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

Who was in the wrong ?

  • 01-12-2011 03:20PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭


    I saw an incident last night where a cyclist was almost wiped out by a black bmw z3.

    Cyclist=Red Dot
    BMW =Green dot

    183351.JPG

    The cyclist stood in the yellow box outside trinity (red dot) he was on foot holding his bicycle upright as if to walk into Trinity via the road that the car (greendot) was coming out of. He was stationery inside the yellow box and hadn't moved for about 20 seconds before the accident (I saw this evolve and had a feeling it was going to happen).

    The cyclist had no light on his bike, no reflective clothing and that stretch of road in the evening is surprisingly dark for a city centre road.

    The bmw (greendot) was leaving trinity, the driver was looking out for road traffic did not notice the cyclist, driver saw a gap in traffic and went for it. Accelerating out from trinity. She broke hard but still managed to send the bicycle flying backwards with considerable force. The cyclist (Polish) stepped sideways screaming at the driver. After the bike was sent flying he began screaming at the driver ran over and started thumping on the window etc.

    Who was in the wrong here ? I would have thought the cyclist was mostly in the wrong, but interested in other opinions on this.


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,157 ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    Why the hell was yer man just standing in the middle of the road though? Seems bizarre to me, standing in the middle of a street, dressed in dark clothing at night with poor weather has to be one of the stupidest things you could possibly do.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,579 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    I would say off the top of my head the driver of the BMW was in the wrong for proceeding when it was not safe to do so.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Why the hell was yer man just standing in the middle of the road though? Seems bizarre to me, standing in the middle of a street, dressed in dark clothing at night with poor weather has to be one of the stupidest things you could possibly do.


    I'd agree. I think the driver should have noticed him but to be honest you don't really expect darkly clothed men standing in the middle of yellow boxes on rainy evenings. She was totally focused on road traffic coming from her right. He must have presumed that she knew he was there.

    If she had hit him he'd have gotten broken bones at the least, he could also have been knocked flying backwards into other traffic if he'd been really unlucky. Either way he had a close shave but seemed to place full blame on the motorist who was in shock at that stage & apologising profusely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,262 ✭✭✭Junior


    Things that are wrong with the scenario -

    1) Cyclist not lit up
    2) Cyclist in a Yellow Box
    3) Motorist not noticing said Cyclist

    Culpability lies on both parties - I would say it was 50/50.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Hermy wrote: »
    I would say off the top of my head the driver of the BMW was in the wrong for proceeding when it was not safe to do so.

    Thing about that is when the driver drove forward to place herself in a position to exit trinity the box was clear, she was then focused on road traffic from her right. In the meantime the cyclist walked into the yellow box and stood there. This really is a surprisingly dark stretch of road. In fairness I would not place full blame on the motorist. Once you check a yellow box and then observe the road looking for a break in traffic you are also in this case bound to notice anything which could legally enter the box. You'd normally be safe to assume you are ok as regards anything in the yellow box - no ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    If he was walking wheeling his bike across the road as if crossing, then lights, hi-vis, etc are completely irrelevant as they are not required - he's a pedestrian, not a cyclist. That's what I'm gathering from your description.

    So whether he is permitted to cross there is also irrelevant. The driver, as she was turning from one road to another, is require to give way to pedestrians crossing the road. She failed to spot the pedestrian crossing and proceeded when the way was not clear.

    His reaction is of course something else entirely. You only go mental at the other person if they start acting like an asshat.

    Edit: Just saw your last post
    In the meantime the cyclist walked into the yellow box and stood there.
    He's a pedestrian then, definitely. Why he stopped is another question, but the driver is obliged to yield to him regardless. 100% her fault.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭trad


    S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997




    Yielding Right of Way

    8. (1) Save as otherwise indicated by a traffic sign in respect of which an article in these Regulations refers, a vehicle shall yield right of way where a provision of this article applies.


    (2) When starting from a stationary position a driver shall yield the right of way to other traffic and pedestrians.


    (3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.


