Suspended sentence for Irish road rage driver who deliberately rammed cyclist

Shades wrote:

If you're going remonstrate with a motorist. make sure you have an 'escape plan' if they decide to turn nasty.  I can recall 2 occasions where I've had to duck down an alley (car spent a couple of minutes hunting for me) or a quick hop onto the pavement (car gave up).  If it's a 'nutter' in a large metal box, it could end badly.

I agree completely. You wouldn't antagonize a lunatic with a machete, so I don't see why you'd get in the face of an idiot driver. Either weapon can kill you in a heartbeat. The only difference is that the driver won't think he's done anything wrong.

mattsccm wrote:

Crackers.

I assume that the poster above lives in some city where private cars are not needed. Such a situation in rural areas is just impossible nowadays. 

Also I don't feel that professional drivers are any better than anyone else. Almost all of the near misses and crap driving I see  come from those who drive for living. Bus driver, lorry driver, bloody taxis, delivery men in vans. Lethal.

Final the implication that a gun is dangerous is thoughtless and offensive. In our country a motor vehicle is many times more likely to be the instrument of death than a gun. For one thing the ownership is less well policed. 

Crackers yourself, at least on that last paragraph. Which makes no sense, even on it's own terms - it contradicts itself.

( Also, with your first point, I tend to assume any general statement is referring to urban areas, because in this country hardly anyone lives in rural areas. If you live the rural idyll in the middle-of-nowhere I don't really care what you do, as long as you don't drive into my city)

Oh, and even your second point doesn't really address the point. I agree that a lot of 'professional' drivers are awful (taxi drivers in particular, though drivers of the largest vehicles are often at least a little-bit better trained) the point is how essential - and _potentially_ well-regulated - the driving is, not how good it is.

mattsccm wrote:

Crackers.

I assume that the poster above lives in some city where private cars are not needed. Such a situation in rural areas is just impossible nowadays. 

Also I don't feel that professional drivers are any better than anyone else. Almost all of the near misses and crap driving I see  come from those who drive for living. Bus driver, lorry driver, bloody taxis, delivery men in vans. Lethal.

Final the implication that a gun is dangerous is thoughtless and offensive. In our country a motor vehicle is many times more likely to be the instrument of death than a gun. For one thing the ownership is less well policed. 

Sorry, I don't see how it's offensive to consider that a gun is dangerous. It seem fairly clear to me that a gun is fundamentally a weapon and is designed specifically to be dangerous. Yes, a lot of guns these days are used for sport/target shooting which isn't particularly dangerous, but those guns can still cause injury if mishandled.

You could just as well say that nuclear warheads aren't dangerous as in my country a motor vehicle is many times more likely to be the instrument of death than a nuclear warhead.

clayfit wrote:

Call me soft, if you like, but this is a good outcome for society.

He's still in a job, he's not costing tens of thousands each year in prison, where he would not have learned to be a better human anyway.  The money he has to pay will ensure that he's on an existence minimum for several years.  I'm assuming that he'll be banned from driving for a while- although this should be a forever ban.

But my guess is that keeping his nose clean will be quite difficult, so he'll end up doing the time anyway.

No mention of a driving ban in the report.  I hope that doesn't mean there wasn't one, but I don't see that one can assume that there was.  (It does mention that he has six previous convictions including one for dangerous driving, so yeah, he should probably be banned from driving for life at ths point.)

clayfit wrote:

Call me soft, if you like, but this is a good outcome for society.

He's still in a job, he's not costing tens of thousands each year in prison, where he would not have learned to be a better human anyway.  The money he has to pay will ensure that he's on an existence minimum for several years.  I'm assuming that he'll be banned from driving for a while- although this should be a forever ban.

But my guess is that keeping his nose clean will be quite difficult, so he'll end up doing the time anyway.

As you surmise, he'll almost certainly end up doing time eventually.

So how you think this is a good outcome for society is beyond me. A good outcome for society is one where this tosser does not make a victim of yet another innocent person. 

So the correct outcome is one that removes him from society. Preferably permanently.

"So the correct outcome is one that removes him from society. Preferably permanently."

Really?  At £38,000 + a year?  For what, 40 years?   At today's money £1.5m plus.  I'd rather spend money on avoiding the problem in the first place, which I agree is not simple.

danhopgood wrote:

 

"So the correct outcome is one that removes him from society. Preferably permanently."

Really?  At £38,000 + a year?  For what, 40 years?   At today's money £1.5m plus.  I'd rather spend money on avoiding the problem in the first place, which I agree is not simple.

If it's your nearest or dearest he runs over next you might think 1.5m was worth spending.
What price a life?

Personally i'd permanently remove him, and thousands more like him, very very cheaply. But that's no longer allowed as it actually works.

clayfit wrote:

Call me soft, if you like, but this is a good outcome for society ... 

NO.  Not ever.  NEVER.

FFS - the b@st@rd STILL has a job? 

I wonder how long the cyclist will hold on to HIS career path?  Cut short, changed, diminished ... by a see-you-next-Tuesday who DGAF.

But see-you-next-Tuesday has his "career-path" protected.