Knocked off bike, who's fault?

rozeboosje

Ok - I think that perhaps the rules are a bit "gappy" in that regard, but looking at this:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a22

When right of way to be yielded


22. (8) A driver approaching a road junction and intending to turn right at the junction shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching on the same road from the opposite direction and intending to proceed straight through the junction.

I think it's pretty reasonable to extend this to a car intending to turn LEFT at a junction, while having stopped beside a cycle track, having to yield to any cyclist coming from behind, travelling in the same direction as the car, and intending to proceed straight through the junction, or a pedestrian doing the same on the car's left hand side of the road and in either direction. I wonder whether such a case has ever been argued in a court and what the outcome was...

galwaycyclist

rozeboosje wrote: »

Ok - I think that perhaps the rules are a bit "gappy" in that regard, but looking at this:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a22

When right of way to be yielded


22. (8) A driver approaching a road junction and intending to turn right at the junction shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching on the same road from the opposite direction and intending to proceed straight through the junction.

I think it's pretty reasonable to extend this to a car intending to turn LEFT at a junction, while having stopped beside a cycle track, having to yield to any cyclist coming from behind, travelling in the same direction as the car, and intending to proceed straight through the junction, or a pedestrian doing the same on the car's left hand side of the road and in either direction. I wonder whether such a case has ever been argued in a court and what the outcome was...

OK what it reasonable from a Dutch legal perspective is, with regret, irrelevant. We established in Post 7 of this thread that there is no cycle track at this place.

The law you quote is out of date. However it is still useful as a source of precedents. Can you show us anywhere in the law you cited where it says Irish cyclists were entitled to overtake other traffic in the same lane on the left hand side?

I'll save you the bother - it isnt there - the concept did not exist in Irish traffic law until 2012.

As for your speculation regarding right of way for pedestrians this is from the same law you quoted

Pedestrians crossing roadway
36.—(1) When crossing a roadway a pedestrian shall remain on the roadway only for so long as is necessary.

(2) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a pointsman, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or pointsman) to proceed, and shall yield the right of way to any traffic turning in front of the pedestrian.

For clarification this refers to a time (1964) when many traffic lights did not have pedestrian phases. However the legal principle - pedestrians yield to turning cars - is the exact opposite of what would apply in many other Northern European countries.

rozeboosje

I humbly stand corrected, though I think this may warrant revision... ;-)

galwaycyclist

rozeboosje wrote: »

I humbly stand corrected, though I think this may warrant revision... ;-)

On the revision part you are preaching to the converted and believe me I would not stop there.

galwaycyclist

So grasshopper - you will be more influential with better information

The Irish law on overtaking for cyclists was changed in 2012 as follows

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

It would appear that this is legislation that applies in the circumstances of the current incident. Unless there is CCTV or a witness it will be the original poster's word against the drivers on the question of "did he indicate the turn or not?".

Awkward

But on the question of leaving the scene of an accident there is no doubt.

Less awkward.

<off topic>
As an aside and by way of demonstrating the importance of pedestrians to those who draft Irish traffic law. The 1964 regulations that you found included a duty on motorists to yield at zebra crossings. This was dropped for some reason when the regulations were updated in 1997. The 2012 amendments above also include the restatement/restoration of the duty of drivers to yield at zebra crossings. 15 years later.
</off topic>

check_six

check_six wrote: »

Look, these sort of threads usually end up with the person who is on the thread (i.e. you) getting a bit of support, and then some over the top grief. The other guy isn't here so why knock him some (mean) people reckon.

The threadites will attempt to determine if the car overtook you before the corner, or was it always ahead of you until it turned. Should the driver have indicated earlier, or are indicators unnescessary fripperies that should be ignored whether they are lit up or not. Then there will be a few quotes from statute books, some highlighting an entire passage, some just a word or two. Then three or four people will argue the toss over these fine points for a few days while you've forgotten about the thread entirely. Also, pray to god that there is no mention of bloody 'road' tax.

