# Suspended sentence for driver as cyclist left unable to speak or walk



## classic33 (8 May 2017)

Robert Faherty (63) driving without headlights when Grainne Duncan’s bike hit car 

_A man whose careless driving left a cyclist without the ability to speak, walk or hear has been given a suspended sentence of nine months’ imprisonment.

Robert Faherty (63) was driving without headlights when Grainne Duncan’s bike hit his car. Mr Faherty was starting out on his journey on the evening of February 4th, 2015 and had driven for 200 metres before the crash.

Judge Pauline Codd said this was not a typical case of careless driving, and there was a difference between a person engaged in patently dangerous behaviour and a momentary lapse of attention by a driver otherwise engaged in careful driving.

She noted that Mr Faherty was a man with no previous convictions and a clean driving record. She said he is an upstanding and decent member of the community.

Judge Codd also noted a psychiatric report describing his “real, palpable and significant” distress and remorse at the results of his driving.

She did not impose a ban on his driving after hearing he uses his car on a daily basis and that his own father who lives in Galway is in ill health.

Faherty (63), of Elton Walk, Ard na Greine, Dublin, pleaded guilty last February at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to one count of careless driving causing serious harm.

Ms Duncan (45) was in a coma for two months after the incident and only became aware of her situation recently, which has resulted in her requiring treatment for depression.

Judge Codd said the incident left Ms Duncan in a vegetative state and she now requires “100 per cent help” with her general wellbeing.

The court heard that neither speed nor alcohol were a factor in the incident and that road conditions were normal.

Garda Keith Murphy said Ms Duncan had been cycling on the left side of the road when she decided to turn right at a junction with Greencastle Road. Both parties had a green light.

Garda Murphy said the main contributing factor to the incident was that Ms Duncan was unable to see Mr Faherty’s car because he did not have his lights on.

“I think that she may have noticed the car when she went to make the turn, but by then it was too late,” Garda Murphy said. “It would have been completely safe for her to make the turn if there had not been oncoming traffic,” he added.

The court heard Ms Duncan was wearing a high-vis jacket and a helmet and had a light on her bike at the time of the incident._


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...3073078?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## Welsh wheels (8 May 2017)

Very sad that just riding her bike caused the victim's life to be ruined.


----------



## mickle (8 May 2017)

That poor man's life absolutely ruined by crashing into that cyclist.


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2017)

Yeah, well it comes from a country that the only reason Stephen Fry wasn't charged with blasphemy for this was because not enough people complained**


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=144&v=-suvkwNYSQo


So I am cool with the headlight ruling, particularly because it seems a well lit area, so maybe she wasn't paying attention either? Cars without lights are quite visible under street lights, particularly street lights bright enough that you don't notice your headlights aren't on.

Very sad for the poor cyclist, and I hope she still has a complaint against his insurer.

**not as irrelevant as it seems, Irish Times alerted me to it in the sidebar.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Yeah, well it comes from a country that the only reason Stephen Fry wasn't charged with blasphemy for this was because not enough people complained**
> 
> 
> So I am cool with the headlight ruling, particularly because it seems a well lit area, so maybe she wasn't paying attention either? Cars without lights are quite visible under street lights, particularly street lights bright enough that you don't notice your headlights aren't on.
> ...


If you check a map, you'll see it happened on an industrial estate(or the entrance to one). And the lights can be too bright at night.


----------



## jefmcg (9 May 2017)

classic33 said:


> If you check a map, you'll see it happened on an industrial estate(or the entrance to one). And the lights can be too bright at night.


I couldn't find which road they were on when she turned into Greencastle Street.

To me, this makes all the difference. If you don't notice your headlights are out with a well lit street, welcome to the club. A poorly lit street, then it's all his fault.

Can you supply a link to the intersection, rather than me guessing?

My first reaction before my apparently mistaken google maps search was something like:
_Losing your license shouldn't only be a punishment. If you have epilepsy or failing sight, they take your license away even though you didn't deliberately get epilepsy. Similarly, if you can drive down a dark road without your lights on, then maybe you shouldn't have a license. Not as a punishment, just that we expect a higher standard of observation from drivers. I wonder if he had an eye test, or any other test to see if he was still capable of driving safely, or if they just said - He didn't plan to kill her, so that's ok. _


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2017)

The only set of lights that are on Greencastle Road, left to right across. Cycle lane on the far side of the bus, which has to be used. ASL's get treated the same over there as here.

As an aside, since you brought it up, I do have epilepsy. Speed limit on that road is 65mph.


----------



## Drago (9 May 2017)

When I'm PM, causing serious injury while engaged in an unlawful activity will be GBH or attempted murder. Its just staggering that our legal system can argue something down to careless, and even more staggering that solicitors (who are largely, but not all, vampires) would allow it.

I've seen then system from start to finish, from inside and out, and it has little to do with actual justice, and everything to do with providing careers for those that work within it.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 May 2017)

I think the driver is well aware of the devastation his lack of concentration has caused. But I cannot see what use a custodial sentence would have been either to the driver or anyone who read about the case.. What would he have learnt by it. We all have lapses of judgement behind a wheel at some point.. Fortunately, most of the time, nobody is injured because of it. It appears the driver took responsibility right from the start and what would often be an innocuous mistake, turned into a tragedy.


----------



## Drago (9 May 2017)

If he's prone to such lapses of concentration then he should have his licence revoked for life. Driving is a task that requires skill, concentration and diligence at all times. If a driver can not meet those requirements they shouldn't be allowed to drive. Giving Courts powers to apply lifetime driving bans would be welcome.

