Crashed bike avoiding taxi door

KwackerJack

gizmo555 wrote: »

You must drive around every single bend (and everywhere else) at a speed which will allow you to stop in time within the distance you can see to be clear ahead.

If you don't, you're not just breaking the law, sooner or later you're going to hit something "unexpected". Never mind "bicycle speed" - what if you come around a bend to find a fallen tree, or a broken down truck? Are you going to tell the Guard stuck behind you that it was the tree's fault as he helps to lift you into the ambulance?

That's if you're lucky, unlike my family member who came round a bend to find an "unexpected" obstacle, but didn't live to tell the tale.

Im truly sorry to hear of your family member.

What you are quoting is textbook driving which is not even practiced by professional trained drivers such as emergency crews, gardai etc, at least not on a daily basis, in training yes!

Im not saying the passenger was not at fault but the cyclist should have expected the unexpected just me finding a tree across the road on a bend!

gizmo555

KwackerJack wrote: »

What you are quoting is textbook driving which is not even practiced by professional trained drivers such as emergency crews, gardai etc, at least not on a daily basis, in training yes!

It is "textbook" but you're absolutely incorrect to say it isn't practiced by professional drivers. Limit point analysis is a key technique in any advanced driving course, including for example the Roadcraft driving handbooks which are the official standard for UK police.

But that's more a discussion for the Motoring forum than Legal Discussion. Suffice it to say - again - that it is the law that you must not drive faster than the speed which will allow you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. And if you come around a bend and hit cyclists because you're not expecting them to be there, legally you'll be 100% to blame.

KwackerJack

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is "textbook" but you're absolutely incorrect to say it isn't practiced by professional drivers. Limit point analysis is a key technique in any advanced driving course, including for example the Roadcraft driving handbooks which are the official standard for UK police.

But that's more a discussion for the Motoring forum than Legal Discussion. Suffice it to say - again - that it is the law that you must not drive faster than the speed which will allow you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. And if you come around a bend and hit cyclists because you're not expecting them to be there, legally you'll be 100% to blame.

Practiced in training. Ive never seen an emergency vehicle driving slow around a bend??

Anyway with your explanation the cyclist was also at fault as I've mentioned previously he waswas going to fast and was obviously to close to the vehicle in question hence his avoidance that ended badly!

If he used your above techniques it would have been a different outcome

gizmo555

I wasn't addressing the OP's post, rather the scenario in yours:

KwackerJack wrote: »

Im driving my car and i come to a sharp bend, as i drive around i see a group of cyclists cyclying two abreast or single and depending on my road position, my speed and road conditions BANG!!!

Who is at fault....well I would be partially to balme as I should have expected the unexpected like any other road user!

You would not be "partially" to blame in this situation, you would be 100% at fault.

KwackerJack wrote: »

If he used your above techniques it would have been a different outcome

It is not "my technique" - it is a legal obligation which all drivers have to drive this way. You may be right that many don't, but then they have to be prepared to accept the legal and other consequences.

Fian

Kat1170 wrote: »

I'm not so sure they are. If the passenger is under 17yo then yes, but if the passenger is an adult I don't think the driver is responsible.

The driver is absolutely responsible if an adult passenger negligently opens their door in front of a cyclist. Insurance companies will routinely settle such a case.

Sleeper12

This is on Joe Duffy right now I think

Sweetemotion

Op is on live line now.

CiniO

KwackerJack wrote: »

Anyway with your explanation the cyclist was also at fault as I've mentioned previously he waswas going to fast and was obviously to close to the vehicle in question hence his avoidance that ended badly!

How do you know he was too close? Maybe there wasn't an alternative to be any further as there was no space.

And speed is completely irrelevant when someone opens the door in front of you. It can happen at any speed that you won't be able to stop in time.

XR3i

whatever happened to the concept of driving/cycling within the distance you can safely stop

CiniO

XR3i wrote: »

whatever happened to the concept of driving/cycling within the distance you can safely stop

It's a great concept and it's actually a law in Ireland to be required drive/cycle at speed allowing you to be able to stop within distance of road/cycle-path which you can see to be clear.

