Car to yield to bikes on foothpaths!

Victor

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.

The evidence was that the cyclist was travelling at a jogging pace.

learn

07Lapierre wrote: »

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!

If a person had walked out from that entrance causing her to swerve and fall as she did, would the judgement have been the same ?

dusty207

learn wrote: »

If a person had walked out from that entrance causing her to swerve and fall as she did, would the judgement have been the same ?

If a small child had walked out and been hit by her, causing her to fall off, who sues who?

amcalester

learn wrote: »

If a person had walked out from that entrance causing her to swerve and fall as she did, would the judgement have been the same ?

Probably not, motorists have more of a duty of care to other road users than pedestrians do.

Tigger

dusty207 wrote: »

If a small child had walked out and been hit by her, causing her to fall off, who sues who?

thats a good point, or if a grown man walked out and she cycled into him

07Lapierre

learn wrote: »

If a person had walked out from that entrance causing her to swerve and fall as she did, would the judgement have been the same ?

No

AndrewJRenko

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.

Likewise, the driver shouldn't be driving on the path - WTF was the driver doing driving on the path.

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.

If the driver had looked out for those things, he would have seen the cyclist at jogging pace.

07Lapierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Likewise, the driver shouldn't be driving on the path - WTF was the driver doing driving on the path.
.

Eh...he was exiting private property (Advance tyre, Swords) ... nothing unusual about that.

Special Circumstances

07Lapierre wrote: »

Eh...he was exiting private property (Advance tyre, Swords) ... nothing unusual about that.

I'm assuming the point was "why some people's big song and dance about a bike on the path at that point when it's no big deal for a car/van to be there in the same place..."

Thargor

tomasrojo wrote: »

And on page 4 we went Godwin.

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

I think you might be waiting a while for that with this particular Boards personality:

dfeo wrote: »

Just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean you should (especially if it inconveniences normal people). The SS had legal authority from Hitler to gas people. Just because they were "entitled" to do it, doesn't make it any less reprehensible.



I'll show you a perfect example. The Lusk bypass in Co. Dublin

https://goo.gl/maps/LGW8nbLGj332

I always see lycra louts on this stretch of road, especially on Sundays, two or three abreast across an entire lane, thus making overtaking impossible.

dfeo wrote: »

No one thought Hitler would ever go that far ... but he did.

dfeo wrote: »

This reminds me of Hitler's Final Solution.

Jews are not real Germans.

Let's deport them.

Oh, deportation doesn't work? Let's gas them.

It's only a matter of time before people are herded into camps by Trump.

dfeo wrote: »

I'm not comparing Ireland's present day relationship to that between Nazi Germany and Poland... I'm comparing our past relationship with Britain to that between Nazi Germany and Poland.

During the Irish genocide in the 1800's, our population (especially of Catholics) was decimated and food was exported under military force.

If you need help with any of the big words, just ask a grown up, good boy.

07Lapierre

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I'm assuming the point was "why some people's big song and dance about a bike on the path at that point when it's no big deal for a car/van to be there in the same place..."

You know what they say about Assuming? "Makes an Ass out of u and me"

tomasrojo

Thargor wrote: »

I think you might be waiting a while for that with this particular Boards personality:

I'll tell you who else used to turn people's own words back on them: Hitler.

Macy0161

Roadhawk wrote: »

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.

Any real world examples to back that up? Because I'd say if a driver saw someone coming the other way, took no evasive action and just carried on if though the car on the wrong side of the road wasn't there, they'd be found partly culpable.

There has been cases where a car turning right into a drive, was hit by a car who decided to overtake the line of slow moving cars. The driver turning right was found partly liable as they should've been more aware/ checking mirrors, despite the overtaking driver doing something obviously in the wrong.

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

thats a good point, or if a grown man walked out and she cycled into him

Read the judgement and you'll see

Roadhawk

Victor wrote: »

The evidence was that the cyclist was travelling at a jogging pace.

Ah I didn't see that evidence in the article...so she was travelling at a jogging pace and had time to shout at the driver (who had his window down and couldn't hear her because of loud music) but she didn't have time to stop? Not sure if it was a wet or dry day but in my experience bicycles have a very short stopping distance especially when traveling at a jogging pace.

Macy0161

Or the driver also had time to give way.

I think the real lesson here, without making assumptions as to why in this particular case the driver decided not to yield, is that meating out your own punishment/ teaching them a lesson isn't necessarily without consequence. We see/ or hear pedestrians saying they deliberately step in front of cyclists doing something they don't agree with, we see motorists slam on the brakes/ close up gaps if the perceive another driver is in the wrong, we see punishment passes on cyclists, and sometimes punishment passes by cyclists on people in cycle lanes... People would all want to cop on and think of potential consequences - invest in dashcam/ helmet cam if you insist on being an enforcer.

amcalester

Macy0161 wrote: »

Or the driver also had time to give way.