Piloting a tonne or more of kinetic weapon is not the time to make an innocuous mistake.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> I think the driver is well aware of the devastation his lack of concentration has caused. But I cannot see what use a custodial sentence would have been either to the driver or anyone who read about the case.. What would he have learnt by it. We all have lapses of judgement behind a wheel at some point.. Fortunately, most of the time, nobody is injured because of it. It appears the driver took responsibility right from the start and what would often be an innocuous mistake, turned into a tragedy.


Because I don't believe these things are momentary lapses of judgement. I think many drive constantly like this. Barely check at every junction. As a cyclist I constantly have to avoid this. Multiple times in a journey I have to compensate for a driver not looking properly. Most of the time it's just slowing down or moving out at a junction. Low level stuff. It rarely comes to anything but on occassion it does.

Drivers like in the op probably drives fairly crap thousands of times. Like many, many others. And stats dictate that every now again this causes serious injury or death of pedestrians and cyclists.

To not properly punish allows this laissez faire attitude to perpetuate. Enough proper punishments might make people start to take their responsibilities more seriously.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Because I don't believe these things are momentary lapses of judgement. I think many drive constantly like this. Barely check at every junction. As a cyclist I constantly have to avoid this. Multiple times in a journey I have to compensate for a driver not looking properly. Most of the time it's just slowing down or moving out at a junction. Low level stuff. It rarely comes to anything but on occassion it does.
> 
> Drivers like in the op probably drives fairly crap thousands of times. Like many, many others. And stats dictate that every now again this causes serious injury or death of pedestrians and cyclists.
> 
> To not properly punish allows this laissez faire attitude to perpetuate. Enough proper punishments might make people start to take their responsibilities more seriously.



But there is nothing to suggest that the driver actually drives like a total dick on a regular basis. If he does he has never been caught in the past. If you want to start putting every road user that makes a mistake in prison. The prisons would be overflowing. A lot of them would be cyclists.


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2017)

Drago said:


> If he's prone to such lapses of concentration then he should have his licence revoked for life. Driving is a task that requires skill, concentration and diligence at all times. If a driver can not meet those requirements they shouldn't be allowed to drive. Giving Courts powers to apply lifetime driving bans would be welcome.
> 
> Piloting a tonne or more of kinetic weapon is not the time to make an innocuous mistake.


I didn't realise you were so perfect Drago. I agree with your definition of requirements to drive but we can all make mistakes, you and me included! Unfortunately not everyone's levels of awareness are the same and the current belief that an entitlement to a driving licence is a 'right' has led to people that I wouldn't trust to boil a kettle being allowed behind the wheel!
I think steveindenmark has got it pretty spot on. From the info in the article their is no suggestion that this is any more than an unfortunate accident. It is still a tragedy.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> But there is nothing to suggest that the driver actually drives like a total dick on a regular basis. If he does he has never been caught in the past. If you want to start putting every road user that makes a mistake in prison. The prisons would be overflowing. A lot of them would be cyclists.


Every driver that makes a mistake that seriously injures or kills, yep, prison.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Every driver that makes a mistake that seriously injures or kills, yep, prison.



Why not? You may as well ruin the lives of 2 families.


----------



## Drago (9 May 2017)

Then he should be more dilligent when in charge of a dangerous weapon in public. No one forced him to drive HUA.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> Why not? You may as well ruin the lives of 2 families.


Ruining the lives of 2 families for a while might make drivers take more care thus reducing the chance of any lives being ruined in the future.


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Ruining the lives of 2 families for a while might make drivers take more care thus reducing the chance of any lives being ruined in the future.


No, it will ruin the lives of two families! Stopping people that are incapable of taking care from driving will save lives. Your argument does work for offences like drink driving and mobile phone use though.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Ruining the lives of 2 families for a while might make drivers take more care thus reducing the chance of any lives being ruined in the future.



But it wont. Not in this case. He made an oversight that many of us have made in the past. He wasnt joy riding, messing about, drinking or acting like a prat. He was a guy going home who forgot to turn his lights on. Possibly for the first time in his life. What happened after that was unfortunate for everyone involved. A prison sentence would serve no purpose to anyone. You cannot teach people not to have a minor lapse of concentration by punishing other people. You can teach them not to drink and drive or use their phone whilst driving by making an example of people. But not in this case.

The judge took the case on its merits and got it right in my view. Which is good, because they often get it so wrong.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> But it wont. Not in this case. He made an oversight that many of us have made in the past. He wasnt joy riding, messing about, drinking or acting like a prat. He was a guy going home who forgot to turn his lights on. Possibly for the first time in his life. What happened after that was unfortunate for everyone involved. A prison sentence would serve no purpose to anyone. You cannot teach people not to have a minor lapse of concentration by punishing other people. You can teach them not to drink and drive or use their phone whilst driving by making an example of people. But not in this case.
> 
> The judge took the case on its merits and got it right in my view. Which is good, because they often get it so wrong.


Again, we're back to your feeling that it was a one off and my feeling that this driver has done a thousand things that are fairly bad as he's not taking the responsibility seriously enough, but this time got caught out. My experience of driving amongst very large volumes of cars in London is that there's lots and lots of drivers who regularly do very low level stuff. Given enough times, some of them kill/injure. If the penalty for injury/death from such things was prison, I believe the drivers would cut down on the amount of crap driving o the point the number of injuries decreases.


----------



## PK99 (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Again, we're back to your feeling that it was a one off and my feeling that this driver has done a thousand things that are fairly bad as he's not taking the responsibility seriously enough, but this time got caught out.



