Would you support an assumed liability rule in Ireland?

CramCycle

Just to be clear, I am not in favour or against such legislation until I see it written down with details. Assumed liability as a technical term is a non starter, it would be impossible to legislate for and go against the general accepted principles upon which such laws are based. Strict liability is simply a way to speed up a process in a narrow number of cases, no one is presumed guilty, it isn't used in criminal cases, only civil as far as I am aware and effectively speeds up what we already do. These are cases where it is a motorist vs pedestrian/cyclist, where absolutely no other party can be deemed to be involved, where it has been established whether there was anything either party could have done to avoid the incident and so on. I'm not in favour of it until I see it written down, but based on lets say the Dutch model, it will just clear a few cases through the courts quicker or get people to settle on the steps alot easier. Cases that people describe about insurance fraud etc. most won't fall under this as there are other factors. Personally, I'm not sure it would have any practical affect other than rile up a few hot heads who can't read and speed up the process in civil cases where solicitors might be more inclined to shake hands and be done long before court.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952396#Comment_118952396

If only there was some kind of disincentive to stop cyclists from playing chicken with juggernauts and ramming into them for the craic. Perhaps they would need to legislate against it?

magicbastarder

the word 'guilt' is being thrown around a lot, and to reiterate - this is not something which has any bearing on whether someone is going to be found legally guilty of any offence. this is not presumed liability for driving offences, it's presumed liability for damages. i.e. in a case where a motorist and a cyclist are in a collision, and the cyclist's bike is totalled, the cyclist can automatically claim for the cost of a new bike off the motorist's insurance unless the motorist has proof the cyclist was culpable.

also, there has been much progress made in reducing insurance payouts recently too, it's kinda funny how this news doesn't get the same attention as the headline grabbing 'quarter of a million damages awarded for crotch injury suffered while truck surfing' ones.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/colossal-drop-in-personal-injury-awards-which-fall-by-42-after-new-guidelines-1.4850301

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955234#Comment_118955234

Sadly laws have to protect us all from people who might wish to do us harm. Including those who would risk themselves to cause harm to others.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955413#Comment_118955413

Well I'll pray for you that if a cyclist ever deliberately crashes into your truck head on at speed, that you survive to tell the tale of your ordeal

DoraDelite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955413#Comment_118955413

Risk themselves? They'd be killing themselves if they threw themselves in front of a HGV. Seriously, have a think about that.

JimmyVik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955234#Comment_118955234

Saw a lad pull a television in a pub down on top of himself once, one of those old huge crt tvs. He came over to myself and a friend after he did it and said "you two are witnesses. That telly fell on my head, did you see it". We said ok to get him to go away. Went to the owner on the way out and told him what we saw.

He didnt know this but we actually did see the whole thing through the gap between the seat back ant the glass partition from about 15 feet away. For a good 10 minutes we were looking at them wondering what they were at.

First the guy started feeling the shelf to see how strong it was. Then went over with his friend to sit at the table under it with their drinks. Gave it a few tugs til it was loose. Sat under it and then put 2 hands up and hung out of it like a monkey. Pulling it til it fell down on top of him. There was no blood, so he broke the glasses on the table then and cut his hand and wiped it all over himself. And the screams out of him. We told the owner if he needed witnesses to give up a call. Never heard anything back after that.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955478#Comment_118955478

Cool story bro.

JimmyVik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955499#Comment_118955499

People do the funniest things dont they?

Heres another good one.

They were causing injuries to each other on purpose in this one too.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/car-insurance-case-lifts-the-lid-on-a-litany-of-fraud-cases-1.3661709

I was going to get a few more for you, but sure they are so easy to find you can do it yourself.

If you think people are beyond injuring themselves for money in this country I think you might be on your own.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955528#Comment_118955528

Do you know what the word "cyclist" means? Can you find me a story with a cyclist?