The way I see it, you got run over by a driver who should have been more careful no matter how far ahead they were of you, but that's just my opinion. Other's may say that you are, in fact, the devil, out there trying to do a good driver down.

Also, if you were on the way to pick up tools from Capel St to open a safe you just found hidden in a house you just purchased, you should mention that right now.

Statute book?

BINGO!

HOUSE!

You sunk my battleship!

And we're barely 24 hours in here! Now OP, you need to feed the flames. give us another bit of information to chew over. Did the driver have a distinctive scar on his face, a fake arm, or a personalised number plate (1 5M45H U)? Traditionally, the next part is a tale of woe trying to wait for the first Guard to whom you reported the incident to some back from holiday, or come off night shifts, etc.

Good luck!

thomas98798

Back to the OP original question.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?



From what I've read it was your own fault.

But go to the guards anyway and see if ya can get this guy up in court for a hit and run. It'll look great on his record. He will more than likely loose his licence, possibly job (if he needs to drive for work) and who knows what else as his insurance will be through the roof for next few millennial. But don't let that sort of information effect your decision, at the end of the day you are the injured party. Think about all the damage you suffered, at the hands of this maniac. Think about the repercussions that this will have on you, you may never even be able to cycle again because of the psychological damage that was done.

Or you could dust your self off, take it as a bad experience and learn from it. Move on, your not made of glass, and stop posting this sort of "crash for cash" crap that can be seen all over boards. Shame on those of you who encourage this sort of behavior. Your posts are viewed by 100's of people, who may think it's an easy way to make a few €'s.

Kurtosis

thomas98798 wrote: »

Or you could dust your self off, take it as a bad experience and learn from it. Move on, your not made of glass, and stop posting this sort of "crash for cash" crap that can be seen all over boards.

Did you actually read the OP's posts? No mention of looking for cash, compensation etc, just asking was he/she at fault. The OP's question has been answered by many posters on this thread and the consensus puts you in the very vocal minority. Probably best not to imply that the OP is some class of ambulance chaser.

Trent Houseboat

thomas98798 wrote: »

Back to the OP original question.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?



From what I've read it was your own fault.

But go to the guards anyway and see if ya can get this guy up in court for a hit and run. It'll look great on his record. He will more than likely loose his licence, possibly job (if he needs to drive for work) and who knows what else as his insurance will be through the roof for next few millennial. But don't let that sort of information effect your decision, at the end of the day you are the injured party. Think about all the damage you suffered, at the hands of this maniac. Think about the repercussions that this will have on you, you may never even be able to cycle again because of the psychological damage that was done.

Or you could dust your self off, take it as a bad experience and learn from it. Move on, your not made of glass, and stop posting this sort of "crash for cash" crap that can be seen all over boards. Shame on those of you who encourage this sort of behavior. Your posts are viewed by 100's of people, who may think it's an easy way to make a few €'s.

The driver left the scene of a colision without providing his details. You belittle what happened to the OP but they could have suffered brain trauma and appeared fine at the time but ended up in a serious condition later. Luckily this was not the case, but the driver was not to know this at the time he left the scene.

Ray Palmer

thomas98798 wrote: »

Back to the OP original question.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?



From what I've read it was your own fault.
.

What?

I don't get how you can say that in any way!

The car didn't indicate nor look. The cyclist had no reason to expect the car was to cross his path. A cyclist is allowed to be in that position on the road and can over take on the inside of cars.

Can't see any logical reason the cyclist is at fault.

The fact the driver left without handing over details is an additional issue.

thomas98798

penguin88 wrote: »

Did you actually read the OP's posts? No mention of looking for cash, compensation etc, just asking was he/she at fault. The OP's question has been answered by many posters on this thread and the consensus puts you in the very vocal minority. Probably best not to imply that the OP is some class of ambulance chaser.