You know all that from the newspaper report?


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Again, we're back to your feeling that it was a one off and my feeling that this driver has done a thousand things that are fairly bad as he's not taking the responsibility seriously enough, but this time got caught out. My experience of driving amongst very large volumes of cars in London is that there's lots and lots of drivers who regularly do very low level stuff. Given enough times, some of them kill/injure. If the penalty for injury/death from such things was prison, I believe the drivers would cut down on the amount of crap driving o the point the number of injuries decreases.


I understand your reasoning markymark but such a policy would inevitably sweep up as many capable and innocent drivers as it would reckless and incapable.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

PK99 said:


> You know all that from the newspaper report?


Nope, not claiming to. What I do know is that on average, 5 people a day die on our roads. Many, many more are seriously injured. I doubt they are all drink drivers or hoons joy riding but ordinary, but "careful" drivers who just don;t pay much attention. My understating of the stats is that most are at junctions from people not paying attention. As it stands people don't pay attention because they've done it 1,000 as they're "better than average drivers" and a quick g;lance is enough. Well, clearly it isn't. Better punishment would make these drivers take more care.

I bet 90% of the 1,500 killed this year are decent people who had a momentary lapse, just like the op and all deserving not to be put in prison as they are truly sorry and it was a one off.

We either tackle them all (where a driving offence has occured) in an effort to reduce or we don't bother and accept the carnage as every story is as the OP.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> I understand your reasoning markymark but such a policy would inevitably sweep up as many capable and innocent drivers as it would reckless and incapable.


Are they "capable and innocent drivers" if they are guilty of a traffic offence that directly results in serous injury or death as in the op?


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Are they "capable and innocent drivers" if they are guilty of a traffic offence that directly results in serous injury or death as in the op?


Even the best driver can make a mistake as described in the OP. That could have terrible consequences not even remotely commensurate with the scale of the error. That can never be ruled out without banning everyone from driving. What is needed is a testing system to filter out the people that just cannot achieve the level of awarenes required to safely drive such lethal machines or have lost that ability due to age or health. IMO the bar is currently set too low because a licence is seen as a right.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> Even the best driver can make a mistake as described in the OP. That could have terrible consequences not even remotely commensurate with the scale of the error. That can never be ruled out without banning everyone from driving. What is needed is a testing system to filter out the people that just cannot achieve the level of awarenes required to safely drive such lethal machines or have lost that ability due to age or health. IMO the bar is currently set too low because a licence is seen as a right.


thats why we have courts to ascertain this. Not everyone kills or seriously injures. But if the punishment was more severe I believe we'd have fewer.


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Every driver that makes a mistake that seriously injures or kills, yep, prison.





Markymark said:


> We either tackle them all (where a driving offence has occured) in an effort to reduce or we don't bother and accept the carnage as every story is as the OP.





I like Skol said:


> Even the best driver can make a mistake as described in the OP. That could have terrible consequences not even remotely commensurate with the scale of the error. That can never be ruled out.





Markymark said:


> thats why we have courts to ascertain this. Not everyone kills or seriously injures. But if the punishment was more severe I believe we'd have fewer.


There seems to be some disparity in your stance. Do we have a blanket punishment as in your earlier posts or do we allow the courts to decide, based on the evidence, as happened in this case?

Stiffer penalties will make no difference unless there is policing and enforcement. Persistent poor driving can only be weeded out by this.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> There seems to be some disparity in your stance. Do we have a blanket punishment as in your earlier posts or do we allow the courts to decide, based on the evidence, as happened in this case?
> 
> Stiffer penalties will make no difference unless there is policing and enforcement. Persistent poor driving can only be weeded out by this.


What I mean is that the courts are there to decide if someone if guilty of a traffic offence. If they are guilty and it results in serious injury/death, then yes prison. That would not ban everyone, but those that kill and injure.


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> What I mean is that the courts are there to decide if someone if guilty of a traffic offence. If they are guilty and it results in serious injury/death, then yes prison. That would not ban everyone, but those that kill and injure.


Bare with me here because I am not familiar with the law on this. If convicted of drink driving you lose your licence. If you kill someone while drink driving you receive the same loss of licence but also separately be charged with murder/manslaughter? I.e the punishment for the driving offence is the same and the death is a separate but related crime?
I don't believe that you could impose different penalties for the same offense depending on the outcome. Driving without lights cannot receive a more serious penalty if it results in death. Now if you knew your lights were faulty but decided to make the journey anyway and killed someone then you would be tried for murder and rightly so.
I apologise if this is a rather naïve and simplistic view but I am no solicitor.


----------



## Mugshot (9 May 2017)

To be honest I'm rather torn with this one. Am I right in thinking that the cyclist turned right across the junction into the path of the car heading the other way? The consequences are absolutely awful, but I can't help wondering if the comments here would have been the same if it had been the cyclist travelling without lights.


----------



## Markymark (9 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> Bare with me here because I am not familiar with the law on this. If convicted of drink driving you lose your licence. If you kill someone while drink driving you receive the same loss of licence but also separately be charged with murder/manslaughter? I.e the punishment for the driving offence is the same and the death is a separate but related crime?
> I don't believe that you could impose different penalties for the same offense depending on the outcome. Driving without lights cannot receive a more serious penalty if it results in death. Now if you knew your lights were faulty but decided to make the journey anyway and killed someone then you would be tried for murder and rightly so.
> I apologise if this is a rather naïve and simplistic view but I am no solicitor.


