Cycle red light break conviction

paky

Hogzy wrote: »

But how is someone meant to know if that cyclist understands the risks involved.

By your logic/reasoning, anyone (be it a car/motorbike/truck etc) should be allowed run a red light "if they understand the risks involved."

You do realise that if a cyclist runs a red light (and either hits a pedestrian or traffic) then they are opening themselves up to a huge negligence claim.

ive yet to hear of a case in ireland were pedestrian has lost their life to a cyclist. the risks are far higher when a motorists runs a red light. should we now implement J walking in ireland now that cyclists are being punished for running red lights? or is just the cyclists we'll pick on? ive seen instances where cyclists have had to swerve to avoid pedestrians running red lights putting cyclists lives severely at risk

Hogzy

paky wrote: »

ive yet to hear of a case in ireland were pedestrian has lost their life to a cyclist. the risks are far higher when a motorists runs a red light.

So in order for a risk to exist you are saying that someone must have to loose their life? You're being very narrow minded to be honest if you deny that there is a high risk of injury to someone (be it a cyclist, pedestrian, motor cyclist or motorist) if a cyclist (OR ANYONE) runs a red light/ breaks traffic laws

should we now implement J walking in ireland now that cyclists are being punished for running red lights?

Maybe we should if it improves pedestrian safety, Again someone was killed recently on Patrick St in Cork when they crossed the road into an oncoming bin truck. It wasnt pretty to put it mildly. The pedestrian was killed instantly.

or is just the cyclists we'll pick on? ive seen instances where cyclists have had to swerve to avoid pedestrians running red lights putting cyclists lives severely at risk

Exactly. So maybe Jay walking should be an offense in urban areas. Cars have to dangerously swerve to avoid cyclists if they run red lights. Do you not see the irony in your above statement? 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Also in the case of motorcyclists, they could easily come off their bikes in order to avoid a cyclist.

Procrastastudy

Firstly what would be the point of reporting them to the gardai? They do naff all about the cars breaking the red lights!

Secondly some of the cycle lanes that have been put in (I'm thinking leading up to Dundrum here) are just dangerous. The average car driver has no idea of their right of way obligations.

I say give them the choise. Sexy french tourists on the path ringing the little bell on the Dublin rent a bike thing - Lycra clad condom impersonators on the road with the option to skip up on the path to avoid red lights. Introduce a policy of any pedestrian on cyclist accident is always the fault of the cyclist - the same way it works with motorist v pedestrian. Introduce a cost of insurence into the purchase of all new bikes.

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Introduce a policy of any pedestrian on cyclist accident is always the fault of the cyclist - the same way it works with motorist v pedestrian. Introduce a cost of insurence into the purchase of all new bikes.

Since when is it automatically the fault of a motorist if a pedestrian gets knocked down?

Have you ever heard of contributory negligence or any other basic tort rules? Nobody is ever automatically at fault.

Kosseegan

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly. So maybe Jay walking should be an offense in urban areas. C

It is an offence to cross the road with 5 metres of an approved road crossing in a manner other than allowed by that crossing.

Procrastastudy

Hogzy wrote: »

Since when is it automatically the fault of a motorist if a pedestrian gets knocked down?

Have you ever heard of contributory negligence or any other basic tort rules? Nobody is ever automatically at fault.

Discussed at length here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056571160

Motorist owes a duty of care to the pedestrian. Yes there could be contributory negligence but I can't think of a single scenrio or case. I am happy to be enlightened. You would also have the force of public policy to consider.

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Discussed at length here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056571160

Motorist owes a duty of care to the pedestrian. Yes there could be contributory negligence but I can't think of a single scenrio or case. I am happy to be enlightened. You would also have the force of public policy to consider.

You are right, motorists do owe a duty of care to pedestrians. But pedestrians can also owe a duty of care to motorists.

If a pedestrian decides enough is enough and randomly jumps in front of my car. Then i can sue that pedestrian or his estate for the damage he inflicted upon my car/property and for any medical expenses i may have incurred. 1. Because its forseeable that by jumping in front of my car will result in damage, Secondly there is a proximity (for obvious reasons). Public policy issues are dealt with on a case by case basis but i see no reason that a court wouldnt recognise a duty of care in this instance.

A motorist can only be expected to take reasonable care while driving. They cannot anticipate the movements of EVERY single pedestrian on the road.

There doesnt need to be an exact case where a pedestrian and motorist colided to establish a duty of care. Showing Forseeability/Proximity is enough. Could you enlighten me as to any public policy issues that would arise when denying the existence of a duty of care that is owed by a pedestrian because I certainly cannot think of any?


