Car Door Accident...

c0rk3r

If this happened two hours earlier the guy wouldnt have a leg to stand on. But since its 19:00 its another matter entirely. No lights and no high vis jacket means he has a genuine case. Whether he actually did look in his mirror or not we'll never know. If we lived in an ideal world you;d be at fault and have to pay up. Good thing for you we dont. Follow what the others have said and the next time he calls inform him you've made a statement to the garda and refuse to pay. If he wants to take the matter further then let him go through the legal channels. Let him know that boards.ie have schooled you in how to avoid your responsibilities.

Its amusing how this will develop. You came on honestly acknowledging that you were in the wrong and like a decent human being willing to pay for your mistake. Now with abit of advice you;ve turned to a rock, heartless.

Its also funny the way we will only learn from our own mistakes no matter how much warnings there are / basic common sense it may seem. "Be safe be seen", another example is people wearing helmets after being in a accident. Something tells me the OP will wearing a high vis vest only after being in an accident.

lifes funny that way

xz

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

from the voice of illegality... does he have your details? if not then you were meeting some friends in the city that night and were never in the terenure area.

I'm with Neil on this one, you didn't give this taxi driver your name and address did you? and if you did, did you get his? If you didn't give him your details, I would not worry about it, anyway, he did what a lot of people do when they are driving or opening their doors.....FAIL TO CHECK THEIR BLIND SPOT.In my opinion he is liable, but from his standpoint, you didn't have a light.
If it was me in your situation and he had uttered the words pay and damages to me, 999 or 112 is what I would have done straight away.
But if the case is that the Garda had not been called and he is demanding damages off you , tell him where to go.

Silenceisbliss

niceonetom wrote: »

i don't see where it says that failure to comply with the lights law = automatic liability in case of an accident.

maybe the OP bears some responsibility here, but it's certainly not a clean cut issue.

quoted from the Irish staute book:

Owner liability.
5. (1) Where a vehicle which does not comply with a provision of these Regulations applying in relation to the vehicle is used in a public place by a person who is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner shall also, subject to paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of section 11 of the Act, be guilty of an offence in any case where the provision not complied with is a provision specified in sub-article (2) of this article.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html#zzsi189y1963a11

Lumen

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

quoted from the Irish staute book

Not as I read it.

(2) The specified provisions of these Regulations for the purpose of sub-article (1) of this article are — articles 9, 22, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, sub-article (1) of article 38, and articles 39 and 40.

Pedal cycles is article 29, therefore the bit you quoted does not apply.

Gavin

c0rk3r wrote: »

Its amusing how this will develop. You came on honestly acknowledging that you were in the wrong and like a decent human being willing to pay for your mistake. Now with abit of advice you;ve turned to a rock, heartless.

Look, it's not black or white. The cyclist should have had a light. The driver should have checked fully before opening his door, cyclists without lights and that close are not invisible.

Go to the Gardai, make the statement completely truthfully and see what they say, if anything.

72hundred

Lumen wrote: »

Not as I read it.

(2) The specified provisions of these Regulations for the purpose of sub-article (1) of this article are — articles 9, 22, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, sub-article (1) of article 38, and articles 39 and 40.

Pedal cycles is article 29, therefore the bit you quoted does not apply.

nice one Lumen for actually checking the reference!

niceonetom

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

quoted from the Irish staute book:

Owner liability.
5. (1) Where a vehicle which does not comply with a provision of these Regulations applying in relation to the vehicle is used in a public place by a person who is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner shall also, subject to paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of section 11 of the Act, be guilty of an offence in any case where the provision not complied with is a provision specified in sub-article (2) of this article.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html#zzsi189y1963a11

i'm not sure what point you think you're making here. the bit you quoted here basically says (in my reading anyway) that the owner can be found guilty of failing to comply with these regulations even if he/she is not the person using the vehicle. it is not even vaguely relevant to this discussion. it allocates liability for failing to comply with the regulations, not liability in the event of an incident involving a non-compliant vehicle.

i don't do this often but... FAIL.

did you just go to that page, search for the word 'liability', quote the bit that showed up and hope for the best?

blorg

@Silenceisbliss- no one is questioning whether the OP was legally required to have a light. He was and he didn't have one. As such he is liable to a fine for riding without a light. It does NOT mean he is automatically liable for damages to the guy who doored him. That is not how it works.

If you negligently knocked down a jaywalking pedestrian, do you think you would be held innocent and able to claim for damages to your car? The ped was breaking the law you see.

