Would you support an assumed liability rule in Ireland?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Oh so now you specify "cyclists" and "trucks" after so many people posted all sorts of incidents above.

Pretty sure if someone showed you a cyclist crashing into a truck you would ask for a cyclist crashing into a lear jet next.

Stop with the trolling.

I'd totally support it as long as a basic "rules of the road" training is required to be completed to cycle on the roads. Red light means stop etc, you know the basics.

Anyone who wants to cycle on the roads - I think it's a fair ask if you want to place automatic liability on a motorist. Not asking for licensing or anything like that, simply a test with a completion certificate. That way everyone is on the same level when it comes to what to do and what not to do on the road.

I think it would also be fair for every motorists to attend and pass an annual workshop on basic understanding of the effect of alcohol and drugs on driving, and to educate them on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. And also a refresher course every year on how speed limits work and why they are important.

Am I doing it right?

Yeah you're doing it right, I'd agree. I don't want to share the road with assholes who can't use it safely, cyclist or otherwise so no arguement there.

As someone who drives, cycles and walks - I've seen feckless drivers & feckless cyclists. Both are a liability for pedestrians and to themselves.

The idea that the courts would assume automatic liability if a cyclist is involved in an accident with a vehicle is just plain stupid. There's drivers shouldn't be allowed on the public road but equally there are cyclists who should never be let near a bike.

I think the principle behind it is you create a safer environment for all vulnerable road users (by forcing motorised traffic to be super vigilant) at the cost of being unfair to a very small number of motorists.

A pretty classic greater good law.

Focusing on a particular case is to look at the downside only when the upside is all the cyclist/pedestrians/children who will never know it has kept them out of the hospital/morgue.

Oh. let's have a look.

Here is my first post on the thread

You might notice it actually mentions cyclists. Granted, juggernaut is a big word that you might not know, but if you google it's definition (do you know how to use Google?), then you will see that it says

Let's now have a look at my second post on the thread:

Whoops. Looks like that also mentioned cyclists AND used the word truck explicitly. So you can't blame ignorance of big words for that one.

No worries. I'll make allowances for your inability to read for this time. And if you make a nice apology, I'll try to accept it graciously.

Well your camera will show you were moving slowly at the time of impact and also show you didn't pass a cyclist.

There is no need to be making up silly hypothetical scenarios to get excuses in first for being a bad driver.

Where the camera might backfire is where the next traffic light is 20m ahead and you want to sit there for 35 seconds instead of 34 seconds so you figure that if you swerve over into the cycle lane you'll probably be able to squeeze by that cyclist ahead with a half inch to spare. Maybe. Sure lets go for it.

What I would like to see is more serious consequences for fraudulent claims.

It seems to me that the worst thing that can happen is your case being thrown out and better luck next time.

You read the most ludicrous cases, like that IT article about Mr. Smaleckas and think where are the consequences? Fraud is actually a crime in some countries, doesn't that also apply in Ireland?

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.

And you know exactly that had his claim been proven to be bogus, nothing whatsoever would have happened to him. It's just a matter of "keep trying it on, worst that can happen I get no money this time". Sick.

We could - I could also tell you about many occasions I nearly flipped a cyclist over the roof because he felt entitled to break a red light at a junction I had right of way on. Think we can all agree that everyone using the road needs to know how to use it safely but don't try get one up with random videos because cyclists as a whole are not saints either - lot of them on the road who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a bike.

Sorry but red means stop - it doesn't mean "interpret the danger to yourself and keep going" it means stop where you **** are. Its attitudes like that which is exactly why cyclists should be required to learn the rules of the road, a fuckin law on to themselves

Can we take it that you NEVER break a speed limit?

Do you always and with no exception obey the speed limit? And have always done since obtaining your license?

We need to know this before accepting any further input from you.