Just to clarify your point, are you saying that pedestrians dont owe motorists/cyclists(etc) a duty of care?

Procrastastudy

Hogzy wrote: »

You are right, motorists do owe a duty of care to pedestrians. But pedestrians can also owe a duty of care to motorists.

If a pedestrian decides enough is enough and randomly jumps in front of my car. Then i can sue that pedestrian or his estate for the damage he inflicted upon my car/property and for any medical expenses i may have incurred. 1. Because its forseeable that by jumping in front of my car will result in damage, Secondly there is a proximity (for obvious reasons).

If you see a pedestrian it is upto you to ensure that any action taken by that pedestrian does not not result in a colision with your car. I can't think of a scenario where a pedestrian would be quick enough to get infront of your car without you noticing it. If its walking out in front of you in the road - agin you would be at fault.

Hogzy wrote: »

Public policy issues are dealt with on a case by case basis but i see no reason that a court wouldnt recognise a duty of care in this instance.

I cant see how they would given the above. Also you have insurence - they don't. Its always said that makes no difference I think everyone would agree it does.

Hogzy wrote: »

A motorist can only be expected to take reasonable care while driving. They cannot anticipate the movements of EVERY single pedestrian on the road.

I disagree - flipantly I could say if thet're on the road there's a clue - but I know what you mean and I still disagree. It was put better by others in the thread I linked.

Hogzy wrote: »

There doesnt need to be an exact case where a pedestrian and motorist colided to establish a duty of care. Showing Forseeability/Proximity is enough. Could you enlighten me as to any public policy issues that would arise when denying the existence of a duty of care that is owed by a pedestrian because I certainly cannot think of any?Just to clarify your point, are you saying that pedestrians dont owe motorists/cyclists(etc) a duty of care?

As above and per the linked thread. But in short insurence and the disaparity of injury between the parties. Cyclists I really don't know as may of the points become moot cyclist v pedestrian. Theoricly perhaps there is a duty of care owed to one's self as a pedestrian but it's unlikely there is one owed to a motorist.

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

If you see a pedestrian it is upto you to ensure that any action taken by that pedestrian does not not result in a colision with your car. I can't think of a scenario where a pedestrian would be quick enough to get infront of your car without you noticing it. If its walking out in front of you in the road - agin you would be at fault.

Can you back that up? I have studied law through my undergrad and iv passed my Tort FE1. Iv never come across a scenario where the standard rules of the duty of care have been departed from in this instance.
Judging by your username its safe to assume that you are a law student so i have no doubt you have full access to Lexis Nexis, Westlaw etc.

I cant see how they would given the above. Also you have insurence - they don't. Its always said that makes no difference I think everyone would agree it does.

Your insurance company will seek expenses back if the pedestrian is either partially or wholly at fault. When pedestrians do not observe to care for their own safety, not to mention the safety of others, the courts will not hesitated to find them either completely or partly responsible for the collision or injuries that resulted from their own negligent actions.

As above and per the linked thread. But in short insurence and the disaparity of injury between the parties. Cyclists I really don't know as may of the points become moot cyclist v pedestrian. Theoricly perhaps there is a duty of care owed to one's self as a pedestrian but it's unlikely there is one owed to a motorist.

Ill say it again. A driver owes a reasonable duty of care. There was a recent case in Cork where a young driver knocked a child down. He couldnt see the child and it was later proven that it would have been impossible for anyone to have seen the child given the angle it approached the car. The criminal charges were dropped and no civil liability arose from the matter. Trying to find the case name now.

Also, Read this.

Procrastastudy

I can only back it up by the thread I have linked and my opinion that the statement I have made is the standard of care owed by a driver. I think you'd agree that it's near impossible to find a case to where a pedestrian has been found liable for a drivers injuries. That said I suppose it's possible in theory.

I'm not sure where I have suggested that the comon rules of duty of care are suspended? I'm not suggesting there is strict liability just that in practise it's the motorist. Probably more like Res Ipsa - although I am aware that doesn't automaticly apply either.

I find it hard to believe an insurence company would go after a pedestrian on the gounds of PR but that isn't a legal point - that said I have conceeded your point on contributory negligence - but again I can't think of a single scenrio where it would apply. You have linked a possible one I would still maintain that this is going to be a tiny tiny number of cases and each would turn very much on their own facts. For example what if the area was frequently used by young children for play?

If you can find that Cork case I'd love to have a read of it please. Thank you for the linked article but I think it has a fair amount af sales spin on it. I relaise you are probably just trying to pitch at my (First year) level!

Bottom line is if a driver hits a pedestrian 99.9% of the time it is the driver that has breached the duty of care in my opinion.

