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

Cyclists breaking lights!!

Options
1…212223242527»

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    OK so take a hypothetical situation.

    Johny has a communion party, Johny's mom hires a bouncy castle, Johny's friend Mary uses the castle falls off and breaks her arm or in the quoted case worse, who's liable? who pays?

    As in the UK ( luckily covered by the householders insurance )
    http://www.injury-compensation.ie/injurynews/category/bouncy-castle-injury-claim/


    Wasn't that overturned on appeal?


  • Options
    #783
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Wasn't that overturned on appeal?

    Dunno if it was it didn't come up on the search


  • Options
    #784
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Dunno if it was it didn't come up on the search


    http://www.sjol.co.uk/issue-5/perry-v-harris


  • Options
    #785
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Plus the usual rhetoric from yourself, way to contribute to a thread as usual :)

    Meh, you're the first one to jump in feet first with stats and figures from everywhere in the world, apart from Ireland.

    And you're a great man for whataboutery, the NYC incident a case in point.


  • Options
    #786
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    CramCycle wrote: »
    So what happens when the claims start accruing for some people? so the likes of Zurich start increasing that persons policy charge. Could we effectively insure people off the streets.

    Or as you say above, everyone has public liability so bouncers don't stop people dancing barefoot on the dance floors, or people on the roads give less of a **** because they are insured. Do you not think our A&Es are crowded enough. The cost goes up, the ability to pay goes down, we all end up never leaving the house.

    I see a distopian novel, or short story at least here. The masses barely leave the house, while the rich flaunt it by spending their time driving into one an other.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I've shown that the AVERAGE payout for liability is €22,000
    What you've shown is that the average personal injury payout is €22k, and more than 82% of them occur in inherently riskier scenarios (driving and/or at work) and are already covered by mandatory insurance.

    All we know is that the volume of personal liability claims is statistically tiny.


  • Options
    #788
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Meh, you're the first one to jump in feet first with stats and figures from everywhere in the world, apart from Ireland.

    And you're a great man for whataboutery, the NYC incident a case in point.

    I didn't bring up NY at all, but as when people bring other things to a thread I reserve the right to respond and or comment.

    As to your comment about jump in feet first, if a search under the terms Bouncy castle liability awarded doesn't bring up that an award was later rescinded until the 6th item then it's not always easy to spot it


  • Options
    #789
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I didn't bring up NY at all, but as when people bring other things to a thread I reserve the right to respond and or comment.

    As to your comment about jump in feet first, if a search under the terms Bouncy castle liability awarded doesn't bring up that an award was later rescinded then it's rather difficult to know about it


    It's actually quite easy. The link I posted was one of the first to appear on my search. Or you could just type the case name. Or read what you come across and it will tell you.


  • Options
    #790
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    As to your comment about jump in feet first, if a search under the terms Bouncy castle liability awarded doesn't bring up that an award was later rescinded until the 6th item then it's not always easy to spot it

    Sorry, my mistake. I thought this thread was about cyclists, not inflatable amusements for kids.


  • Options
    #791
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It's actually quite easy. The link I posted was one of the first to appear on my search. Or you could just type the case name. Or read what you come across and it will tell you.

    Reading the link I posted doesn't tell you about it, sorry if I'm not psychic enough for you, but even under my original search parameters it's a Guardian newspaper report that appears as the 1st to say it was overturned


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Sorry, my mistake. I thought this thread was about cyclists, not inflatable amusements for kids.

    No the thread is/was about cyclists not stopping after causing damage to another vehicle, we are now discussing the whys and wherefores of personal liability insurance, especially in relation to the general public, including cyclists and pedestrians, however don't let that stop you from not reading and contributing to a thread


  • Options
    #793
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Reading the link I posted doesn't tell you about it, sorry if I'm not psychic enough for you, but even under my original search parameters it's a Guardian newspaper report that appears as the 1st to say it was overturned

    Nobody is asking you to be psychic, just check your facts before you post. It's not very difficult and you dont need to be so defensive when a mistake is pointed out to you. I am unsure what the significance is of your Guardian reference.


  • Options
    #794
    eamonnq
    Registered Users Posts: 4,009 ✭✭✭eamonnq


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No the thread is/was about cyclists not stopping after causing damage to another vehicle, we are now discussing the whys and wherefores of personal liability insurance, especially in relation to the general public, including cyclists and pedestrians, however don't let that stop you from not reading and contributing to a thread

    No this thread was about ONE cyclist crashing into ONE car.

    Unfortunately the OP said " I am sick of cyclistS everyday breaking lights...

    and the first reply to the thread was " Driver's break red lights too... "

    After that the usual thread about these things began and here we are ................