    (4) A driver of a vehicle entering a public road from a place which is not a public road shall yield the right of way to all vehicles and pedestrians proceeding in either direction along the public road.


    (5) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction by a road which is not a major road shall, notwithstanding that there is no traffic sign indicating that the last mentioned road is a major road, yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians on the major road.


    (6) A driver approaching a road junction to which sub-article (5) does not apply shall yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians approaching the junction from the right by another road.


    (7) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction and intending to turn right at the junction shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching on the same road from the opposite direction and intending to proceed straight through or turn left at the junction.


    (8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.




    See No 2 and 4 above


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,389 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Its Dark, a cyclist standing in the middle of the road (which has a big Yellow box on the road too). Wearing dark clothes and no lights.

    Mmmm, I'll have to think about this one before I can make a judgement.:rolleyes:*


    * The Cyclist was at fault


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,391 ✭✭✭fro9etb8j5qsl2


    The amount of eastern Europeans I know that venture out cycling in the pitch dark without so much as a reflector on the bike is crazy :eek: wtf is wrong with these people??? You could easily pick up a set of lights for a tenner....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,691 ✭✭✭DeepBlue


    ^^ Racist. Darren Scully is that you? :pac:

    The law would probably say she's at fault but from a common sense point of view the cyclist is 90% to blame imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 63 ✭✭nukin_futs


    In an entirely legal sense, as posted by trad, the motorist is in the wrong.
    From a common sense/personal responsibility point of view it's shared.

    Possibly having no lights or reflective clothing he was doing the right thing and walking, not cycling.
    As it looks like both were crossing the road they were both looking in the same direction to see if traffic was flowing. In this scenario I would lean towards 60/40 for the motorist, as seeing that one direction is clear you should still check all around you before moving. A pedestrian could easily have come walking along the path across the gates of Trinity and ended up under the car as motorist didn't check both sides.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    The amount of eastern Europeans I know that venture out cycling in the pitch dark without so much as a reflector on the bike is crazy :eek: wtf is wrong with these people??? You could easily pick up a set of lights for a tenner....
    You know the cyclist in question?

    Further generic statements like this aimed at particular sections of the community will land you a ban


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    If anyone thinks the cyclist is significantly to blame;

    Imagine that he wasn't pushing a bike and she hit him as he was crossing the road. Who's at fault?


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    seamus wrote: »
    If anyone thinks the cyclist is even significantly to blame;

    Imagine that he wasn't pushing a bike and she hit him. Who's at fault?
    I would say a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road like that has to accept some element of blame - pedestrians are also required to cross when (and where) it is safe to do so (and show some common sense)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Beasty wrote: »
    You know the cyclist in question?

    Further generic statements like this aimed at particular sections of the community will land you a ban

    As an FYI the reason I mentioned the nationality of the cyclist is that they may have different road rules in Poland (to be honest could have been other east europe apart from Poland - I didn't ask the guy but he seemed to have a Polish accent). Also drive on different side of road, safety levels re bicycles etc. Possibly this could be a factor.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Find 'cyclist' replace with 'pedestrian'. There is no particular reason to call this person a cyclist, or address this question to other cyclists. We don't go around calling everyone we see a motorist and asking the population of the motors forum what they think of them. Every adult we see is more likely to own a car than not after all.

    As far as assigning blame the pedestrian was damn stupid to stand in the middle of the road with a car directly facing him. Despite being dangerous it's relatively common for pedestrians to stand between lanes when crossing a busy road and I imagine the vast majority of the time it is done without incident. This means the main foolishness was picking a bad spot to do this sort of thing, that being directly opposite an exit from Trinity.

    Motorists should be expected to see people who are standing directly in front of their cars though. It is quite dark there but cars have headlights specifically to allow them to see what it directly in front of them. The motorist is certainly not blameless in this.

    The thread starter didn't say initially how long the car took to make this maneuver. I've certainly seen people pull a few feet out of an exit with their necks craned to the right and then floor it after less than a second because they think they see a gap. This is dangerous driving and if that was the case the pedestrian (though stupid) would be entitled to feel aggrieved.

