1 Year Driving ban for cyclist who broke red light

bob123456

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html

Of course the guy doesn't even even drive or have a car!

Going through a red light on a bike is stupid, esp at a junction.

However, I have seen countless car and trucks going through red lights - do motorists ever get 1 year driving bans for this?

"I don't have a car and I do not drive but due to the court ruling even if I wanted to I couldn't" says John.

But Robert Pierse, the author of Road Traffic Law in Ireland, which is now in its fourth edition and a required source for lawyers involved in road traffic cases, said the judge was perfectly entitled to impose a driving ban for a cycling offence.

Mr Pierse added: "It is highly unusual but legal. Road traffic law in Ireland is very complex, with 12 or 13 acts and more than 400 regulations. The whole area is badly in need of consolidation and I understand that a bill is due to come before the Dail to do just that -- when they get around to it."

Mr Pierse, who at 73 remains a highly regarded consultant at Pierse & Fitzgibbon Solicitors in Listowel -- the firm he established in 1962, operating from his mother's converted hen house -- said that he had not come across any previous cases where a cycling offence led to a driving ban.

He recommended that people read his 1,400 page book on road traffic law in Ireland for reference. "It's cheaper than sleeping pills," he added.

snubbleste

He recommended that people read his 1,400 page book on road traffic law in Ireland for reference. "It's cheaper than sleeping pills," he added.

Phathaus

It's about time they started treating cyclists like other road users. It's terribly frustrating when you're trying to drive through the city and there are obnoxious cyclists putting themselves in danger.

I note how John Cully in this case complained how he didn't receive any compensation. For what? There's no compensation for stupidity, he should be made pay to repair that lady's car and for the any stress she suffered as a result of his recklessness.

On another point, what's the legal standing on wearing hi-vis jackets? I cycle to work and don't have one. Is this a legal requirement?

BostonB

Phathaus wrote: »

...On another point, what's the legal standing on wearing hi-vis jackets? I cycle to work and don't have one. Is this a legal requirement?

No..

Hard to know if he did break the light, he doesn't remember. doesn't say were their independent witnesses. Seems likely he did though.

Peetrik

As ridiculous as banning someone who used crutches from a foot path because they used the stairs instead of the wheelchair access ramp.

To me they obviously just picked out someone who didnt drive so the victim wouldnt kick up too much of a fuss so that there would be a precident.
Total random selection too Im sure, he just happens to be a fat ugly former convict from an impoverished area instead of a young blond physio student or someone the public might get behind.

smokin ace

:D:D:D:Donly in ireland this could happen

KTRIC

smokin ace wrote: »

:D:D:D:Donly in ireland this could happen

Actually not. Its the norm in a lot of other European countries.

fcukhu

BostonB wrote: »

No..

Hard to know if he did break the light, he doesn't remember. doesn't say were their independent witnesses. Seems likely he did though.

Form the newspaper article:

An independent witness told the Dublin District Court last week that Ms McCormack had a green light when she proceeded through the junction.

billybigunz

He should be banned from cycling clearly.

jwshooter

i would challenge this as no where on a driving licence does it mention bicycles .

also the cost of insurance will be affected if the person went to drive with in the next 5 years.

bloody great country we have .

irishmotorist

It does sound like an bit way to punish him, but I've no problem with that. What would be a good suitable alternative punishment for this? He broke the law and apart from damaging himself, he made a balls of the woman's car. He doesn't have insurance so she can't claim off that so will (possibly/probably) either have to foot the bill herself or claim off her own insurance. I'm an honest road user so I'd have no problem putting my driving license 'on the line' for what I've done wrong on the bike.

Gavin

irishmotorist wrote: »

It does sound like an bit way to punish him, but I've no problem with that. What would be a good suitable alternative punishment for this? He broke the law and apart from damaging himself, he made a balls of the woman's car. He doesn't have insurance so she can't claim off that so will (possibly/probably) either have to foot the bill herself or claim off her own insurance. I'm an honest road user so I'd have no problem putting my driving license 'on the line' for what I've done wrong on the bike.

She can sue him for the cost. Insurance just cover the cost that one would have to pay out themselves anyway.

RoundTower

I don't have a problem with the principle of this but it sounds like this guy has been punished enough. It certainly sounds disproportionate for a first offence.

