.

Idleater · 18-10-2018 3:34pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fully agree, except maybe the compulsory retraining and retesting should start a bit earlier, say about 25?

My (motorcycle) advanced driving license has to be renewed every 3 years. And that's a 90 minute test, not a round the block.

I fully agree with retraining and retesting, though a happy medium not at advanced level would suffice. Unfortunately with advanced driving, most of those who could do with it, don't.

hesker · 18-10-2018 7:01pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Martin Porter was making the argument two or so years ago in the UK that cycling cases shouldn't use juries. It was this sort of thing he had in mind. Look how they contorted themselves to absolve the driver and blame the cyclist (which is what the references to hiviz and helmets is really about).

Thanks for posting that. Spent a bit of time reading his blog.

I think this article sums up the situation quite accurately.

https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html?m=1

AndrewJRenko · 18-10-2018 8:54pm

Idleater wrote: »

My (motorcycle) advanced driving license has to be renewed every 3 years. And that's a 90 minute test, not a round the block.

I fully agree with retraining and retesting, though a happy medium not at advanced level would suffice. Unfortunately with advanced driving, most of those who could do with it, don't.

I wonder if the technology is here or coming soon that would allow assessment in a simulator or similar, without going out on the road?

magicbastarder · 18-10-2018 9:37pm

ford2600 wrote: »

As a side note, the driver I least like to meet are old drivers. You very rarely get aggression but very often get a close pass, often at moderate speed, but its often like they have really considered you at all, with no steering input. Compulsory retraining over age of 65 and a new licence application every couple of years might be a worthwhile recommendation

i know i'm shoehorning this response after your comment, but this stuck out at me from an article in the irish times today:

The claims were denied and Mrs Ryan’s side contended the accident occurred as a result of her suffering a blackout which rendered her unable to control the car and avoid colliding with the teenager.

It was pleaded the accident occurred as a result of the alleged blackout and Mrs Ryan had no legal liability for it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-with-brain-injury-after-being-hit-by-pensioner-settles-case-for-2m-1.3668517

the article doesn't say whether this specific claim was entertained, but i'm somewhat bemused with the concept that you can drive with a known health problem and not be held liable for an incident resulting from said health problem. i'm hoping the defence has no basis in actual law.

Johnny Jukebox · 18-10-2018 9:54pm

[HTML][/HTML]

Deleted User wrote: »

Well reading that sure ruined my day. Never ceases to amaze me some of the bolloxology seen in our courts.

Mine too. But something stinks about this case. I grew up on that road and have ridden it thousands of times to and from school, college and work. Its wide, its straight, it has speed ramps and it was bright, being a morning in June.

The cyclist was a middle aged man going to work, presumably a very familiar journey.

Yet somehow, the driver managed to bin the rider completely, knocking him off the bike with such force that he couldn't get his hands out to protect himself during the fall. I've come off the bike more times than I care to remember and putting your hands out to break your fall is an instinctive reaction. I can only speculate that the force of the collision prevented the rider from doing this.

BTW - the journo who reported on the inquest for the papers is getting a bit of grief on Twitter. Its unfair as she did report the facts as outlined in the inquest but I'd like to see a bit of digging around the driver and any medical conditions he might have had (dementia for example) or if members of his family had expressed concern around his driving.

Pinch Flat · 18-10-2018 10:16pm

Amazing in that case that there’s zero recommendation for the driver. Like slowing down and giving cyclists room.

Instead, the recommendation is stick on a helmet at you’ll be grand. Surprised the coroner didn’t recommend hi vis vests as well.

AndrewJRenko · 18-10-2018 10:41pm

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

The cyclist was a middle aged man going to work, presumably a very familiar journey.

Yet somehow, the driver managed to bin the rider completely, knocking him off the bike with such force that he couldn't get his hands out to protect himself during the fall. I've come off the bike more times than I care to remember and putting your hands out to break your fall is an instinctive reaction. I can only speculate that the force of the collision prevented the rider from doing this.

