Knocked off bike, who's fault?

rozeboosje

Then he's at fault. You and he were on the same road. You were continuing on on the same road, he was turning off. Under all circumstances, even if you were a pedestrian, that gives you right of way. End of. If he then proceeds to knock you off your bike, it's his fault, and there's no debate. It's like rear-ending someone; it's your responsibility to keep sufficient distance to stop in time when the unexpected happens. If you rear-end someone there is almost no possible circumstance in which that would be anything other than your fault. Same here. If you turn off a road, you MUST give way to anything or anyone who is traveling on and continuing on that road.

rozeboosje

Sorry - I hope I didn't confuse you by switching from "he" to "you" halfway through that statement. The "you" turning off the road corresponds with the driver of the car in your incident. "My bad".

thomas98798

Quick q did you ask him for his details before he left. If you didn't I'm guessing it would be hard to report this as a hit and run. Not really his fault that you didn't ask for his details.

dited

thomas98798 wrote: »

Quick q did you ask him for his details before he left. If you didn't I'm guessing it would be hard to report this as a hit and run. Not really his fault that you didn't ask for his details.

Would you apply the same logic to a pedestrian knocked down by a car that fails to stop?

thomas98798

dited wrote: »

Would you apply the same logic to a pedestrian knocked down by a car that fails to stop?

If the pedestrian was unconscious, and unable to do anything then no.

I would like to know more about what happened between the incident and the driver leaving the scene. Do you think it is possible that the driver thought you were ok, and there was no longer any reason for him to stay there se he left the scene.

Dermot Illogical

thomas98798 wrote: »

Quick q did you ask him for his details before he left. If you didn't I'm guessing it would be hard to report this as a hit and run. Not really his fault that you didn't ask for his details.

S.106 RTA 1961 (posted above). The driver is obliged to give name, address and insurance details to any other party he/she is involved in a collision with. If you check subsection (b) you'll see that there is an obligation to remain at the scene for a reasonable time.

dited

thomas98798 wrote: »

I would like to know more about what happened between the incident and the driver leaving the scene. Do you think it is possible that the driver thought you were ok, and there was no longer any reason for him to stay there se he left the scene.

The only way of finding that out for sure is to ask the driver. The only way of asking the driver is through the gardaí. Ergo, the OP should contact the gardaí and let them do what they think is necessary.

Dermot Illogical

thomas98798 wrote: »

Do you think it is possible that the driver thought you were ok, and there was no longer any reason for him to stay there se he left the scene.

Perhaps he thought the wheel would repair itself as well?

thomas98798

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

S.106 RTA 1961 (posted above). The driver is obliged to give name, address and insurance details to any other party he/she is involved in a collision with. If you check subsection (b) you'll see that there is an obligation to remain at the scene for a reasonable time.

Exactly DI, reasonable time maybe he did stay there for a reasonable time. He certainly stayed at the scene long enough to be id by witness and also to get his number plate info. Would be ideal if the OP could come back to us with some more detail.

thomas98798

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Perhaps he thought the wheel would repair itself as well?

Doubt that

budgemook

thomas98798 wrote: »

Quick q did you ask him for his details before he left. If you didn't I'm guessing it would be hard to report this as a hit and run. Not really his fault that you didn't ask for his details.

I didn't ask. Like I said, when he got back in the car I assumed he was pulling it in off the road. I was still fairly shook up at this stage (30 seconds later)

thomas98798 wrote: »

If the pedestrian was unconscious, and unable to do anything then no.

I would like to know more about what happened between the incident and the driver leaving the scene. Do you think it is possible that the driver thought you were ok, and there was no longer any reason for him to stay there se he left the scene.

Yes I think the driver thought I was fine and could see there were other people making sure I was okay so decided to leave. If I was lying injured on the ground I'd be fairly certain he'd have stayed.

monument

budgemook wrote: »

I didn't ask. Like I said, when he got back in the car I assumed he was pulling it in off the road. I was still fairly shook up at this stage (30 seconds later)

Yes I think the driver thought I was fine and could see there were other people making sure I was okay so decided to leave. If I was lying injured on the ground I'd be fairly certain he'd have stayed.

OP - forget what thomas98798, he's wrong, the driver was in the wrong for leaving. You should report the incident ASAP to the local Garda station nearest the street you were on.

You will be asked why you did not report it this morning and the clear answer seem to be that you did not know that the driving leaving was against the law.

thomas98798

monument wrote: »

OP - forget what thomas98798, he's wrong, the driver was in the wrong for leaving. .

What have I said that is wrong. ?..

