Uninvited user of a motor bike - uninsured?

worded

If a person sits on your bike and say the bike falls over while they mount
/ dismount - is the owner of the motor bike liable for injury?

Similarly - if someone burns them selves on an exhaust - without getting on the bike - owner liable?

Neither happened me but a kid nearly burned himself on the exhaust recently.

Idleater

worded wrote: »

Similarly - if someone burns them selves on an exhaust - without getting on the bike - owner liable?

LOL!

I've seen that one before, especially with small children who seem attracted to shiny stock exhausts, which do get quite hot.

As for what happens and who is responsible, I've no idea. Can you sue a bottle company if you fall onto a piece of broken glass on the street?

I was down in Kinsale last year on a nice sunny day, parked up the bike went and went across the street to use an ATM. I came back a moment later to find some total stranger sitting on my bike with his son gawking at him.
As he noticed me standing there, he hurriedly got off and whichever way he had his leg positioned nearly burned his leg on the exhaust (he was wearing shorts). He tried to complain about it but I just told him he had no right to be sitting on the bike that he should f**k off. Problem sorted.

worded

I had a skanger on mine last week and two mates near him.
They just got turfed from a Spar for lifting and decided to check my bike out.

A fight almost ensued (and not for the first time) and Im tiring of it as the bike is a magnet sometimes for a holes.

Im just wondering if he took a dive could I be held responsible, its unlikely, but
it is Ireland after all where cyclists are automatically in the right if hit etc etc.

I think I will get a eject seat fitted.

Idleater

worded wrote: »

but
it is Ireland after all where cyclists are automatically in the right if hit etc etc.

Whoa there, completely different story there, that is rules of the road where the vulnerable are protected by law, which I have no problem with.

That's beside the point, and yes, an ejector seat would probably solve your problems.

Oryx

We usually are fine about people sitting on bikes, we sell em, after all. But once when a guy and his kid were tyre kicking, sitting on bikes, and generally being extremely rude, one of the staff here went out, sat in the mans car and started twiddling switches. I thought it was brilliant.:D

As for the query, I have no idea who is liable. Never did get anyone to cough up when they let a bike fall here tho.

The Doktor

I dont normally commute on my bike (I dont commute at all!). So I rarely am leaving it parked out of sight for any long periods. But over the last couple of months I have been using it a good bit to go to a course, and leaving it out of sight most of day. So I had it parked as far out of the way as I could.
However each time I would come out (smoke, lunch etc) the alarm had been set of by someone at it. Also the switches had all been messed with. And someone had even moved the GPS mount around which isnt easy to do!

Now Im very fussy about my bike, have it cleaned and polished and hate scratches in paint work etc. If a scratch happens, I want to be the one that did it!
So.. the final week on the course, I put a sticker on the dash, which said...
"I dont mind if you f*** with my bike, if you dont mind me f****** with your wife"
No one touched the bike all week:D

murphaph

KtK wrote: »

We usually are fine about people sitting on bikes, we sell em, after all. But once when a guy and his kid were tyre kicking, sitting on bikes, and generally being extremely rude, one of the staff here went out, sat in the mans car and started twiddling switches. I thought it was brilliant.:D

Class!

I'd say the bike owner would be liable sadly. Sure you even need insurance for trailers parked in public places.

mikemac

murphaph wrote: »

I'd say the bike owner would be liable sadly. Sure you even need insurance for trailers parked in public places.

What?
Some if little Johnnie climbs on the bike and falls off and breaks his arm, the bike owner is liable? :eek:
But at the same time if little Johnnie pushes the bike over causing damage, the biker is still liable? :eek::eek:

I used to park my bike outside my gym in the motorcycle area and there is a pub next door. So you'd often have the smokers messing and flicking switches.
Was outside one day and a biker came over to some lad messing on his bike.

Biker: What are playing at?
Messer ignores him.
Biker: Is your car parked around here?
Messer: Yeah sure, it's right there but I'm thinking of getting a bike.