Did the inquest give any particular details about the medical cause of death? Was there a head injury, or a crush injury, or other?

Johnny Jukebox · 18-10-2018 11:07pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did the inquest give any particular details about the medical cause of death? Was there a head injury, or a crush injury, or other?

From the Indo article;

Scans revealed he suffered a traumatic head injury with a fractured skull and swelling of the brain. He passed away that evening at 9.26pm. Pathologist Dr Francesca Brett gave the cause of death as severe cerebral trauma due to injuries sustained in the collision.

TheChizler · 18-10-2018 11:12pm

I wonder was there any evidence given that a helmet would have helped or did the recommendation just materialise with zero basis. I don't want to get into a helmet debate but any evidence I've seen shows they're only good for short falls, if you come in contact with a vehicle they may as well not be there.

Macy0161 · 19-10-2018 9:26am

TheChizler wrote: »

I wonder was there any evidence given that a helmet would have helped or did the recommendation just materialise with zero basis. I don't want to get into a helmet debate but any evidence I've seen shows they're only good for short falls, if you come in contact with a vehicle they may as well not be there.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than no good in contact with a vehicle - the normal point about helmets in vehicle collisions is that they're multi impact (e.g. helmet impact with vehicle, then helmet impact with road), and cycling helmets are only designed for single impact.

As to the bigger point - no, they never do proper analysis imo. They just lazily assume the helmet would've saved them. It's the same logic as the social media posts of broken helmets with "I would've been dead without my helmet, a doctor said so it must be true" when there's been no proper investigation or analysis of the incident.

randomname2005 · 19-10-2018 10:03am

RobbieMD wrote: »

I don't know if a family would feel justice was done though, if the person responsible for the death of their loved one, was issued a ticket for 2points and an €80 fine though.

Also I would imagine motoring offences are probably the most common offence prosecuted in Ireland.

I imagine they would feel far from fully satisfied, but at least it would be something.

Corca Baiscinn · 19-10-2018 2:14pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Amazing in that case that there’s zero recommendation for the driver. Like slowing down and giving cyclists room.

Instead, the recommendation is stick on a helmet at you’ll be grand. Surprised the coroner didn’t recommend hi vis vests as well.

He didn't but someone found it necessary to state that the rider wasn't wearing hi vis on a morning in June! Also, Garda witness found it necessary to say that the couple in the car were familiar with the road when presumably they could have ascertained form the cyclist's family if that was also his regular route to work. I imagine it had to be since the collision happened so near his house so what as the point of describing one party's familiarity with the road?

aldark · 19-10-2018 4:29pm

It is possible to read the inquest evidence as a reluctance on the part of the garda to prosecute on old man.

It's the whole sensible policing thing - what would society benefit by dragging this through a court, not even hearsay evidence, not enough evidence to reconstruct events and responsbility.

The problem here is that the vast majority of people reading the headline may perceive that someone drove into and over a cyclist without any sanction.

check_six · 19-10-2018 5:19pm

aldark wrote: »

It is possible to read the inquest evidence as a reluctance on the part of the garda to prosecute on old man.

It's the whole sensible policing thing - what would society benefit by dragging this through a court, not even hearsay evidence, not enough evidence to reconstruct events and responsbility.

The problem here is that the vast majority of people reading the headline may perceive that someone drove into and over a cyclist without any sanction.

The problem here *IS* that someone drove into and over a cyclist without any sanction.

The driver saw the cyclist in front of him. Then he killed him.

The Guard said he couldn't determine what happened. Why not? If the driver ran into the back of another car it would be cut and dried. Why is this different?

The driver is not able to drive to a sufficient standard to stay driving at the very least, never mind any further punishment. Why was this not floated as a possibility?

And the only recommendation after all that nonsense? Get a vest and a hat.
:mad::mad::mad:

ED E · 19-10-2018 5:21pm

Proven time and again that murder is ok as long as it's vehicular. Here and the UK.