OP Im going to give you some sound advice here,

You seem like a guy who is very level headed, so keep that attitude up. A hit and run this is a serious offence that would carry a custodial sentence if action were to be taken by the Gardai, if you report it as such. Firstly I don't belive this was a hit and run, just ignorance on the part of the driver.
Go to the Gardai, tell them the story just as you have explained it here. Explain how you didn't get the drivers details, and you would like to report that an incident occurred. The Gardai may take a statement from you, and if they believe it was a hit and run they'll investigate it accordingly.

budgemook

Thanks everyone for the replies. I got my answer - general consensus is that it was mostly the fault of the driver. He should have really left me his details this morning, in case anything happened after such as injury or damage to my bike, but didn't.

I'll certainly be taking even more care on the bloody quays and hopefully the driver will be more careful and cyclist aware. Happy to be at home and not in hospital or worse. Happy my legs weren't hurt in the lead up to this big run around Dublin on Monday. Things certainly could have been worse.

Be careful out there!

monument

budgemook wrote: »

Thanks everyone for the replies. I got my answer - general consensus is that it was mostly the fault of the driver. He should have really left me his details this morning, in case anything happened after such as injury or damage to my bike, but didn't.

I'll certainly be taking even more care on the bloody quays and hopefully the driver will be more careful and cyclist aware. Happy to be at home and not in hospital or worse. Happy my legs weren't hurt in the lead up to this big run around Dublin on Monday. Things certainly could have been worse.

Be careful out there!

Please do report the driver -- if it isn't reported the driver is likely to repeat the mistake sooner or later and the next cyclist might not be so lucky.

If you want, you can indicate to the gardai that you just want the driver warned to prevent it from happening again.

thomas98798 wrote: »

What have I said that is wrong. ?..

Err... Let's just look at your last post:

thomas98798 wrote: »

that would carry a custodial sentence if action were to be taken by the Gardai if you report it as such.

This is not true. It is not predetermined that it would even result in a caution for the driver, never mind go to court, and never mind that even if it did go to court it's not predetermined such a sentence would be handed.

thomas98798 wrote: »

Firstly I don't belive this was a hit and run, just ignorance on the part of the driver.

Ignorance does not excuse the driver, nor does it determine what offence has been committed.

I know you see it all so differently, so, if you want to dispute any of the above, fine. I'll agree to disagree.

thomas98798

monument wrote: »

Please do report the driver -- if it isn't reported the driver is likely to repeat the mistake sooner or later and the next cyclist might not be so lucky.

If you want, you can indicate to the gardai that you just want the driver warned to prevent it from happening again.




Err... Let's just look at your last post:



This is not true. It is not predetermined that it would even result in a caution for the driver, never mind go to court, and never mind that even if it did go to court it's not predetermined such a sentence would be handed.




Ignorance does not excuse the driver, nor does it determine what offence has been committed.

I know you see it all so differently, so, if you want to dispute any of the above, fine. I'll agree to disagree.

Read my post mate, I advised him to go to the Gardai and report it.... Allot of what you have said above isn't true.
Best the op seeks professional advice for clarification to any thing either of us has said,

Inquitus

LeftBase wrote: »

This seems to be an all too common occurrence in Dublin. To be honest there is blame in all directions in many cases. The driver, cyclist and authorities.
I have been living in London the last year or so and I noticed while driving that cyclists here take their cycling an awful lot more seriously and are policed more than they are in Dublin. 99% of cyclists here will have some sort of illumination, be it a bright top or light and it makes it a lot easier to spot them. Also if a cyclist is out in his All Blacks kit the traffic police will be quick enough to have a word with him and issue him a warning. The biggest difference was the cyclists here(again 99%) stopping at the lights!! I almost fell out of my standing(well I was in the car but you get the idea) when I saw it!

In Dublin you see these comedians all too often cycling all over the road swaying left and right with not a light or piece of bright clothing to show them up at night and sure when they come across a red light what of it? "red lights are only for cars". When I was home in the summer I saw some spanner on a bike sail straight through a junction on a red light and the crossing traffic who had a green had to slam on to avoid smashing in to him. Had he been hit I'm afraid he would have gotten no sympathy from me and I would have no problem chalking it up to Darwinism. If a car was to do that there would be Garda cars called and handcuffs flying about. In many cases where cyclists cause accidents they hide behind the fact they have no insurance and the motorist is blamed regardless of the circumstances so that the finances can be settled quickly.

The issue that I think causes all the hassle however is the total lack of cycling infrastructure around the city. The City Council start up this bike scheme and unleash the potential of a load of totally clueless idiots on bikes with no notion of how the road works or what they need/have to do etc. You see these people cluelessly floating around the city without a signal or thought for the traffic around them. The Council then don't put in proper cycle lanes so the bikes have to cycle on the road with the cars and that is a recipe for disaster no doubt. I have Dutch cousins and the idea of cars and bikes in the same lanes in a city was a joke to them!