The biker proceeds to sit on his bonnet and bounce up and down on it.
Respect! :cool:

Hotblack Desiato

The Doktor wrote: »

So.. the final week on the course, I put a sticker on the dash, which said...
"I dont mind if you f*** with my bike, if you dont mind me f****** with your wife"
No one touched the bike all week:D

Friend of mine wants to get one made up... "You may run your fingers over my bike... if I may run my bike over your fingers"

What we get is typical of both the lack of respect shown in this country to other people's property in general, and the bad attitude most people have towards motorcyclists in particular.

"It's only a bike" :mad:

Esel

I saw an incident once where some kid tried to climb onto a bike parked on sidestand by stepping on the rhs footpeg. Bike went upright when weight was applied to footpeg, sidestand retracted, bike falls over on left side!

Luckily there was very little damage.

XJR

worded wrote: »

If a person sits on your bike and say the bike falls over while they mount
/ dismount - is the owner of the motor bike liable for injury?

Similarly - if someone burns them selves on an exhaust - without getting on the bike - owner liable?

Your first question is not really who is liable but who will pay and that may be different. In the first instance clearly the person who knocked the bike over is liable, however they may not pay - you could try taking them to court but that's another story. If you have comprehensive cover then your insurance company may pay but then again they may not.

In the second instance you as the bike owner are liable under the third party section of your cover.

worded

Well if I can be claimed against for a hot exhaust burn (to an uninvited stranger) on a motor bike, equally someone could grab a car exhaust and do like wise.

Better not let too many people know that!

Kat1170

Originally Posted by worded ......................... but it is Ireland after all where cyclists are automatically in the right if hit etc etc.

Originally posted by Nereid .................. Whoa there, completely different story there, that is rules of the road where the vulnerable are protected by law, which I have no problem with

Well you better hope the day never comes when some eejit decides to cycle out in front of you without looking:mad:, because as you lie there on the road knowing full well that it was not your fault, there is feck all you can do because you hit a ''POOR HELPLESS CYCLIST'' with your nasty motorcycle:rolleyes:. That is the day you will have a problem with the idea of taking the burden of responsibility away from the individual.

worded

Its madness that a cyclist is automatically in the right 100% of the time.
Vulnerable - yes.
In the right 100% of the time? No way.

I cycle myself, Im not being anti cyclist, I just think its not right the way insurance and the law is.

worded

Insurance claim in UK.
Three people darted across the road without looking when they
spotted a taxi. Two were sent across a passing cars bonnet as that driver had no time to react.

In court they were ordered to pay the motorist panel beating bill.
A holes.

What would happen here?

Lastly for tonight .......
I saw an idiot lying spread eagle at the side of the road (jay walker) no where near a pedestrian crossing and a biker beside dismounted while they awaited an ambulance a few weeks ago.
He was a claimer for sure with a big beer belly most likely pissed and stepped off the foot path to get to the nearest chipper across the road. He really looked like he was foxing.
Biker in the wrong as usual.

Vulnerable jay walking pedestrian?

I work hard for my money – some never will.

Hotblack Desiato

worded wrote: »

Its madness that a cyclist is automatically in the right 100% of the time.

It's not true that cyclists are 100% in the right all the time. But you know what they say, it's a waste of money sueing anyone who isn't insured.

Taking a case against them for damages is often a waste of time (assuming they don't just scarper befor the guards arrive.) I know two bikers who crashed because of crazy things cyclists did, one changing lane without looking the other straight through a red light, cyclist got away scot free in both cases (one junkie, one 'peniless student' yeah right.) Both bikers left nursing four-figure damage to their machine :mad:

In any accident with a cyclist or pedestrian you'd have a hard job proving in court that you were 100% innocent, but it is possible.

Idleater

Kat1170 wrote: »

Well you better hope the day never comes when some eejit decides to cycle out in front of you without looking:mad:, because as you lie there on the road knowing full well that it was not your fault, there is feck all you can do because you hit a ''POOR HELPLESS CYCLIST'' with your nasty motorcycle:rolleyes:. That is the day you will have a problem with the idea of taking the burden of responsibility away from the individual.

