Cycle red light break conviction

jambalap

I got court summons for breaking red light while cycling. If I plead guilty then will I have a record as traffic offence?Is this to be declared when filling application which asks have you committed traffic offence?. Is there any way I can pay fine and not get this in to my record?

seamus

Yes, it is a traffic offence, however it is not a conviction. So when filling out insurance or whatever, you do not have to declare it as a conviction.

RangeR

jambalap wrote: »

I got court summons for breaking red light while cycling. If I plead guilty then will I have a record as traffic offence?Is this to be declared when filling application which asks have you committed traffic offence?. Is there any way I can pay fine and not get this in to my record?

I know this is OT and a widely seeping question but why do cyclists think they are above the law and flout the rules of the road on a daily basis?

furiousox

RangeR wrote: »

I know this is OT and a widely seeping question but why do cyclists think they are above the law and flout the rules of the road on a daily basis?

Some cyclists behave badly just like some motorists behave badly.

Nuttzz

Depends on what the court decides

This guy got a driving ban for breaking a red light

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html

jambalap

RangeR wrote: »

I know this is OT and a widely seeping question but why do cyclists think they are above the law and flout the rules of the road on a daily basis?

I did a mistake and now I learnt lesson. I have been very good boy for last 5 months. If all cyclists new they have to be in court for breaking red light it will deter them as well when I stop at red light I see many cyclists passing me I wanted to tell them you will end up in court wasting your working day. I never thought I am the above law I can give many excuses but all I want to say is I made a mistake like every human being does and I learnt lesson and obeying the laws. I hope this satisfies your question.

jambalap

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it is a traffic offence, however it is not a conviction. So when filling out insurance or whatever, you do not have to declare it as a conviction.

Seamus Thanks for the reply. I am non EEA and I will be applying for citizenship in coming weeks . I have the following question in form
DO YOU HAVE ANY CONVICTIONS IN THE STATE OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY (INCLUDING TRAFFIC OFFENCES) OR ANY CIVIL JUDGEMENTS MADE AGAINST YOU?
I don't know how to answer the above question

P.S. I never drawn garda attention before in this state or any where else and no offences no traafic offences until the cycle thing happened

seamus

It would be worth speaking to a solicitor about, I can't advise you on how to answer that question.

My gut says your answer there is no - it's asking you if you have any convictions, not convictions or traffic offences. But speak to a solicitor because something as simple as running a red light may result in a conviction, but it can also be avoided.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it is a traffic offence, however it is not a conviction. So when filling out insurance or whatever, you do not have to declare it as a conviction.

Yes, it's a conviction. A traffic offence is an offence, and a plea of guilty results in a conviction.

If you're asked about convictions, you have to declare it, unless the question explicitly excludes convictions for traffic offences.

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, it's a conviction. A traffic offence is an offence, and a plea of guilty results in a conviction.

You're right, I was thinking of a fine rather than a court appearane.
There are ways to plead guilty though which don't result in a conviction, such as convincing the judge to allow you to make a contribution to the poor box.

A solicitor would be able to advise on how you play it. I wouldn't bother with a solicitor except that you're looking to make a citizenship application.

ResearchWill

jambalap wrote: »

Seamus Thanks for the reply. I am non EEA and I will be applying for citizenship in coming weeks . I have the following question in form
DO YOU HAVE ANY CONVICTIONS IN THE STATE OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY (INCLUDING TRAFFIC OFFENCES) OR ANY CIVIL JUDGEMENTS MADE AGAINST YOU?
I don't know how to answer the above question

P.S. I never drawn garda attention before in this state or any where else and no offences no traafic offences until the cycle thing happened

The following is not legal advice. But I have experience of this very problem. Under the last number of Ministers for Justice, Citizenship was being refused for minor trafic offence and i mean minor, parking on a double yellow line, another one was failure to produce on demand a driving licence. Now in saying that, since the new Minister has taken office I am not aware of any refusals for such minor offence but better be safe than sorry. BTW this does not mean there has been no recent refusals only I have not heard of any.

You will need a solicitor to inform the Court of the possible impact of a conviction, I have know where some Judges when informed of this will Strike the Matter out and not convict. So get good advice from a good immigration solicitor who knows his stuff.

johnfás

RangeR wrote: »

I know this is OT and a widely seeping question but why do cyclists think they are above the law and flout the rules of the road on a daily basis?