I think the real lesson here, without making assumptions as to why in this particular case the driver decided not to yield, is that meating out your own punishment/ teaching them a lesson isn't necessarily without consequence. We see/ or hear pedestrians saying they deliberately step in front of cyclists doing something they don't agree with, we see motorists slam on the brakes/ close up gaps if the perceive another driver is in the wrong, we see punishment passes on cyclists, and sometimes punishment passes by cyclists on people in cycle lanes... People would all want to cop on and think of potential consequences - invest in dashcam/ helmet cam if you insist on being an enforcer.

The don't be a dick rule should be extended to the roads.

rubadub

Macy0161 wrote: »

Car should be yielding to anyone using the path, I'd have thought?

Yes. I bet if there was an incident with a pedestrian illegally crossing the road it would not even be mentioned that it that they "should not have been crossing the road".

ford2600

rubadub wrote: »

Yes. I bet if there was an incident with a pedestrian illegally crossing the road it would not even be mentioned that it that they "should not have been crossing the road".

Where a pedestrian is involved in an accident with motorist, in terms of liability, whether he should/shouldn't have been on road is hardly ever an issue.

Typically if accident is very near a pedestrian crossing and pedestrian chose not to use it he might suffer a little contributory negligence but not much else.

The issue is normally how long it took him to get from footpath/or where he first came it to view to where he was hit and whether he driver should have been able to stop.

Normally ( bar a pedestrian runs out from behind a van or similar) a motorist will normally be found liable in the main.

About 40 pedestrian die a year on our roads, we seem to have accepted that and all the serious injuries and just pay for the cost. Lots of our road network is pretty high risk for a pedestrian with perfect lighting levels and road conditions

I work quite a bit on open roads, the risk level is akin to cycling the wrong way up the Nass dual carriageway at times

magicbastarder

going by this, the woman in swords didn't do so well after all.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/dublin-girl-5-awarded-50-000-after-tripping-over-ikea-trolley-1.2967090

mcgratheoin

Roadhawk wrote: »

Ah I didn't see that evidence in the article...so she was travelling at a jogging pace and had time to shout at the driver (who had his window down and couldn't hear her because of loud music) but she didn't have time to stop? Not sure if it was a wet or dry day but in my experience bicycles have a very short stopping distance especially when traveling at a jogging pace.

The evidence is in the court documents that were previously linked to - they obviously give a fuller picture than the 300% Indo headline.

The important finding of the appeal relating to contributory negligence was:

25. I am firstly satisfied that as a matter of law the High Court judge erred when he concluded that primary responsibility to avoid the accident which occurred in this case rested with Ms. Moore.
26. Firstly, at common law the driver of a motor vehicle intending to drive across a public footpath is obliged to take reasonable care to ensure that in doing so he / she will avoid causing injury to anyone who might foreseeably be on it. It goes without saying that it is foreseeable that a driver who emerges onto a footpath without looking in both directions immediately prior to so doing may injure or possibly kill someone.

Regarding the speed of the cyclist, the court found that

30. Ms. Moore in her evidence stated that she had seen Mr. Mahon preparing to emerge and she assumed he would stop. She should not have made that assumption as she stated he was looking the other way as he emerged. Unless satisfied that Mr. Mahon was obviously aware of her presence and appeared intent on giving way, she should have stopped or tried to stop. It is to be inferred from the judgment of the High Court judge that he was satisfied that she would have been able to do so had she made the appropriate decision. That being so, it seems to me that she should not have been further penalised for the fact that she was cycling at jogging speed. It was not her speed that was causative of what occurred but rather her somewhat “in the heat of the moment” decision to swerve around Mr. Mahon’s car rather than try to stop.

31. Based on the findings of fact made by the High Court judge Mr. Mahon was clearly in breach of his duty of care to Ms. Moore. He works in the premises outside of which the accident occurred. He knows the footpath is in a busy commercial area. He was obliged to satisfy himself that the path was clear either side of his car at the point at which he pulled out and he did not do so. The High Court judge held that Mr. Mahon had seen Ms. Moore as she approached the entrance and that she had at all times been cycling on the footpath. The fact that he did not check to his right at the moment he drove forward across the path was to put her safety at risk, as in fact occurred. Mr. Mahon should have seen her and waited for her to pass before entering onto the path. His actions were not reasonable, having regard to the prevailing circumstances.

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.

Arbitrary

Carawaystick wrote: »

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

Yes and no, because I took out travel insurance about 5k was paid out by them on medical expenses. What medical expenses followed back in Ireland were part of the 15k, had I not had travel insurance then the sum would have been closer to 20k. A sum which still pales in comparison to what may have been awarded in Ireland.

The specialist I saw in Ireland felt compensation should be in the region of 60k.

20k in France vs 60k in Ireland.

