Worst of the compensation culture

paky

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Naturally you couldn't see it? What if it had been a small child that stepped out in front of you?

Sounds like you were cycling without watching the road ahead.

If I was that hairdresser's sign I'd sue you. :pac:

if that was a small boy, his parents would be picking his body up off the cycle lane. it would've been their own fault for letting him walk into a cycle lane, same goes for a road. what the hell would you expect. how could i see ahead if it was raining?

AnonoBoy

paky wrote: »

how could i see ahead if it was raining?

If you can't see the road ahead then you shouldn't be cycling in those conditions. That's just common sense.

paky

AnonoBoy wrote: »

If you can't see the road ahead then you shouldn't be cycling in those conditions. That's just common sense.

no it fcukn aint, common sense would be not to put a sign in the middle of a fcuking cycle lane

44leto

I strained err I mean crippled my back while picking up my laptop of the floor while I was on boards, I have a witness, who laughed and called me an idiot.

Also the heat from the laptop on my lap may be giving a low sperm count. So I am claiming boards on the ground there are no warnings about the dangers of been on boards. So will I book my holiday to the Seychelles now or see a solicitor first. I will see what the Boards legal forum advise.

BBDBB

Have you clicked on a misleading thread in After Hours and felt compelled to divulge personal details about your sexual habits and preferences?

Been hooked into reading a promising sounding thread only to discover its full of the same old shoight?

Lost hours of your precious time reading Grammar Nazis and Pedants debate semantics?



Call us NOW, we can help you to claim the compensation YOU deserve.

We are Shoight Thread Lawyers 4 U.

Proper Lawyers helping posters like you milk the system since 2001 and not a bunch of fly by night chancers in a room above the bookies, honestly.










*Shoight Thread Lawyers 4 U are a wholly owned subsidiary of Robem & Scarper Ltd. Regulated by adjusting the thermostat. Shoight Thread Lawyers cannot be held responsible for the shoight you read. Any compensation is payable after fees have been settled in full.

AnonoBoy

paky wrote: »

no it fcukn aint, common sense would be not to put a sign in the middle of a fcuking cycle lane

Common sense would be for people not to put signs in stupid places. But common sense would also be for people to look where they're going and if the conditions prevent them from seeing what's ahead then reducing their speed or not cycling at all.

Frankly I'm surprised you're still alive if this is your attitude to road safety.

token101

paky wrote: »

if that was a small boy, his parents would be picking his body up off the cycle lane. it would've been their own fault for letting him walk into a cycle lane, same goes for a road. what the hell would you expect. how could i see ahead if it was raining?

So you want to sue people for their stupidity, because you were cycling in the rain and couldn't see ahead? And you're telling us that you were cycling thinking that if someone stepped out, they'd be killed? Might have been a badly placed sign, but you're the f***ing hazard here!

snubbleste

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I got a graduate job working for a city council a few years ago and while I was there a cyclist was taking the council to court after riding into a temporary road sign which was warning about road works ahead. He was suing on the grounds that there was no warning given that there was going to be a temporary road sign ahead (presumably if there was a warning sign given then the council then would also have needed to place another sign warning about the first warning sign ahead etc etc etc).

I never found out how the case worked out but it wouldn't surpise me if he won

Was this sign blocking the bicycle path perchance?
It is frequently the case where the Council block bicycle paths with signs warning motorists exclusively of upcoming roadworks. Cyclists have to use the path but cannot if the council block it with signs. There should be a warning sign for cyclists informing them the path is closed. :cool:

44leto

Originally Posted by Pompey Magnus
I got a graduate job working for a city council a few years ago and while I was there a cyclist was taking the council to court after riding into a temporary road sign which was warning about road works ahead. He was suing on the grounds that there was no warning given that there was going to be a temporary road sign ahead (presumably if there was a warning sign given then the council then would also have needed to place another sign warning about the first warning sign ahead etc etc etc).

I never found out how the case worked out but it wouldn't surpise me if he won

LOL
That reminds me of "Only fools and horses" when Trigger banged his head of a "mind your head sign", he sued his old school for not been able to read.

paky

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Common sense would be for people not to put signs in stupid places.

i totally agree but you also must take into account the degree in which it rains in this country. if everybody had to disengage from using his/her bicycle once it rained then i would think it would defeat the purpose in cycling in this country.