    A follow up post indicated that the pedestrian had been standing in the junction for 20 seconds and the car had been in place before that. In this case while the motorist was pretty unobservant (you'd think they would have glanced forward at least once in 20+ seconds) the vast majority of the blame goes to the pedestrian chose to walk in to the middle of the road directly in front of a car. One that is clearly waiting for a gap in traffic that they will want to move in to, the same gap that the pedestrian is waiting for. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out this might end in tears, and even if the motorist sees you (as they should) it's still damn rude to block their way like that. The pedestrian could have chosen to walk in to the middle of the road 5m to the left and avoided all conflict.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,389 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    seamus wrote: »
    If anyone thinks the cyclist is significantly to blame;

    Imagine that he wasn't pushing a bike and she hit him as he was crossing the road. Who's at fault?


    Good point...A Pedestrian, wearing dark clothes, standing in the middle of a (busy), dark road....

    Sorry, its a no brainer to me.

    BTW, yes the driver is most likely to blame, as far as the Law is concerned, but even pedestrians have to take some responsibility for their own well being.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Dumb guy with the bike. But wouldn't they be in the headlights of the BMW?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    A perfect case of contributory negligence if you were taking it from a Tort law perspective, I would say.

    50/50
    60/40


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    BostonB wrote: »
    Dumb guy with the bike. But wouldn't they be in the headlights of the BMW?

    No, he was not perfeclty aligned in the headlights of the car as it waited to turn.

    He would have been slightly to the left of the headlights irrc. I believe they were xenon lights btw.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Beasty wrote: »
    I would say a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road like that has to accept some element of blame - pedestrians are also required to cross when (and where) it is safe to do so (and show some common sense)
    Agreed, but from what we can tell, the pedestrian did cross when and where it was safe to do so. He probably stopped in the middle of the road to have a look and see if any busses were coming down the bus lane. When he crossed, the traffic was stopped and there was nobody moving or approaching. Sounds safe to me :)

    "Dark Road" is probably putting it a bit drastically. This wasn't a country boreen where he was standing in the middle of a pitch black road on a blind bend. The corner is illuminated by street lights and the vehicles' lights. There would be no question that the driver would have seen the pedestrian if she had looked properly instead of just looking right and moving off.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    This was not a pedestrian, this was a cyclist who momentarily stepped off his bicycle when he knew he would be there awhile. He continued to move (slightly) on the road on foot to position himself better inside the yellow box (as far as he was concerned) but he was categorically a cyclist. Unless a cyclist instantly becomes a pedestrian if he steps off his bicycle while waiting in traffic ?

    I believe (this part is an assumption) that when the car moved forward he was not as quick as the motorist in pulling out ( as they both noticed the gap in traffic at the same time ) because he was about to get back on his bicycle. He noticed the car moving forward and realised he was directly in her path hence he did not have time to remount the bicycle in order to proceed.

    As stated he appeared to be planning on entering Trinity via this entrance so he had not reached his final destination at the point when this all happened.

    This road is a dark road for a city centre road, surprisingly so. Particularly at the exact location where this occurred. As stated he was not in the beam of the motorists headlights, also it was rainy and dark last evening.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭DePurpereWolf


    I'm sad to say that the driver was at fault.
    The cyclist was standing still, so was not at fault.
    The cyclist was at fault for not having lights on, but not for causing the accident.
    If the cyclist was moving it might have been a different story.

    Wouldn't the cyclist be in the headlight of the car behind him? The tail lights of the car in front of him?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Morlar wrote: »
    This was not a pedestrian, this was a cyclist who momentarily stepped off his bicycle when he knew he would be there awhile.
    ...
    Unless a cyclist instantly becomes a pedestrian if he steps off his bicycle while waiting in traffic ?
    That does muddy the waters somewhat because there is no provision in traffic law which covers the transition from cyclist to pedestrian in the same way that nothing covers the transition from driver to pedestrian.
    When the person steps off the bike, they are insatnly a pedestrian. That much is obvious. Their method of locomotion is by walking, not cycling, therefore they are a pedestrian.