  • Options
    #795
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Nobody is asking you to be psychic, just check your facts before you post. It's not very difficult and you dont need to be so defensive when a mistake is pointed out to you. I am unsure what the significance is of your Guardian reference.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It's actually quite easy. The link I posted was one of the first to appear on my search. Or you could just type the case name. Or read what you come across and it will tell you.

    Perhaps I wouldn't need to feel so defensive if you read the link that I posted instead of claiming that I needed to read it or maybe if you even acknowledged that your search parameters weren't the same as mine and so yielded different results, my results gave the Guardian Newspaper as the first result stating it was overturned


  • Options
    #796
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    eamonnq wrote: »
    No this thread was about ONE cyclist crashing into ONE car.

    Unfortunately the OP said " I am sick of cyclistS everyday breaking lights...

    and the first reply to the thread was " Driver's break red lights too... "

    After that the usual thread about these things began and here we are ................

    And as is the way of internet threads and discussions it's evolved and moved on, perhaps you feel we should have a separate thread about every different aspect?


  • Options
    #797
    eamonnq
    Registered Users Posts: 4,009 ✭✭✭eamonnq


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    And as is the way of internet threads and discussions it's evolved and moved on, perhaps you feel we should have a separate thread about every different aspect?

    No, but I think we have had this thread over and over.

    Cyclists = good / Drivers = bad or Cyclists = bad / Drivers = good

    depending on your point of view.


  • Options
    #798
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,503 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    eamonnq wrote: »
    No, but I think we have had this thread over and over.

    Cyclists = good / Drivers = bad or Cyclists = bad / Drivers = good

    depending on your point of view.

    Whereas in reality it is:

    % of people = assh*ts
    remaining % of people = not assh*ts

    Unfortunately our brains tend to bias us in to remembering a subset of the first group that cause us the most inconvenience. In reality this subset is not huge and in reality everyone in that subset probably does not affect you personally but they are the ones your mind remembers even if you do not deal with all of them directly.

    For example, I tend to remember cyclists and cars that run reds for two reasons while cycling, the first group because they tend to bias alot of people against cyclists which include me as a member, the second because they cause traffic jams and are a significant perceived danger to myself and other road users and I don't want to end up dead or witness someone else getting hit. When I am driving I remember the same groups for similar reasons, the cyclists as I worry that no matter how observant I am I will accidentally kill one (no concern about damage to my car, its a car, it will survive) and motorised traffic as they cause unnecessary traffic jams and breed stupidity as other drivers get more frustrated and begin to act idiotically themselves.


  • Options
    #799
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So which is it then, a high cost low use item as Rainy Day seems to think or a low cost never tend to be used item as Cajonlardo reckons.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I don't really care what either of you reckon, it's just an observation that one of you reckons it's cheap and the other that it's not.

    Sorry, but where did I say it was 'high cost'? Regardless, I'm not sure why you're taking the 'aha' attitude to an apparent difference of opinion between two cyclists. Cyclists don't agree on everything. We don't have meetings to come up with an agreed party line to get at the nasty motorists. We're just people who choose a particular mode of transport some of the time, so it's not really surprising that some cyclists have different opinions.

    SeanW wrote: »
    I've tried that - discussing common sense, mutually inclusive, people based transportation policy with some cyclists. From those particular conversations, I've come to believe that this is like trying to debate the relative merits of Karaite vs. Rabbinic Judaism with a Nazi high on crack.


    So you're definitely not trying to debate based on facts then?


  • Options
    #800
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    You mean like
    http://www.herald.ie/news/councillors-sister-has-hip-surgeryafter-smash-30264875.html
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Exactly the case I've put over before, JUST because it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it isn't happening, if the old dear hadn't been a relative of a councillor there would be zero evidence on line of it happening

    There is zero evidence in that Herald report. WHat you have is a one-sided unverified report. That's not evidence.


  • Options
    #801
    eamonnq
    Registered Users Posts: 4,009 ✭✭✭eamonnq


    Oh my jaysus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Perhaps I wouldn't need to feel so defensive if you read the link that I posted instead of claiming that I needed to read it or maybe if you even acknowledged that your search parameters weren't the same as mine and so yielded different results, my results gave the Guardian Newspaper as the first result stating it was overturned

    Ok. I think you can let it rest now though and resume normal discussion :)

    One of the reasons given for OT'ing was that the standard of care that had been imposed on the mother was too high. I think she had turned her back to tend to a younger child when the incident occured, and she coudlnt have foreseen what happened as a likely occurence. It's basically just endorsing a common sense approach and I think it's a good one. So often now when things happen we automatically look for someone to blame, someone to take to the cleaners. We forget that sometimes accidents happen and that's just tough. The idea that we should all have insurance to cover every eventuality is absurd. We cannot possibly foresee every single consequence of our actions. I think cyclists should maybe have some form of insurance to cover them in accidents - they are road users after all, but how would that ever be enforced?


Advertisement