I suppose it's for the same reason that many drivers believe they aren't obliged to indicate when turning left and there is a cyclist on their inside. Which can and does have lethal consequences yet is a daily experience. And let's not even begin to talk about pedestrians.

Victor

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it is a traffic offence, however it is not a conviction. So when filling out insurance or whatever, you do not have to declare it as a conviction.

As it is a cycling matter it is dealt with via the courts, not a fixed penalty notice.

In law, there is no difference between a traffic conviction and other convictions although they tend to be dealt with more leniently.

blueythebear

ResearchWill wrote: »

The following is not legal advice. But I have experience of this very problem. Under the last number of Ministers for Justice, Citizenship was being refused for minor trafic offence and i mean minor, parking on a double yellow line, another one was failure to produce on demand a driving licence. Now in saying that, since the new Minister has taken office I am not aware of any refusals for such minor offence but better be safe than sorry. BTW this does not mean there has been no recent refusals only I have not heard of any.

You will need a solicitor to inform the Court of the possible impact of a conviction, I have know where some Judges when informed of this will Strike the Matter out and not convict. So get good advice from a good immigration solicitor who knows his stuff.

In fact, an Irish Times article on 11th September 2010 referred to a doctor that was refused Naturalisation on account of the same issue, a conviction for breaking a red light on a bike. You need to subscribe to the IT online to view the original article but here's the link for the gist of it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0911/1224278636072.html

However, as has been said above by ReasearchWill, that was the story with the previous Minister. With Minister Shatter, things seem to be alot more reasonable...

Del2005

RangeR wrote: »

I know this is OT and a widely seeping question but why do cyclists think they are above the law and flout the rules of the road on a daily basis?

Every road user type has some people who break the law. TBH it's nearly as bad with cars as bicycles now for breaking reds.

jambalap wrote: »

Seamus Thanks for the reply. I am non EEA and I will be applying for citizenship in coming weeks . I have the following question in form
DO YOU HAVE ANY CONVICTIONS IN THE STATE OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY (INCLUDING TRAFFIC OFFENCES) OR ANY CIVIL JUDGEMENTS MADE AGAINST YOU?
I don't know how to answer the above question

P.S. I never drawn garda attention before in this state or any where else and no offences no traafic offences until the cycle thing happened

When are you applying for citizenship? Is it before or after the court date?
If the naturalisation is before your court date don't forget that your innocent till convicted.
If court date is before the naturalisation you need to see a solicitor.

ResearchWill

Del2005 wrote: »

Every road user type has some people who break the law. TBH it's nearly as bad with cars as bicycles now for breaking reds.



When are you applying for citizenship? Is it before or after the court date?
If the naturalisation is before your court date don't forget that your innocent till convicted.
If court date is before the naturalisation you need to see a solicitor.

Up untill recently applications for citizenship have taken upto 4 years with 3 being the norm. While the current minister promises new applications will take no more than 6 months, it could take longer and especially if there is a pending criminal issue.

jambalap

Del2005 wrote: »

Every road user type has some people who break the law. TBH it's nearly as bad with cars as bicycles now for breaking reds.



When are you applying for citizenship? Is it before or after the court date?
If the naturalisation is before your court date don't forget that your innocent till convicted.
If court date is before the naturalisation you need to see a solicitor.

I will be applying late this year. Can I talk to the Garda about my situation?

jambalap

ResearchWill wrote: »

Up untill recently applications for citizenship have taken upto 4 years with 3 being the norm. While the current minister promises new applications will take no more than 6 months, it could take longer and especially if there is a pending criminal issue.

My offence doesn't come under criminal. I will be applying late this year so by the time I have my verdict from the court.

jambalap

ResearchWill wrote: »

The following is not legal advice. But I have experience of this very problem. Under the last number of Ministers for Justice, Citizenship was being refused for minor trafic offence and i mean minor, parking on a double yellow line, another one was failure to produce on demand a driving licence. Now in saying that, since the new Minister has taken office I am not aware of any refusals for such minor offence but better be safe than sorry. BTW this does not mean there has been no recent refusals only I have not heard of any.

