Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclist settles claim with county council out of court

Options
«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Correction hit a recessed manhole.


  • Options
    #3
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Shaky grounds for a defence by the county council imo
    The council had denied the claim and said Mr King was going too fast, could not see where he was cycling and was not wearing a helmet.

    How did they know how fast he was going? And how did not wearing a helmet cause him to crash?


  • Options
    #4
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    beauf wrote: »
    Correction hit a recessed manhole.

    ...allegedly hit a recessed manhole.


  • Options
    #5
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    ...allegedly hit a recessed manhole.

    What point are you trying to make?


  • Options
    #6
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    What point are you trying to make?


    :confused:
    I can only explain my post by repeating my post...its self explanatory


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    :confused:
    I can only explain my post by repeating my post...its self explanatory

    Are you trying to insinuate that he didn't hit the manhole?

    The council seem to have accepted that he did and had workers out to repair the road the next day.

    In relation to the case, I wonder if the council settled so as to avoid the bad press associated with a case where a 16 year old suffered a brain injury.

    The council's defense was to blame the child (which I tend to agree with) and that may not have gone down well.


  • Options
    #8
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Shaky grounds for a defence by the county council imo


    How did they know how fast he was going? And how did not wearing a helmet cause him to crash?

    He was suing for injuries relating to a head trauma, referencing a helmet (whether it would have done him any good or not) isn't unreasonable?

    How fast is ok at night with no lights?

    The Garda pretty nailed it to a location, "potholes" to side of manhole.


  • Options
    #9
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ford2600 wrote: »
    He was suing for injuries relating to a head trauma, referencing a helmet (whether it would have done him any good or not) isn't unreasonable?
    It is unreasonable. It assumes a requirement or a duty of care on behalf of cyclists to wear a helmet.

    If it had been a pedestrian or a bus passenger who had suffered head injuries, the defence wouldn't try to use "they weren't wearing a helmet". So why for a bicycle?


  • Options
    #10
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    seamus wrote: »
    It is unreasonable. It assumes a requirement or a duty of care on behalf of cyclists to wear a helmet.

    If it had been a pedestrian or a bus passenger who had suffered head injuries, the defence wouldn't try to use "they weren't wearing a helmet". So why for a bicycle?

    Because it'll work in a court setting


  • Options
    #11
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    ford2600 wrote: »
    He was suing for injuries relating to a head trauma, referencing a helmet (whether it would have done him any good or not) isn't unreasonable?

    How fast is ok at night with no lights?

    The Garda pretty nailed it to a location, "potholes" to side of manhole.

    If he had spinal injuries, would they claim he should have been wearing a backguard like motorcyclists and MTB'ers?

    And again, how can they claim he was going too fast?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    beauf wrote: »
    Correction hit a recessed manhole.

    As per article
    A man using for damages after he claimed he suffered a brain injury after crashing due to a pothole in a Co Galway road has settled his action on undisclosed terms.


  • Options
    #13
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    If he had spinal injuries, would they claim he should have been wearing a backguard like motorcyclists and MTB'ers?

    And again, how can they claim he was going too fast?

    He had no lights, which would have drastically restricted his view of defect? Agreed?

    What speed is slow enough to allow him to see it with no light? He was either going above that speed or wasn't watching carefully enough.

    When drafting a defence you have to cover all your bases. I'd bet my bottom dollar they mentioned not watching careful bit to.

    This was in a court setting; putting not wearing helmet into defence is a good idea from their point of view. There job is to payout as little no money as possible. The nuances of helmet wearing pros/cons etc as discussed to death here don't matter a ****e when your looking to fight a case as best you can.

    On liability they were probably screwed given "pothole" next to manhole and Garda verifying it. Their only case was to make contributory negligence as big as possible.

    You mightn't like it, but it's the Irish court system not American tv; mentioned helmet, along with no light, hurley or bars is an attempt tot paint a picture which might sway a judge. Judge is in all probability likely to not be a regular on this sub forum and like most of the population think helmet are a life saver.


  • Options
    #14
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    amcalester wrote: »
    Are you trying to insinuate that he didn't hit the manhole?

    The council seem to have accepted that he did and had workers out to repair the road the next day.

    In relation to the case, I wonder if the council settled so as to avoid the bad press associated with a case where a 16 year old suffered a brain injury.

    The council's defense was to blame the child (which I tend to agree with) and that may not have gone down well.

    Why the council decided to settle outside of court is more than likely because of the reasons you mention along with the fact that it would probably cost them less to settle outside of court.

    Going by the article the cyclist did say he hit something...that could have been anything(a rock, a branch, a hurl)...If he had a light would he have seen it...maybe? maybe not? If had of used the cycle lane (as legally required) would he have hit it? No


  • Options
    #15
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    He's not legally required to use the cycle lane right? In fact it's often more dangerous to use the cycle lane

    What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument). I had read they may cause more damage in certain falls and people cycle with less care with them, anything else, is that the general idea?


  • Options
    #16
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Roadhawk wrote: »

    Going by the article the cyclist did say he hit something...that could have been anything(a rock, a branch, a hurl)...If he had a light would he have seen it...maybe? maybe not? If had of used the cycle lane (as legally required) would he have hit it? No

    Shots fired.


