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

[Tin Pot]

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]

There is careless driving and death by careless driving.

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]

..... 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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Pale Rider]

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]

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]

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]

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

Culpable.

Rubbish

 

[oldstrath]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.