AnonoBoy

paky wrote: »

i totally agree but you also must take into account the degree in which it rains in this country. if everybody had to disengage from using his/her bicycle once it rained then i would think it would defeat the purpose in cycling in this country.

I've cycled in the rain and been able to see where I'm going. It's not too often that it would be so torrential that it would stop you from being safely able to view the road.

token101

paky wrote: »

i totally agree but you also must take into account the degree in which it rains in this country. if everybody had to disengage from using his/her bicycle once it rained then i would think it would defeat the purpose in cycling in this country.

FFS! I suppose you could sue...the rain :pac:

Show Time

policarp wrote: »

Ambulance chasing solicitors are just as bad IMO. . .

A good friend of mine had a nasty fall a few years back and could have taken a case against the city council but as she was in no permanent pain decided not to. A lawyer who spoke to my friend tried everything in his power to get my friend to put in a claim but all he did was put my friend off dealing with the ambulance chasing con artists.

A lot of the compo culture can be laid on the doorstep of this fine profession.

Canis Lupus

Gyalist wrote: »

It's usually the insurance companies who settle small claims rather than run up huge legal bills. There was a student who claimed that she slipped on the stairs in my shop and we had the whole "incident" on CCTV. I was prepared to fight it but the insurance company settled with the her solicitor and I was only informed after the fact.

Last company I was in we often settled with someone rather than proceed to court even though we'd hands down win because it was more expensive (both in monetary terms and the 'cost' for our solicitor to be away from her core role) to defend it than just settle.

44leto

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Common sense would be for people not to put signs in stupid places. But common sense would also be for people to look where they're going and if the conditions prevent them from seeing what's ahead then reducing their speed or not cycling at all.

Frankly I'm surprised you're still alive if this is your attitude to road safety.

I have to say as a cyclist, you are bent forward and sometimes in a strong head wind or rain you do put your head down lower. Its the nature of cycling.

To put a low level sign in a cycling lane is dangerous. Its not common sense danger, the person putting it there thinks cyclists like pedestrians and drivers have a full view forward. We do but that at times that is restricted as in conditions above.

It is something the council workers should be aware of.

RichieC

I watched a show about the scalding coffee in macdonalds case and to my surprise found it was actually a good case taken to court rather than the mockery it was made out to be.

Pompey Magnus

paky wrote: »

i totally agree but you also must take into account the degree in which it rains in this country. if everybody had to disengage from using his/her bicycle once it rained then i would think it would defeat the purpose in cycling in this country.

Damn right, many's the time I have been caught driving in incredibly heavy downpours where visibility was almost nil but instead of pulling over or slowing down significantly in case I hit something ahead I just bomb on regardless because if everyone was to be sensible in their car once it rained then it would defeat the purpose of driving in this country.

mikemac1

44leto wrote: »

LOL
That reminds me of "Only fools and horses" when Trigger banged his head of a "mind your head sign", he sued his old school for not been able to read.

They were always claiming on that show

Grandad was in the parachute regiment so he was trained how to roll and how to break a fall. Like jockeys do

He would go around and leap down the cellar stairs in pubs and put in a claim

Dyr

mikemac1 wrote: »

They were always claiming on that show

Grandad was in the parachute regiment so he was trained how to roll and how to break a fall. Like jockeys do

He would go around and leap down the cellar stairs in pubs and put in a claim

He was in the navy though :P

AnonoBoy

44leto wrote: »

I have to say as a cyclist, you are bent forward and sometimes in a strong head wind or rain you do put your head down lower. Its the nature of cycling.

Surely though a check of the road ahead every so often is vital if cycling at speed. I don't think the hairdresser ran out and dropped the sign in front of him so unless it was just around a corner it's something that should be spotted.

I mean there's all sorts of obstructions that need to be watched out for, nasty potholes, fallen branches etc.

mikemac1

That was Uncle Albert who was in the navy

Robbo

RichieC wrote: »

I watched a show about the scalding coffee in macdonalds case and to my surprise found it was actually a good case taken to court rather than the mockery it was made out to be.