"All I really remember vividly is the car hitting me and everything after that is a blur. I'm completely unable to lift anything heavy with my left arm. Doctors believe my arm will be permanently injured. I have received absolutely no compensation for my accident, and chances are I will never cycle again".

billybigunz

Was he looking to receive compensation? What a joker.

Lumen

As I read it he didn't get banned for breaking a red light, he got banned for breaking a red light and then colliding with a car.

Seems a bit of a bizarre punishment though, given that he was the only one injured.

"I was cycling in rush-hour traffic and if I ran the red light I would have been squashed by on-coming traffic"...Mr Cully smashed through the windscreen of the car and is still recovering from injuries to his arm.

Er, OK.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Seems a bit of a bizarre punishment though, given that he was the only one injured.

If he had using any other type of vehicle, even a motorbike, he would have been convicted of dangerous driving and received a ban, so that's probably where the judge was coming from.

The guy sounds like a complete moron going by his comments.

Amalgam

Some alarm bells ringing over the confusion about the hi-vis clothing.

Witness says one thing..

The court was also told Mr Cully had not been wearing a reflective jacket, though he claimed in court that his high visibility clothing was removed by medics or ambulance crew when he was taken to hospital.

Odd article.

Nietzschean

as much as its a bizzare punishment, i find my self struggling to have any issues with it, broke light, caused accident...judge probably had little else he could impose.

jester77

smokin ace wrote: »

:D:D:D:Donly in ireland this could happen

That's the rules here in Germany. Once you are on the road and in command of a vehicle, regardless of whether it's a bicycle, golf buggy, tractor, etc., you must obey them. If you don't you lose your license. I don't see why cyclists should be exempt from the rules of the roads!!

Can't believe he has the cheek to say he got no compensation :eek:

jwshooter

i this was written into law fine , the guy should have been fined and made pay for the car .

Cabaal

Phathaus wrote: »

It's about time they started treating cyclists like other road users.

Agreed,
However no motorist will get a 1 year driving ban for breaking a red,

Lumen

Cabaal wrote: »

However no motorist will get a 1 year driving ban for breaking a red

They will if they break a red and collide with an oncoming car.

tomasrojo

I was waiting at a light in Rathmines once, and a Garda was admonishing an oriental gentleman on a bicycle for not wearing hi-viz or a helmet. Neither, of course, is required in this jurisdiction.

I'm assuming the cyclist had broken the light and that was why the Garda was talking to him in the first place, rather than he decided to stop him to tell him about non-existent regulations.

tomasrojo

It's depressing that the court was asking about hi-viz actually. It's really not germane to the case. He wasn't hit because he was insufficiently visible; he was hit because he jumped a red light. I'm not entirely sure that hi-viz makes a huge amount of difference during broad daylight. Was the collision at night or twilight or something?

BostonB

fcukhu wrote: »

Form the newspaper article:

An independent witness told the Dublin District Court last week that Ms McCormack had a green light when she proceeded through the junction.

Ah, missed that. Thks.

dr.bollocko

Says in the article he has previous and served 10 years in prison already. Not that that has any bearing on this case.

ScouseMouse

bob123456 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html


Why all this talk about his punishment?

The ejit was on the roads like everyone else. He ignored a red light and caused a serious crash.

As a cyclist he has no insurance to pay for the damage he did. He should have been ordered to work to pay for the damage. AND BANNED FROM DRIVING ANYTHING ON THE ROAD.

Amalgam

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Says in the article he has previous and served 10 years in prison already. Not that that has any bearing on this case.

A little over a quarter of his life, up to now. Depressing.

_MadRa_

Is it a coincidence that it was a woman?
He could have been killed.... why are people complaining about the few quids damage to the car?
I think i would rather have a broken windscreen than kill someone on a bike.
I actually have been hit by a car.... the guy who hit me didnt stop however..so im probably bias to all car drivers

short circuit

Assuming the guy was in a car, broke the lights, collided with an oncoming car, ended up with the same injuries ...

He would :-
1. Have been banned for 1 year for dangerous driving
2. Would have received compensation from his insurance for fixing his car, the other car and for any injuries sustained by both parties.

So the fact that he got a ban sounds right, but looking at his injuries, assuming he can't cycle any more, the judge should have been a bit easy as the guy obviously has to drive to get anywhere now. I'm sure this would have been considered had he been driving.