To really cut down on the number of bumps, scrapes or worse I think the Council need to invest in proper cycling infrastructure and the Guards need to enforce traffic laws and proper attire for cyclists. If a bike breaks the lights it should be treated the same as a car doing it and the punishment should be the same.

LOL cyclists in london make us over here look like saints, take it you don't go into the city much....

rozeboosje

Leftbase is bringing all sorts of irrelevant nonsense into the discussion. I grew up in the Netherlands and if you think cycling is taken seriously in London, try your luck in an average Dutch town or village.

Yes, cyclists often behave as if they think half the rules of the road don't apply to them. So do pedestrians. I guess it comes down to the fact that being light and nimble on your wheels c.q. feet will allow you to "get away" with some things that a driver of a large mechanical contraption wouldn't.

But none of that is relevant to this question. In this scenario both the driver and the cyclist were on the same road. The cyclist was continuing on that road, the motorist was turning off. In that case the cyclist has right of way, and even if the cyclist was in a daydream, completely oblivious to what was happening around him, if the motorist then turns off the road and knocks the cyclist off his bike, the motorist is 100% responsible for the incident.

galwaycyclist

rozeboosje wrote: »

But none of that is relevant to this question. In this scenario both the driver and the cyclist were on the same road. The cyclist was continuing on that road, the motorist was turning off. In that case the cyclist has right of way, and even if the cyclist was in a daydream, completely oblivious to what was happening around him, if the motorist then turns off the road and knocks the cyclist off his bike, the motorist is 100% responsible for the incident.

You seem very sure of your grasp of Irish traffic law. Can you provide us with the legal basis for this statement?

rozeboosje

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Can you provide us with the legal basis for this statement?

I'm afraid my Google-Fu is not up to that standard, Sensei. Grasshopper is ashamed.

rozeboosje

Ok - I think that perhaps the rules are a bit "gappy" in that regard, but looking at this:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a22

When right of way to be yielded


22. (8) A driver 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 the junction.

I think it's pretty reasonable to extend this to a car intending to turn LEFT at a junction, while having stopped beside a cycle track, having to yield to any cyclist coming from behind, travelling in the same direction as the car, and intending to proceed straight through the junction, or a pedestrian doing the same on the car's left hand side of the road and in either direction. I wonder whether such a case has ever been argued in a court and what the outcome was...

galwaycyclist

rozeboosje wrote: »

Ok - I think that perhaps the rules are a bit "gappy" in that regard, but looking at this:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a22

When right of way to be yielded


22. (8) A driver 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 the junction.

I think it's pretty reasonable to extend this to a car intending to turn LEFT at a junction, while having stopped beside a cycle track, having to yield to any cyclist coming from behind, travelling in the same direction as the car, and intending to proceed straight through the junction, or a pedestrian doing the same on the car's left hand side of the road and in either direction. I wonder whether such a case has ever been argued in a court and what the outcome was...

OK what it reasonable from a Dutch legal perspective is, with regret, irrelevant. We established in Post 7 of this thread that there is no cycle track at this place.

The law you quote is out of date. However it is still useful as a source of precedents. Can you show us anywhere in the law you cited where it says Irish cyclists were entitled to overtake other traffic in the same lane on the left hand side?

I'll save you the bother - it isnt there - the concept did not exist in Irish traffic law until 2012.

As for your speculation regarding right of way for pedestrians this is from the same law you quoted

Pedestrians crossing roadway
36.—(1) When crossing a roadway a pedestrian shall remain on the roadway only for so long as is necessary.

(2) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a pointsman, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or pointsman) to proceed, and shall yield the right of way to any traffic turning in front of the pedestrian.

For clarification this refers to a time (1964) when many traffic lights did not have pedestrian phases. However the legal principle - pedestrians yield to turning cars - is the exact opposite of what would apply in many other Northern European countries.

rozeboosje

I humbly stand corrected, though I think this may warrant revision... ;-)

galwaycyclist

rozeboosje wrote: »

I humbly stand corrected, though I think this may warrant revision... ;-)

On the revision part you are preaching to the converted and believe me I would not stop there.

galwaycyclist

So grasshopper - you will be more influential with better information

The Irish law on overtaking for cyclists was changed in 2012 as follows

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

It would appear that this is legislation that applies in the circumstances of the current incident. Unless there is CCTV or a witness it will be the original poster's word against the drivers on the question of "did he indicate the turn or not?".