You will need a solicitor to inform the Court of the possible impact of a conviction, I have know where some Judges when informed of this will Strike the Matter out and not convict. So get good advice from a good immigration solicitor who knows his stuff.

Hi can you please let me know what is your experience and what did you do about it?

jambalap

ResearchWill wrote: »

The following is not legal advice. But I have experience of this very problem. Under the last number of Ministers for Justice, Citizenship was being refused for minor trafic offence and i mean minor, parking on a double yellow line, another one was failure to produce on demand a driving licence. Now in saying that, since the new Minister has taken office I am not aware of any refusals for such minor offence but better be safe than sorry. BTW this does not mean there has been no recent refusals only I have not heard of any.

You will need a solicitor to inform the Court of the possible impact of a conviction, I have know where some Judges when informed of this will Strike the Matter out and not convict. So get good advice from a good immigration solicitor who knows his stuff.

Do you have any idea how much solicitor charges for the same.

ResearchWill

jambalap wrote: »

Do you have any idea how much solicitor charges for the same.

The problem is that so few solicitors do immigration and also crime they are a very rare indeed. Best bet is to get golden pages in your area and ring solicitors who have both immigration and crime listed. Don't be afraid to ask about costs and don't be afraid to say how much you can afford. You may also depending on circumstances get legal aid in the district court because of the possible impact of a conviction.

ResearchWill

jambalap wrote: »

Hi can you please let me know what is your experience and what did you do about it?

In one case we had to extend time to appeal district Court conviction, after 4 years we thankfully got time extended. We then appealed DC conviction and then the State agreed to allow the appeal. Then fresh application for naturalisation was made, I'm not sure if that application is still pending because as barrister I have had no further involvement but I assume as I have not been contact it is either still pending or was granted.

jambalap

was in court today with my lawyer for cycle breaking red light back in november. The first thing judge ask is are there any previous convictions. As I had none i was asked to pay 120 euro to the court poor box and the case was dismissed. Judge gave chance to every defendant in all the cases to explain from their side. no conviction which is happy thing

paky

RangeR wrote: »

I know this is OT and a widely seeping question but why do cyclists think they are above the law and flout the rules of the road on a daily basis?

because cyclists in this country are reviled compared to their european counterparts. the high vis vests, helmets and lights are testament to that.

ridiculous charge imo

Hogzy

paky wrote: »

ridiculous charge imo

So you think cyclists should be allowed to run red lights?

Paulw

paky wrote: »

because cyclists in this country are reviled compared to their european counterparts. the high vis vests, helmets and lights are testament to that.

If cyclists didn't break the law, then they wouldn't need high vis vests, helmet or lights. If they stopped at red lights, didn't cycle on the footpath, etc, they wouldn't need to be as seen, and wouldn't be reviled. :rolleyes:

Great to see the law being enforced on cyclists.

seamus

Paulw wrote: »

If they stopped at red lights, didn't cycle on the footpath, etc, they wouldn't need to be as seen, and wouldn't be reviled. :rolleyes:

That's a fallacy in reality Paul. If cyclists rigidly obeyed the laws, then motorists would still see fit to whinge about cyclists "owning the bloody road" and "not paying road tax" and "not wearing helmets".

Red light breaking is a convenient red herring which allows people's inherent schoolyard bully attitude to be expressed in full glory. It's the equivalent of picking on the kid with glasses for being a "nerd", for no other reason than people who you don't feel belong in your "group" are fair game for ridicule. It's a natural human tendency to pick on the guy who's different, which a lot people seem incapable of growing out of.

Pedestrians would be the worst group for law-breaking among all road users. You don't see any twenty page rants about pedestrians not paying road tax or calls for a "walking licence" or insurance for pedestrians. Why not? Because they're not the "different guy", everyone is a pedestrian.

Hogzy

seamus wrote: »

That's a fallacy in reality Paul. If cyclists rigidly obeyed the laws, then motorists would still see fit to whinge about cyclists "owning the bloody road" and "not paying road tax" and "not wearing helmets".