I reckon I can pull a few up about cyclists getting run over and either killed or left handicapped by drivers. Will we have a competition on who can get the most stories maybe? You get the kamikaze cyclist ones and I'll get the ones ran over

magicbastarder

is there a general problem in this country with people using bikes to make false insurance claims? if so, i'd like to see some better evidence.

and i'll posit that there's not - it's easy to be involved in a car on car collision and walk away with no injuries except fake ones. it's much harder to stage a bike on car collision without actually running the risk of being hurt.

cletus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955555#Comment_118955555

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2832744/cyclist-fakes-hit-by-car-dashcam/

Yes it's the Sun, and yes it's a rag, but I couldn't find the YouTube link.

I'm neither for nor against such a rule until I see how it would work, but the video above is just for a bit of balance. People in all sorts of situations will try and game the system.

There are other videos I've seen, of both pedestrians and cyclists doing similar, but once they know there's a camera they jog on.

https://youtu.be/RNmQnrI3ut8

Now whether people will go to the extreme of actually deliberately being hit by a vehicle, I don't know, but (obviously anecdotally) I know someone who deliberately lost the tip of their finger in a mincing machine for a claim 🤷‍♂️

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955647#Comment_118955647

You must have a different version of the video which shows the cyclist deliberately crashing into a truck.

I saw a better one years ago in Dublin here a fella got off a bike and jumped onto the bonnet and some oul' wan in the car gave him awful abuse and laughed at him and told him they had a dashcam

Still, none of that has any relevance. Bring in the rule and then everyone can get their dashcam and be protected against any chancers. Presumption of liability against the driver. A presumption can be rebutted.

cletus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955685#Comment_118955685

I never mentioned a cyclist and a truck, and I also said I wasn't necessarily against such a rule, but people are acting like others don't currently try to game the system, and this rule would be no different.

I've seen the video you're talking about too, couldn't find it with a quick search, and I'm on my holiers with the family, so I'm off for some lunch, and probably a daytime beer

Donald Trump

Well I'll see your irrelevant videos and raise you this one

https://www.sundayworld.com/news/irish-news/td-shares-video-of-him-being-hit-on-his-bike-after-dpp-refuses-to-prosecute-driver-41530173.html

Do you think the driver had the right of way there?

cletus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955728#Comment_118955728

How are they irrelevant. They are literally people, on bicycles, pretending to by hit by vehicles, presumably for some monetary gain.

The posts above mine (mb's as an example) asked if this was a thing that happened. I can't comment on the frequency, but it obviously does happen

magicbastarder

it clearly does happen to some extent, but that's why i asked was it a 'general problem' - it's possible those reports are in the news precisely because they're exceptional (and clear) - someone brake testing another driver in a car would not make it into the news because that's much more common

This was the one of the taxi that was mentioned, what a clown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32KfIFpQJLQ

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955454#Comment_118955454

Didn’t think I’d have to spell things out so simply to be understood but here we are.

I am on a bicycle.

I see a person I hate turning his truck.

I cycle carefully towards him at a difficult point in his manoeuvre, colliding with his truck. Throwing myself clear of danger onto the ground.

The new rule being discussed in this thread would make the truck driver liable for this accident automatically.

I believe this is not a good thing.

I believe laws need to protect us from these gougers who wish to fake accidents, not make it easier for them.

cletus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955861#Comment_118955861

You could be absolutely right, mb, but if there's a conversation being had, it might as well be an honest one, and pretending that people on bicycles somehow are the only ones who don't try take advantage of stuff like this is not being honest (not that I'm suggesting this is what you are doing)

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956015#Comment_118956015

Your argument is a load of bollix. A scammer doesn't need a bike to try to scam you in a manufactured accident. They can just as easily throw themselves onto your bonnet as they are innocently walking across a pedestrian crossing and claim you hit them.

As one of the links the other person gave above, the lads organised for an accident when they were in a car. No bike involved at all.