Au Contraire,

I should be driving according to the conditions, which include being able to react sufficiently to hazzards.

For starters, driving so close to a cyclist that "enables" them to get run over by swerving in front of me, is asking for trouble, so should be avoided.

Secondly, there is as much a chance that someone driving a car pulls out from a side road into my path than there is of a cyclist doing the same.

Thirdly, if you are eg filtering and someone (pedestrian or cyclist) crosses in front of you and you hit them, then again you were driving too fast to be able to stop in the space to see free.

L.

Hotblack Desiato

I'd have to disagree nereid, it's just not possible to always avoid a collision no matter how stupid the other person is.
E.g. pedestrian steps out from behind stopped lorry, cyclist filtering to the left of a van does a "TRON" style lane change and flits out into your path. Both without looking, both you would have no possible way of knowing they are there before they hop out right in front of you. Even if you went everywhere at walking pace you couldn't guarantee not hitting them, it's all down to how close they are to you when they pop out into your path. Even at 2mph you have a reaction time and a braking distance, if they are closer to you than that they are going to get hit, end of story.

Kat1170

Orig. posted by Nereid ......... I should be driving according to the conditions, which include being able to react sufficiently to hazzards.

Emm, Could you please explain how you will see the fool dressed completely in black, no lights, cycling on an unlit country road, at night. Because they do, and if (God forbid), you hit him I would like to be there to hear you say ''please claim off my insurance, sure it was my fault all along, you poor misunderstood, harmless, BLAMELESS cyclist.'' Yeah Right.

For starters, driving so close to a cyclist that "enables" them to get run over by swerving in front of me, is asking for trouble, so should be avoided.

What about the fool that shoots out between two parked vehicles at 50kph (not all cycle at walking pace I can assure you) and hits YOU, while you are travelling at 30kph in traffic. Unlikely you might say. Still possible though. Should they have Carte Blanche to sue you just because they are on a bicycle? I think not.

Secondly, there is as much a chance that someone driving a car pulls out from a side road into my path than there is of a cyclist doing the same.

But at least you can claim from the motorist if they are in the wrong. The cyclist can claim from you no matter what.

Idleater

Kat1170 wrote: »

But at least you can claim from the motorist if they are in the wrong. The cyclist can claim from you no matter what.

Don't get me wrong, it sucks badly, however, no matter how much we moan at the moment, it doesn't change the fact that we are in the wrong regardless.

I am clearly outlining my point of view that in order to minimise the chances of an incident driving carefully and observantly is key. I would much rather hit someone at 10kmph and be able to give them a bollocking and perhaps a Civil court case if it could be clearly established that there was some proportion of blame.

This is something that you are forgetting. Yes, the initial accident puts the vehicle at fault, however, there is a clear duty on the cyclist or pedestrian not to leave the scene of an accident, and you will have all their details in which to pursue them in a civil case.

I have heard from garda friends of these cases being settled 60/40.

seamus

As ninja points out, it's not so much that the law sides with cyclists and pedestrians, it's that the courts will usually rule against the party who is obliged to be insured. If a pedestrian or cyclist gets hit by you and ends up broken and burned, then the courts take the attitude that if your insurance can cover it, then it should. It pisses all over the notion of consequence and personal responsibility, in favour of the "greater good". They won't always rule in favour of the ped or cyclists unless there is serious damage to either. A few cuts and bruises or a broken arm and they may tell you both to go your separate ways.
Of course, this ignores that you yourself may be broken, burned, machineless and penniless because you only had 3rd party insurance. You would have a very tough time extracting your losses from a ped or a cyclist :rolleyes:

If you attempted to bring a civil case, the courts are likely to take nereid's point of view - that if you were driving with due care for the conditions, you could have taken appropriate evasive action. Theoretically it's true, though to avoid some accidents would require superhuman reflexes and eyes on the back of your head. This doesn't remove all liability from the other party, but is often used as an argument to settle it as 50/50 or 60/40 or whatever.