The old adage of where there is blame there is a claim comes to mind. He may not have asked the question, but using simple logic we all know why he is asking this particular question.

thomas98798

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

The driver left the scene of a colision without providing his details. You belittle what happened to the OP but they could have suffered brain trauma and appeared fine at the time but ended up in a serious condition later. Luckily this was not the case, but the driver was not to know this at the time he left the scene.

could have

But didn't.

If this was the actual case and the OP did suffer this trauma (thankfully he is fine). If he get's up and leaves the scene, then it's nobody's responsibility but his own to ensure he get the correct medical attention.

thomas98798

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What?

I don't get how you can say that in any way!

The car didn't indicate nor look. The cyclist had no reason to expect the car was to cross his path. A cyclist is allowed to be in that position on the road and can over take on the inside of cars.

Can't see any logical reason the cyclist is at fault.

The fact the driver left without handing over details is an additional issue.

You make it seem like the driver got out, seen his car was fine so he left. The OP didn't have the presence of mind to ask for his details. Which isn't a problem because at the end of the day its a 50/50 case really. Cant prove indicators were on or off, even harder to prove road positions when nobody stayed at the scene.

OP is fine anyway whats the point of dragging this out, only for your own personal amusement maybe.

AltAccount

thomas98798 wrote: »

You make it seem like the driver got out, seen his car was fine so he left. The OP didn't have the presence of mind to ask for his details. Which isn't a problem because at the end of the day its a 50/50 case really. Cant prove indicators were on or off, even harder to prove road positions when nobody stayed at the scene.

OP is fine anyway whats the point of dragging this out, only for your own personal amusement maybe.

Who are you to be arbiter or whether it's 50/50 or not. I'd rather the opinion of someone who took some sort of statement from both parties, from a background of legal training and law enforcement experience.

That person could then advise if the driver has some liability and possibly advise the OP whether it's worthwhile pursuing it further.

No idea where you'd find someone with these kind of investigative powers. Maybe in some sort of designated building or "station"?

Ray Palmer

thomas98798 wrote: »

You make it seem like the driver got out, seen his car was fine so he left. The OP didn't have the presence of mind to ask for his details. Which isn't a problem because at the end of the day its a 50/50 case really. Cant prove indicators were on or off, even harder to prove road positions when nobody stayed at the scene.

OP is fine anyway whats the point of dragging this out, only for your own personal amusement maybe.

A very weird reading of my post. Saying it is "another issue" doesn't in any way suggest what you are claiming it does.

It is one thing to say you can't prove it and a totally different thing to say that it is the cyclist fault as you have said. Without accusing the OP of lying I don't get how anybody could say it was his fault.

The OP is out of pocket so not fine

thomas98798

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A very weird reading of my post. Saying it is "another issue" doesn't in any way suggest what you are claiming it does.

It is one thing to say you can't prove it and a totally different thing to say that it is the cyclist fault as you have said. Without accusing the OP of lying I don't get how anybody could say it was his fault.

The OP is out of pocket so not fine

What about the poor guy in the car, what if his car was damaged? who's going to pay for that.....not the OP I'm guessing

Gmol

I wonder did the driver have road tax

beauf

thomas98798 wrote: »

What about the poor guy in the car, what if his car was damaged? who's going to pay for that.....not the OP I'm guessing

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

thomas98798

Gmol wrote: »

I wonder did the driver have road tax

Yes, your right. If the OP didn't check the TAX then he has really missed out. As a matter of fact I would recommend that the next times this happens to OP then he should whip out his multitool penknife and do a full NCT on the car, right there on the side of the road. You never know what info he could gain. Just pile it all into a folder along with some exacerbated medical records and post it to injury lawyers for you.........a couple of months down the line and he'll have more €€€€€€ than Bono's dog.

thomas98798

beauf wrote: »

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

It's great how their is a blanket consensus that the OP is in the right here. I wonder if we posted this in a common forum as opposed to a cycling forum what the general consensus would be then

beauf

thomas98798 wrote: »

It's great how their is a blanket consensus that the OP is in the right here. I wonder if we posted this in a common forum as opposed to a cycling forum what the general consensus would be then

Do that, except change both parties to car.

