Car to yield to bikes on foothpaths!

Special Circumstances

Arbitrary wrote: »

I'm an example. I was involved in a horrific car accident over in France, other driver was at fault. I had multiple fractured vertebrae, 3 week hospital stay, 4 months in a top body cast. My vertebrae were also compressed and it caused havoc with my digestion system. I'll likely have trouble in my later years.

I had to quit all contact sports,basically all the things I loved doing most.

Payout was 15k. Ireland is the treasure Island of insurance claims as far as Europe is concerned.

Are you saying that what you got was generous/fair for those injuries and consequences? I can't tell if you are saying Ireland has it right or wrong.



Personally... treatment instead of cash wouldn't sit well with me if I could never enjoy what I enjoyed as a leisure pastime. Can't do more than 40k cycle without your neck/back/elbow hurting? But shur your treatment was paid for you ungrateful sac de merde.

The whole "a mandarin fell off the conveyer belt in Dunnes and I haven't slept a wink since" stuff is farcical but cases like this?
It's kinda like the whole motor insurance whiplash thing.... do you know what would cut the payouts for whiplash drastically? If people stopped being d1ckheads and had a bit of consideration and respect for other road users etc.

If you're in charge of 1.5 ton of metal... try not to hit any pedestrians or cyclists with it even if they aren't 100% in the right.

LeChienMefiant

ford2600 wrote: »

It's my experience as a pedestrian that most motorists will assume right of way in most similar situations. In general my experience as a pedestrian is worse than that as a cyclist; most driver's are oblivious to the rights/vulnerability of pedestrians.

Yep, It's like stop lines don't exist for one thing. Part of the problem is that there is zero enforcement of traffic rules. It will have to change if we're going to get people out of their cars and reduce emissions.

It does not matter. The onus is on the person pulling out to make sure the way is clear.

ted1

Lumen wrote: »

36,000k would indeed be an unreasonable sum.

22-83k for a fractured elbow. Depends on how bad it is
Page 42. http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/Forms-Guidelines/Book-of-quantum.pdf

Macy0161

Car should be yielding to anyone using the path, I'd have thought? There's a serious issue with motorists assuming they have right of way. It was a cyclist, could've been a runner or child on a scooter legitimately using the footpath. That could be part of the judges logic on blame.

Victor

Cyclist needed multiple surgeries.

ford2600 wrote: »

From the Plaintiff's point of view here, she would have been better often putting here energy into getting better/healing than looking for money. On responsibility she shouldn't have been cycling on footpath and on a lot of footpaths she would have been 100% responsible(say your typical restricted sight lines on private entrance)

Anyone coming out of a private entrance, when they can't see what's on the footpath would likely be nearly 100% responsible.

but in this scenario the original 85/15 split seems about right.

The appeal court judges, who had the facts before them, not the Indo, decided differently: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/c0241ef7f048a25e802580ba003355eb?OpenDocument

Commotion Ocean

Why couldn't she have waited her turn to use the single lane like most normal road users.

ford2600

Victor wrote: »

Cyclist needed multiple surgeries.Anyone coming out of a private entrance, when they can't see what's on the footpath would likely be nearly 100% responsible.

The appeal court judges, who had the facts before them, not the Indo, decided differently: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/c0241ef7f048a25e802580ba003355eb?OpenDocument

So a cyclist doing 25km/h on a footpath impacting with a motorist edging out a driveway with restricted sightlines is 100% in the right? In my 20 years experience I've never seen a judge find anything but the opposite.

The difference here, it seems, is the sight lines available to both parties of each other. One was occupying an illegal position on footpath and as such should have been "ready to stop" mode given the hazard she posed to herself. In spite of this she assumed she had the same right of way as a pedestrian on footpath?

85/15 seems ok with me, maybe 75/25. You might be happy doffing your cap to judges, I'll call it as I see it thanks.

The facts according to judgement
"He was looking to his left and was, according to Ms. Moore, listening to music with his window open. (I'm on footpath in an illegal position and driver ahead doesn't see me) As he emerged onto the footpath and across her proposed path of travel in one continuous slow movement, she shouted(don't brake or anything mind) at him to alert him of her approach, but he kept going. Ms. Moore then found herself having to take last minute evasive (cycle like a moron and you will end up in such sceanarios) action which she did by cycling around the bonnet of his car onto the roadway. In the course of this manoeuvre she fell heavily to the ground on her left elbow and sustained serious injuries to which I will later refer.

The bits in brackets are mine

Macy0161

dfeo wrote: »

Why couldn't she have waited her turn to use the single lane like most normal road users.