  • Options
    #17
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument). I had read they may cause more damage in certain falls and people cycle with less care with them, anything else, is that the general idea?

    There's a mega thread around here somewhere.

    There's no legal obligation to wear a helmet, but certainly sounds like a situation where one would have been very useful.


  • Options
    #18
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument). I had read they may cause more damage in certain falls and people cycle with less care with them, anything else, is that the general idea?

    A poorly fitted helmet is probably as a effective as no helmet. However personally, i've a properly fitted helmet...i believe the argument that a helmet saves your life is weaker for high impact speeds.

    However for falls from a seated height at around 20-25kph...common sense tells me a helmet fitted correctly can only do more good than bad


  • Options
    #19
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    If had of used the cycle lane (as legally required) would he have hit it? No


    Oh no you didn't!!!!!

    1. Not a legal requirement
    2. Don't have me post pictures of the vast amount of cycle lanes out there today with holes/manholes...etc.!!

    such as

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/cianginty/4912837697/in/pool-dublincyclelanes/

    410600.png


  • Options
    #20
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    And obviously the council is going to mention it, just like they'd mention that a motorist had had a drink, even if they were under the limit, or a pedestrian was wearing heels and on the phone when they fell, even though both are legal


  • Options
    #21
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    jon1981 wrote: »
    Oh no you didn't!!!!!

    1. Not a legal requirement
    2. Don't have me post pictures of the vast amount of cycle lanes out there today with holes/manholes...etc.!!

    1.I think you will find that this incident took place in March of 2012...Leo V only revoked the mandatory cycle lane law in September 2012...so yes, it was a legal requirement to use the lane at the time.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

    2. You can post as many pictures you like but how many of them are directly relative to this incident? I think you will find none!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    At the time (March 2012) I think it was a legal requirement to use cycle lanes where provided in accordance with certain legalities. Whether this was one which was legally required to be used is certainly not clear from that article


  • Options
    #23
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,940 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument).

    MOD VOICE: There is a mega thread for this, helmet talk should be kept there, outside of relevance to the case, general discussion of helmets should stay in the megathread.


  • Options
    #24
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,683 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    He's not legally required to use the cycle lane right? In fact it's often more dangerous to use the cycle lane

    What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument). I had read they may cause more damage in certain falls and people cycle with less care with them, anything else, is that the general idea?

    Its not a question of 'what he should or shouldn't have been doing' in your opinion. its a question of what he's legally obliged to do.

    He is not legally obliged to wear a helmet. He is legally entitled to carry a hurley.

    The lights are different matter.

    However it may still be negligence on the part of the council, even if he had no lights.

    Plenty of people get head injuries in car crashes, and none of those are wearing helmets.


  • Options
    #25
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    1.I think you will find that this incident took place in March of 2012...Leo V only revoked the mandatory cycle lane law in September 2012...so yes, it was a legal requirement to use the lane at the time.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

    2. You can post as many pictures you like but how many of them are directly relative to this incident? I think you will find none!

    Take your point, but just like your argument on relevance, as to whether that law was relevant in this case, you'd find it probably wasn't. If the legislation was strong enough I would suspect the council would have pursued this to court.

    Perhaps the cycle lane was in shambles, the council didn't appear to include this in their argument... where they concerned about drawing attention to it?


  • Options
    #26
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    ford2600 wrote: »
    He had no lights, which would have drastically restricted his view of defect? Agreed?

    What speed is slow enough to allow him to see it with no light? He was either going above that speed or wasn't watching carefully enough.

    I know someone who had a fall in similar accidents to this lad, but it was in broad daylight, was wearing a helmet, and wasn't going at any substantial speed. He meets all your criteria for avoiding such an accident, and yet he too ended up in hospital.


  • Options
    #27
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Going by google maps "road view" which appears to have been last updated last in 2009, the road and cycle lanes are in pretty bad condition:

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3031578,-8.989074,3a,75y,334.19h,58.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_29AHP8qwLSUI0DOqfpDEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

    I would still argue that if he had used the cycle infrastructure provided it would not have happened.


  • Options
    #28
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Going by google maps "road view" which appears to have been last updated last in 2009, the road and cycle lanes are in pretty bad condition:

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3031578,-8.989074,3a,75y,334.19h,58.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_29AHP8qwLSUI0DOqfpDEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

    I would still argue that if he had used the cycle infrastructure provided it would not have happened.

    Scanned along the cycle path (clearly very bored on my lunch break) , there are quite a few recessed manhole covers, i don't think you can say it would not have happened... it probably would have happened , if not already, to someone eventually.

    410601.png


  • Options
    #29
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Is this not more about the council settling to avoid the risk of an unfavourable outcome in that it would make it legally binding on them to either repair all the damaged roads or face a load of other claims. In other words , avoid a precedent being set?


  • Options
    #30
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Is this not more about the council settling to avoid the risk of an unfavourable out in that would make it legally binding on ten to either repair all the damaged road or face a load of other claims. In other words , avoid a precedent being set?

    Yes I believe so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    I am outraged! These manhole covers clearly think they own the road! Why aren't they painted a bright hi viz colour?

    The obvious answer is a license and tax of some sort. That'll stop this "recessed" business once and for all! ;)


Advertisement