On the issue of compensation, either the government has to force availability of cycling insurance or allow the guy to claim off the car driver's insurance to put his life back together.

The article and evidence covering hi-vis clothing, helmets, brakes, weather, FIFA etc is all just muddying the waters and is not required. Would the punishment have been handed out to the car driver if the guy was wearing hi-vis.

Stark

_MadRa_ wrote:

He could have been killed...

One reason not to cycle into the path of oncoming traffic.

short_circuit wrote:

2. Would have received compensation from his insurance for fixing his car, the other car and for any injuries sustained by both parties.

Only if he had comprehensive insurance.

short_circuit wrote:

On the issue of compensation, either the government has to force availability of cycling insurance or allow the guy to claim off the car driver's insurance to put his life back together.

No it doesn't. The car driver is liable for nothing. He broke the light; he's responsible for the consequences.

short circuit

Stark wrote: »

Only if he had comprehensive insurance.

Yes, but you as a driver have the option and availability to choose.

Stark wrote: »

No it doesn't. The car driver is liable for nothing. He broke the light; he's responsible for the consequences.

Yes .. I understand the legalities and what you are saying. But in the complete absence of any insurance policy which covers the cyclist in this situation, treating it the same way as if cyclist was an uninsured motorist, he should claim. Not taking this up legally or morally, but the cyclist should be given a chance to get his life back.

Surely a jaywalker getting hit by the motorist would be compensated.

Midnight_EG

Lads, how does a person on a bike receive a driving ban, considering he doesn't own a license, nor is the bike mechanically propelled?




A ban on a license he doesn't have....

billybigunz

but the cyclist should be given a chance to get his life back.

He should pay for damage to the guys car like this legend.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSEIC55622520080125

2 stroke

Midnight_EG wrote: »

Lads, how does a person on a bike receive a driving ban, considering he doesn't own a license?




A ban on a license he doesn't have....

Under the same law that allows unlicensed drivers accumulate penalty points/driving bans. The points/ban can be applied should the reciever ever apply for a driving license.

RDM_83 again

Just like too point out that a driver that breaks a red light and hits a car will not necessarily get a ban (in UK anyway) , parents car was hit by elderly driver that sailed past stopped cars into them (it was 4 lanes)

bob123456

bob123456 wrote: »

However, I have seen countless car and trucks going through red lights - do motorists ever get 1 year driving bans for this?

If you end up driving into someone, you possibly would.

short circuit wrote: »

On the issue of compensation, either the government has to force availability of cycling insurance or allow the guy to claim off the car driver's insurance to put his life back together.

The first part, Yes. The second part, No. No. No. No.

The Big Red Button

Stark wrote: »

Only if he had comprehensive insurance.

short circuit wrote: »

Yes, but you as a driver have the option and availability to choose.

He had the option of getting personal health insurance - which might have been idea if he had a habit of breaking red lights and cycling directly into the path of oncoming traffic.

My sympathy is entirely with the driver in this case.

short circuit

short circuit wrote: »

Yes .. I understand the legalities and what you are saying. But in the complete absence of any insurance policy which covers the cyclist in this situation, treating it the same way as if cyclist was an uninsured motorist, he should claim. Not taking this up legally or morally, but the cyclist should be given a chance to get his life back.

Surely a jaywalker getting hit by the motorist would be compensated.

And that right there sums up Ireland.. An illogical sense of entitlement.

BostonB

_MadRa_ wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that it was a woman?
He could have been killed.... why are people complaining about the few quids damage to the car?.
.I think i would rather have a broken windscreen than kill someone on a bik
I actually have been hit by a car.... the guy who hit me didnt stop however..so im probably bias to all car drivers ....

Your post makes no sense.

Its not about the cost, its about people being held accountable to their own actions. Anything else leads to chaos.

Thread in AH.

tomasrojo

I think the comments over there about his alleged homeliness are depressing. Not exactly relevant to what happened.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the comments over there about his alleged homeliness are depressing. Not exactly relevant to what happened.

Or is it?

cosman9373

I'd have no problem having my driving licence enforced for my cycling but my question is, is this the right punishment for a cycling offence and where does it end?? Clue for me is in the names, cycling offence vs driving licence. Don't get me wrong I do believe the cyclist here is completely in the wrong as he cycled through a red light and into the path of a car but we have all seen pedestrians running accross green lights, pedestrians like cyclists don't have a licence. If a car swirved to avoid this pedestrian and crashed should the pedestrian then be banned from driving for a year?

short circuit

chatterpillar wrote: »

He had the option of getting personal health insurance - which might have been idea if he had a habit of breaking red lights and cycling directly into the path of oncoming traffic.