Red light breaking is a convenient red herring which allows people's inherent schoolyard bully attitude to be expressed in full glory. It's the equivalent of picking on the kid with glasses for being a "nerd", for no other reason than people who you don't feel belong in your "group" are fair game for ridicule. It's a natural human tendency to pick on the guy who's different, which a lot people seem incapable of growing out of.

Pedestrians would be the worst group for law-breaking among all road users. You don't see any twenty page rants about pedestrians not paying road tax or calls for a "walking licence" or insurance for pedestrians. Why not? Because they're not the "different guy", everyone is a pedestrian.

Pedestrians have their own walkways so obviously road users (cyclists/motorists) wont complain about them.

Iv seen a cyclist get knocked down in Cork City, he ran a red light on Washington St and a car plowed into him, the simple cause was that the cyclist had not checked to see if all road ways were clear before proceeding. It was entirely the cyclists fault as the car would have been unable to see him because buildings block the view and the speed the cyclist was doing through the lights was crazy.

Im sure there are a good amount of cyclists out there who know how to use the roads. But there are a good amount too who dont know the basic traffic laws/rules. The word traffic doesnt refer to JUST cars, it also refers to bicycles. Anyone who uses the roads should follow traffic laws. Be they in a car, on a bike, on a segway or on a horse. Nobody should be exempt.

paky

Hogzy wrote: »

So you think cyclists should be allowed to run red lights?

yes, if they understand the risks that are involved

Hogzy

paky wrote: »

yes, if they understand the risks that are involved

But how is someone meant to know if that cyclist understands the risks involved.

By your logic/reasoning, anyone (be it a car/motorbike/truck etc) should be allowed run a red light "if they understand the risks involved."

You do realise that if a cyclist runs a red light (and either hits a pedestrian or traffic) then they are opening themselves up to a huge negligence claim.

Tigerbaby

Im a cyclist of many years in Dublin City, and I obey the law. I would say that the amount of cyclists breaking traffic lights is at least 70%. It sickens me to be honest.

All bikes should carry registration plates, like cars and motorbikes. They can easily be reported to the Guards then, and get their commupance.

To say that there as many cars breaking lights as cyclists is just sticking your head in the sand. It aint true!

And dont get me started on footpath cyclists.

paky

Hogzy wrote: »

But how is someone meant to know if that cyclist understands the risks involved.

By your logic/reasoning, anyone (be it a car/motorbike/truck etc) should be allowed run a red light "if they understand the risks involved."

You do realise that if a cyclist runs a red light (and either hits a pedestrian or traffic) then they are opening themselves up to a huge negligence claim.

ive yet to hear of a case in ireland were pedestrian has lost their life to a cyclist. the risks are far higher when a motorists runs a red light. should we now implement J walking in ireland now that cyclists are being punished for running red lights? or is just the cyclists we'll pick on? ive seen instances where cyclists have had to swerve to avoid pedestrians running red lights putting cyclists lives severely at risk

Hogzy

paky wrote: »

ive yet to hear of a case in ireland were pedestrian has lost their life to a cyclist. the risks are far higher when a motorists runs a red light.

So in order for a risk to exist you are saying that someone must have to loose their life? You're being very narrow minded to be honest if you deny that there is a high risk of injury to someone (be it a cyclist, pedestrian, motor cyclist or motorist) if a cyclist (OR ANYONE) runs a red light/ breaks traffic laws

should we now implement J walking in ireland now that cyclists are being punished for running red lights?

Maybe we should if it improves pedestrian safety, Again someone was killed recently on Patrick St in Cork when they crossed the road into an oncoming bin truck. It wasnt pretty to put it mildly. The pedestrian was killed instantly.

or is just the cyclists we'll pick on? ive seen instances where cyclists have had to swerve to avoid pedestrians running red lights putting cyclists lives severely at risk

Exactly. So maybe Jay walking should be an offense in urban areas. Cars have to dangerously swerve to avoid cyclists if they run red lights. Do you not see the irony in your above statement? 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Also in the case of motorcyclists, they could easily come off their bikes in order to avoid a cyclist.

Procrastastudy

Firstly what would be the point of reporting them to the gardai? They do naff all about the cars breaking the red lights!

Secondly some of the cycle lanes that have been put in (I'm thinking leading up to Dundrum here) are just dangerous. The average car driver has no idea of their right of way obligations.

