I was unfazed by a near car crash, so why does a dental visit leave me quivering?
Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. It could have happened though – death, or serious injury. Or a slight injury. Or even a bit of a fright. But I experienced none of that.
This is what did happen: I was driving on the
M50
, then turned into the exit for the
M7
. Ahead of me, a white van attempted to change lane, but there was a car right beside it. The two vehicles slammed into each other and wobbled. The van pulled into the hard shoulder, while the car skidded to a halt in the middle of traffic, straddling two lanes.
I was directly behind, so I scarcely had time to think. I swerved around the stationary car. A moment's distraction and I would have crashed into the back of it. The motorist behind, without a view of what had just happened, would probably have crashed into me.
READ MORE
Later on, I checked online and couldn't find any reports of a crash. Thankfully, no one was hurt. Yet, obviously, it could have been far more serious. And I'm not telling you this to demonstrate my nerves of steel or my superior driving skill – I wouldn't claim to have either – but because of my reaction. I swerved around the car and drove on. I went about my day. That evening, I told Herself about it, but it wasn't the first thing I told her. It was almost an afterthought.
Nor, in the days that followed, did I experience any delayed shock or a new appreciation of life. It was just a slightly surreal thing that happened. I don't seem to have been troubled by it. But I was slightly baffled as to why I wasn't.
Two days later, I had to go to the dentist. There may well be people who enjoy such appointments, but I've yet to meet one. It is physically uncomfortable; I particularly dislike the pointy L-shaped instrument they use to hack at the teeth, as if they've suddenly decided to abandon all the years of training and just yank the tooth out like a medieval barber.
Obviously, this comes from my own anxiety about the whole scenario in which the patient – this patient anyway – feels particularly vulnerable with their mouth cranked open while various tubes and fearsome-looking implements are used to scratch around inside.
Part of that comes from not knowing exactly what the dentist is doing. In fairness, it's probably better that they don't share too much detail; and the patient isn't in a position to ask. But that information void can be filled with speculation: they are yanking at that tooth an awfully long time. Is there something wrong? Have they made a mistake? I tried to pass the time by counting how many objects were being placed inside my mouth, but abandoned that when it seemed like more was going in than coming out.
[
Seán Moncrieff: The word 'old' has become an insult. If you're old, it's all over
Opens in new window
]
I tried staring serenely at the ceiling and listing all the things I would do when I got out of this chair, when I could move my shoulders again and give my now-aching jaw a rub. But that served only to draw my attention to my jaw and shoulders.
And it wasn't just the discomfort or the vulnerability that I was trying to distract myself from: it was the jarring intimacy of the situation. For 90 minutes, two people leaned over my head and rummaged around inside. Yet they never made eye contact. Whenever the dentist spoke to me, she was looking away.
All of this led me to ponder again why I was left unfazed by a near car crash, yet a dental visit leaves me quivering. We can be a mystery to ourselves. Perhaps it's time. The car incident lasted less than a second, and was over. Dental work never ends. I have to go back for a root canal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Irish Times
Stalled by ‘goodwill' for car repairs: Are Irish drivers being left in the lurch?
Many of us will probably have been given the same story at some stage of our motoring lives. A car, as likely a recently bought one as an older model, will develop a problem. A major one. It will be brought back to the dealership, who will prescribe an expensive repair, one whose cost may be defrayed by 'goodwill'. That goodwill can take many forms. It may be a total covering of costs. It may be a partial cover. It may be none of the above – but you might get a courtesy car. READ MORE However, in some situations, the issue your car has experienced may stem from a known manufacturing defect – and in many other countries, similar faults are being addressed through formal recalls. The whole concept of 'goodwill' can be problematic, as it implies that the consumer – quite apart from asserting their legal rights – must have been compliant in a particular way: had the car serviced only with a main dealer and kept it in such a condition that no questions could be raised about its overall maintenance. Equally, placing repairs on a 'goodwill' basis allows dealer and carmaker considerable discretion – after all, 'goodwill' is not a recognised consumer right under Irish law. Can the legal net be tightened on these kinds of repairs? Possibly. There has been a recent case involving cam chains and the diesel engines made by the Stellantis Group, formerly the PSA Peugeot Citroën Group. A cam chain is a crucial engine component, and if it fails while the car is running, it can cause catastrophic engine damage. One Irish customer, driving a 2021 Peugeot 5008, experienced such a failure and had the car recovered to a Peugeot dealer for inspection. What followed was a protracted series of inspections and repair estimates that left the car idle at the dealership for several months. At the time of writing, it is still there, with repair work scheduled under 'goodwill'. However, this specific issue is known within the industry, and is reportedly linked to a manufacturer-recommended engine oil that may not adequately protect the cam chain – identified officially as part number 9812647280. While some might view Peugeot's coverage of repair costs as an act of goodwill, others argue the fault should be addressed more transparently. In France, the issue has received greater public attention, prompting Peugeot to initiate what it calls a 'preventive update campaign' – effectively a recall – to