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I can only back it up by the thread I have linked and my opinion that the statement I have made is the standard of care owed by a driver. I think you'd agree that it's near impossible to find a case to where a pedestrian has been found liable for a drivers injuries. That said I suppose it's possible in theory.

It will probably never happen because in very rare occasions will a pedestrian actually cause the drivers injury. However lets say you are driving along the motorway at 120kph, and someone drops down on your car from one of the above bridges. Its not forseeable that someone would throw themselves off a bridge. And given the speed you are travelling at a significant amount of damage would occur. The driver is not negligent because his speed is not excessive, and lets assume that he has been paying full attention that is to be reasonable expected from a driver on a motorway. The driver can sue the person who dropped down on the car because the damage is forseeable and there is proximity. Now a court MAY decide if public policy reasons allow for liability to be excused, but neither you nor I can be certain as to that question because we are not a judge.

I'm not sure where I have suggested that the comon rules of duty of care are suspended? I'm not suggesting there is strict liability just that in practise it's the motorist. Probably more like Res Ipsa - although I am aware that doesn't automaticly apply either.

In practice yes the motorist is usually to blame because the motorist has been negligent. But there can be instances where the motorist is in no way negligent and therefore will not be responsible for their own costs. Obviously if the pedestrian has no money there is probably no point in suing (because he has no insurance), but if the pedestrian does have assets/money then you can sue. You have suffered damage because of anothers negligent actions therefore you are entitled to recover.

I find it hard to believe an insurence company would go after a pedestrian on the gounds of PR but that isn't a legal point - that said I have conceeded your point on contributory negligence - but again I can't think of a single scenrio where it would apply. You have linked a possible one I would still maintain that this is going to be a tiny tiny number of cases and each would turn very much on their own facts. For example what if the area was frequently used by young children for play?

Im not saying this occurs every day of the week. But it does occur.

If you can find that Cork case I'd love to have a read of it please. Thank you for the linked article but I think it has a fair amount af sales spin on it. I relaise you are probably just trying to pitch at my (First year) level!

Breaking News Link RTE News Link This is the link to the breaking news story, trying to find a more detailed brief on it.

Bottom line is if a driver hits a pedestrian 99.9% of the time it is the driver

that has breached the duty of care in my opinion.

That is true to an extent. But you would be shocked at how common it is that the pedestrian was contributory negligent. If you cross when the man is red then you are being reckless and therefore your contributory negligence can dillute your potential recovery of damages from a negligent driver. This sort of cases are VERY fact heavy.
Then if the driver has not been negligent in anyway (which will be very hard to prove, but not impossible, because nobody is a perfect driver) then he can recover against the pedestrian.

The standard rules of negligence/Duty of Care apply. We all owe each other a duty of care. Im assuming you have done Tort law? If not then the first case you will study is Donoghue v Stevenson - The neighbour principle.

Hogzy

I found a case. Albeit a UK one but as you will be aware. UK precedent can be extremely persuasive in Ireland after all our Tort law is modeled on UK tort law.

Stewart v Glaze 2009

Summary

A drunk man who ran into the road, collided with a car and suffered catastrophic head injuries, cannot sue the driver for negligence, the High Court has held.
Michael Stewart, who is in a persistent vegetative state as a result of his injuries, had drunk an estimated five to seven pints and was sitting at a bus stop in the early hours of the morning, talking to a friend.
Delivering judgment in Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704(QB), Mr Justice Coulson said Stewart suddenly got up in the middle of his conversation and, without any warning, began walking towards the road.
“Mr Glaze was driving at about the speed limit. On his own evidence, he was driving carefully, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise. In particular, there was nothing to say that he had been distracted by anything at all.
“He had no reason to take any particular note of Mr Stewart until he stepped off the kerb. From then on, everything happened in a split second. It would, in my judgment, be wholly unreasonable on the evidence available to me to conclude that, immediately prior to the conclusion, Mr Glaze suddenly stopped being careful.”
Mr Justice Coulson went on: “It seems to me that this evidence highlighted the fundamental weakness in the claimant’s case.
“For the claim to have any prospect of success at all, it required Mr Glaze to see Mr Stewart the precise moment that he stepped off the kerb and to start taking defensive manoeuvres at that point, and not half a second or a second later.
“The case hinged on the proposition that Mr Glaze should have been looking out for Mr Stewart’s inexplicable charge into the road.
“In all the circumstances, I regard that as untenable. I do not consider that a reasonable driver would necessarily have seen Mr Stewart at that precise split second.”
Rejecting the negligence claim, Coulson J said that, given Mr Stewart’s inexplicable conduct, the collision was all but inevitable.
“There is no evidence that, if the collision had occurred at a lower but not a minimal speed, Mr Stewart would not have suffered the injuries that he did,” he concluded.