It is one of the great enduring urban myths trotted out that it was completely vexatious or opened up a new area of liability.

Ronald Mac was in the habit of settling those cases long before Stella Liebeck ended up with second degree burns.

AnonoBoy

RichieC wrote: »

I watched a show about the scalding coffee in macdonalds case and to my surprise found it was actually a good case taken to court rather than the mockery it was made out to be.

That old chestnut does get thrown up time and again. People at parties who bring it up really hate me when I detail the exact nature of the case and why it was a valid claim. I'm a real dickhead.

Dyr

tbh the more cyclists we take out of commission the safer this land will be.

paky

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I've cycled in the rain and been able to see where I'm going. It's not too often that it would be so torrential that it would stop you from being safely able to view the road.

is that your opinion or is it facts of the issue in question?

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Damn right, many's the time I have been caught driving in incredibly heavy downpours where visibility was almost nil but instead of pulling over or slowing down significantly in case I hit something ahead I just bomb on regardless because if everyone was to be sensible in their car once it rained then it would defeat the purpose of driving in this country.

this is an accident involving a bicycle not a car

AnonoBoy

paky wrote: »

is that your opinion or is it facts of the issue in question?

It's fact. I work for the meteorology-cycling department. I can also tell you what wind speed is too much for the average cyclist and how much big hailstones hurt when they get you in the eye while on a Raleigh bike doing 22 mph.


Seriously though if the conditions are so bad that you cannot see what's ahead of you then you're just endangering yourself by continuing at full speed. If you can't understand that then I wouldn't give you too much longer before you do yourself a nasty injury.

paky

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Seriously though it the conditions are so bad that you cannot see what's ahead of you then you're just endangering yourself by continuing at full speed. If you can't understand that then I wouldn't give you too much longer before you do yourself a nasty injury.

unfortunately the rain is a hazard when cycling but it is one which one must bare.

copeyhagen

i ride a motorcycle for my work commute into town daily, havedone for a number of years, regardless of weather.

when its raining, i need to be twice as alert with whats in front of me than when its not raining. you cyclists should be the same

AnonoBoy

paky wrote: »

unfortunately the rain is a hazard when cycling but it is one which one must bare.

Yeah, but not stupidly.

44leto

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Surely though a check of the road ahead every so often is vital if cycling at speed. I don't think the hairdresser ran out and dropped the sign in front of him so unless it was just around a corner it's something that should be spotted.

I mean there's all sorts of obstructions that need to be watched out for, nasty potholes, fallen branches etc.

Tell me about it from parked cars and pot holes as well. If it is not big and obvious it is easy to miss, you glance up when conditions are bad but its not like driving (I am a motorist as well) when you are always looking forward no matter the conditions.

I am not defending the claims culture, I have hit obstructions in cycle lanes and usually cursed the fkucer and went on my way. But it is something people have to be aware of. Keep the cycle lanes clear especially in bad conditions.

You for example imagine cycling when it is cold, raining or windy, would you keep your face forward all the time in those conditions. You could say leave your bike at home in those conditions, I do, I have the option of driving. But not at the end of the day when I have to get home from work.

To be frank, sometimes I think the more cyclists that sue the safer it will be for us. But that wont be me, unless..................

Gyalist

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Last company I was in we often settled with someone rather than proceed to court even though we'd hands down win because it was more expensive (both in monetary terms and the 'cost' for our solicitor to be away from her core role) to defend it than just settle.

It certainly was an eye-opener to me. I had my evidence ready and was prepared to embarass her in court but it never even came to that.

I can see the financial sense in the system but it undoubtedly encourages frivoulous claims and in the end we all pay for it.

Newaglish

AnonoBoy wrote: »

That old chestnut does get thrown up time and again. People at parties who bring it up really hate me when I detail the exact nature of the case and why it was a valid claim. I'm a real dickhead.

What is the exact nature of it? I don't know too much about it bar the usual headlines.

AnonoBoy

Newaglish wrote: »

What is the exact nature of it? I don't know too much about it bar the usual headlines.

Basically the coffee was so hot that it gave her 3rd degree burns.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19150_6-famous-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-that-are-total-b.s..html

44leto

X
Wrong thread sorry

mathie

44leto wrote: »

X
Wrong thread sorry

Who do I claim off for the time I wasted reading this post?