But that has nothing to do with car suddenly opening the door into your path.

You could have seen the path to be clear, but then suddenly it chanced it status from clear to obstructed just because someone opened a door without looking.

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

It's a great concept and it's actually a law in Ireland to be required drive/cycle at speed allowing you to be able to stop within distance of road/cycle-path which you can see to be clear.

But that has nothing to do with car suddenly opening the door into your path.

You could have seen the path to be clear, but then suddenly it chanced it status from clear to obstructed just because someone opened a door without looking.

That a thousand times. As I said before, it is the equivalent of a car beside you switching lanes without looking. NOT a rear collision and only a fool would argue otherwise.

KwackerJack

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That a thousand times. As I said before, it is the equivalent of a car beside you switching lanes without looking. NOT a rear collision and only a fool would argue otherwise.

If your are a cyclist and you a taxi pull over do you

A) Speed up and pull in closer
Say oh gosh a person might open the door so ill pull out and be safe

Obviously the OP took the B option!!

The OP is a much to blame as he was the one on control of the bicycle and therefore should have spaces himself from a parked car accordingly.

Yes it couod happen to any car v car however when cycling you need to know your a peice of meat so take extra precautions

topmanamillion

Sympathies to the OP,horrible thing to happen.

If I remember the rules of the road correctly, there is an onus on the driver of a car to leave sufficient space for people in parked cars to open their doors, providing of course it's safe to do. Was their space to do this?

From what I've read on here, and I haven't read all 6 pages, it would seem to me the driver/passenger did not give due care when getting out. The driver should check his mirrors and advice the passenger and the passenger should be watching.
I'm unsure of the legal stance so it's certainly worth getting legal advice

People opening doors when waiting 2 seconds would allow me to drive pass safely is a constant annoyance.
Happens on a daily basis on narrow town roads.
Maybe I'm old school but I would allows make sure the way is clear before opening my door.

dr.fuzzenstein

KwackerJack wrote: »

If your are a cyclist and you a taxi pull over do you

A) Speed up and pull in closer
Say oh gosh a person might open the door so ill pull out and be safe

Obviously the OP took the B option!!

The OP is a much to blame as he was the one on control of the bicycle and therefore should have spaces himself from a parked car accordingly.

Yes it couod happen to any car v car however when cycling you need to know your a peice of meat so take extra precautions

And it is up to the passenger and the driver to ensure the door is not opened in such a manner that another vehicle or a bike collides with it.
If the passenger opens the door literally within 1 meter of an oncoming bicycle, motorbike or car, the passenger/driver would be at fault.
As usual it is hard to find definite links to this question in an Irish context, because the outcome of the case would as usual depend on the judges mood, time of day, alcohol level, etc...
The ROTR state that anyone opening a car door should ensure it is safe to do so:
http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-driving/parking/general-rules.html

OK, this is a UK site, but until someone finds something better, it will have to do as a guide:

http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/collision-with-open-car-door-who-responsible.html

It does make on important distinction. If the door was opened a good few seconds before, anyone paying attention should have seen it and avoided it, so yes, in that case the person hitting the door would be responsible.
If however on the other side the passenger flung the door open without looking about 1 meter in front of another road user (could be cyclist, motorbike, another car), responsibility lies with the door flinger and ultimately the driver.
Now what if the driver wasn't in the car?

XR3i

my neighbour flung his car door open in front of a Bus eireann bus recently,

he told m he was going to claim from them for the repairs,

i told him he was an idiot and wasting his time

sure enough a few weeks later Bus eireann admitted responsibility and paid for his new door and repairs

believe it if you like

NUTLEY BOY

XR3i wrote: »

whatever happened to the concept of driving/cycling within the distance you can safely stop

The concept is valid.

I think that the concept is being misapplied to the facts under discussion.

The cyclist, on the evidence presented, was cycling correctly and within the limits of his vision.

Opening a car door in the face of a cyclist does not suddenly make the cyclist fail in his duty of care to operate within the limits of his vision. The "limits of his vision" were altered acutely by the opening door.