    But obviously there is a question there as to whether it is appropriate for a cyclist to dismount in the middle of the road. I would say not, they should go to the side of the road, dismount and then cross.

    However, IMO this is a side debate and not all that relevant. There is functionally no difference between him having dismounted in the middle of the road and having dismounted at the side and walked to that point in the road. In both cases, he's a pedestrian standing in the road and the driver is obliged to yield.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    If you hit something with your car, at some point that thing was illuminated by your headlights. If you were stopped only a few metres away you should be able to stop before hitting that thing very easily provided you are paying enough attention. Once you start to move forward you should be looking forward. Some would pedantically say that you should look forware before you start to move forward. The road might be darker than a lot of city centre roads, but it as Seamus said this is not an unlit country lane, anyone should easily be able to see a person standing only a few metres in front of them.

    Can you clarify the exact time line of events Morlar. You previously stated that the pedestrian was in the middle of the junction for at least 20 seconds and the motorist had been waiting this entire time so the motorist arrived first and the pedestrian afterwards. Both parties waited a long time by traffic standards and so had plenty of time to see each other. Is this correct?

    I'm also confused by the idea that the person tried to cross the road by cycling in to the middle of it and then getting off to become a pedestrian. It seems frankly bizarre. Where did they start from? Did they actually cycle along the road and try to cross the inside lane to enter Trinity and fail? Something I've seen cars get stuck doing as well when the inside lane refuses to yield to them. If this was the case their main mistake was getting off the bike in my opinion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    It was approx between 15 & 20 seconds I would rate.

    The direction the cyclist came from was I believe the opposite direction to the flow of traffic. I am not 100% clear on that to be honest but I believe he had been cycling (not taking the bike for a walk but cycling) the wrong way either on the footpath or on the road prior to this. This is a dark & ill-lit stretch of road and it was rainy at the time.

    I saw him but to be honest did not entirely register/pay attention until he was at the edge of the box where he dismounted and moved slightly further into the yellow box.

    At that point I paid more attention as I knew that he was an idiot and that an accident was about to happen. He had effectively ninja-like snuck into the inevitable path of the car waiting to leave through the yellow box. While wearing dark clothes and on/with a bike that had no lights/reflectors.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    I would have thought, and I may be wrong, that a cyclist once dismounted is considered a pedestrian. If we want this thread to work it's pretty crucial that we define what a dismounted cyclist actually is in the eyes of the law. For me, as previously stated, once you're wheeling the bike you're a ped and that's why you're legally allowed to wheel a bike on a footpath but not cycle on same.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    Driver looked out right window.
    Driver did not look out rear window.
    Driver did not look out left window.
    Driver did not look out front window.

    Cars don't crab sideways so the driver should be looking where they are going through their front windscreen when they start moving. "That wasn't there the last time I looked" is not a valid excuse for running into something in front of you, especially when the last time you looked was a while ago. A while ago could be anywhere from a few seconds to yesterday to last year, but it's not good enough when you're moving in traffic in control of a vehicle.

    Also, coming out of a side road onto a main road does not give you any rights over the people already on the road. If there was something coming the wrong way down the road from Westland Row I would still give them priority over someone coming out of a side road, even though the wrong way fellow was also 'in the wrong'.

    I don't care how long the side road guy is waiting, they have to wait till the main road is clear, not just spot a gap, put the foot down, and hope for the best.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7 nigel2


    seamus wrote: »
    If anyone thinks the cyclist is significantly to blame;

    Imagine that he wasn't pushing a bike and she hit him as he was crossing the road. Who's at fault?

    Not saying the driver shouldn't be paying more attention, but you still shouldn't be standing in the middle of the road, and if your on a bike at night you should have lights. Also that is a one way there so she wouldn't have been expecting anything coming from her left.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    nigel2 wrote: »
    Also that is a one way there so she wouldn't have been expecting anything coming from her left.
    Pedestrians are not subject to one-way rules. You should never assume anything and always expect anything to come from any direction in reality.


Advertisement