Journalism and cycling

amcalester

ford2600 wrote: »

Not every case is the same; it is the grey areas where people can argue. There is no money in black and white.

Why is it bogus, the accident happened?

If it was a 12 yr old on bike/skateboard a parent running with a buggy this case wouldn't have ran, it would have settled. The act of driving out gate is same in all cases yet the nature of victim will decide outcome

The primary reason he lost 100% was his own answer to final question under cross examination; yes it was my own fault!

The bogus claim statement was more a general statement than specifically related to this claim, there's nothing in the article to suggest that the claimant was anything other than 100%.

Nor was it a cyclist v motorist, just an observation that there are a lot of stories in the papers of seemingly outrageous payouts for relatively minor RTCs which, in my opinion, encourage some people to make bogus claims.

Re the bolded part: that is what is annoying and inconsistent, the age of the victim has no bearing on whether the act itself, in this case exiting a driveway, was negligent.

I completely agree though that if it was a young child then the insurance would have paid out.

ford2600

amcalester wrote: »

The bogus claim statement was more a general statement than specifically related to this claim, there's nothing in the article to suggest that the claimant was anything other than 100%.

Nor was it a cyclist v motorist, just an observation that there are a lot of stories in the papers of seemingly outrageous payouts for relatively minor RTCs which, in my opinion, encourage some people to make bogus claims.

Re the bolded part: that is what is annoying and inconsistent, the age of the victim has no bearing on whether the act itself, in this case exiting a driveway, was negligent.

I completely agree though that if it was a young child then the insurance would have paid out.

Court journalist are independent contractors, they report what they know will sell.

They report on cyclist cases, someone slipping on a grape etc as they generate traffic and therefore revenue.

amcalester

ford2600 wrote: »

Court journalist are independent contractors, they report what they know will sell.

They report on cyclist cases, someone slipping on a grape etc as they generate traffic and therefore revenue.

The reporters can only report on what's there, they're not making up these cases.

Are you saying that there isn't a compo culture in Ireland? Not specifically in relation to collisions involving cyclists and motorists, but in general?

ford2600

amcalester wrote: »

The reporters can only report on what's there, they're not making up these cases.

Are you saying that there isn't a compo culture in Ireland? Not specifically in relation to collisions involving cyclists and motorists, but in general?

No but relying entirely on papers for your information isn't balanced. For example a friend does work for one of biggest supermarket chains; the cases they win are never reported while loses are.

The large payouts for minor stuff; most done away from court rooms, is the problem. The payouts for major stuff could be higher imo. 300k for an eye; no thanks. 25k for 4 trips to physio is the issue

Straight up fraud is scarce but it has picked up among certain distinct groups in last few years

amcalester

ford2600 wrote: »

No but relying entirely on papers for your information isn't balanced. For example a friend does work for one of biggest supermarket chains; the cases they win are never reported while loses are.

The large payouts for minor stuff; most done away from court rooms, is the problem. The payouts for major stuff could be higher imo. 300k for an eye; no thanks. 25k for 4 trips to physio is the issue

Straight up fraud is scarce but it has picked up among certain distinct groups in last few years

We could go on and on here, and I'm not disagreeing with you but one would have to ask why insurance companies are settling these cases before court?

It's (partly) because of the inconsistencies in judicial decisions which bring us pack to my original point which was that these inconsistencies are annoying.

ford2600

amcalester wrote: »

We could go on and on here, and I'm not disagreeing with you but one would have to ask why insurance companies are settling these cases before court?

It's (partly) because of the inconsistencies in judicial decisions which bring us pack to my original point which was that these inconsistencies are annoying.

In a nutshell the Book of Quantum is mental.

The bench is full of lunatics, the problem on controlling judges is that a judiciary with an independent streak is critical in a properly functioning republic

tomasrojo

Motorists who must cross a public footpath to access a public highway cannot be expected to have a somebody precede them with a red flag warning other road users, a court was told.

Is this a named phenomenon, where whenever you raise the notion that people should show a modicum of caution, you are countered with the most absurd-seeming example from history?

A: A lower speed limit might reduce the number of collisions.
B: Oh sure, let's make everyone drive with a man walking in front of them waving a red flag.
A: Maybe have a look before driving out of a blind driveway?
B: Oh sure, let's make everyone drive with a man walking in front of them waving a red flag.

Flagism?

tomasrojo

I tell a lie, there is a more extreme version of Red Flag law (was never passed):

In the United States, the state of Vermont passed a similar flurry of Red Flag Laws in 1894. The most infamous of the Red Flag Laws was enacted in Pennsylvania circa 1896, when legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible ... disassemble the automobile", and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified.[1] The bill did not become law, as the Governor of Pennsylvania used an executive veto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

ford2600

tomasrojo wrote: »

Is this a named phenomenon, where whenever you raise the notion that people should show a modicum of caution, you are countered with the most absurd-seeming example from history?