Awkward

But on the question of leaving the scene of an accident there is no doubt.

Less awkward.

<off topic>
As an aside and by way of demonstrating the importance of pedestrians to those who draft Irish traffic law. The 1964 regulations that you found included a duty on motorists to yield at zebra crossings. This was dropped for some reason when the regulations were updated in 1997. The 2012 amendments above also include the restatement/restoration of the duty of drivers to yield at zebra crossings. 15 years later.
</off topic>

check_six

check_six wrote: »

Look, these sort of threads usually end up with the person who is on the thread (i.e. you) getting a bit of support, and then some over the top grief. The other guy isn't here so why knock him some (mean) people reckon.

The threadites will attempt to determine if the car overtook you before the corner, or was it always ahead of you until it turned. Should the driver have indicated earlier, or are indicators unnescessary fripperies that should be ignored whether they are lit up or not. Then there will be a few quotes from statute books, some highlighting an entire passage, some just a word or two. Then three or four people will argue the toss over these fine points for a few days while you've forgotten about the thread entirely. Also, pray to god that there is no mention of bloody 'road' tax.

The way I see it, you got run over by a driver who should have been more careful no matter how far ahead they were of you, but that's just my opinion. Other's may say that you are, in fact, the devil, out there trying to do a good driver down.

Also, if you were on the way to pick up tools from Capel St to open a safe you just found hidden in a house you just purchased, you should mention that right now.

Statute book?

BINGO!

HOUSE!

You sunk my battleship!

And we're barely 24 hours in here! Now OP, you need to feed the flames. give us another bit of information to chew over. Did the driver have a distinctive scar on his face, a fake arm, or a personalised number plate (1 5M45H U)? Traditionally, the next part is a tale of woe trying to wait for the first Guard to whom you reported the incident to some back from holiday, or come off night shifts, etc.

Good luck!

thomas98798

Back to the OP original question.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?



From what I've read it was your own fault.

But go to the guards anyway and see if ya can get this guy up in court for a hit and run. It'll look great on his record. He will more than likely loose his licence, possibly job (if he needs to drive for work) and who knows what else as his insurance will be through the roof for next few millennial. But don't let that sort of information effect your decision, at the end of the day you are the injured party. Think about all the damage you suffered, at the hands of this maniac. Think about the repercussions that this will have on you, you may never even be able to cycle again because of the psychological damage that was done.

Or you could dust your self off, take it as a bad experience and learn from it. Move on, your not made of glass, and stop posting this sort of "crash for cash" crap that can be seen all over boards. Shame on those of you who encourage this sort of behavior. Your posts are viewed by 100's of people, who may think it's an easy way to make a few €'s.

Kurtosis

thomas98798 wrote: »

Or you could dust your self off, take it as a bad experience and learn from it. Move on, your not made of glass, and stop posting this sort of "crash for cash" crap that can be seen all over boards.

Did you actually read the OP's posts? No mention of looking for cash, compensation etc, just asking was he/she at fault. The OP's question has been answered by many posters on this thread and the consensus puts you in the very vocal minority. Probably best not to imply that the OP is some class of ambulance chaser.

Trent Houseboat

thomas98798 wrote: »

Back to the OP original question.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?



From what I've read it was your own fault.

But go to the guards anyway and see if ya can get this guy up in court for a hit and run. It'll look great on his record. He will more than likely loose his licence, possibly job (if he needs to drive for work) and who knows what else as his insurance will be through the roof for next few millennial. But don't let that sort of information effect your decision, at the end of the day you are the injured party. Think about all the damage you suffered, at the hands of this maniac. Think about the repercussions that this will have on you, you may never even be able to cycle again because of the psychological damage that was done.

Or you could dust your self off, take it as a bad experience and learn from it. Move on, your not made of glass, and stop posting this sort of "crash for cash" crap that can be seen all over boards. Shame on those of you who encourage this sort of behavior. Your posts are viewed by 100's of people, who may think it's an easy way to make a few €'s.

The driver left the scene of a colision without providing his details. You belittle what happened to the OP but they could have suffered brain trauma and appeared fine at the time but ended up in a serious condition later. Luckily this was not the case, but the driver was not to know this at the time he left the scene.

Ray Palmer

thomas98798 wrote: »

Back to the OP original question.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?



From what I've read it was your own fault.
.

What?

I don't get how you can say that in any way!

The car didn't indicate nor look. The cyclist had no reason to expect the car was to cross his path. A cyclist is allowed to be in that position on the road and can over take on the inside of cars.

Can't see any logical reason the cyclist is at fault.

The fact the driver left without handing over details is an additional issue.