replace the existing 7mm cam chain with a more robust 8mm version. The campaign also includes upgraded sprockets and other components, and is carried out at no cost to the customer, without reference to service history or owner behaviour. The CCPC found some Irish dealers were telling customers – incorrectly – that their vehicle warranties would be voided if serviced or repaired outside the official dealer network or with non-original parts. Photograph: Nick Bradshaw The issue affects at least 760,000 vehicles across Europe. Given its scale, consumer advocates argue it warrants treatment as a formal recall. Peugeot has confirmed it is extending warranty coverage for this component to seven years or 180,000km – but only for vehicles with a full service history. According to Gowan Auto, Peugeot's Irish importer: 'The issue with this particular car is that it has never been serviced since purchase. Therefore, the customer has agreed to pay the price to fit the new chain.' That service history requirement could be problematic. According to Gowan, to qualify for free repair, owners must provide 'a printed or digital copy of their service receipts which should state the date, dealer and itemise what work has been carried out, oil used, etc.' and this must reflect a 'full service history' – an unbroken record of scheduled maintenance. This condition may sit uneasily with a recent Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) report into potential anticompetitive practices in car servicing and repair. The CCPC found some Irish dealers were telling customers – incorrectly – that their vehicle warranties would be voided if serviced or repaired outside the official dealer network or with non-original parts. In some instances, independent garages reported being denied access to essential diagnostic tools or data needed to carry out repairs. [ Hyundai's big Ioniq 9 feels like an EV upgrade, but will buyers make the switch? Opens in new window ] The CCPC's stance is unambiguous: 'Such practices can break competition law.' While that conclusion does not directly apply to the Peugeot case above, it's a useful point for any consumer being told that 'goodwill' depends on main-dealer service records. Craig Whelan, director of antitrust at the CCPC, said: 'Motorists must be free to choose where they service their vehicles and what parts they use without fear of losing their warranty. 'Independent garages must not be blocked from accessing essential diagnostic data or tools. These restrictive practices hurt consumers, stifle competition and unfairly advantage authorised dealerships. We will continue to monitor this issue closely and will take appropriate enforcement action where we believe competition law has been breached.' The CCPC also notes certain mechanical issues may raise safety concerns. In the case of cam chain failure, the engine can seize without warning, potentially resulting in loss of power steering and braking assistance – a scenario with obvious safety implications. In relation to safety risks, the CCPC told The Irish Times: 'Consumers may have the option to resolve their issue under consumer protection law or product safety law. 'There are common consumer protection rules across Europe to protect consumers from faulty goods and services. These rules were updated in 2022 and became part of Irish law through the Consumer Rights Act 2022 (CRA) ... consumers in Ireland can seek a remedy for faulty goods for up to six years after purchasing.' That legal framework could open the door for consumers to claim redress even where manufacturers have not issued formal recalls. If the cam chain fault is acknowledged as a design issue, it may fall under CRA protections regardless of warranty status. That said, there is potential for jurisdictional confusion. While the CCPC previously handled motor recall issues, this responsibility now lies with the Road Safety Authority (RSA) , which is undergoing a significant reorganisation. The transition could delay or complicate recall responses for Irish consumers. Two main barriers discourage consumers from challenging manufacturers in such cases. First, the emotional and practical disruption caused by car failures often pushes people to accept whatever resolution is quickest, even if it involves out-of-pocket costs. Second, the low monetary value of most claims limits legal options – District Court rules constrain what solicitors can recover in fees, making it harder to take on complex, time-consuming automotive disputes. According to one Irish solicitor familiar with such cases, who asked not to be named due to ongoing client work, these challenges mean legitimate defects may go unresolved: 'We've seen instances where cars were sold with known issues, and consumers later found they needed to purchase extended warranties to cover problems that arguably should have been disclosed or repaired from the outset.' This solicitor also emphasised the human cost: 'I've seen people in tears over stuff like this. They couldn't get to work, school, or even bring children to hospital appointments because the car was off the road. And the responses often rely on technicalities. 'Did you use our recommended oil?' or 'did you get it serviced with us?' It can feel like trying to climb a wall blindfolded. People are under pressure, and that's one reason they don't litigate – the uncertainty, the delay and the cost.' Returning to the Peugeot case, Gowan Auto says the affected car is being addressed. It confirmed: 'The Stellantis customer care platform and website was launched in France and Spain in December 2024. However, it has not yet been rolled out to Ireland or other markets.' An announcement is expected in July, which would implement a new ten-year or 240,000km extended coverage policy across Europe – including Ireland. That would offer welcome consistency for Irish customers, aligning their rights with those of their European neighbours, regardless of whether they meet subjective 'goodwill' thresholds. In the meantime, if your car develops a serious fault, don't assume it's an isolated issue. If you can, take time to research it, and don't let vague references to 'goodwill' keep you from asserting your legal rights.