Source of Summary

Procrastastudy

I take most of your points and I actually think our positions are not as far apart as they may seem. Its obvious that you are approaching it from a more objectively legal point of view.

The man on red thing though is actually an interesting as I would argue that it's well known that pedestrians cross on red, its obvious is someone is standing there they may cross and that hazard needs to be assesed by the driver. I believe - but can't back it up (kind of my theme) that this is current legal position. As you have pointed out neither of us are Judges and even if we were it's even accepted by Judges its got wrong on may occations.

Yes I have done Tort (well doing it - badly :P). I don't disagree with the principles you have laid out - in the main it's their application. That said I think Glencar would have bearing as I still think public policy would play a major role.

All this said - and maybe a bit more OT what do you think ref cyclist v pedestrian? If there is anyone worse at hazard perception than motorists - its cyclists imo!

EDIT Thanks for the cases!

Hogzy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

The man on red thing though is actually an interesting as I would argue that it's well known that pedestrians cross on red, its obvious is someone is standing there they may cross and that hazard needs to be assesed by the driver.

It is well known that they cross on red. But if they do then the pedestrian is taking that risk KNOWING that there maybe oncoming traffic. If a car hits that pedestrian and evidence shows that the car COULD have stopped on time if the driver had been paying attention then the negligence will be split amongst the 2 individials (standard contributory negligence)

Yes I have done Tort (well doing it - badly :P).

If you have any questions i qould highly recommend asking them on the FE1 thread. It doesnt matter that you are not doing the exams. The FE1's are the same as undergrad exams just in a A LOT more detail.

All this said - and maybe a bit more OT what do you think ref cyclist v pedestrian? If there is anyone worse at hazard perception than motorists - its cyclists imo!

The exact same negligence principles apply. Obviously they will apply differently based on the circumstances of the case. Its hard to give a definitive answer without specific facts. We are just arguing over moot scenarios to be honest. You owe people a duty of care against foreseeable damage that may be caused by your actions if those people are proximate to you.

paky

Hogzy wrote: »

So in order for a risk to exist you are saying that someone must have to loose their life? You're being very narrow minded to be honest if you deny that there is a high risk of injury to someone (be it a cyclist, pedestrian, motor cyclist or motorist) if a cyclist (OR ANYONE) runs a red light/ breaks traffic laws

no what im saying is if we are to come down heavy on cyclists then the same standard must apply to pedestrians, but giving that its ireland, such a move would prove unpopular and will not happen anytime soon so i dont see why cyclists should to be singled out since the risks they pose are not much higher than risks which pedestrians pose!

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly. So maybe Jay walking should be an offense in urban areas. Cars have to dangerously swerve to avoid cyclists if they run red lights. Do you not see the irony in your above statement? 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Also in the case of motorcyclists, they could easily come off their bikes in order to avoid a cyclist.

i fail to see any irony tbh

this is a case of motor vehicle safety standards applied to cyclists which is completely wrong imo

BornToKill

Tigerbaby wrote: »

And dont get me started on footpath cyclists.

+1. It's called a footpath for good reason.

"Hey, I'm walkin' here!"

ResearchWill

Hogzy wrote: »

I found a case. Albeit a UK one but as you will be aware. UK precedent can be extremely persuasive in Ireland after all our Tort law is modeled on UK tort law.

Stewart v Glaze 2009

Summary

Source of Summary

Carroll v Clare County Council 1975 1 IR 221 still law here held that a guy who got into a car drunk, then crashed in to a traffic island, because he was following where the road used to go and not the new road markings was 70% worng but was entitled to recover 30% of his damages.

XxMCRxBabyxX

paky wrote: »

ive yet to hear of a case in ireland were pedestrian has lost their life to a cyclist.

A family member of mine died due to being knocked over by a cyclist.

Cyclists don't realise how dangerous they can be by not oveying the traffic laws, both to themselves and others. It is a lot easier to hear and see a car coming than a cyclist.

If you are using the roads you need to follow the rules. Full stop

Hogzy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

If you are using the roads you need to follow the rules. Full stop

Exactly. They are called the rules of the ROAD for a reaSon, anyone who uses the road must obey the rules

paky

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

A family member of mine died due to being knocked over by a cyclist.

Cyclists don't realise how dangerous they can be by not oveying the traffic laws, both to themselves and others. It is a lot easier to hear and see a car coming than a cyclist.