A: A lower speed limit might reduce the number of collisions.
B: Oh sure, let's make everyone drive with a man walking in front of them waving a red flag.
A: Maybe have a look before driving out of a blind driveway?
B: Oh sure, let's make everyone drive with a man walking in front of them waving a red flag.

Flagism?

The issue was Defendant had to drive out blind until front of his car was about 2m beyond gate.

Looking is no good when all you have is a pier to look out. In absence of lowering piers, on all such properties, the only solution is to move out really slowly(with perhaps sounding the horn) until you have a view.

The Plaintiff admitted accident was his own fault, which is unheard of. Had he not, judge might have found for him to some degree given absence of horn being sounded depending on who she believed on "speed" of emerging onto path.

07Lapierre

ford2600 wrote: »

The issue was Defendant had to drive out blind until front of his car was about 2m beyond gate.

Looking is no good when all you have is a pier to look out. In absence of lowering piers, on all such properties, the only solution is to move out really slowly(with perhaps sounding the horn) until you have a view.

.

I disagree... if a driver cannot see left and right before exiting a gate, they should install mirrors on the gate pillars. You see these mirrors on a lot of properties in NCD.

Creeping out while sounding the car horn is an option, but it’s not the best one.

tomasrojo

Oh yeah, I'm not saying the "red flag" comment was particularly germane to the outcome of the case. It's just the suggestion that someone else at hand might assist the driver by having a quick look out isn't actually so ridiculous as to require an evocation of flagism.

(Agreed: driving out really slowly is what a careful person would do.)

(EDIT: convex mirrors a good idea too.)

(EDIT: perhaps someone could walk in front of the car bearing a convex mirror?)

ford2600

07Lapierre wrote: »

I disagree... if a driver cannot see left and right before exiting a gate, they should install mirrors on the gate pillars. You see these mirrors on a lot of properties in NCD.

Creeping out while sounding the car horn is an option, but it’s not the best one.

The best option is lowering the piers/walls.

Grassey

http://www.thejournal.ie/bus-crash-dublin-3887330-Mar2018/

Crash between bus and a van yet the first two comments then set off a chain of anti-cyclist 'discourse'

Brian O'Loughlin
This was definitely a cyclist’s fault….I just haven’t figured out how yet

Nick Allen
He cycled through a junction when he didn’t have right of way, the bus swerved to avoid crashing into the idiot and hit the other bus. If only cyclists obeyed the rules of the road we would have much safer streets

Thinkingaboutit

Grassey wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/bus-crash-dublin-3887330-Mar2018/

Crash between bus and a van yet the first two comments then set off a chain of anti-cyclist 'discourse'

Journal.ie comments are scientifically proven to lower IQ points by 5 points every 40 seconds. :pac:

07Lapierre

ford2600 wrote: »

The best option is lowering the piers/walls.

Or a bigger/taller car*


*wait...did i just say that on a cycling forum?

check_six

Can't see why there would be a problem with creeping out inch by inch. I've seen plenty of blind side roads and the like where a vehicle will be driven in such a way that it just about judders to a halt before the line of passing cars occupying the road they are trying to enter. This line is well beyond the point where pedestrians or even cyclists on the road are travelling. I have the notion that some of these fellows think that because there wasn't anyone there yesterday, there won't be anybody today and they can rely on "knowing the road"* rather than taking the actual conditions into consideration.

*see also all the people putting the boot down on icy/snowy roads where they had no idea what the level of grip was like due to the conditions not being as bad for at least seven years previously.

Fian

Lets not lose track, in the debate about exiting from between high pillars, that he was cycling on a footpath. Car is kind of entitled to assume that nobody doing >35kph is going to be travelling on footpath, expect walking or at worst running pace. Pedestrians also have a significantly shorter breaking distance than bikes.

can't expect cars to pull onto a footpath in a way that won't inconvenience/endanger cyclists, as opposed to pedestrians. Onto a road is different.

Edit "breaking" rather than "braking" may have been a freudian slip, I will leave it as is.

Lumen

Fian wrote: »

Lets not lose track, in the debate about exiting from between high pillars, that he was cycling on a footpath. Car is kind of entitled to assume that nobody doing >35kph is going to be travelling on footpath, expect walking or at worst running pace. Pedestrians also have a significantly shorter breaking distance than bikes.

Where does it say he was doing >35kph?

Corca Baiscinn

07Lapierre wrote: »

Or a bigger/taller car*:o

Sure you could drive a bus through there!

monument

Fian wrote: »

.Car is kind of entitled to assume...

