Would you support an assumed liability rule in Ireland?

Have a read back. You'll see I specified cyclists and trucks from the start.

Maybe learn to take a minute to read before going off on a rant the next time

In effect where vulnerable road users take a claim against a motorist they are often pushing an open door due to the financial risk imbalance if it goes to hearing; this is particularly the case if the vulnerable road user isn't a mark i.e. of any means.

The best outcome for an insurance company in such a claim is if they win it, they still incur there own costs. Winning will be hard where all the loss is on one side (cyclist injuries, loss of earning etc) against a wing mirror or whatever. Judges are slow typically to throw out such cases without pretty damning independent evidence which is rare enough.

Some level of assumed liability could assist in changing the mindset of drivers around vulnerable roads users; particularly in car parks, housing estates, high density urban settings and reginal type high traffic roads.

As for Cannon the Galway TD he was overtaking on left hand side in the middle of a less than 2m channel, travelling significantly faster than traffic which left him super vulnerable to a right turning vehicle who couldn't see him until the front of his vehicle had crossed his path (driving position is circa 1.5-1.8m from front bumper). If you are a vulnerable road user cycling where there is no infrastructure and low cyclist numbers (like Galway) then from a risk reduction perspective slow down, observe more, learn from experience of slow traffic stopping and allowing vehicles to cross.

Had his case ran in criminal court what honest answer could he give to "do you think your cycling was in compliance with John Franklin's cycle craft or any other safety guidance? Did you see the brakes lights? You cycled here every week did you not realise there was a junction/entrance there? Did you realise who were almost blind to the Accused cycling within 1m of near side of traffic? Best of luck with a prosecution after he answers those honestly.

He'll get paid in a civil court all day, with some level of small haircut I would think.

As for scammers they won't need this law to get going. Over the years I seen a lot of fraud involving road "accidents"; every one of them has involved two cars without a sign of a vulnerable road user. Very few really commit to crashing with any speed for fear of actually getting hurt. That instinct will even more limit fraud with vulnerable road user assumed liability law. Successful frauds are harder than you think to get right and I only got to see the ones that fu(ked up one way or other.

I think what would be proposed is a presumtion of liability. That just puts the burden on the driver to prove they were not at fault. It does not mean that they will be found "guilty" (for want of a better word) regardless of the circumstances.

The cyclist is a vulnerable user. The driver bears responsiblity towards other users so the presumption is fair.

A driver as a vehicle has very little to lose, and for some that equates with not giving a sh1t. As it stands, the driver also has the option to try to bare-faced lie themselves out of liability which also acts as a disincentive to take greater care. See the video below for an example of a driver who loses their sh1t after running into someone and tries to scream that he crashed into her car. No doubt, had she run over a cyclist, she would have done the same. Except the cyclist would be paraplegic or dead. But she might have gotten away with it.

No you didnt.

I fully expect you now to pull up a comment you made from the middle of the conversation and pretend that was what you specified.

You are well capable of understanding that there are cyclists who manufacture road accidents for claims.

You are just a troll and you will just keep going so you are best ignored from here on out.

The answer imo is mandatory dashcams on all motorised vehicles on our roads. They would pick up everything from dangerous driving to accidents.

I don't think so, it might record what's happening in front of you. But not some asshole of a cyclist, with headphones firmly plugged in, who whizzes up on your left side, hits a stone or gully and falls into your car. For the record, I have been that cyclist many times cutting up on the inside of a line of cars moving slowly etc but I'd know the risk and be watching carefully, take responsibility etc

Any news on when we’re going to provide the “red light means stop “ training for drivers?

Maybe we could cover obeying the speed limit and putting your phone away while driving in the training too?

What’s the difference between licensing and test with completion certificate?

The idea that operating a 15 kg bike doing 20-30 kmph needs to be “on the same level” as operating a 4 tonne SUV doing 20-150 kmph is slightly flawed.