Could've been a runner doing sprint intervals. Motorist still should've been looking and giving way. Cyclist being in the wrong does not automatically mean the motorist was in the right.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

Cyclist needed multiple surgeries.Anyone coming out of a private entrance, when they can't see what's on the footpath would likely be nearly 100% responsible.

That would imply a complete absence of duty of care to other road users when using a footpath, in my mind. On what aspect of justice or specifically the RTAs as amended would abdicate someone from taking due diligence while using a footpath at speed and observing entrances or openings on to the public and the potential hazards that derive thereof?

If someone exits an existing private entrance and emerges at slow speed as the only person in a vehicle, what more could they do than emerge at an extremely slow speed after opening their side window?

Victor

lucernarian wrote: »

That would imply a complete absence of duty of care to other road users when using a footpath, in my mind. On what aspect of justice or specifically the RTAs as amended would abdicate someone from taking due diligence while using a footpath at speed and observing entrances or openings on to the public and the potential hazards that derive thereof?

Are you suggesting a child can't run on the footpath?

If someone exits an existing private entrance and emerges at slow speed as the only person in a vehicle, what more could they do than emerge at an extremely slow speed after opening their side window?

If you can't see, get someone to help you drive out and in the long term, don't have a gate / boundary where you can't see out.

I think he didn't even hit her - she fell off!

27. While cycling on a footpath is prohibited as per the Regulations already referred to, as the trial judge observed in the course of his judgment, it is a fact of life that people, for a wide range of reasons, end up cycling on the footpath. Young children regularly ride their bicycles or scooters along footpaths and the motorist intending to drive across a footpath must protect against the possibility that someone might be cycling towards them.



The above is not unreasonable.
Let's be fair, apart for the "Won't someone please think of the children" it is a fact of life that you should always be prepared for cyclists on the foothpath


Also right in stating that just because she was incorrect in one aspect does not absolve him of his responsibilities

32. As to the Regulations, it is clear that Ms. Moore was in breach of Regulation 13 and Mr. Mahon in breach of Regulation 8. I am satisfied that Regulation 8 obliged Mr. Mahon to yield right-of-way to anybody actually using the footpath at the time he intended to cross it. He is not to be relieved of that obligation just because the approaching cyclist was cycling on the footpath contrary to Regulation 13

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he didn't even hit her - she fell off!

He caused her to fall off

Did he? Or was she going too fast to react to a car she should have plenty of time to see, by the picture?

magicbastarder

i'll go with the opinion of the judge over your speculation in this case.

John_Rambo

Where I pull out from where I work is a footpath that is frequently used by cyclists, so you have to inch out keeping an eye out for them.

Do I yield for them? Bloody right I do, the last thing I want to do is hit someone, be they illegally cycling or not!

Commotion Ocean

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'll go with the opinion of the judge over your speculation in this case.

So if a judge let a murderer (or Hitler) walk free, would you still side with him?
You're only defending her because she's a cyclist.

tomasrojo

And on page 4 we went Godwin.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

Are you suggesting a child can't run on the footpath?

If you can't see, get someone to help you drive out and in the long term, don't have a gate / boundary where you can't see out.

At speed pretty obviously means faster than a child could run, something greater than 15km per hour. Bit of a straw man there - hardly a way to discuss something seriously on a forum.

Long term, "don't have a gate"?! This is a risible point, akin to "let them eat cake". Most planning regs have derailed requirements for sightlines and so on with vehicular entrances onto public areas.

That attempt at a justification comes off the back of an earlier post pointing out the judgement in the face of Indo doublespeak. In the context of liability, does anyone envisiage a situation where due care extends to applying for planning permission for, and then implementing works on private property boundaries to allow for appropriate sightlines onto a footpath?

It's also a shame that you didn't read my post pointing out that the scenario is for where the driver is the only occupant. More broadly, I'm also including that there's no neighbours, people out walking their dogs, other people in the property as well as nobody else in the vehicle to assist with the potential manoeuvre.

The other questions by other posters have been conveniently ignored too. Hmmm.

lucernarian

John_Rambo wrote: »

Where I pull out from where I work is a footpath that is frequently used by cyclists, so you have to inch out keeping an eye out for them.

Do I yield for them? Bloody right I do, the last thing I want to do is hit someone, be they illegally cycling or not!

This. And it's a straightforward thing to do in keeping with the rules of the road and indeed moral duty.

Though some here do think that there is a liability on the driver if anyone is hit, no matter how slowly edging out is done and no matter how difficult it is to see or hear past e.g. a boundary wall.

magicbastarder

dfeo wrote: »

So if a judge let a murderer (or Hitler) walk free, would you still side with him?