Get yourself a dashcam and you'll be protected against scammers. Nobody is suggesting that a fake claim, which is clearly shown to be fake, should succeed. It might however make drivers a little less aggressive and a bit more aware of their surroundings were they to know that they would be presumed liable should the act the bollix around vulnerable road users.

What do you think about the video of the Galway TD? Do you think the driver had the right of way there to run across the cyclist? All good?

magicbastarder

I am on a bicycle.

I see a person I hate turning his truck.

you really need to come up with better scenarios. 'i am going to have at that bounder by *checks notes* cycling my bicycle under his truck!'

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956194#Comment_118956194

If he really wants to get a big claim, sure he could put on his jogging gear and throw himself under it and say he was hit while out jogging. He wouldn't even need to invest in a bike.

That'd learn that bleedin' truck driver fairly lively

We all know someone (or know someone who knows someone) who was ripped off after being involved in a gentle tip where the other person got whiplash. It's hardly the case that the current system prevents it now is it?

cletus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956160#Comment_118956160

I don't think a scammer needs a bike to do this. I was just pointing out that it does happen with bikes too.

I'm not saying it should succeed, I'm not saying the rule shouldn't be put in place.

If we're having an informed discussion, then you need to look at all aspects of that discussion, even if it's only so you can subsequently dismiss stuff as unimportant, or irrelevant.

If we just say that this stuff doesn't happen, you're burying your head in the sand.

As regards my argument being a load of bollix, I don't believe I put forward an argument at all, rather I pointed out that a thing happens.

The driver who knocked down Ciaran Cannon was in the wrong, but it has little to do with the point I made.

I've not seen you around the cycling forum much, Donald, but I remember your posts from the mma forum, and from PM's we exchanged. I'd like to think I engage in discussion on boards here in an open and upfront manner

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956211#Comment_118956211

Cyclists need to be protected as they are vulnerable. That is the main concern and would be the overriding one for me. Any loose ends which are left after taking care of that can be tied up via other means. If the insurers are worried about scams, they can give discounts for dash cams. Dash cams are very cheap now. The sooner that they become standard the better.

Is there a day when you are driving when you can say that you didn't see some other driver doing something stupid or aggressive or dangerous? The sooner that everyone has a dash cam, the better. Not just for cyclists. Because when they know they will be caught, it might lead them to think twice

The driver in Cannon's case should have been presumed to be in the wrong from the start. The burden would be on him to rebut that presumption. He is the one driving the few tonnes of metal and glass so he has a responsibility to vulnerable users he shares the road with. But it looks like he just got away with it. Because we currently start from the position that he was not at fault and you have to prove that he was.

A scammer is still going to scam you. They'll just modify their approach.

magicbastarder

in cannon's case, i suspect it's open and shut (from an insurance point of view) unless the driver lied, as he pulled across in front of cannon's path.

cletus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956236#Comment_118956236

I'm not arguing against anything you're saying here (except mandatory dash cams. Mandatory anything automatically gets my back up)

I don't know if the rule would be good or not. I haven't seen the text of it yet.

The discussion had moved somewhat in the direction of people scamming the system using bikes. There was a suggestion that this couldn't or wouldn't happen. I offered some videos for balance.

JimmyVik

This all startted when Donald said people wouldnt try it on. Its been shown to him numerous times that he is incorrect.

But Donald is never wrong. never.

So just let him on.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956772#Comment_118956772

Well Jimmy, you haven't shown any instances of cyclists deliberately crashing into trucks. So I'm afraid your assertions are incorrect.

If this rule was brought it, it wouldn't affect scammers trying to set you up, so if that is genuinely your concern then it won't affect you versus the situation today.

Where it would be of concern would be for a careless or aggressive driver. So perhaps you fall into that category. There are driving schools and driving courses that you could take to help assuage your fears.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956264#Comment_118956264

One would assume that that is the case. At least there was CCTV