Besides which the section you quote has nothing to do with any of this, it is establishing that the owner of a motorised vehicle can be liable if someone else is driving it with malfunctioning lights. What does that have to do with anything? And as lumen says it even specifically excludes pedal cycles (look it up.) Not that this is even relevant.

A more orthogonal interjection into an argument I have probably never seen. What if the taxi driver had abused kittens as a child? Eh?

DirkVoodoo

It's definitely a sticky situation. It's all well and good in hindsight saying you should have had a front light. Does that excuse what the driver did? No, but it makes it nearly impossible to tell if he was not being observant when exiting his vehicle or if he did actually look in his mirror.

Yes, go the Gardai straight away and report this. Leaving it hang in the air will do you no good in the long run if he comes looking for repairs to his door.

And before you get on your bike again go out and buy a new light.

niceonetom

blorg wrote: »

A more orthogonal interjection into an argument I have probably never seen. What if the taxi driver had abused kittens as a child? Eh?

i'm sorry, but that is a MAGNIFICENT paragraph.

Trojan

If the guy has your details and you think he might be reasonable, I'd say something like:

hypothetical me wrote:

I think we're both partial responsible here, me for one thing and you for another. We've both got damaged machinery, so I think that the best thing is for us each to fix our own and that be the end of it. However, if you want to contest it, I am prepared to do that.

That should sort it out.

Personally, I don't think you should get your damage paid for by him, because I hate cyclists with no lights. Hypocritical me was also cycling in dusk Tuesday with no lights[1], so I don't know where that leads us!

1. Only 200 yards to the offie, but still.

Civilian_Target

Troj is right. Contest it.

You were wrong to cycle with lights, but at 7pm on a street lit road you're not invisible. The driver has to pass a vision test, and it's his obligation to look when he opens the door.

I wouldn't push to sue him, but don't give a penny either, even if you get a solicitor's letter.

c0rk3r

When i started of i was friendly and nice
with advice, my heart turned to ice

yo

zzzzzzzz

I was always under the impression that if you hit an opening car door it's your fault. i.e. you're supposed to leave enough space between you and a parked car for a door to open unexpectedly.

If you pass cars closer than that in a driving test it's a mark against you. Not really sure on the actual letter of the law though - maybe I'm wrong and it's just considered good practice or whatever...

Ryaner

aidan.offbeat wrote: »

I was always under the impression that if you hit an opening car door it's your fault. i.e. you're supposed to leave enough space between you and a parked car for a door to open unexpectedly.

If you pass cars closer than that in a driving test it's a mark against you. Not really sure on the actual letter of the law though - maybe I'm wrong and it's just considered good practice or whatever...

People in cars opening doors into cyclists are libable. It is recommended to leave the distance when on a bike since the car will stuff a lot less damage than you will. Same goes when in a car but there are some situations where it is impossible to leave a full doors length between you and the parked car. I've had more than one occasion of having to swerve across the road to miss the road of a taxi that opened suddenly after parking well out into the lane.

To the OP, this isn't an excuse, but are you sure your light was gone before the crash? Some cheaper lights can actually come off during a crash.

Gavin

Ryaner wrote: »

To the OP, this isn't an excuse, but are you sure your light was gone before the crash? Some cheaper lights can actually come off during a crash.

Poor show.

Peleus

About leaving distance, cyclists are not required to leave a certain distance between themselves and parked cars where there are cars in the same lane. People getting out of parked cars are responsible for making sure its safe to exit. Cars are required to leave a doors width but the same does not apply for cyclists where there is no cycle lane and there are cars in the same lane.

All i know is, I couldn't be more broke, my parents aren't responsible for this and I don't expect them to give me a cent. (They won't anyway as punishment for not having a front light). Sure I don't even have the cash to get my bike repaired professionaly... I've reported it anyway so we'll see what happens.

Ryaner

Gavin wrote: »

Poor show.

Why? I've had a light come of my mtb in the past when I went down on the bike. Admitly the lights (front and back) cost less than 10 Euro at the time but better than nothing.

Sleipnir

Ryaner wrote: »

when I went down on the bike.

Hello sailor.

SerialComplaint

short circuit wrote: »

@peleus ... how did you cause the dent on the door .... if you were cycling up from behind and he opened the door .. you would have hit the inside of the door ... somehow the dent to the panel doesn't sound right .. I can understand if you damaged the interior trim.

OP - Can you answer this very important question?

Peleus

I hit the inside of the door and the door bent outwards causing the dent. the inside wouldn't be damaged as the force would go into bending the door out.

