Accident with a Scooter

Villain

The sister in Law was in an accident about a month ago, she was turning right to park the car when a scooter came down the street and hit the front of her car.

The Guards came to the scene and said it was 50/50 as he couldn't prove if he had his lights on, and the car behind the sister in law said she didn't see where he came out of either.

So the mother of the teenager involved and the Brother agreed they both pay for each others.

The brother got a phone call from the teenager this evening demanding he pay €400 for the repair of the scooter, he refused because he would be admitting liability and the Gardai said it was 50/50.

The teenager said he was going to send a solicitors letter.

The sister in law was turning right and probably should have seen him, but shes adament that he hadn't got his lights on, it was in the town so it was lit but only street lights. I advised the brother that if he pays he's admitting liability.

What should he do??

seamus

Originally posted by irish1
So the mother of the teenager involved and the Brother agreed they both pay for each others.

Was this agreed in front of the Gardai? If so, the Garda who dealt with the case should have a record. If not, this agreement means nothing.

The sister in law was turning right and probably should have seen him, but shes adament that he hadn't got his lights on, it was in the town so it was lit but only street lights. I advised the brother that if he pays he's admitting liability.

Yeah, you're right. There's no point in paying, and then bringin legal action. A judge will see the payment as basically admitting liability.

FWIW, your sister-in-law will be found at fault. In court, she'll say he had no lights, he'll say he did, and then it falls back to, "Well, who had right of way?". Unfortunately the scumbag moped driver did, so he wins.

My Dad almost got convicted for dangerous driving after hitting a motorcyclist who was driving plastered, on the wrong side of the road, and with no lights at 2am. The motorcyclist was in hospital for quite some time, and the attending Garda sent a colleague, who wasn't even there, to testify in his place. Despite both my mum and dad's statements about him having no lights and being on the wrong side of the road, the judge sided with the biker because he came off worse. Only that my mum went completely crazy (and nearly got arrested for contempt of court ) did the judge reconsider the endorsment.
Even evidence after the ruling that proved the biker was plastered that night made no difference (6 degrees of separation meant that the biker was friend of a colleague of my Mum's brother-in-law, and said friend was seen straddling the bike that evening after copious amounts of alcohol).

tunney

So basically your sister wasn't looking where she was going and hit another vehicle?

Smurphy

So basically your sister wasn't looking where she was going and hit another vehicle?

eh if the scumbag on the scooter had no lights on then of course she was going to hit him. I seriously doubt that the sister-in-law has the ability to see non-lit objects in the dark!

tunney

eh if the scumbag on the scooter had no lights on then of course she was going to hit him

With street lights on? Bull. If she looked she'd have seen him.

seamus

Originally posted by Smurphy
I seriously doubt that the sister-in-law has the ability to see non-lit objects in the dark!

Indeed. Damn night blindness. That's crux of the argument - regardless of what the moped driver was doing, she was driving without due care and attention, and unfortunately he had the right of way.

tunney

I seriously doubt that the sister-in-law has the ability to see non-lit objects in the dark!

But it has already been pointed out that it was not dark, that there was on-street lighting.

Smurphy

But it has already been pointed out that it was not dark, that there was on-street lighting.

Depends on the street lighting.
I've been driving into work around 6am and I sick of some cyclists who do not have any lights on their bikes. I never see them until I am on top of them.
Yes there is street lighting but in some parts of the city it is very poor.

Yes, if the case goes to court it will be the sister-in-law who would be found at fault.

I still think that people who drive/cycle/scooter at dark without lights are very stupid......it is dangerous and they should be penalised

seamus

Originally posted by Smurphy
I still think that people who drive/cycle/scooter at dark without lights are very stupid......it is dangerous and they should be penalised

They already are. It's illegal.

tunney

I sick of some cyclists who do not have any lights on their bikes

Very true. As a cyclist and a motorist I find the idea of people cycling without lights crazy.

However a lot of motorists don't check wing mirrors or look over shoulders anyway and if for no other reason cyclists should have lights on so that can sue for lots of money when motorists hit them.

Villain

Lighting was ok but great and it was on a slope, there was also a lot of turn offs to side streets that he could have come around, I though she was in the wrong too but the person behind who knew niether person said she didn't see where he came out of and didn't see him approaching.

The Garda also asked him to start the bike to see if the limiter was on it, but it wouldn't start, also he had no tax.

seamus

Originally posted by irish1
Lighting was ok but great and it was on a slope, there was also a lot of turn offs to side streets that he could have come around, I though she was in the wrong too but the person behind who knew niether person said she didn't see where he came out of and didn't see him approaching.