There is careless driving and death by careless driving.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2017)

Mugshot said:


> To be honest I'm rather torn with this one. Am I right in thinking that the cyclist turned right across the junction into the path of the car heading the other way? The consequences are absolutely awful, but I can't help wondering if the comments here would have been the same if it had been the cyclist travelling without lights.


There are four lanes, either side of the junction. Cyclist was in their lane, far left, wanting to turn right.

When hit they would have been more than halfway across the junction, when hit by the car being driven with no lights.


----------



## oldfatfool (9 May 2017)

Is the arguement that if he had lights on he would have seen her turning in front of him or that she would have seen him coming? If the street lights were lit then it strikes me as an error of judgement/ lack of observation on both parties side, tragic that it as left her in this state but no point ruining other lives.


----------



## Drago (9 May 2017)

Should have thought about ruining lives before parking atop a cyclist.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2017)

oldfatfool said:


> Is the arguement that if he had lights on he would have seen her turning in front of him or that she would have seen him coming? If the street lights were lit then it strikes me as an error of judgement/ lack of observation on both parties side, tragic that it as left her in this state but no point ruining other lives.



More that he would have been able to see her, on approaching the lights.

Incorrect on my part.


----------



## Tin Pot (9 May 2017)

oldfatfool said:


> Is the arguement that if he had lights on he would have seen her turning in front of him or that she would have seen him coming?



No, the argument is that if he had his lights on *she* would have seen him.

It is hidden from us as to why the driver is excused from 'not seeing' the cyclist.

Top tip: To avoid "2 families being ruined", don't murder cyclists with your car.


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Top tip: To avoid "2 families being ruined", don't murder cyclists with your car.


Emotive BS!
There is no suggestion that the driver committed or intended to commit murder and he was not tried for murder. 

_Faherty (63), of Elton Walk, Ard na Greine, Dublin, pleaded guilty last February at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to one count of careless driving causing serious harm._


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> There is careless driving and death by careless driving.


@I like Skol There is also the charge of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (9 May 2017)

Mugshot said:


> To be honest I'm rather torn with this one. Am I right in thinking that the cyclist turned right across the junction into the path of the car heading the other way? The consequences are absolutely awful, but I can't help wondering if the comments here would have been the same if it had been the cyclist travelling without lights.



I have seen threads on here where the opinion is that a cyclist without lights is fine, and drivers should still see them, as there are various other hazards that are avoided that are unlit.

However, part of me thinks that drivers who are LICENSED, should be held to a higher standard of ability, and that whatever your mode of transport is. You're responsible for the safety of those more vulnerable than you.


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @I like Skol There is also the charge of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink


Ok, but would that be the penalty for the death? Presumably the offender would be charged with drink driving AND a charge of causing death. The DD offence results in loss of licence, the death by careless results in a more severe punishment. Can a simple DD offence result in a prison sentence (1st offence)?


----------



## Mugshot (9 May 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I have seen threads on here where the opinion is that a cyclist without lights is fine, and drivers should still see them, as there are various other hazards that are avoided that are unlit.
> 
> However, part of me thinks that drivers who are LICENSED, should be held to a higher standard of ability, and that whatever your mode of transport is. You're responsible for the safety of those more vulnerable than you.


I don't disagree with that at all Phil.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (9 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> Ok, but would that be the penalty for the death? Presumably the offender would be charged with drink driving AND a charge of causing death. The DD offence results in loss of licence, the death by careless results in a more severe punishment. Can a simple DD offence result in a prison sentence (1st offence)?



It's 1 charge, CD40, or CD60. I think you can get CD40 while UNFIT through drink, it doesn't have to be over the limit. Causing death and excess is CD60.

if you're just caught drink driving, you end up with DR10, driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @I like Skol There is also the charge of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink


Drink, on both sides, ruled out in this case. By the Guards.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (9 May 2017)

classic33 said:


> Drink, on both sides, ruled out in this case. By the Guards.


I was referring to an earlier analogy by @I like Skol in post #29


----------



## Dismount (9 May 2017)

It's a tragic accident nothing more or nothing less. People make mistakes, forgetting to turn lights on is one of them. That is why with advances in techology you can leave the lights on automatic and they turn themselves on.


----------



## Tin Pot (9 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> Emotive BS!
> There is no suggestion that the driver committed or intended to commit murder and he was not tried for murder.
> 
> _Faherty (63), of Elton Walk, Ard na Greine, Dublin, pleaded guilty last February at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to one count of careless driving causing serious harm._



My statement still holds.


----------



## spen666 (9 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> There is careless driving and death by careless driving.





PhilDawson8270 said:


> It's 1 charge, CD40, or CD60. I think you can get CD40 while UNFIT through drink, it doesn't have to be over the limit. Causing death and excess is CD60.
> 
> if you're just caught drink driving, you end up with DR10, driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol.


CD40 and CD60 are not offences- they are codes used by the DVLA on your licence to record offences


----------



## spen666 (9 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> ..... Now if you knew your lights were faulty but decided to make the journey anyway and killed someone then you would be tried for murder and rightly so.
> .....




No you would not.

Where is the necessary mens rea ie* intent* to kill or cause serious harm? Intent is very different from foreseeability


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (9 May 2017)

spen666 said:


> CD40 and CD60 are not offences- they are codes used by the DVLA on your licence to record offences


Indeed. But the wording attached to them is what you would be charged and convicted with.


----------



## Tin Pot (9 May 2017)

spen666 said:


> No you would not.
> 
> Where is the necessary mens rea ie* intent* to kill or cause serious harm? Intent is very different from foreseeability



The decision to walk down the street firing a gun randomly with your eyes closed...killing several people, is there intent?