Procasinator

paky wrote: »

unfortunately the rain is a hazard when cycling but it is one which one must bare.

You have to be safe though. What would have happened if you had hit a slower cyclist or a person crossing the road? Not looking where you are going wouldn't be a good excuse.

44leto

mathie wrote: »

Who do I claim off for the time I wasted reading this post?

LoL i maybe liable but don't bother suing me, it would be a stretch to get price of your lunch out of me.

Dravokivich

44leto wrote: »

You for example imagine cycling when it is cold, raining or windy, would you keep your face forward all the time in those conditions. You could say leave your bike at home in those conditions, I do, I have the option of driving. But not at the end of the day when I have to get home from work.

To be frank, sometimes I think the more cyclists that sue the safer it will be for us. But that wont be me, unless..................

I wear a cap, it helps somewhat to shelter your eyes when it's raining. But if ever conditions are too much for me to look forward, I'm getting off my bike. I would become an obstruction to other people around me if I'm not able to pay full attention to what I'm doing and have to swerve suddenly to avoid something I notice at the last moment.

Truley

There is a guy in my town, complete and utter Irish Nazi. He insists on speaking only Gaeilge when dealing with public service eg in a post office and regularly threatens to sue on grounds of discrimination of 'ethnic minorities' if Irish-speaking provisions are not in place where he deems they should be. He's done this so many times, to the Guards, voluntary sports clubs and the local sports centre to name a few. Anyone that argues with him he threatens to have them for 'slander.' He's a complete chancer and most people don't pay any heed but a lot of people are scared of him because he's nuts.

paky

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yeah, but not stupidly.

stupidity in what sense? what are you insinuating?

Capt'n Midnight

Gyalist wrote: »

Yes, and public liability is already very costly as it is.

seriously wouldn't you have a case to sue your insurance company ?

had they gone to court and won then there would have been no payout and no need for your premium to have gone up

Capt'n Midnight

Gyalist wrote: »

It certainly was an eye-opener to me. I had my evidence ready and was prepared to embarass her in court but it never even came to that.

I can see the financial sense in the system but it undoubtedly encourages frivoulous claims and in the end we all pay for it.

For criminal cases there is a presumption of innocence and past crimes aren't presented.

For civil cases liability may be shared.

Where someone looses a case for compo, then the judge should warn them to be more careful in future. And by that I mean that they'd need a greater degree of proof in future since they've been told to take greater care of themselves.

BunShopVoyeur

paky wrote: »

stupidity in what sense? what are you insinuating?

Ahem......that your actions are not the work of a bright individual?

I think...

Kidchameleon

mikemac1 wrote: »

44leto wrote: »

He would go around and leap down the cellar stairs in pubs and put in a claim

They called him "the ferret"!!!

pavb2

mikemac1 wrote: »

There was the old story back in the nineties a Dublin Bus was involved in a nasty accident and was stopped by the side of the road.

People came over to see what happened

And instead of people getting off the bus, people started getting onto the bus
No CCTV on buses back then

No idea if it's true but I think it could have happened

Yeah vaguely remember this one or else it's an urban myth something like 30 people claimed but check on tickets or machine proved there were only 10 on the bus. (not exact figures)

falan

I got IR 15000 in 1999 for breaking my wrist in a 15ft fall at work. Blew the lot in a few months but the wrist still pains me to this day. It won't bend the way its supposed to...:(

BBDBB

paky wrote: »

stupidity in what sense? what are you insinuating?

if you have to ask............;)

44leto

falan wrote: »

I got IR 15000 in 1999 for breaking my wrist in a 15ft fall at work. Blew the lot in a few months but the wrist still pains me to this day. It won't bend the way its supposed to...:(

You would have boosted your claim if you complained about the trouble your injury brought to your sex life.

RobbingBandit

I have been on a bus twice during a crash,thankfully no one was hurt but it was so funny to hear all the skangers shouting claim,claim.

Outkast_IRE

There is somone local to me , who just missed the bus ,so he decided to run after it to try and get the drivers attention to stop.
The driver stopped, he ran into the back of the bus split his head open and sued bus eireann.


Even stupidity gets awarded.