I say give them the choise. Sexy french tourists on the path ringing the little bell on the Dublin rent a bike thing - Lycra clad condom impersonators on the road with the option to skip up on the path to avoid red lights. Introduce a policy of any pedestrian on cyclist accident is always the fault of the cyclist - the same way it works with motorist v pedestrian. Introduce a cost of insurence into the purchase of all new bikes.

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Introduce a policy of any pedestrian on cyclist accident is always the fault of the cyclist - the same way it works with motorist v pedestrian. Introduce a cost of insurence into the purchase of all new bikes.

Since when is it automatically the fault of a motorist if a pedestrian gets knocked down?

Have you ever heard of contributory negligence or any other basic tort rules? Nobody is ever automatically at fault.

Kosseegan

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly. So maybe Jay walking should be an offense in urban areas. C

It is an offence to cross the road with 5 metres of an approved road crossing in a manner other than allowed by that crossing.

Procrastastudy

Hogzy wrote: »

Since when is it automatically the fault of a motorist if a pedestrian gets knocked down?

Have you ever heard of contributory negligence or any other basic tort rules? Nobody is ever automatically at fault.

Discussed at length here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056571160

Motorist owes a duty of care to the pedestrian. Yes there could be contributory negligence but I can't think of a single scenrio or case. I am happy to be enlightened. You would also have the force of public policy to consider.

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Discussed at length here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056571160

Motorist owes a duty of care to the pedestrian. Yes there could be contributory negligence but I can't think of a single scenrio or case. I am happy to be enlightened. You would also have the force of public policy to consider.

You are right, motorists do owe a duty of care to pedestrians. But pedestrians can also owe a duty of care to motorists.

If a pedestrian decides enough is enough and randomly jumps in front of my car. Then i can sue that pedestrian or his estate for the damage he inflicted upon my car/property and for any medical expenses i may have incurred. 1. Because its forseeable that by jumping in front of my car will result in damage, Secondly there is a proximity (for obvious reasons). Public policy issues are dealt with on a case by case basis but i see no reason that a court wouldnt recognise a duty of care in this instance.

A motorist can only be expected to take reasonable care while driving. They cannot anticipate the movements of EVERY single pedestrian on the road.

There doesnt need to be an exact case where a pedestrian and motorist colided to establish a duty of care. Showing Forseeability/Proximity is enough. Could you enlighten me as to any public policy issues that would arise when denying the existence of a duty of care that is owed by a pedestrian because I certainly cannot think of any?


Just to clarify your point, are you saying that pedestrians dont owe motorists/cyclists(etc) a duty of care?

Procrastastudy

Hogzy wrote: »

You are right, motorists do owe a duty of care to pedestrians. But pedestrians can also owe a duty of care to motorists.

If a pedestrian decides enough is enough and randomly jumps in front of my car. Then i can sue that pedestrian or his estate for the damage he inflicted upon my car/property and for any medical expenses i may have incurred. 1. Because its forseeable that by jumping in front of my car will result in damage, Secondly there is a proximity (for obvious reasons).

If you see a pedestrian it is upto you to ensure that any action taken by that pedestrian does not not result in a colision with your car. I can't think of a scenario where a pedestrian would be quick enough to get infront of your car without you noticing it. If its walking out in front of you in the road - agin you would be at fault.

Hogzy wrote: »

Public policy issues are dealt with on a case by case basis but i see no reason that a court wouldnt recognise a duty of care in this instance.

I cant see how they would given the above. Also you have insurence - they don't. Its always said that makes no difference I think everyone would agree it does.

Hogzy wrote: »

A motorist can only be expected to take reasonable care while driving. They cannot anticipate the movements of EVERY single pedestrian on the road.

I disagree - flipantly I could say if thet're on the road there's a clue - but I know what you mean and I still disagree. It was put better by others in the thread I linked.

Hogzy wrote: »

There doesnt need to be an exact case where a pedestrian and motorist colided to establish a duty of care. Showing Forseeability/Proximity is enough. Could you enlighten me as to any public policy issues that would arise when denying the existence of a duty of care that is owed by a pedestrian because I certainly cannot think of any?Just to clarify your point, are you saying that pedestrians dont owe motorists/cyclists(etc) a duty of care?