The decision to drive a car recklessly through the streets...killing several people, is there intent?

We, the people, can revise the legal definition if we so choose, and we do: the choice to put people at risk of injury and death is enough to call it murder.

We're not idiots, we know the difference is semantic. These people are murderers. Call them what they are.


----------



## Profpointy (9 May 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> The decision to walk down the street firing a gun randomly with your eyes closed...killing several people, is there intent?
> 
> The decision to drive a car recklessly through the streets...killing several people, is there intent?
> 
> ...



The chap in question failed to put his lights on. Murderer ?


----------



## Pale Rider (9 May 2017)

Profpointy said:


> The chap in question failed to put his lights on. Murderer ?



In any case, he can never be a murderer while the injured party remains not dead.

It's often said there are no winners in these cases, and it's certainly true of this one.

Plenty of cyclists have turned across the path of an oncoming vehicle, sprawled across the bonnet, and sustained no more than cuts and bruises.

Locking up a few more drivers who crash into cyclists might serve to concentrate the minds of others, but I cannot see any sensible case for sending this driver to prison.

Doing so might even be counter-productive, making other drivers feel even more animosity towards cyclists.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2017)

Dismount said:


> It's a tragic accident nothing more or nothing less. People make mistakes, forgetting to turn lights on is one of them. That is why with advances in techology you can leave the lights on automatic and they turn themselves on.


Tragic yes.

Accident? No.

He admitted carelessness. That is not an accident.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2017)

Profpointy said:


> The chap in question failed to put his lights on. Murderer ?


Failed to put lights on
Failed to observe cyclist
Failed to avoid collision

Culpable.


----------



## Profpointy (9 May 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Failed to put lights on
> Failed to observe cyclist
> Failed to avoid collision
> 
> Culpable.


 Rubbish


----------



## oldstrath (10 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4795730, member: 259"]Why is it not an accident?[/QUOTE]
Surely "accident" implies a random event with no assignable cause. This event had an assignable cause - the driver forgot to turn on his lights.

Not sure that means he should go to jail, but I wish it meant he should not have a licence until a full assessment has shown his fitness.


----------



## Milkfloat (10 May 2017)

A lot of people have written that the driver failed to see the cyclist. Do we actually know that is true? It is quite possible that they saw the cyclist but assumed that the cyclist would not cross in front of them.


----------



## Tin Pot (10 May 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Failed to put lights on
> Failed to observe cyclist
> Failed to avoid collision
> 
> Culpable.



And maimed a woman for life because of his failures.

Throw away the key.


----------



## spen666 (10 May 2017)

Aaaccident does not imply no blame.

Accident means not deliberate.

There is no suggestion that driver deliberately hit the victim.


As for murder? I think even the poost defence lawyer could defeat a murder charge by the lack of any one being killed!
That is without even going into the lack of mens tea.



Yes, the motorist is guilt of an offence, but it's no more murder than it is child abuse or rape.

People need to engage their brains before typing emotional but legally non sensical rubbish


----------



## Tin Pot (10 May 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> A lot of people have written that the driver failed to see the cyclist. Do we actually know that is true? It is quite possible that they saw the cyclist but assumed that the cyclist would not cross in front of them.





Tin Pot said:


> It is hidden from us as to why the driver is excused from 'not seeing' the cyclist.



We don't get the details in this article.


----------



## Tin Pot (10 May 2017)

spen666 said:


> Aaaccident does not imply no blame.
> 
> Accident means not deliberate.
> 
> ...



Really? I am many things but I've never been accused of not engaging my brain - quite the opposite. Feel free to quote my posts as to where you think my logic is faulty...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Rubbish


Such rubbish that he admitted his carelessness and pleaded guilty? He clearly didn't agree with you.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4795730, member: 259"]Why is it not an accident?[/QUOTE]
Because it didn't happen by chance and because it has an identifyable cause?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> It is quite possible that they saw the cyclist but assumed that the cyclist would not cross in front of them.


Then the driver is a knobjockey. A careless nobber and should not be on the roads.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (10 May 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Because it didn't happen by chance and because it has an identifyable cause?


What was the cause?

The car with no lights? Or turning in front of the car?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What was the cause?
> 
> The car with no lights? Or turning in front of the car?


Carelessness. Which he pleaded guilty to being. Neglecting to turn the lights was the first link in a chain of consequences. Right turning cyclists aren't the hardest things in the world to avoid hitting.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (10 May 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Carelessness. Which he pleaded guilty to being. Neglecting to turn the lights was the first link in a chain of consequences. Right turning cyclists aren't the hardest things in the world to avoid hitting.


Depends how late he turned across him. 

My point is that there were still factors in addition to a careless act, there was opportunities for both to avoid the accident.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Depends how late he turned across him.
> 
> My point is that there were still factors in addition to a careless act, there was opportunities for both to avoid the accident.


I don't disagree that both may share degrees of responsibility, however the person with the baseball bat carries more than the one with the feather pillow.


----------



## I like Skol (10 May 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Then the driver is a knobjockey. A careless nobber and should not be on the roads.


Greg, you are beginning to look a bit foolish on this one. Are you actually thinking about what you are saying or just looking for an internet fight? Actually I can guess the answer to that Q.
If every road user had to guess or assume that every other approaching road user was going to turn in front of them we would not get anywhere at all. When you drive you will encounter hundreds if not thousands of oncoming vehicles and if you had to treat each one as if it could randomly turn in front of you your journey would be impossible. We have to make the judgement based on signals, road position, speed etc. By all accounts none of these signs were present in this case. This may be because the car was unlit so the victim was unaware she needed to signal, but the driver was unaware he was driving unlit so had no reason to suspect he would be difficult to see. The driver really may have had no reason to expect the cyclist to turn in front of him.