You're in a car and someone overtakes and turns left across you in another car.

Should you pay for their damage.

thomas98798

beauf wrote: »

someone overtakes and turns left across you in another car.

If you hit the back quarter of their car, your fault.

That's a blanket rule for you right there. And if you got out of your car after that looked about like a gombeen and then waved the "offending" driver off, ya haven't got a hope.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

In the event of an accident where there is no clear cut wrong doer ( no independent witnesses ) it will often be settled on a "knock for knock" basis where each parties insurance pays for the damage to the other vehicle.

Does bring into contention if a cyclist damages a car and there is no clear cut evidence of who was in the wrong how does a motorist claim against the cyclist's insurance? If they indeed have any.

I believe that cyclists belonging to clubs have some kind of insurance but does it stretch to covering tham against covering damage to vehicles and is it operative when not on club events/races etc?

beauf

thomas98798 wrote: »

If you hit the back quarter of their car, your fault. ...

That sweeping generalisation is not true. Especially if you have witness's and CCTV or evidence as in skid marks or the cars position on the road to prove the other driver was at fault.

beauf

My edits...

Spook_ie wrote: »

...Does bring into contention if a cyclist pedestrian damages a car and there is no clear cut evidence of who was in the wrong how does a motorist claim against the cyclist pedestrian insurance? If they indeed have any....

I think you need to work through the variations...

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

My edits...



I think you need to work through the variations...

I would but I do know you can have specific insurance as a cyclist, not aware of anyone providing specific insurance to a pedestrian. There is a possibility that household insurance might have a clause in it covering damages to other peoples property but then not everyone has household insurance either

beauf

You can have Personal Accident Insurance.

Considering they dropped mandatory cyclist specific insurance (vignette) in Switzerland. Its not likely to become mandatory anywhere else. Mandatory cyclist insurance is where you usually go with this line of discussion.

Maybe you should suggest mandatory Personal Accident/liability Insurance, to cover damage caused to cars by pedestrians and cyclists hitting cars when they are knocked over.

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

I believe that cyclists belonging to clubs have some kind of insurance but does it stretch to covering tham against covering damage to vehicles and is it operative when not on club events/races etc?

My understanding is that it also covers them while out training, but what insurance policy would pay out when you get hit by part of another vehicle being used negligently?

Open your door and hit a pedestrian? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a cyclist? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a car? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a bus? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a lorry? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.

Hmmzis

thomas98798 wrote: »

Back to the OP original question.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?



But go to the guards anyway and see if ya can get this guy up in court for a hit and run. It'll look great on his record. He will more than likely loose his licence, possibly job (if he needs to drive for work) and who knows what else as his insurance will be through the roof for next few millennial. you suffered, at the hands of this maniac.

Exactly, go to the guards and report it. There are far too many negligent and outright dangerous drivers out there, they destroy peoples lives on a daily basis. Please, don't allow this one to get off, it's just a matter of time before he mutilates or kills someone. He desrves every thing that gets thrown at him by the guards, insurance companies and maybe even a judge.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

Spook_ie wrote: »

In the event of an accident where there is no clear cut wrong doer ( no independent witnesses ) it will often be settled on a "knock for knock" basis where each parties insurance pays for the damage to the other vehicle.

Does bring into contention if a cyclist damages a car and there is no clear cut evidence of who was in the wrong how does a motorist claim against the cyclist's insurance? If they indeed have any.

I believe that cyclists belonging to clubs have some kind of insurance but does it stretch to covering tham against covering damage to vehicles and is it operative when not on club events/races etc?