My sympathy is entirely with the driver in this case.

Deleted User wrote: »

And that right there sums up Ireland.. An illogical sense of entitlement.

Both of you are understanding me incorrectly. I never said the cyclist was right. The cyclist was in the wrong. But health insurance is not going to cover damage to bike, loss of pay etc.

Its not an illogical sense of entitlement ... its just a case of not providing an avenue where the cyclist can get compensation. Replace the cyclist with another motorist, and he/she would be claiming off their insurance. Why this additional penalty just because this time its a cyclist.

And I see many calling for the cyclist to pay for the damage to the car and injury to the motorist ..... how many people posting here have personal liability insurance which covers this ...

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

Or is it?

Sometimes I hate human nature.

The Big Red Button

short circuit wrote: »

Both of you are understanding me incorrectly. I never said the cyclist was right. The cyclist was in the wrong. But health insurance is not going to cover damage to bike, loss of pay etc.

Its not an illogical sense of entitlement ... its just a case of not providing an avenue where the cyclist can get compensation. Replace the cyclist with another motorist, and he/she would be claiming off their insurance. Why this additional penalty just because this time its a cyclist.

And I see many calling for the cyclist to pay for the damage to the car and injury to the motorist ..... how many people posting here have personal liability insurance which covers this ...

He broke the law! In my opinion, if he damaged someone else's or his own property while doing so, of course he should be accountable for it and have to cough up for it himself!

Quazzie

I was stopped at lights behind a squad car and low and behold a bike came up the inside, straight to the top, had a quick look left and right and proceeded to go through them right in front of the cops who didn't even bat am eyelid.

The sad thing about most laws in this country is the inconsistency of implementation.

Travel is good

Most of us drivers have been victim (with near misses) at some stage to cyclists who break the red light.

It's about time that the message goes out there that this type of irresponsible road behaviour is unacceptable. Cyclists should not break red lights, it's extremely dangerous to other road users.

If you are in charge of a bike and you continue in this type of behaviour, then I don't see the problem in the cyclist being punished. If a car driver did this, they would expect to be suitably convicted.

Why are cyclists any different?

DirkVoodoo

Travel is good wrote: »

Most of us drivers have been victim (with near misses) at some stage to cyclists who break the red light.

It's about time that the message goes out there that this type of irresponsible road behaviour is unacceptable. Cyclists should not break red lights, it's extremely dangerous to other road users.

If you are in charge of a bike and you continue in this type of behaviour, then I don't see the problem in the cyclist being punished. If a car driver did this, they would expect to be suitably convicted.

Why are cyclists any different?

Why do you have to turn it into one of those debates? Most cyclists drive too, try turning up to a race and see the car parks fill up. I don't know why you think cycling and driving are mutually exclusive.

Anyway, like others have said the guy was in the wrong and acting like an idiot sailing through a red light. He's lucky he wasn't killed and I feel sorry for the woman who he collided with.

I can stop at white's cross any day of the week and see cars break the lights at speed. If I were to simply cycle off when I got a green light I would have been crushed many times over. I don't see people being stopped for this, which is the main problem, but I also don't go making assumptions of all drivers based on the idiotic few.

Cyclists aren't any different. Most obey the law, the only reason some don't is because they think they can get away with it. While the punishment might be severe, it might send a message to others that reckless behaviour is being dealt with. I would like to see consistency in punishment for all road users.

BostonB

short circuit wrote: »

Both of you are understanding me incorrectly. I never said the cyclist was right. The cyclist was in the wrong. But health insurance is not going to cover damage to bike, loss of pay etc.

Its not an illogical sense of entitlement ... its just a case of not providing an avenue where the cyclist can get compensation. Replace the cyclist with another motorist, and he/she would be claiming off their insurance. Why this additional penalty just because this time its a cyclist.

And I see many calling for the cyclist to pay for the damage to the car and injury to the motorist ..... how many people posting here have personal liability insurance which covers this ...

Replace the cyclist with a driver with no insurance. Who would they claim off then?