Did the case involve a driverless car?

CramCycle

If the car was inching out, and the cyclist hit it, then it is reasonable to assume (but I could be wrong), if the cyclist was cycling with due caution, he would have been able to stop, forget the fact that he was on the pavement.

If the car drove out without taking into consideration anyone on the basis they presumed everyone there is a pedestrian and should be able to stop, then they are at fault.

Either way, as there was not enough evidence to go on from the article, the cyclist admitted fault, in a lawsuit he instigated, it is fair to assume he either had a brain injury or is in fact not highly ranked in regards his IQ. Based on the description of the accident, it would be a reasonable assumption that it is the latter.

Grassey

http://www.thejournal.ie/hit-and-run-oranmore-3889048-Mar2018/

12 year old boy on his bike victim of a hit and run Sunday in Oranmore

It’s understood the driver of the car initially stopped but failed to remain at the scene and report the matter to gardaí.

Bigus

Get 10 nz dollars to ride to work


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/07/new-zealand-cycle-cash-10-a-day-employees-work-company

ford2600

ford2600 wrote: »

In a nutshell the Book of Quantum is mental.

https://www.piab.ie/eng/forms-guidelines/Book-of-Quantum.pdf

I had a look at value of the injuries I've had over the years.
*3 nose fractures
*6/7 digit dislocations and one compound fractures
*2 broken teeth
*countless stitches, a lot on face

Nose whether minor or moderate 18-22k or 22k-32k.
Finger dislocation 12k-22k if minor, moderate fracture/dislocation 19k-44k
7.5k-10k for broken tooth

The thing about those injuries, unlike whiplash/soft tissue pain injuries is you can't make them up nor is there much room for exaggeration.

I wouldn't have considered any of those injuries as being a major inconvenience, a little short term pain and awkward to do simple tasks with a splint on. IMO it is absolutely mental to be paying that level of award for stuff like that. The medical cost to any of them was very moderate

If awards were reduced to about 1/3 of what they are, it would be close to reasonable. It would reduce overall claims, as once level drops certain people will think it is not worth the hassle.

I'm not sure but I think judges "have to have regard" to BOQ, whatever that means!

Hurrache

I read this yesterday and was thinking the same, I could be sitting on a nice nest egg had I claimed for every little injury I've had

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/middleaged-football-player-who-cut-his-knee-during-training-settles-38k-damages-claim-against-club-36675523.html

He claimed he had gone in for a tackle on a player near the end line of the pitch and had continued sliding into a steel upright in a chain-link fence lacerating his knee across an area of six inches (15 cm).

€38k for a sliding tackle you make a balls out of.

RGS

Hurrache wrote: »

I read this yesterday and was thinking the same, I could be sitting on a nice nest egg had I claimed for every little injury I've had

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/middleaged-football-player-who-cut-his-knee-during-training-settles-38k-damages-claim-against-club-36675523.html

€38k for a sliding tackle you make a balls out of.

Please read the article to its conclusion. The details of the settlement were not disclosed.
It would appear the proceedings were issued in the circuit court under the old rules where the maximum claimable was €38k. Nowhere in the article did it state he received €38K. He may have gotten a small all inclusive settlement, he may have gotten a decent payout only the parties involved know the settlement figure.

ford2600

Hurrache wrote: »

I read this yesterday and was thinking the same, I could be sitting on a nice nest egg had I claimed for every little injury I've had

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/middleaged-football-player-who-cut-his-knee-during-training-settles-38k-damages-claim-against-club-36675523.html



€38k for a sliding tackle you make a balls out of.

38k was the limit of the Circuit Court, it doesn't mean he got anything near that or expected anything near that. It's now 60k. It is really last sensationalist reporting which is printed nearly every time.

You can take it as a given, if they were expected the limit of Circuit court, they would be in the High Court

Hurrache

RGS wrote: »

where the maximum claimable was €38k. Nowhere in the article did it state he received €38K. He may have gotten a small all inclusive settlement, he may have gotten a decent payout only the parties involved know the settlement figure.

ford2600 wrote: »

38k was the limit of the Circuit Court,

Yes, but I'm sure we're all missed some opportunities in trying to cash in.

Weepsie

Adrian Cummins from the Restaurant Association if Ireland on RTe right now believes there's a cycling agenda afoot in Dublin city council.

He's come across as a complete moron in the segment and I'd wonder if they'd do better with a head who actually could look at the wider picture

Weepsie

Adrian Cummins from the Restaurant Association if Ireland on RTe right now believes there's a cycling agenda afoot in Dublin city council.

He's come across as a complete moron in the segment and I'd wonder if they'd do better with a head who actually could look at the wider picture