No Pants wrote: »

My understanding is that it also covers them while out training, but what insurance policy would pay out when you get hit by part of another vehicle being used negligently?

Open your door and hit a pedestrian? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a cyclist? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a car? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a bus? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a lorry? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.

Do at least take the whole post into consideration before replying especially the bit I just emphasized for your benefit where the assumption is (as in a lot of cases ) that the burden of proof isn't there either way

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do at least take the whole post into consideration before replying especially the bit I just emphasized for your benefit where the assumption is (as in a lot of cases ) that the burden of proof isn't there either way

You hit someone with a door. It's not an accident, unless you're claiming that the door opened all by hitself and hit someone. Even then you'd still be liable because it's your door.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do at least take the whole post into consideration before replying especially the bit I just emphasized for your benefit where the assumption is (as in a lot of cases ) that the burden of proof isn't there either way

Why. You're trying to drag this off topic into cyclist needing insurance when its not worked anywhere in the world. Its a complete dead end. You can't simply open a door or pull out from the kerb into someones path with no responsibility. Taxis are especially bad for just stopping in dangerous locations with no warning. Letting passengers out etc. It can be hard to prove, but that's why dash and head cams are becoming so popular.

But in lots of cases its is clear who's at fault.

No Pants

beauf wrote: »

Why. You're trying to drag this off topic into cyclist needing insurance when its not worked anywhere in the world. Its a complete dead end.

Not for the first time either.

Lawr

galwaycyclist wrote: »

For clarification this refers to a time (1964) when many traffic lights did not have pedestrian phases. However the legal principle - pedestrians yield to turning cars - is the exact opposite of what would apply in many other Northern European countries.

That is pretty scary. I am a licensed driver in this country, not from this country, and I have to say, the idea of pedestrians yielding to turning traffic is counter-intuitive. As you say, that is not the legal principal in operation in my home country (US), nor is it my experience in other countries I have visited in Europe. I wondered why drivers seem so out of sorts when I assume right of way when crossing a street where there is no cross-walk or light. They come at you like they're not going to stop, and sometimes they don't. They just as soon run you down, the cheek of you.

Lusk_Doyle

Lawr wrote: »

That is pretty scary. I am a licensed driver in this country, not from this country, and I have to say, the idea of pedestrians yielding to turning traffic is counter-intuitive. As you say, that is not the legal principal in operation in my home country (US), nor is it my experience in other countries I have visited in Europe. I wondered why drivers seem so out of sorts when I assume right of way when crossing a street where there is no cross-walk or light. They come at you like they're not going to stop, and sometimes they don't. They just as soon run you down, the cheek of you.

Indeed. In Poland turning vehicles yield to pedestrians. Safer that way imo.

thomas98798

Hmmzis wrote: »

Exactly, go to the guards and report it. There are far too many negligent and outright dangerous drivers out there, they destroy peoples lives on a daily basis. Please, don't allow this one to get off, it's just a matter of time before he mutilates or kills someone. He desrves every thing that gets thrown at him by the guards, insurance companies and maybe even a judge.

And the award for the most self righteous over dramatic post goes too.........Hmmzis

Come on lads, your making this driver or to be some sort of menace that needs to be locked up in the high security wing of portlaoise prison.

OP and the rest of ye are only looking for one thing, these posts stink of the compo claim culture that has caused insurance prices to become so inflated that ordinary hard working people just can't afford to drive to work. Shame on you all.

Zyzz

thomas98798 wrote: »

And the award for the most self righteous over dramatic post goes too.........Hmmzis

Come on lads, your making this driver or to be some sort of menace that needs to be locked up in the high security wing of portlaoise prison.

OP and the rest of ye are only looking for one thing, these posts stink of the compo claim culture that has caused insurance prices to become so inflated that ordinary hard working people just can't afford to drive to work. Shame on you all.

No, not at all.

thomas98798

Zyzz wrote: »

No, not at all.