----------



## oldstrath (10 May 2017)

spen666 said:


> Aaaccident does not imply no blame.
> 
> Accident means not deliberate.
> 
> ...



Maybe in lawyer-land 'accident' is the same as 'unintentional act of idiotic stupidity', but that is only in lawyer-land. Where the rest of us live, events generally have causes, and we can generally find them - in this instance one cause was the driver's failure to illuminate his car. No, I don't imagine this was a deliberate decision on his part, which is, I agree, a reasonable argument against jailing him. BUT it probably is evidence that he is not completely fit to drive his car - he may need further training, or he may be medically unfit to drive, or the system in which he operates should be changed (for example, he and others might be required to have lights which illuminate automatically). This is what should be assessed, and appropriate action taken, just as it would be if a worker's careless act were found to be the cause of an incident or deviation at work.


----------



## oldstrath (10 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4795940, member: 259"]Are you saying he intended to do it?[/QUOTE]
Whether he intended to do it is not the same as whether it was 'an accident' (that is, an event without assignable causes).


----------



## Dismount (10 May 2017)

Whatever definition you want to associate the act was not deliberate. For those saying he should be accessed, people make mistakes daily, fail to signal at a turn, signal to late, do not approach roundabout correctly, do not slow down when passing a line of parked vehicles, I could go on. If everyone were to be accessed for such actions nobody driving on the road. Each of us make mistakes and


GrumpyGregry said:


> Tragic yes.
> 
> Accident? No.
> 
> He admitted carelessness. That is not an accident.



Poppycock - he did not intentionally run into the cyclist nor did he intend for the cyclist to run into him. I think before each of us pass judgement we should ask ourselves if we've ever made a mistake driving, each one of us without doubt have, we are fortunate enough it did not lead to a tragic incident.


----------



## Markymark (10 May 2017)

However drivers don't bother to properly check what they're doing because the law doesn't punish them when it goes wrong. 

Make the punishment severe and I bet the number of times cars drive off without their lights on drops.


----------



## oldstrath (10 May 2017)

Dismount said:


> Whatever definition you want to associate the act was not deliberate. For those saying he should be accessed, people make mistakes daily, fail to signal at a turn, signal to late, do not approach roundabout correctly, do not slow down when passing a line of parked vehicles, I could go on. If everyone were to be accessed for such actions nobody driving on the road. Each of us make mistakes


Which is not a reason to fail to reassess people when their errors become visible (which means when they are caught or when they cause an incident). I do agree though that regular reassessment (say every 5 years) of all licence holders would be a very good thing



Dismount said:


> Poppycock - he did not intentionally run into the cyclist nor did he intend for the cyclist to run into him. I think before each of us pass judgement we should ask ourselves if we've ever made a mistake driving, each one of us without doubt have, we are fortunate enough it did not lead to a tragic incident.


Think you still miss the point - without his behaviour this event probably would not have happened, therefore we can assign at least one cause, therefore 'accident' is not correct. Inadvertent, or unintentional, I (probably) agree, but those are not synonyms for accidental.


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2017)

I've seen a lot of cars without their lights on in a built up area (ie with good street lighting). I have never NOT seen a car without it's headlights on. They do not suddenly appear a few metres away, springing from the ether like a wraith. You can see them from hundreds of metres away, just like the trees and the houses and the parked cars and lamp posts and pedestrians.

Yes, his lights should have been on, but one should take a good shoulder check before moving across several lanes of traffic on a 100kph road. If she had, she would have seen him.


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Make the punishment severe and I bet the number of times cars drive off without their lights on drops.


Really? Do you think anyone deliberately drives off without their lights on? I'm sure it's an accident every time, they always are grateful and responsive when told. I do not believe jailing them would change anything.

(I was once pulled over by the police for having no lights on. This was due to an electrical fault, and not oversight, but the streets were too brightly lit for me to notice and and the dashboard was lit - probably, or I just hadn't looked at it. Interestingly the cop was not interested in the lights as an offence but more interested in breathalysing me as apparently drunks often forget to turn on their lights, and she still breath tested me after I had shown her that the lights were faulty. She didn't charge me with any offences)


----------



## I like Skol (10 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Yes, his lights should have been on, but one should take a good shoulder check before moving across several lanes of traffic on a 100kph road. If she had, she would have seen him.


_....Garda Murphy said. “It would have been completely safe for her to make the turn if there had not been oncoming traffic,” he added._


I'm quite sure from the report that they met head on and the driver did not approach her from behind?


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> _....Garda Murphy said. “It would have been completely safe for her to make the turn if there had not been oncoming traffic,” he added._
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure from the report that they met head on and the driver did not approach her from behind?


You're right. I don't know why they mentioned she was in the left hand lane.

OK, even more so then, if he was coming towards her. I've often signalled drivers coming towards me, both in a car and on the bike, that they didn't have headlights on. They are always extremely visible.


----------



## Profpointy (10 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Really? Do you think anyone deliberately drives off without their lights on? I'm sure it's an accident every time, they always are grateful and responsive when told. I do not believe jailing them would change anything.
> 
> (I was once pulled over by the police for having no lights on. This was due to an electrical fault, and not oversight, but the streets were too brightly lit for me to notice and and the dashboard was lit - probably, or I just hadn't looked at it. Interestingly the cop was not interested in the lights as an offence but more interested in breathalysing me as apparently drunks often forget to turn on their lights, and she still breath tested me after I had shown her that the lights were faulty. She didn't charge me with any offences)



Well if some on here had their way you'd be banned for life and imprisonned


----------



## Markymark (10 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Really? Do you think anyone deliberately drives off without their lights on? I'm sure it's an accident every time, they always are grateful and responsive when told.