The Garda also asked him to start the bike to see if the limiter was on it, but it wouldn't start, also he had no tax.

*shrug*

He still had the right of way. Sometimes the law isn't always right, but it's still the law.

Villain

Originally posted by seamus
*shrug*

He still had the right of way. Sometimes the law isn't always right, but it's still the law.

If he was driving within the law he had, ie. lights on vehicle taxed??

[CrimsonGhost]

Originally posted by tunney
However a lot of motorists don't check wing mirrors or look over shoulders anyway and if for no other reason cyclists should have lights on so that can sue for lots of money when motorists hit them.

That is just stupid. And making out like it is always the motorists fault is just plain wrong. Cyclists don't have likes, don't take proper should checks, cycle on paths, constantly break red lights, etc etc.

Now I know motorists are no angels when it comes to driving, but 90%+ of cyclists out there need to cop on and take responsibility for their actions and behaviour on the road.

leonotron

Originally posted by Smurphy
eh if the scumbag on the scooter had no lights on then of course she was going to hit him. I seriously doubt that the sister-in-law has the ability to see non-lit objects in the dark!

Does she not use her head lights? Does she run over 50% of the cyclists on the street as they don't use lights at night?

Villain

Originally posted by leonotron
Does she not use her head lights? Does she run over 50% of the cyclists on the street as they don't use lights at night?

Cyclists normally don't cycle in the middle of the road and normally travle at low speeds, this was a scooter and given that she was almost stopped at time of impact and the damage caused he was moving, I'd say speed of 30 - 40 mph

seamus

Originally posted by irish1
If he was driving within the law he had, ie. lights on vehicle taxed??

I can't remember correctly if it was here or somewhere else that an untaxed or uninsured vehicle is instantly liable in an accident....I remember reading it somewhere. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this.

I know for a fact though that the person driving outside the law isn't instantly ruled to be at fault. Case in point was the motorcyclist driving down the hard shoulder, who was killed when a jeep crossed the road to turn into a petrol station. Provisional drivers driving alone have also made successful claims against other drivers in accidents.

seamus

Originally posted by leonotron
Does she not use her head lights? Does she run over 50% of the cyclists on the street as they don't use lights at night?

It was a well-lit area, so she wasn't driving with headlights, she'd be driving with dipped lights, which only illuminate the road, a few metres in front of you. Cyclists also don't seem to realise that cars have less visibility than they do due to shine and speed. While cyclists can see everything in well-lit areas, car drivers aren't so fortunate, and bikes, even those using reflectors, can be very invisible, even as close as 50m away. Anyone who's driven a motorbike will understand the difference in visibility when the visor is down and when the visor is up, even if it's spotless. The difference is minor, but it's there.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by irish1
The sister in Law was in an accident about a month ago, she was turning right to park the car when a scooter came down the street and hit the front of her car.

The Guards came to the scene and said it was 50/50 as he couldn't prove if he had his lights on, and the car behind the sister in law said she didn't see where he came out of either.

So the mother of the teenager involved and the Brother agreed they both pay for each others.

The brother got a phone call from the teenager this evening demanding he pay €400 for the repair of the scooter, he refused because he would be admitting liability and the Gardai said it was 50/50.

The teenager said he was going to send a solicitors letter.

The sister in law was turning right and probably should have seen him, but shes adament that he hadn't got his lights on, it was in the town so it was lit but only street lights. I advised the brother that if he pays he's admitting liability.

What should he do??

sounds like he's chancing his arm here, I'd go talk to a solicitor

tunney

Cyclists normally don't ....... normally travle at low speeds

This is a terrible misconception and can, and does, result in lots of accidents and near misses. Many cyclists on the roads, even commuters, regularly travel at speeds up 35mph (or course only speed limit permitting ) The above presumption will get people killed.

car drivers aren't so fortunate, and bikes, even those using reflectors, can be very invisible

Very true, however some cyclists do wear hi-viz jackets, arm bands and three front lights and motorists still rarely see them. (I am of course talking about myself here). fact of the matter is, alot of motorists rarely look for cyclists, and yes the onus is on the motorist to either indicate in due time, or look for cyclists on their left/right.

And as for cyclists having perfect vision, what about the wind and rain in their eyes? We're all in the same boat - poor visibility, it just means more attention is required.

but 90%+ of cyclists out there need to cop on and take responsibility for their actions and behaviour on the road

yes alot of cyclists actions are probably illegal and are probably dangerous but motorists in general are very anti-cyclist in their driving styles (driving way too close to the kerb, indicating too late, misjudging cyclists speeds, not checking wing mirrors). Alot of the time the cyclist that blocking your way and holding yuo up is most likely doing it deliberatly because you nearly knocked them off their bike a fwe minutes before hand and since they've passed you they're not going to let you get a chance to do it again. All that being said some motorists are extremely cyclist friendly and yield right of way even when they don't have to.