Cheers for the input, really puts everything in perspective..........

Lusk_Doyle

thomas98798 wrote: »

And the award for the most self righteous over dramatic post goes too.........Hmmzis

Come on lads, your making this driver or to be some sort of menace that needs to be locked up in the high security wing of portlaoise prison.

OP and the rest of ye are only looking for one thing, these posts stink of the compo claim culture that has caused insurance prices to become so inflated that ordinary hard working people just can't afford to drive to work. Shame on you all.

Have you been on the receiving end of a claim that makes you seem so bitter and prejudiced against cyclists involved in a road traffic accident?

Zyzz

thomas98798 wrote: »

Cheers for the input, really puts everything in perspective..........

As with your input. When we get these threads theres always a handful of users with a low post count that have nothing useful to say and continually post just to sh*t stir.

And you are a prime example.

thomas98798

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

cyclists involved in a road traffic accident?

Your post really says it all, automatic assumption that the cyclist is the injured party in a rta

Lusk_Doyle

thomas98798 wrote: »

Your post really says it all, automatic assumption that the cyclist is the injured party in a rta

Are you dyslexic? My post said involved in a rta, not injured. When you decide to check back in with reality, we are here.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

You hit someone with a door. It's not an accident, unless you're claiming that the door opened all by hitself and hit someone. Even then you'd still be liable because it's your door.

beauf wrote: »

Why. You're trying to drag this off topic into cyclist needing insurance when its not worked anywhere in the world. Its a complete dead end. You can't simply open a door or pull out from the kerb into someones path with no responsibility. Taxis are especially bad for just stopping in dangerous locations with no warning. Letting passengers out etc. It can be hard to prove, but that's why dash and head cams are becoming so popular.

But in lots of cases its is clear who's at fault.

@NoPants In the case of the OP

budgemook wrote: »

I don't really know if he overtook me first. Also, close to the footpath might be a bit inaccurate, i was cycling along in the left hand lane as normal. There weren't any cars in front of the other car I don't think but like I say I can't be sure, happened pretty fast. There's no cycle track on that part of the quays.

The driver got out of the car and asked was I okay. A lot of other people came over too as it was a bad enough fall. The driver got back int he car pretty quickly then and drove off. Someone gave me his licence plate number but I'm not sure I'll bother taking it further. It would be a civil matter which I doubt i'd pursue over a buckled wheel.

Isn't even sure of what happened, in the other doored thread the OP has no independant witnesses therefore liability isn't clearly with the driver of either vehicle. Hence why I said in another post get witnesses where ever possible even if it means staying down on the deck, of course a truly independant witness may put you into the frame as being liable but that's a chance you take.

@Beauf Do you classify my replying to your posts as dragging a subject off topic, if so then I apologise but perhaps you should consider whether your post was pertinant in the 1st place

beauf wrote: »

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

thomas98798

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Are you dyslexic? My post said involved in a rta, not injured. When you decide to check back in with reality, we are here.

No need to make disparaging remarks referring to people as being dyslexic. Its insulting to people who actually suffer from dyslexia because you don't seem to understand what being dyslexic means, but that is a can of worms that you can work out in your own time.....However the rest of your post does raise the following question.

Are you stupid?

Tell me forest did you happen to read my whole post, or did you just look for one word. Injury and injured party are very different. I decided to use the phrase injured party, as i wanted to demonstrate that there appears to be a strong line of support in this forum, that promotes cyclist in a manner that its unfair to motorists, when they are involved in a rta.....in the op case he is the injured party.....as he is claiming to have suffered loss due to the actions of another. This loss could be financial, physical, psychological etc hence the wording used was injured party not injury.....

Still can't believe you called me dyslexic, what an idiot. LOL

thomas98798

Spook_ie wrote: »

@NoPants In the case of the OP


Isn't even sure of what happened, in the other doored thread the OP has no independant witnesses therefore liability isn't clearly with the driver of either vehicle. Hence why I said in another post get witnesses where ever possible even if it means staying down on the deck, of course a truly independant witness may put you into the frame as being liable but that's a chance you take.