The cyclist had a hazard imposed upon him suddenly.

dr.fuzzenstein

XR3i wrote: »

my neighbour flung his car door open in front of a Bus eireann bus recently,

he told m he was going to claim from them for the repairs,

i told him he was an idiot and wasting his time

sure enough a few weeks later Bus eireann admitted responsibility and paid for his new door and repairs

believe it if you like

Laziness and complacency as well as a case of "fcuk it, it's not my money and it's nearly lunchtime".

cocker5

kylith wrote: »

I was cycling to work this morning when the female passenger of a taxi opened the back door. I swerved to avoid it and due to the combination of abrupt swerve, road surface, and damp conditions the bike flipped and I wound up in hospital.

Thankfully I wasn't badly injured; soft tissue damage and broken teeth, and am now at home.

My question is; is the taxi in any way liable, will their insurance go any way to covering the hospital bill, or are they likely to claim that I co-incidentally fell off my bike next to the car and it was nothing to do with them?

Just on this while it is a little different – a girl I used to work with she was cycling to work, passenger door opened she hit the taxi door – went over the handle bars – 2 years ago she just settled for €40K (I kid you not)

KwackerJack

cocker5 wrote: »

Just on this while it is a little different – a girl I used to work with she was cycling to work, passenger door opened she hit the taxi door – went over the handle bars – 2 years ago she just settled for €40K (I kid you not)

Was she badly injured.....remind me to thank her for my 60% insurance increased, and everyone elses!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

KwackerJack wrote: »

Was she badly injured.....remind me to thank her for my 60% insurance increased, and everyone elses!

Why not target your disgust towards the greedy twats that decided to increase the rates? Get injured through somebody elses stupidity, get paid out, that's how insurance works. Or do you think you should just pay a tiny premium and expect no (or miserable) payouts? 40K for a broken shoulder is nothing...

But the guys at the top are laughing at you and how you so easily turn towards others. That's exactly what they want...

EGriff

€40,000 for a broken shoulder is nothing? Sounds like a lot to me. Just because it's become the norm doesn't make it right or sensible.

There wasn't any mention of a broken shoulder either, where did that come from?

dr.fuzzenstein

Aria Early U-turn wrote: »

Why not target your disgust towards the greedy twats that decided to increase the rates? Get injured through somebody elses stupidity, get paid out, that's how insurance works. Or do you think you should just pay a tiny premium and expect no (or miserable) payouts? 40K for a broken shoulder is nothing...

But the guys at the top are laughing at you and how you so easily turn towards others. That's exactly what they want...

What about the greedy twats who have a scratch or an owie and decide "Hey, I can get €15 for this and the best thing, there are absolutely no consequences for anyone".

dr.fuzzenstein

http://www.injury-compensation.ie/news/compensation-for-a-waitress-hand-injury/

€500k!!! For a cut on the thumb! Sorry, but this is taking the piss. To suggest that such awards are in ANY way justified is simply retarded.
OK, as soon as I have any scratch whatsoever, I will swing my hairy, white arse onboard that gravytrain!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

What about the greedy twats who have a scratch or an owie and decide "Hey, I can get €15 for this and the best thing, there are absolutely no consequences for anyone".

That's nowhere near the description of what the other poster gave. What you are describing is something a little more trivial than getting knocked off a bike.

And if somebody wants to claim on their insurance against superficial damage, that's their call. It's what insurance is there for. It's also not a contributor to the massive hikes of recent.

40K is a lot of money if you are poor, or never worked. But it's really F all money. To compensate for a broken shoulder, broken teeth for the OP I believe I read, 40K is nothing. Broken shoulder is a pretty common injury for cyclist.

hullaballoo

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

http://www.injury-compensation.ie/news/compensation-for-a-waitress-hand-injury/

€500k!!! For a cut on the thumb! Sorry, but this is taking the piss. To suggest that such awards are in ANY way justified is simply retarded.
OK, as soon as I have any scratch whatsoever, I will swing my hairy, white arse onboard that gravytrain!

You know what makes humans special in the animal world, apart from abnormally large brains? Opposite thumbs. She had lost the use of her opposing thumb, effectively rendering one hand useless for most of the tasks we are specialised in.