As above and per the linked thread. But in short insurence and the disaparity of injury between the parties. Cyclists I really don't know as may of the points become moot cyclist v pedestrian. Theoricly perhaps there is a duty of care owed to one's self as a pedestrian but it's unlikely there is one owed to a motorist.

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

If you see a pedestrian it is upto you to ensure that any action taken by that pedestrian does not not result in a colision with your car. I can't think of a scenario where a pedestrian would be quick enough to get infront of your car without you noticing it. If its walking out in front of you in the road - agin you would be at fault.

Can you back that up? I have studied law through my undergrad and iv passed my Tort FE1. Iv never come across a scenario where the standard rules of the duty of care have been departed from in this instance.
Judging by your username its safe to assume that you are a law student so i have no doubt you have full access to Lexis Nexis, Westlaw etc.

I cant see how they would given the above. Also you have insurence - they don't. Its always said that makes no difference I think everyone would agree it does.

Your insurance company will seek expenses back if the pedestrian is either partially or wholly at fault. When pedestrians do not observe to care for their own safety, not to mention the safety of others, the courts will not hesitated to find them either completely or partly responsible for the collision or injuries that resulted from their own negligent actions.

As above and per the linked thread. But in short insurence and the disaparity of injury between the parties. Cyclists I really don't know as may of the points become moot cyclist v pedestrian. Theoricly perhaps there is a duty of care owed to one's self as a pedestrian but it's unlikely there is one owed to a motorist.

Ill say it again. A driver owes a reasonable duty of care. There was a recent case in Cork where a young driver knocked a child down. He couldnt see the child and it was later proven that it would have been impossible for anyone to have seen the child given the angle it approached the car. The criminal charges were dropped and no civil liability arose from the matter. Trying to find the case name now.

Also, Read this.

Procrastastudy

I can only back it up by the thread I have linked and my opinion that the statement I have made is the standard of care owed by a driver. I think you'd agree that it's near impossible to find a case to where a pedestrian has been found liable for a drivers injuries. That said I suppose it's possible in theory.

I'm not sure where I have suggested that the comon rules of duty of care are suspended? I'm not suggesting there is strict liability just that in practise it's the motorist. Probably more like Res Ipsa - although I am aware that doesn't automaticly apply either.

I find it hard to believe an insurence company would go after a pedestrian on the gounds of PR but that isn't a legal point - that said I have conceeded your point on contributory negligence - but again I can't think of a single scenrio where it would apply. You have linked a possible one I would still maintain that this is going to be a tiny tiny number of cases and each would turn very much on their own facts. For example what if the area was frequently used by young children for play?

If you can find that Cork case I'd love to have a read of it please. Thank you for the linked article but I think it has a fair amount af sales spin on it. I relaise you are probably just trying to pitch at my (First year) level!

Bottom line is if a driver hits a pedestrian 99.9% of the time it is the driver that has breached the duty of care in my opinion.

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I can only back it up by the thread I have linked and my opinion that the statement I have made is the standard of care owed by a driver. I think you'd agree that it's near impossible to find a case to where a pedestrian has been found liable for a drivers injuries. That said I suppose it's possible in theory.

It will probably never happen because in very rare occasions will a pedestrian actually cause the drivers injury. However lets say you are driving along the motorway at 120kph, and someone drops down on your car from one of the above bridges. Its not forseeable that someone would throw themselves off a bridge. And given the speed you are travelling at a significant amount of damage would occur. The driver is not negligent because his speed is not excessive, and lets assume that he has been paying full attention that is to be reasonable expected from a driver on a motorway. The driver can sue the person who dropped down on the car because the damage is forseeable and there is proximity. Now a court MAY decide if public policy reasons allow for liability to be excused, but neither you nor I can be certain as to that question because we are not a judge.

I'm not sure where I have suggested that the comon rules of duty of care are suspended? I'm not suggesting there is strict liability just that in practise it's the motorist. Probably more like Res Ipsa - although I am aware that doesn't automaticly apply either.