No, I don't. But I do believe that because driving is not seen as serious with consequences and punishment that people are careless so make mistakes happen more often.

I make silly mistakes like leaving my water in the kitchen when going to the shed. I don't make serious mistakes like leaving my new mitre saw unattended at home when there's kids around. Why is that? Because I recognise the seriousness of the potential outcomes. When things have dire consequences, I take extra precaution. As do most people.

But because driving doesn't seem to have this anymore, it's fallen into the mishaps category and mistakes such as the op become regular. However, this results in serious injury and death daily. 

If there was proper punishment I bet people would be a bit more careful not to drive off without their lights on and take a bit more care when pulling out at a junction.


----------



## I like Skol (10 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> You're right. I don't know why they mentioned she was in the left hand lane.


I took that comment to mean she had been riding on the far left of the highway before turning right, which if cyclist33's google view of the junction is correct, means she crossed multiple lanes to perform the right turn. The puzzle with that though is that it would give the driver more time to react, but that depends on his approaching speed and the speed and suddeness of the cyclist when making the turn.
A lot of questions that I am sure the police and court considered before making a ruling in this tragic case. I think we can all agree that there were no winners here!


----------



## Origamist (10 May 2017)

Profpointy said:


> Well if some on here had their way you'd be banned for life and imprisonned



I can understand why an immediate custodial sentence was deemed inappropriate in this case, but I'm struggling to grasp why there was no driving ban (hardship aside).


----------



## Profpointy (10 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> I can understand why a custodial sentence was not deemed appropriate in this case, but I'm struggling to grasp why there was no driving ban (hardship aside).



For not putting on your lights in a built up area, inference being a streetlit area ?

Personally I am not all that convinced that the light issue was particularly related to the collision, tragic though the outcome was.


I witnessed a road accident where an unlit car pulling out out from a parking space was blamed for a collision. My view is t was that the car that ran into it (and us) was 90%+ to blame as he was going far too quickly and not looking where TF he was going, the puller-out having a plenty big enough gap if the other car had been driven sensibly. I gather the unlit car's insurance picked up the entire bill because he'd not put his lights on - it was a well lit suburban street.


----------



## Origamist (10 May 2017)

Profpointy said:


> *For not putting on your lights in a built up area, inference being a streetlit area *?
> 
> Personally I am not all that convinced that the light issue was particularly related to the collision, tragic though the outcome was.
> 
> ...



Yes, I feel a ban is an appropriate additional punishment. It's worth remembering that the driver had 200 metres to recognise that his lights were not on - that's not a momentary lapse, but indicative of someone who is not paying attention to the road ahead for a longer period of time.


----------



## Dismount (10 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> Yes, I feel a ban is an appropriate additional punishment. It's worth remembering that the driver had 200 metres to recognise that his lights were not on - that's not a momentary lapse, but indicative of someone who is not paying attention to the road ahead for a longer period of time.



It is relative, I am not sure of the exact speed limit I think somebody quoted 60mph, a quick calculation, would take circa 6 seconds to travel 200 yards at that speed.


----------



## Dismount (10 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> Yes, I feel a ban is an appropriate additional punishment. It's worth remembering that the driver had 200 metres to recognise that his lights were not on - that's not a momentary lapse, but indicative of someone who is not paying attention to the road ahead for a longer period of time.



Ban is appropriate for forgetting to turn on lights, it is a slippery slope, should an outright ban also apply for, failing to signal, speeding, using the wrong lane, braking late, not maintaining a 2-second gap I could go on - each of these could lead to a serious incident!


----------



## Origamist (10 May 2017)

Dismount said:


> It is relative, I am not sure of the exact speed limit I think somebody quoted 60mph, a quick calculation, would take circa 6 seconds to travel 200 yards at that speed.



It would be closer to 8 seconds if he was driving at 60mph - but he would have to _accelerate_ to that speed from a standing start, so it's going to be longer again. In any case, it is hardly 'momentary', there is time for a capable and observant driver to recognise their error. He tragically did not.


----------



## Profpointy (10 May 2017)

Dismount said:


> Ban is appropriate for forgetting to turn on lights, it is a slippery slope, should an outright ban also apply for, failing to signal, speeding, using the wrong lane, braking late, not maintaining a 2-second gap I could go on - each of these could lead to a serious incident!



Actually I'd be more keen on bannage for some of the above: tailgating, agression, moronic overtakes etc.


----------



## Origamist (10 May 2017)

Dismount said:


> Ban is appropriate for forgetting to turn on lights, it is a slippery slope, should an outright ban also apply for, failing to signal, speeding, using the wrong lane, braking late, not maintaining a 2-second gap I could go on - each of these could lead to a serious incident!



When those behaviours cause serious harm, as in this case - a driving ban and/or a custodial sentence should be imposed.


----------



## Tin Pot (10 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> If every road user had to guess or assume that every other approaching road user was going to turn in front of them we would not get anywhere at all.



I drive and ride assuming every other idiot on the road is trying to kill me, and will pull some outrageous manoeuvre at any point.

And sometimes his is exactly what they do.

Somehow I get to my destination in good time.

Perhaps you should start doing the same?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> I drive and ride assuming every other idiot on the road is trying to kill me, and will pull some outrageous manoeuvre at any point.
> 
> And sometimes his is exactly what they do.
> 
> ...