If you are using the roads you need to follow the rules. Full stop

coming from you, i'd take that with a pinch of salt

btw, that is soooooo hearsay

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly. They are called the rules of the ROAD for a reaSon, anyone who uses the road must obey the rules

nonsense, a form of schoolyard bullying is wht it is. cyclists don't require

(a) a licence

(b) insurance

(c) road tax

just goes to show how much of a risk they are.

anyone have any stats to prove how dangerous cyclists are in ireland?

Paulw

paky wrote: »

nonsense, a form of schoolyard bullying is wht it is. cyclists don't require

(a) a licence

(b) insurance

(c) road tax

So? The law still states that cyclists must obey the rules of the road. Any cyclist failing to do so may end up in court. And it's good to see that more and more are ending up in court, and being fined, especially for breaking red lights.

XxMCRxBabyxX

paky wrote: »

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

A family member of mine died due to being knocked over by a cyclist.

Cyclists don't realise how dangerous they can be by not oveying the traffic laws, both to themselves and others. It is a lot easier to hear and see a car coming than a cyclist.

If you are using the roads you need to follow the rules. Full stop

coming from you, i'd take that with a pinch of salt

btw, that is soooooo hearsay

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly. They are called the rules of the ROAD for a reaSon, anyone who uses the road must obey the rules

nonsense, a form of schoolyard bullying is wht it is. cyclists don't require

(a) a licence

(b) insurance

(c) road tax

just goes to show how much of a risk they are.

anyone have any stats to prove how dangerous cyclists are in ireland?

I should expected that from you paky but it is totally true and if you want the details I can easily get them for you.

Cyclists can be dangerous whether you want to believe it or not

Procrastastudy

While we're on this... What's the story with the cyclists with no lights (e.g. most of them) is it an atempt at stealth in knocking over pedestrians or do they just have a death wish?

They do realise that reflective gear needs light to work right?

Spunge

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

While we're on this... What's the story with the cyclists with no lights (e.g. most of them) is it an atempt at stealth in knocking over pedestrians or do they just have a death wish?

They do realise that reflective gear needs light to work right?

Im up in court for having no light on my bike(stupid i know). So they are doing something about it at least.

Procrastastudy

Court?! Jesus I quick word would have done no? Can they not give you some sort of ticket?

Spunge

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Court?! Jesus I quick word would have done no? Can they not give you some sort of ticket?

I assume there's no system in place for that(unlike for cars etc) so they have to send you to court.

NoQuarter

Bumping for the actual legislative provision that deals with this? Anyone?

I've had a look through the RTA but its like stabbing my eyes with glass its so messy in there!

ResearchWill

NoQuarter wrote: »

Bumping for the actual legislative provision that deals with this? Anyone?

I've had a look through the RTA but its like stabbing my eyes with glass its so messy in there!

I am only dealing with the law as enacted in 1961, as I really don't have time to go through all the legislation to show amendments there are amendment right upto 2011.

Section 11 of the 1961 Act states

11.—(1) The Minister may make regulations in relation to the use of vehicles in public places. Etc.

One of the regulations can be found here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES) REGULATIONS, 1963

Section 102 of the 1961 Act then sets out general penalties.

102.—Where a person is guilty of an offence under any section or subsection of a section of this Act and, apart from this section and disregarding any disqualification that may be capable of being imposed, no penalty is provided for the offence, such person shall be liable on summary conviction—


(a) in the case of a first offence under that section or subsection—to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds,

(b) in the case of a second offence under that section or subsection, or of a third or subsequent such offence other than an offence referred to in the next paragraph—to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and

(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence under that section or subsection which is the third or subsequent such offence in any period of twelve consecutive months—to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.



The above may not be the current state of the law as it does not take into account amendments, it is just given as an example of how for example lights on bikes is regulated.

NoQuarter

Thanks for that ResearchWill but the specific provision I'm looking for is what a summons is brought under when a cyclist runs a red light and nothing to do with the lights used to light up the bike!

ResearchWill

NoQuarter wrote: »

Thanks for that ResearchWill but the specific provision I'm looking for is what a summons is brought under when a cyclist runs a red light and nothing to do with the lights used to light up the bike!

Well then in the middle of the above example you insert


S.I. No. 171/1962:
ROAD TRAFFIC (SIGNS) REGULATIONS, 1962

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/si/0171.html

Again these would have been amended. So section 11 allows the making of regulations and usually section 102 creates the penalty.

Section 95 of the 1961 Act deals with trafic signs. I can't find as I'm using my iPhone the exact regulation that makes breaking a red light an offences, when I get a chance I'll get the reg and section.