For her, it means no longer being able to work as a waitress. She's 42, so that means she could have worked for another 25 years before retirement. 500000/25 = 20,000 per year for the rest of her working life.

Sounds a bit low to me, especially after inflation but perhaps in that case, there was some prospect of alternative work being available to the plaintiff.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That a thousand times. As I said before, it is the equivalent of a car beside you switching lanes without looking. NOT a rear collision and only a fool would argue otherwise.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

http://www.injury-compensation.ie/news/compensation-for-a-waitress-hand-injury/

€500k!!! For a cut on the thumb! Sorry, but this is taking the piss. To suggest that such awards are in ANY way justified is simply retarded.
OK, as soon as I have any scratch whatsoever, I will swing my hairy, white arse onboard that gravytrain!

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Actual scenario, some idiot throws a car door open and doors a passing cyclist.
The equivalent is not rear ending, but more like passing a car which switches lanes without looking, causing an accident.
Cyclist absolutely not to blame. And idiotic to suggest otherwise.

Not 100% which logical fallacy your posts fall under, but suggesting that somebody with an alternative point to your own, is an idiot, retarded or a fool, soley based on their different view point, is very short sighted and an incredibly odd debating strategy.

To Elland Back

hullaballoo wrote: »

. She's 42, so that means she could have worked for another 25 years before retirement. 500000/25 = 20,000 per year for the rest of her working life..

At minimum wage, that's equivalent to a 42 hour week, 52 weeks a year. The claimant can now stay in bed for the next 25 years and maintain the same income. She can buy a nice house (outright) thus saving on mortgage/rent and then get means tested for social welfare. I'm not saying she would go down that route, but that level of award gives a claimant the option

The injury is bad and there are permanent implications, but it would appear those in the legal profession are as blasé about quoting huge sums of money in the same way Premiership footballers talk about earning €100's k per week as being normal

NUTLEY BOY

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

http://www.injury-compensation.ie/news/compensation-for-a-waitress-hand-injury/

€500k!!! For a cut on the thumb! Sorry, but this is taking the piss. To suggest that such awards are in ANY way justified is simply retarded.
OK, as soon as I have any scratch whatsoever, I will swing my hairy, white arse onboard that gravytrain!

Cross J. would not be likely to hand down that judgment for a cut thumb !

I wish that the judgment had been published so that we could see the actual breakdown of the award. A substantial element of the award probably relates to general damages in to the future. General damages in to the future would reflect daily difficulties with impaired or reduced function as well as diminished earning capacity for a number of years in to the future.

I have seen a number of hand cases over the years. They can be very seriously disabling injuries. The human hand is actually a highly complex system and the thumb is really important - this is rarely appreciated until something goes seriously wrong with it.

On the scarce information provided the award does seem generous. However, this might yet end up being reduced on appeal or by negotiation in lieu of an appeal.

NUTLEY BOY

Aria Early U-turn wrote: »

Why not target your disgust towards the greedy twats that decided to increase the rates? Get injured through somebody elses stupidity, get paid out, that's how insurance works. Or do you think you should just pay a tiny premium and expect no (or miserable) payouts? 40K for a broken shoulder is nothing...

But the guys at the top are laughing at you and how you so easily turn towards others. That's exactly what they want...

I had this issue out a few years ago with some insurance bods.

In short, a core theory of insurance involves the spreading of loss. The concept was explained as one in which the fortunes of the many compensate for the misfortunes of the few. It is vastly more complicated than that but this was the insurance for dummies shorthand version so that I could understand it !

In relation to awards the situation is very clear. As long as the courts keep awarding high levels of damages the insuring public will pay premiums to provide the funding for the costs of claims. Over the years I have envied some of the motor insurance rates being paid in the UK where they tend to award much lower figures for the minor to moderate cases. However, the more serious cases, like injuries causing paraplegia, can be very high too in the UK.

The other problem that the insurance guys face in modern times is the poor levels of return available on stocks, shares and other investments. Previously, they explained to me, they could run a book of business at a loss. They called that an underwriting loss i.e. claims out exceeded premiums in. However, they were able to turn an overall profit when the yields from investment income were added back in to the accounts.

In short, high awards = high insurance premiums.