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Irish Times
Galway, city of the traffic
Sir, – The time has come for a real conversation – and real investment – around a future that does not centre around the private motorcar. Since the 1960s, car dependency has been seen as synonymous with progress. Yet, what we have ended up nurturing – particularly in Galway – is a costly and deeply damaging transportation model. The car, now taken for granted 'as much as an overcoat', has become a beloved but destructive force, responsible for pollution, lost productivity and urban paralysis. Galway now ranks as the most congested city in Ireland and in the top 4 per cent of 1,000 cities worldwide for congestion. According to Inrix Reports, Galwegians spend the equivalent of more than four full days annually commuting to work in cars. Authorities estimate the cost of traffic-related pollution at €35 million a year; the real figure is likely far higher. READ MORE Despite repeated warnings and studies – such as the MVA Traffic Report (2009), the Galway Transport Strategy (2016) and the more recent Galway Metropolitan Area Transport Strategy (GMATS) – all remain ignored or shelved. Infrastructure investment in Galway and the northwest is shockingly low, despite the region housing nearly a fifth of the national population. The imbalance in national investment is as much a failure of political representation as it is one of vision. Traffic in Galway is not just an inconvenience, it is actively choking the city's economic and social potential. It hampers access to work, healthcare, education and social life. The impact on mental health, family time, fuel costs and air quality cannot be overstated. And all the while, the proposed solution – light rail – remains in political limbo. Light rail offers a transformative, sustainable alternative. It would drastically reduce car dependency, cut emissions, support compact urban growth and improve quality of life. Its success globally is well documented. In cities across Europe and beyond, trams are revitalising public transport networks, regenerating urban areas and increasing property values. Critically, the National Transport Authority has already declared light rail to be viable for Galway. With population growth projected to reach 122,000 by 2040, the urgency is undeniable. A light railway system would not merely serve commuters; it would also anchor a new model of development for Galway. It would enable the creation of walkable, vibrant urban villages where people live, work and socialise without being forced into a car. It would encourage infill development and reduce sprawl. With modern innovations, Galway could implement such a system for as little as €15 million to €20 million per kilometre, a wise long-term investment in our future. Galway deserves better. Our city's congestion is not an accident, but a failure of leadership, vision and planning. It is time to embrace a transport model that puts people, not cars, at its centre. – Yours, etc, MURT COLEMAN, Mount Merrion, Co Dublin
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Irish Times
Fingal County Council declares NTA planning application invalid
Fingal County Council has declared a planning application by the National Transport Authority for a 'strategic' park-and-ride facility near M1 as 'invalid'. The 733 space car park in Lissenhall, just north of Swords, was to encourage commuters to leave their vehicles and take buses into the city and forms part of the NTA's wide park-and-ride strategy for the Greater Dublin Area. The council rejected the application, invalidating it as the site notice, application form and newspaper notice descriptions did not match. The application was also deemed not to include details of a planned on-site wastewater treatment system. In the decision letter, Fingal County Council also said a series of proposed developments were judged to be drawn to an incorrect scale, had incorrect elevations or had photos which 'do not appear to be reflective of the drawing plans and elevations'. The developments the council took issue with include a proposed bus shelter, bike lockers, a bike shelter, toilets and an ESB substation. A spokesman for the NTA said the reasons for the rejection 'are all minor such as inconsistency in the wording of the site notice and newspaper advertisement and some issues with the scaling of drawings submitted'. The spokesman said the NTA is addressing the issues and will resubmit the application 'in a matter of days'. In the application, the NTA sought permission to build 733 car parking spaces, which would be made up of 522 standard spaces, 37 spaces for mobility-impaired users, 72 spaces designated for electric vehicles and an additional 72 space futureproofed for electric vehicles. Based on a 6.74 hectare site located at Lissenhall Little, just west of the junction 4 of the M1 motorway into Dublin, the facility would include 3 bus bays as well as passenger shelters in a bid to 'enhance accessibility and convenience for users'. To enable active travel, the development would include bike shelter and lockers. The proposed Lissenhall park-and-ride development was expected to serve as a short-term interim solution which would eventually be replaced by a considerably larger, 3,500 vehicle car park nearby to service the planned Dublin metro system once constructed. Revealing the plans in response to a parliamentary question in February, the NTA said the development is planned as an 'interim solution to reduce vehicles entering the city before the commencement of operation of the Metrolink'. It said the project would 'intercept car trips where people are reliant on private cars at an early viable point in their journeys thereby reducing the distances travelled by private car with a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions congestion.'