Halfrauds

Peleus wrote: »

Hi all,

Couldn't find any old threads on this, which is surprising cos it happens alot. Basically I was in an accident yesterday in Terenure. I was cycling along, minding my own business, :P, when a taxi driver opened his car door on me and knocked me off onto the road.

Initially i thought he was liable for the accident but since my front light was missing, he's claiming that he looked in his mirror and didn't see me. So now I've got a messed up bike and apparently i have to pay for this guys door to get fixed. Should I have to pay for everything? Considering i was in a well lit up area and had cars around me. I know i'm at fault but surely he is a bit too?

also, out of interest, how much approximately would it cost to fix a car door. The door could close fine but it was dented in a bit so when he opened it it was rubbing near the hinge against the front panel on the car. Anyone know?


Thanks for the help.

get a light:rolleyes: serves you right, lights aint just for gob****es:p

its illegal to ride a bike after lighting up hours without a light. If he has your details he has you by the balls.

Although this accident happen too much, your just unlucky it happened at night as id imagine the same out come would have come during the day.:mad:

i feel sorry for you:o nasty accident.

bealbocht

its kinda by the by now, but I reckon even if you had a light he would have still opened the door.

Even without a light, if he checked properly, he would have seen you.

So... €50 fine for you, for no light , and he pays for his own door, and should consider himself lucky, hes not paying for a hospital bill or a funeral.

Also by the by now, but the vision of the corner of a car door implaned in my forhead/eye socket, keeps me very aware and catious of any movement in a parked car.

Quote Blorg
"A more orthogonal interjection into an argument I have probably never seen."

What a great line, if I ever manage to get that into a conversation, I will remember to credit it to you Blorg, probably silently in my head, but credit none the less.

72hundred

Gavin wrote: »

Poor show.

Not really, I've had Halford's lights fall off going over a bump in the cycle track at the monument in the park. It happens!

Gavin

The guy clearly stated that his light was stolen beforehand. Any implications that 'there was a light and it may have fallen off during the crash' is dishonest.

That was what my 'poor show' comment was in relation to.

DualFrontDiscs

If this has been covered... apologies.

If an unlit car drove into a opening car door, who would be at fault?

As cyclists, not muppets on bikes, we have to take our share of responsibility.

If the OP's car lights wouldn't work, they wouldn't drive home, would they?

What would we say about a motorist who knocked down a cyclist when the motorists lights were out after dark?

We can't bemoan the lack of respect shown to cyclists and then show no respect for other road users (RLJs in particular).

Get some www.reelight.com. Tough to steal and always on.

DFD.

Mr. Presentable

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

If this has been covered... apologies.

If an unlit car drove into a opening car door, who would be at fault?

As cyclists, not muppets on bikes, we have to take our share of responsibility.

If the OP's car lights wouldn't work, they wouldn't drive home, would they?

What would we say about a motorist who knocked down a cyclist when the motorists lights were out after dark?

We can't bemoan the lack of respect shown to cyclists and then show no respect for other road users (RLJs in particular).

Get some www.reelight.com. Tough to steal and always on.

DFD.

The problem, Dfd, is that only one of the protagonists is insured, and by default the burden falls on the insured, and sure it'll be grand.

DualFrontDiscs

nipplenuts wrote: »

The problem, Dfd, is that only one of the protagonists is insured, and by default the burden falls on the insured, and sure it'll be grand.

Perhaps that's an issue, I'm not so familiar with that aspect of it. But many of the posts here are about who's in the right and who's not.

As I cycled home the other day, a muppet on a bicycle passed me with no lights, no hi vis, no helmet, iPod in (presumably on) giving the w*nker sign to (presumably) some motorist behind me. Not sure what said motorist did, but just thought the muppet was..........well a muppet on a bike.

DFD.

Ryaner

Gavin wrote: »

The guy clearly stated that his light was stolen beforehand. Any implications that 'there was a light and it may have fallen off during the crash' is dishonest.

That was what my 'poor show' comment was in relation to.

From the OP

Initially i thought he was liable for the accident but since my front light was missing, he's claiming that he looked in his mirror and didn't see me.

I read this as after he noticed it was missing. And being a little dazed after a crash like that, it would be easy to confuse things.

blorg

@Ryaner, easy to misread but he knew the light was gone before he set out. Important not to be dishonest in reporting these things, it can come back to bite you.

He should have had a light, no-one is disputing that.

On the flip side though from what he wrote it appears that the taxi driver only came up with the story that he looked AFTER he saw that the OP didn't have a front light. I am strongly suspecting that the taxi driver simply didn't look.