@Beauf Do you classify my replying to your posts as dragging a subject off topic, if so then I apologise but perhaps you should consider whether your post was pertinant in the 1st place

Well said. Hear hear.

Spook_ie

Lawr wrote: »

That is pretty scary. I am a licensed driver in this country, not from this country, and I have to say, the idea of pedestrians yielding to turning traffic is counter-intuitive. As you say, that is not the legal principal in operation in my home country (US), nor is it my experience in other countries I have visited in Europe. I wondered why drivers seem so out of sorts when I assume right of way when crossing a street where there is no cross-walk or light. They come at you like they're not going to stop, and sometimes they don't. They just as soon run you down, the cheek of you.

Scary maybe but no legal basis

SI 294/1964

(2) Bye-laws 12, 15, 16, 29, 33 and 35, paragraph (1) of bye-law 23, paragraph (1) of bye-law 36 and paragraph (1) of bye-law 38 of these bye-laws shall apply save where non-compliance therewith does not, and is not likely to, endanger or inconvenience other traffic or a pedestrian.

I don't believe it's been superceded and you'll find it peppered around other SIs such as SI 332/212

(a) where the road on which he or she is driving terminates at the junction, yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians on the other road

Lusk_Doyle

thomas98798 wrote: »

No need to make disparaging remarks referring to people as being dyslexic. Its insulting to people who actually suffer from dyslexia because you don't seem to understand what being dyslexic means, but that is a can of worms that you can work out in your own time.....However the rest of your post does raise the following question.

Are you stupid?

Tell me forest did you happen to read my whole post, or did you just look for one word. Injury and injured party are very different. I decided to use the phrase injured party, as i wanted to demonstrate that there appears to be a strong line of support in this forum, that promotes cyclist in a manner that its unfair to motorists, when they are involved in a rta.....in the op case he is the injured party.....as he is claiming to have suffered loss due to the actions of another. This loss could be financial, physical, psychological etc hence the wording used was injured party not injury.....

Still can't believe you called me dyslexic, what an idiot. LOL

I didn't say that you were dyslexic. I asked a perfectly reasonable question because you seem to see things written that aren't actually there. It wasn't a disparaging remark and your attempt to divert attention away from the subject is laughable. Again. I'm not stupid in answer to your question. My post, to which you responded, made zero mention of injury or fault or otherwise. You chose to spin it to suit your agenda which, quite frankly I've had enough of.

thomas98798

Zyzz wrote: »

As with your input. When we get these threads theres always a handful of users with a low post count that have nothing useful to say and continually post just to sh*t stir.

And you are a prime example.

Well I may have less posts than you but I certainly added more to this thread than you.... given that your opening post was.

"No, not at all"

It didn't even make sense...

Maybe it should be a word count rather than post count that should be displayed on profiles

thomas98798

[quote="Lusk_Doyle;87195211"I didn't say that you were dyslexic. I asked a perfectly reasonable question because you seem to see things written that aren't actually there. It wasn't a disparaging remark and your attempt to divert attention away from the subject is laughable. Again. I'm not stupid in answer to your question. My post, to which you responded, made zero memtion of injury or fault or otherwise. You chose to spin it to suit you agenda which, quite frankly I've had enough of.[/quote]


You asked me if I suffered from dyslexia, because you don't know the difference between the word "injury" and the phrase "injured party".

Also your dyslexia comment is even more laughable given your last post

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

My post, to which you responded, made zero memtion of injury or fault or otherwise. You chose to spin it yo suit you agenda which, quite frankly I've had enough of.

Memtion......you agenda haha

Beasty

@thomas98798 do not post in this thread again or you will be banned from the forum

Everyone else, please ignore his posts

Any questions, PM me - do not respond in-thread