Special Circumstances

Arbitrary wrote: »

Yes and no, because I took out travel insurance about 5k was paid out by them on medical expenses. What medical expenses followed back in Ireland were part of the 15k, had I not had travel insurance then the sum would have been closer to 20k. A sum which still pales in comparison to what may have been awarded in Ireland.

The specialist I saw in Ireland felt compensation should be in the region of 60k.

20k in France vs 60k in Ireland.

But you're happy with anyway and you don't feel you've missed out on anything or if you have that you've been fairly compensated- right?

You sound a bit embarrassed that you even got the 15k tbh!

Arbitrary wrote: »

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.

DirkVoodoo

Saw a car (Possibly a Peugeot 3008) parked up here about 17:40 - 18:00 last night in rush hour traffic:





At least I thought it was parked, until I passed by, and it was in fact moving slowly, stopping, moving again (I'm guessing auto and lifting on/off the brake).

Old lad driving, looking down at his phone. Really disturbing that he didn't seem to realise he was sitting on a contra flow cycle lane in rush hour and not even properly stopped.

But sure what harm?? And should he not be allowed to have a drink or 5 down in the pub then drive home if it's poorly serviced by public transport.

Honestly, sometimes the attitude to driving in this country really alarms me.

Arbitrary

Special Circumstances wrote: »

But you're happy with anyway and you don't feel you've missed out on anything or if you have that you've been fairly compensated- right?

You sound a bit embarrassed that you even got the 15k tbh!

Somebody asked for an example and I gave one based on my experience. My own thoughts or personal opinion are irrelevant tbh, but to answer your question, I was satisfied with the outcome.

There was a whole sequence of coincidences that transpired that all worked in my favour. From buying travel insurance to putting on my seat belt 10 seconds before the other car rear ended us. I'm thankful not to be in a wheel chair, one vertebrae up or down (can't remember) and I was wheel chair bound for life.

Special Circumstances

Arbitrary wrote: »

Somebody asked for an example and I gave one based on my experience. My own thoughts or personal opinion are irrelevant tbh, but to answer your question, I was satisfied with the outcome.

There was a whole sequence of coincidences that transpired that all worked in my favour. From buying travel insurance to putting on my seat belt 10 seconds before the other car rear ended us. I'm thankful not to be in a wheel chair, one vertebrae up or down (can't remember) and I was wheel chair bound for life.

You're obviously very much a "turn the other cheek" type chilled out person.

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 don't think the 15k would even cover me for wages lost over that kind of period, depending on how was possible in a top body cast.

Even leaving wages out of it, what you've mentioned above is 15k to me... the rest

Arbitrary wrote: »

I'll likely have trouble in my later years.

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

is more.

How many here would give up any sort of serious cycling for the change left out of 15k or 20k after medical expenses and wages lost?

I would have no shame in collecting the suggested 60k if the repercussions of somebodys ignorant driving was what you suffered.

Arbitrary

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You're obviously very much a "turn the other cheek" type chilled out person.



I don't think the 15k would even cover me for wages lost over that kind of period, depending on how was possible in a top body cast.

Even leaving wages out of it, what you've mentioned above is 15k to me... the rest

is more.

How many here would give up any sort of serious cycling for the change left out of 15k or 20k after medical expenses and wages lost?

I would have no shame in collecting the suggested 60k if the repercussions of somebodys ignorant driving was what you suffered.

You've drawn far too many inaccurate conclusions without establishing a single fact. I was 16 at the time and not working. The cast still allowed for mobility, I went to school wearing it.

The point I was making is very simple and you're needlessly distracting from it. 20k in France vs 60k in Ireland. That's the difference in the compensation claim between two European jurisdictions in my instance. It's my opinion that compensation claims can be far too high in some cases here in Ireland.

Special Circumstances

Are you even allowed to purchase travel insurance as a 16 year old? Curiouser and curiouser!


How many here would give up any sort of serious cycling for the change left out of 15k or 20k after medical expenses and wages lost?

Arbitrary

Special Circumstances wrote: »

How many here would give up any sort of serious cycling for the change left out of 15k or 20k after medical expenses and wages lost?

But cycling isn't a problem for me so this is moot question/point you're trying to make.

I've another question, how many people here are happy with their current insurance rates?

Special Circumstances

Arbitrary wrote: »

But cycling isn't a problem for me so this is moot question/point you're trying to make.

I've another question, how many people here are happy with their current insurance rates?

We're on a cycling forum, do keep up, I'm trying to make it relevant to myself and the wider audience here.

Anyway, I think we've established that the best way to think about these awards is - if it was me, would I be happy to just suck up the pain, inconvenience, long term loss of enjoyment of leisure activities and possibly long term repercussions and accept the bare minimum of medical expenses and wages lost (if even that!) just to knock a cent off everyones insurance?

We've also established just how relevant/comparable your example is in this context.

Probably best to leave it there? The more truth I post the more I get myself in trouble unfortunately!