In practice yes the motorist is usually to blame because the motorist has been negligent. But there can be instances where the motorist is in no way negligent and therefore will not be responsible for their own costs. Obviously if the pedestrian has no money there is probably no point in suing (because he has no insurance), but if the pedestrian does have assets/money then you can sue. You have suffered damage because of anothers negligent actions therefore you are entitled to recover.

I find it hard to believe an insurence company would go after a pedestrian on the gounds of PR but that isn't a legal point - that said I have conceeded your point on contributory negligence - but again I can't think of a single scenrio where it would apply. You have linked a possible one I would still maintain that this is going to be a tiny tiny number of cases and each would turn very much on their own facts. For example what if the area was frequently used by young children for play?

Im not saying this occurs every day of the week. But it does occur.

If you can find that Cork case I'd love to have a read of it please. Thank you for the linked article but I think it has a fair amount af sales spin on it. I relaise you are probably just trying to pitch at my (First year) level!

Breaking News Link RTE News Link This is the link to the breaking news story, trying to find a more detailed brief on it.

Bottom line is if a driver hits a pedestrian 99.9% of the time it is the driver

that has breached the duty of care in my opinion.

That is true to an extent. But you would be shocked at how common it is that the pedestrian was contributory negligent. If you cross when the man is red then you are being reckless and therefore your contributory negligence can dillute your potential recovery of damages from a negligent driver. This sort of cases are VERY fact heavy.
Then if the driver has not been negligent in anyway (which will be very hard to prove, but not impossible, because nobody is a perfect driver) then he can recover against the pedestrian.

The standard rules of negligence/Duty of Care apply. We all owe each other a duty of care. Im assuming you have done Tort law? If not then the first case you will study is Donoghue v Stevenson - The neighbour principle.

Hogzy

I found a case. Albeit a UK one but as you will be aware. UK precedent can be extremely persuasive in Ireland after all our Tort law is modeled on UK tort law.

Stewart v Glaze 2009

Summary

A drunk man who ran into the road, collided with a car and suffered catastrophic head injuries, cannot sue the driver for negligence, the High Court has held.
Michael Stewart, who is in a persistent vegetative state as a result of his injuries, had drunk an estimated five to seven pints and was sitting at a bus stop in the early hours of the morning, talking to a friend.
Delivering judgment in Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704(QB), Mr Justice Coulson said Stewart suddenly got up in the middle of his conversation and, without any warning, began walking towards the road.
“Mr Glaze was driving at about the speed limit. On his own evidence, he was driving carefully, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise. In particular, there was nothing to say that he had been distracted by anything at all.
“He had no reason to take any particular note of Mr Stewart until he stepped off the kerb. From then on, everything happened in a split second. It would, in my judgment, be wholly unreasonable on the evidence available to me to conclude that, immediately prior to the conclusion, Mr Glaze suddenly stopped being careful.”
Mr Justice Coulson went on: “It seems to me that this evidence highlighted the fundamental weakness in the claimant’s case.
“For the claim to have any prospect of success at all, it required Mr Glaze to see Mr Stewart the precise moment that he stepped off the kerb and to start taking defensive manoeuvres at that point, and not half a second or a second later.
“The case hinged on the proposition that Mr Glaze should have been looking out for Mr Stewart’s inexplicable charge into the road.
“In all the circumstances, I regard that as untenable. I do not consider that a reasonable driver would necessarily have seen Mr Stewart at that precise split second.”
Rejecting the negligence claim, Coulson J said that, given Mr Stewart’s inexplicable conduct, the collision was all but inevitable.
“There is no evidence that, if the collision had occurred at a lower but not a minimal speed, Mr Stewart would not have suffered the injuries that he did,” he concluded.

Source of Summary

Procrastastudy

I take most of your points and I actually think our positions are not as far apart as they may seem. Its obvious that you are approaching it from a more objectively legal point of view.

The man on red thing though is actually an interesting as I would argue that it's well known that pedestrians cross on red, its obvious is someone is standing there they may cross and that hazard needs to be assesed by the driver. I believe - but can't back it up (kind of my theme) that this is current legal position. As you have pointed out neither of us are Judges and even if we were it's even accepted by Judges its got wrong on may occations.

Yes I have done Tort (well doing it - badly :P). I don't disagree with the principles you have laid out - in the main it's their application. That said I think Glencar would have bearing as I still think public policy would play a major role.