Lumen · 19-10-2018 5:22pm

ED E wrote: »

Proven time and again that murder is ok as long as it's vehicular. Here and the UK.

It's not murder if there's no intent.

ED E · 19-10-2018 5:49pm

Case today from Kerry shows how flexible intent is.

tomasrojo · 19-10-2018 10:05pm

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think it's a bit more nuanced than no good in contact with a vehicle - the normal point about helmets in vehicle collisions is that they're multi impact (e.g. helmet impact with vehicle, then helmet impact with road), and cycling helmets are only designed for single impact.

As to the bigger point - no, they never do proper analysis imo. They just lazily assume the helmet would've saved them. It's the same logic as the social media posts of broken helmets with "I would've been dead without my helmet, a doctor said so it must be true" when there's been no proper investigation or analysis of the incident.

Your handy look-up chart:

            Ok                   Death           Serious Injury

Helmet      Helmet prevented    (S)he did all    Dead without helmet 
            all injury          (s)he could                             

No Helmet   Incredibly lucky,   What do you      Helmet would have 
            irresponsible       expect?          meant no injury

Doc07 · 20-10-2018 10:36am

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think it's a bit more nuanced than no good in contact with a vehicle - the normal point about helmets in vehicle collisions is that they're multi impact (e.g. helmet impact with vehicle, then helmet impact with road), and cycling helmets are only designed for single impact.

As to the bigger point - no, they never do proper analysis imo. They just lazily assume the helmet would've saved them. It's the same logic as the social media posts of broken helmets with "I would've been dead without my helmet, a doctor said so it must be true" when there's been no proper investigation or analysis of the incident.

I have always been amazed that even some doctors think a helmet makes any difference to outcome when a cyclist is hit by a car or truck.(certainly above 50km/hr)
I can definitely endorse your point about ‘no analysis’. Nobody even looks at /for the helmet never mind any analysis. The doctor who states ‘you would have been dead without out it’ is just trying to be nice.

Corca Baiscinn · 20-10-2018 10:48pm

aldark wrote: »

It is possible to read the inquest evidence as a reluctance on the part of the garda to prosecute on old man.

It's the whole sensible policing thing - what would society benefit by dragging this through a court, not even hearsay evidence, not enough evidence to reconstruct events and responsbility.

The problem here is that the vast majority of people reading the headline may perceive that someone drove into and over a cyclist without any sanction.

I see your point to an extent if it's the case that the driver has given up driving and maybe he has, but we dont know.
Not entirely sure re lack of evidence tho', true there was no cctv and no witnesses but the media reports of the inquest didn't go into the examinations conducted on the bike and car so we dont know what the forensics people gleaned from those.
This was not a criminal court. The purpose of an inquest is to make findings of fact as to what happened , not to apportion blame, but the inability of the garda witness to explain the sequence of events as well as the Jury's recommendation re helmets creates the impression that the cyclist was to blame for his own death.
This doesn't make the roads any safer for other people who cycle.

AndrewJRenko · 21-10-2018 9:00am

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

I see your point to an extent if it's the case that the driver has given up driving and maybe he has, but we dont know.
Not entirely sure re lack of evidence tho', true there was no cctv and no witnesses but the media reports of the inquest didn't go into the examinations conducted on the bike and car so we dont know what the forensics people gleaned from those.

There were witnesses - the two people in the car. And no one asked them how much passing space they gave when overtaking, or if an overtake was appropriate and justified on a residential street.

Easier to blame the victim for helmets and hi-vis, I guess.

ED E · 21-10-2018 9:14am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There were witnesses - the two people in the car. And no one asked them how much passing space they gave when overtaking, or if an overtake was appropriate and justified on a residential street.

Easier to blame the victim for helmets and hi-vis, I guess.

Coroner can't compel them to give testimony. Won't testify against themselves in court.

Garda FCI is the start and the end of a potential case. Whether they could have done more I doubt we'll ever know but from speaking to regular attendees at such inquests their competence is reportedly very questionable.

Journalism and cycling

Comments