[CrimsonGhost]

Actually, these should be made mandatory for cyclists who wish to use city centre roads.
http://www.bseen101.com/

And please no silly arguments about the government should hand them out for free. All other road users have to pay for to ensure their lights are in proper working order so cyclists should be no exception.

tunney

I see the point in combining leds and halogen lights but the indicator stuff is stupid. Thats what hand signals are for.

[CrimsonGhost]

ROFLMAO.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You're are taking the pi$$. Please tell me you are taking the pi$$. Bicyclists use hand signals. I can count the number of times I've actually see a cyclist use a hand signal - Once, it was some oriental bloke turning left from the Davenport onto merrion square.

Saying indicators are stupid is itself stupid. Indicators are easier to use than hand signals. You have more control over the bike using them as you have both hand on the handle bars. You are less likely to have the hand taken off you by a car speeding past you too close just as you put your hand out.

Rear view mirrors should also be made mandatory on bicycles, I've seen these on a number of bicycles around town and they certainly make sense.

Victor

Talk to a solicitor and get them to do a "full and final settelment" agreement.

tunney

Bicyclists use hand signals.

Some do. Those that don't want to get knocked down do. But then again motorists have to be looking to see them.

Indicators are easier to use than hand signals. You have more control over the bike using them as you have both hand on the handle bars.

Using hand signals is quite easy and has little or no affect on your balance. Hand signals combined with reflective clothing are quite good indicators.

Suggesting that it be mandatory for cyclists to install a complicated device on their bikes to aid incompetent drivers is ridiculous. The amount of cables and the like required to get the indicators working would be massive never mind the braking contraption that is also included.

You're also forgetting about cyclists that are concerned with performance - the ones that spend up to(and over) 5 grand on bikes. They pay massive amount of money to save a few grams on their bikes, you honestly think that they will put heavy and unaerodynamic devices on their bikes just because motorists in ireland are insufficiently trained?

seamus

Tunney, regardless of the incompentance of drivers, at least they need to do a test, and a lot of them do get lessons.

Most, if not all cyclists have zero training, and the vast majority have no idea of the rules of the road. Those in glass houses, etc.

a_ominous

One comment about cyclists' hand signals: giving a hand signal is a short action. A cyclist will need both hands turning to adequately control the bike. It is possible to turn a bike with one hand, hey even no-hands turns can be done (kids did it all the time when I was young) but in traffic both hands are required. Indicators could help but what about the battery for all the extra lights. And think of the security headache of riding a suitable bike in dubellin.

tunney

Most, if not all cyclists have zero training, and the vast majority have no idea of the rules of the road. Those in glass houses, etc.

True for some cyclists, but as an experienced driver I'm entitled lash a few bricks.

GreeBo

And a large amount of motorists seem to be unaware that even though the traffic on the car lane has stopped, there may still be traffic WITH RIGHT OF WAY on the bike lane, SO DONT TURN ACROSS THE ROAD WITHOUT CHECKING YOU IGNORANT PHUCKERS!

This makes me so mad, worse are the pedestrians crossing without looking at the bike lane, just because the cars have stopped.

Ever been to Holland, how can they mange it?
Stupid ignorant Irish people.
<Mutter, mutter, bitch>

Cabaal

Originally posted by [CrimsonGhost]
Bicyclists use hand signals. I can count the number of times I've actually see a cyclist use a hand signal

I can't can't keep track of the number of times motorists DON'T use indicators on ringroads, either when I'm walking or on a bike
Half the cars on the road don't have a feckin clue how to properly use a ringroad and its a big danger to people.

Another thing that really ,pisses me off is gob****e motorists keeping as close as they can to the footpath/edge of the road so no bikes can pass dispite the fact there's loads of room on the rest of the road, its done atleast a few times on my way to work each time and its such a wide road to.

GreeBo

Originally posted by [CrimsonGhost]
Actually, these should be made mandatory for cyclists who wish to use city centre roads.
http://www.bseen101.com/

And please no silly arguments about the government should hand them out for free. All other road users have to pay for to ensure their lights are in proper working order so cyclists should be no exception.

Did you read the quote on the end of the vid?

"You are guaranteed drivers wont miss you"
Errr, so they will hit me?
Gee, thanks!:rolleyes: