Dangerous cycling

Tim Robbins

Hi,
Can anyway tell me what law dangerous cycling would come under?

My wife was knocked over my a cyclist. She split her head open. We were told by gardai that they couldn't really do anything as it was a cyclist not a car that it would only be covered by civil law.

Can anyone explain?

Thanks

seamus

I suppose it would really depend on the nature of the incident. Same as if someone came running down the road and bumped into your wife couldn't be done for "dangerous running", but could be sued in a civil action.
I don't know if an equivalent charge to "driving without due care and attention" exists for cyclists. At best you could show that a road traffic law was broken by the cyclist (if that's the case).

WicklowRacer

If the cyclist was participating in a Cycling Ireland event at the time, then they should be covered by the CI insurance policy.

If not, I don't know.

Is the cyclist disputing liability ?

Tim Robbins

WicklowRacer wrote: »

If the cyclist was participating in a Cycling Ireland event at the time, then they should be covered by the CI insurance policy.

If not, I don't know.

Is the cyclist disputing liability ?

The cyclist was cycling the wrong way down a one way street, knocked her over and then asked her was she ok, she said she was pregnant, had blood comign out of her head and he cycled off.

artvandulet

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The cyclist was cycling the wrong way down a one way street, knocked her over and then asked her was she ok, she said she was pregnant, had blood comign out of her head and he cycled off.

Thats crazy!

I see this all the time - cyclists going the wrong way around Stephens Green or other one way systems. They constantly ignore traffic lights too. Drives me mad. I know of someone who was knocked down on lower baggot st. by a courier cyclist who was cycling the wrong way up the one way street.

biko

Not sure whether this applies in Ireland too, from 2008 UK

A traffic-dodging dash the wrong way up a one-way street may be the tempting risk for many a frustrated cyclist. But it will no longer be against the law under an experiment designed to encourage more people to switch from four wheels to two.

The change – which will simply legitimise what many cyclists, including David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, do already – will be welcomed by thousands of law-abiding riders who have to take long diversions around one-way systems.

Motorists, however, might be taken by surprise after failing to spot new signs at entry points and could find themselves being held liable for a collision with a bicycle.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/news/article4061323.ece

seamus

Classy guy just leaving her there. Magnus, that doesn't apply here.

Having had a brief look at some of the regulations, it all seems a little ambiguous. The regulations governing the control of traffic - i.e. those which say that "you cannot drive a vehicle the wrong way down a one-way street" - specifically defines "vehicle" to include a pedal cycle, as well as a mechanically propelled vehicle. So the cyclist is guilty of that offence at the very least.

However, the RTA, which mentions the offence of dangerous driving, does not include a definition for "vehicle". It does however use the term "mechanically propelled vehicle", separately to just the word "vehicle".

However that may have been tested before and a judge may have already decided that the RTA's definition of "vehicle" does not include a pedal cycle. This is where it gets messy, because that kind of info is not Googleable

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

Classy guy just leaving her there. Magnus, that doesn't apply here.

Having had a brief look at some of the regulations, it all seems a little ambiguous. The regulations governing the control of traffic - i.e. those which say that "you cannot drive a vehicle the wrong way down a one-way street" - specifically defines "vehicle" to include a pedal cycle, as well as a mechanically propelled vehicle. So the cyclist is guilty of that offence at the very least.

However, the RTA, which mentions the offence of dangerous driving, does not include a definition for "vehicle". It does however use the term "mechanically propelled vehicle", separately to just the word "vehicle".

However that may have been tested before and a judge may have already decided that the RTA's definition of "vehicle" does not include a pedal cycle. This is where it gets messy, because that kind of info is not Googleable

I don't think it's covered, but it's something the greens should have sorted out before the made it easier for dangerous couriers and other cycling head bangers to get flash new bikes.

seamus

Well the issue here is that if you're going to be imposing criminal convictions on people for their use of bikes, then you're going to have to start training, testing and licening them. How do you licence a child to ride a bicycle?

Simply enforcing the existing laws would be more effective than setting up a massively complicated and costly system for regulating low-risk and relatively inoffensive travel types. The existing regulations more than cover what is necessary to control bicycles.

Our man in Havana

Problem here is that cyclists don't need insurance so suing someone is unlikely to yield any sucess in recovering damages.
Cyclists should have to have 3rd party insurance.

seamus

Again, what about children? If someone had to apy €40/year so that little Jimmy is allowed potter around the cul-de-sac on his trike, you'll find that pretty soon nobody will be cycling, or learning to cycle.

They do need a comprehensive study on it - i.e. how many people are injured in collisions with bicycles where the bicycle is at fault, how much damage was caused, etc. I'd be fairly confident that the figures are so low that you could set up a fund from the exchequer which would only need to cover (at most) a couple of hundred K in costs. Add a 0.1% levy on bike equipment at the point of import and you're laughing.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

Again, what about children? If someone had to apy €40/year so that little Jimmy is allowed potter around the cul-de-sac on his trike, you'll find that pretty soon nobody will be cycling, or learning to cycle.

They do need a comprehensive study on it - i.e. how many people are injured in collisions with bicycles where the bicycle is at fault, how much damage was caused, etc. I'd be fairly confident that the figures are so low that you could set up a fund from the exchequer which would only need to cover (at most) a couple of hundred K in costs. Add a 0.1% levy on bike equipment at the point of import and you're laughing.

A list of offenses and on the spot fines, would curb a lot of it.

Victor

"mechanically propelled vehicle" does not include a pedal cycle.

"vehicle" does include a pedal cycle.

There are a variety of charges that could be brought, but making them stick would be the problem. Leaving the scene of an accident might be one. Do they know who the cyclist is? If you want, talk to a solicitor who might be able to push the garda.

You need to sue the cyclist if you want compensation. These is of course the issue of who cause the accident.

artvandulet wrote: »

I see this all the time - cyclists going the wrong way around Stephens Green or other one way systems.

None of St. Stephens Green is one way for cyclists exept the eastern serction with the contra flow bus lane.

Hooch

Dangerous driving contrary to Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961-2006.

Dangerous driving is not for a mechanically propelled vehicle, it is in relation to vehicles.

A pedal cycle is a vehicle

artvandulet

Victor wrote: »

None of St. Stephens Green is one way for cyclists exept the eastern serction with the contra flow bus lane.

The exact spot I'm talking about! But fair enough about the rest of Stephens green.

dny123456

Edit... missed the contra flow part

servicecharge

dangerous driving is difficult to convict on.

Careless driving might be more appropriate. Comes with 1500 fine and/or 3 months in prison.

ODD-JOB

I got summonsed for "dangerous driving of a pedal cycle" when i was younger.
Accompanied by no front light , no rear light and another charge of no rear reflector.

He was really out to get me for some reason.