Didn't it used to be called roadcraft or defensive driving?

Like when stopped at a t junction to join a main road waiting for the oncoming driver of the car coming from the right, with the left hand indicator on, to actually start turning the steering wheel before you pull out rather than assuming they will turn left? (Sunday evening, Crawley, as it happens)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2017)

Dismount said:


> Poppycock - he did not intentionally run into the cyclist nor did he intend for the cyclist to run into him. I think before each of us pass judgement we should ask ourselves if we've ever made a mistake driving, each one of us without doubt have, we are fortunate enough it did not lead to a tragic incident.



Shouldn't that be 'tragic accident' by your lights.


----------



## DaveReading (10 May 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Right turning cyclists aren't the hardest things in the world to avoid hitting.



Maybe not top of the list, but pretty high up it. 

At a light-controlled crossing, when you have a green do you expect an oncoming cyclist to turn right across your path regardless?


----------



## Profpointy (10 May 2017)

Have to say, if you don't notice your lights aren't on then it must be pretty light and you can presumably see where you are going. Hard to beleive you yourself are not also pretty visible too.


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> You're right. I don't know why they mentioned she was in the left hand lane.
> 
> OK, even more so then, if he was coming towards her. I've often signalled drivers coming towards me, both in a car and on the bike, that they didn't have headlights on. They are always extremely visible.


She was in the Left-hand lane because that was where she should have been. The Left-hand lane being a mandatory cycle lane.

She'd have crossed four lanes, assuming the car was in the correct lane, when making the turn before being hit.


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2017)

*'I have nothing against driver who left my wife in a wheelchair for life'* 

*The husband of a Dublin woman left with catastrophic injuries after she was knocked off her bicycle by a driver who had not turned on his headlights has said he bears no ill will towards the man.*
Robert Faherty (63) had driven for just 200 metres before crashing into cyclist Grainne Duncan (45), who was attempting to turn right but did not see him, in Coolock on February 4, 2015.

*Despair*
The momentary lapse of concentration has left two families in despair - one coping with life-changing injuries and the other facing lifelong remorse over the incident.

Grainne, who is also known as Dorian, has been left wheelchair-bound, deaf, unable to speak, and with short- and medium-term memory loss.

She needs constant care and is currently living in a nursing home.

Faherty, of Elton Walk, Ard na Greine, Dublin, was given a nine-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to careless driving causing serious harm.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard this week from a psychiatric report describing his "real, palpable and significant" distress and remorse at the results of his driving.

Speaking from his Coolock home, Grainne's husband, Patrick Maher, said there were "no winners" from the incident.

"It was an accident. Everybody makes mistakes. I can see it for what it is, so I have nothing against Mr Faherty," said Patrick.

"I never wanted a prison sentence for him, not from the day it happened. Maybe a driving ban for a specified period was warranted, but I was never looking for prison for him.

"He had just got off a bus, got into his car, which was parked, and started his journey when it happened.

"Grainne used to get the bus to work in Malahide, but she traded in her tax-saver bus ticket for the bike-to-work scheme and hadn't been back cycling for long when the accident happened.

"She had a helmet on, lights on her bike, and a hi-viz jacket.

"She is now in St Doolagh's Park in Clongriffin in long-term care, and I go and see her every day, but we hope someday to move to a house suitable for her needs, or build one for her.

"Our house here is not adaptable, so we will need to move in the future," he added.

Patrick said their lives changed utterly the day of the accident.

"Grainne has memory problems. She retains everything from before the crash, but anything afterwards she can't retain," he said.

*Complex*
"If people from the past visit her she will remember them without difficulty, but an hour after they have gone she won't remember they visited. It's complex.

"Being deaf and unable to speak properly means we communicate with a white board, which has its drawbacks. But Grainne is my wife.

"What has happened has happened, and caring for her without going to pieces is what I look upon as my greatest achievement in life," he added.

Patrick and Grainne met 23 years ago at a gaming convention.

"It was a Dungeons & Dragons convention organised by Gaelcon," Patrick told the Herald.

"I still go, and relate back to Grainne on them afterwards. But that's where we met. We got married 10 years ago."

During the court case, Judge Pauline Codd said this was not a typical case of careless driving and there was a difference between a person engaged in patently dangerous behaviour and a momentary lapse of attention by a driver.

She did not impose a ban on Faherty's driving after hearing that he uses his car on a daily basis and that his own father, who lives in Galway, is in ill health.

Grainne was in a coma for two months after the accident and only became aware of her situation recently, which has resulted in her requiring treatment for depression.

*http://www.herald.ie/news/i-have-no...y-wife-in-a-wheelchair-for-life-35698604.html*


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2017)

_"A man who admitted careless driving causing harm to a cyclist left unable to walk, talk or hear has escaped jailed or a driving ban.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court was told the driver, 63-year-old Robert Faherty, *had forgotten to turn on his car’s headlights* as he began a journey two years ago.

And about 200 metres after his journey began, in north Dublin, his car hit cyclist Grainne Duncan.

She was turning right at a junction when Mr Faherty’s car was driving straight, on the evening of February 4th, 2015.

The court was told because the car lights were not on, Ms Duncan could not see it in the dark.

Garda Keith Murphy said while Ms Duncan appeared to see the car at the last moment, it was too late.

Ms Duncan (45), the court was told, was wearing hi-vis clothing and a helmet. She also had lights on her bike."
_
*http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/no-driving-ban-jail-crash-left-cyclist-unable-walk-talk/*


----------