Can you come back to me when you have a coherent argument?

amcalester

dfeo wrote: »

Why couldn't she have waited her turn to use the single lane like most normal road users.

Why couldn't he have waited his turn to use the footpath like most normal road users?

What is a normal road user by the way?

One that obeys traffic laws or one on 4 wheels instead of 2.

My own thoughts are that she should have been held 50% culpable for the accident.

Carawaystick

Arbitrary wrote: »

I'm an example. I was involved in a horrific car accident over in France, other driver was at fault. I had multiple fractured vertebrae, 3 week hospital stay, 4 months in a top body cast. My vertebrae were also compressed and it caused havoc with my digestion system. I'll likely have trouble in my later years.

I had to quit all contact sports,basically all the things I loved doing most.

Payout was 15k. Ireland is the treasure Island of insurance claims as far as Europe is concerned.

Did the 15k have to cover the medical costs in France? Because in Ireland it does.

Special Circumstances

Carawaystick wrote: »

Did the 15k have to cover the medical costs in France? Because in Ireland it does.

That aspect seems to be omitted every time somebody talks about banning whiplash or reducing compensation to 2 panadol or a kick in the hole.

Very disingenuous, why twist things?

Roadhawk

This whole article and thread confuses me something terrible.

So the cyclist who was travelling too fast… on a path that they legally should not have been on… while carrying an unusual load… gets €36,000 from a personal claim injury? How does that make sense?

If a car was traveling on the wrong side of a road and another car collides with that car then the motorist who is driving on the wrong side of the road is liable for the cause of the incident. It doesn’t matter how obvious or not the vehicle is traveling on the wrong side of the road. However, If a cyclist is traveling on a path, that they legally should not be on, then they have right of way??? How can this be correct? The only reason why she mounted the path was because of the road works…so, in theory, would she not have a case against the county council for not providing a suitable alternative safe passage for her to cycle? I’d call it negligence as she could have avoided the incident if she had obeyed the law and dismounted her bike to walk past the road works on the path if she did not feel safe entering the single lane provided by the council. No matter how inconvenient that sounds it what she should have done.

07Lapierre

The way I read it is the Judge determined that the Motorist was negligent in that the driver did not ensure the footpath was clear before moving across it. the fact that the "Injured Party" was on a bicycle, was a factor but not sufficient to absolve the Driver of any liability.

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

The way I read it is the Judge determined that the Motorist was negligent in that the driver did not ensure the footpath was clear before moving across it. the fact that the "Injured Party" was on a bicycle, was a factor but not sufficient to absolve the Driver of any liability.

I respect that but to be honest most drivers (myself included) would be looking out for things like pedestrians, joggers, skateboarders, etc. on a path. I would presume that most average cyclists on an average bicycle would travel at far higher speeds than the other modes I have just mentioned. This is why the law requires them to use a road(or cycle track) and not a path.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

I respect that but to be honest most drivers (myself included) would be looking out for things like pedestrians, joggers, skateboarders, etc. on a path. I would presume that most average cyclists on an average bicycle would travel at far higher speeds than the other modes I have just mentioned. This is why the law requires them to use a road(or cycle track) and not a path.

i disagree ALL road users must "expect the unexpected". The fact is (in this case), if the motorist had looked, he/ she would have seen the cyclist and the incident could have been prevented. The road works and speed of the cyclist may be factors, but most of the liability is still with the motorist.

BTW I've no issue with the Judges decision, but I do think the amount of compensation is totally OTT!

Eamonnator

Roadhawk wrote: »

This whole article and thread confuses me something terrible.

So the cyclist who was travelling too fast… on a path that they legally should not have been on… while carrying an unusual load… gets €36,000 from a personal claim injury? How does that make sense?

If a car was traveling on the wrong side of a road and another car collides with that car then the motorist who is driving on the wrong side of the road is liable for the cause of the incident. It doesn’t matter how obvious or not the vehicle is traveling on the wrong side of the road. However, If a cyclist is traveling on a path, that they legally should not be on, then they have right of way??? How can this be correct? The only reason why she mounted the path was because of the road works…so, in theory, would she not have a case against the county council for not providing a suitable alternative safe passage for her to cycle? I’d call it negligence as she could have avoided the incident if she had obeyed the law and dismounted her bike to walk past the road works on the path if she did not feel safe entering the single lane provided by the council. No matter how inconvenient that sounds it what she should have done.

The cyclist got €36,000, but because she was found to be 60% negligent, she didn't get the other €54,000, she would have got, if she she was blameless.