All this said - and maybe a bit more OT what do you think ref cyclist v pedestrian? If there is anyone worse at hazard perception than motorists - its cyclists imo!

EDIT Thanks for the cases!

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

The man on red thing though is actually an interesting as I would argue that it's well known that pedestrians cross on red, its obvious is someone is standing there they may cross and that hazard needs to be assesed by the driver.

It is well known that they cross on red. But if they do then the pedestrian is taking that risk KNOWING that there maybe oncoming traffic. If a car hits that pedestrian and evidence shows that the car COULD have stopped on time if the driver had been paying attention then the negligence will be split amongst the 2 individials (standard contributory negligence)

Yes I have done Tort (well doing it - badly :P).

If you have any questions i qould highly recommend asking them on the FE1 thread. It doesnt matter that you are not doing the exams. The FE1's are the same as undergrad exams just in a A LOT more detail.

All this said - and maybe a bit more OT what do you think ref cyclist v pedestrian? If there is anyone worse at hazard perception than motorists - its cyclists imo!

The exact same negligence principles apply. Obviously they will apply differently based on the circumstances of the case. Its hard to give a definitive answer without specific facts. We are just arguing over moot scenarios to be honest. You owe people a duty of care against foreseeable damage that may be caused by your actions if those people are proximate to you.

paky

Hogzy wrote: »

So in order for a risk to exist you are saying that someone must have to loose their life? You're being very narrow minded to be honest if you deny that there is a high risk of injury to someone (be it a cyclist, pedestrian, motor cyclist or motorist) if a cyclist (OR ANYONE) runs a red light/ breaks traffic laws

no what im saying is if we are to come down heavy on cyclists then the same standard must apply to pedestrians, but giving that its ireland, such a move would prove unpopular and will not happen anytime soon so i dont see why cyclists should to be singled out since the risks they pose are not much higher than risks which pedestrians pose!

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly. So maybe Jay walking should be an offense in urban areas. Cars have to dangerously swerve to avoid cyclists if they run red lights. Do you not see the irony in your above statement? 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Also in the case of motorcyclists, they could easily come off their bikes in order to avoid a cyclist.

i fail to see any irony tbh

this is a case of motor vehicle safety standards applied to cyclists which is completely wrong imo

BornToKill

Tigerbaby wrote: »

And dont get me started on footpath cyclists.

+1. It's called a footpath for good reason.

"Hey, I'm walkin' here!"

ResearchWill

Hogzy wrote: »

I found a case. Albeit a UK one but as you will be aware. UK precedent can be extremely persuasive in Ireland after all our Tort law is modeled on UK tort law.

Stewart v Glaze 2009

Summary

Source of Summary

Carroll v Clare County Council 1975 1 IR 221 still law here held that a guy who got into a car drunk, then crashed in to a traffic island, because he was following where the road used to go and not the new road markings was 70% worng but was entitled to recover 30% of his damages.

XxMCRxBabyxX

paky wrote: »

ive yet to hear of a case in ireland were pedestrian has lost their life to a cyclist.

A family member of mine died due to being knocked over by a cyclist.

Cyclists don't realise how dangerous they can be by not oveying the traffic laws, both to themselves and others. It is a lot easier to hear and see a car coming than a cyclist.

If you are using the roads you need to follow the rules. Full stop

Hogzy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

If you are using the roads you need to follow the rules. Full stop

Exactly. They are called the rules of the ROAD for a reaSon, anyone who uses the road must obey the rules

paky

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

A family member of mine died due to being knocked over by a cyclist.

Cyclists don't realise how dangerous they can be by not oveying the traffic laws, both to themselves and others. It is a lot easier to hear and see a car coming than a cyclist.

If you are using the roads you need to follow the rules. Full stop

coming from you, i'd take that with a pinch of salt

btw, that is soooooo hearsay

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly. They are called the rules of the ROAD for a reaSon, anyone who uses the road must obey the rules

nonsense, a form of schoolyard bullying is wht it is. cyclists don't require

(a) a licence

(b) insurance

(c) road tax

just goes to show how much of a risk they are.

anyone have any stats to prove how dangerous cyclists are in ireland?