Knocked off bike, who's fault?

thomas98798

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

cyclists involved in a road traffic accident?

Your post really says it all, automatic assumption that the cyclist is the injured party in a rta

Lusk_Doyle

thomas98798 wrote: »

Your post really says it all, automatic assumption that the cyclist is the injured party in a rta

Are you dyslexic? My post said involved in a rta, not injured. When you decide to check back in with reality, we are here.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

You hit someone with a door. It's not an accident, unless you're claiming that the door opened all by hitself and hit someone. Even then you'd still be liable because it's your door.

beauf wrote: »

Why. You're trying to drag this off topic into cyclist needing insurance when its not worked anywhere in the world. Its a complete dead end. You can't simply open a door or pull out from the kerb into someones path with no responsibility. Taxis are especially bad for just stopping in dangerous locations with no warning. Letting passengers out etc. It can be hard to prove, but that's why dash and head cams are becoming so popular.

But in lots of cases its is clear who's at fault.

@NoPants In the case of the OP

budgemook wrote: »

I don't really know if he overtook me first. Also, close to the footpath might be a bit inaccurate, i was cycling along in the left hand lane as normal. There weren't any cars in front of the other car I don't think but like I say I can't be sure, happened pretty fast. There's no cycle track on that part of the quays.

The driver got out of the car and asked was I okay. A lot of other people came over too as it was a bad enough fall. The driver got back int he car pretty quickly then and drove off. Someone gave me his licence plate number but I'm not sure I'll bother taking it further. It would be a civil matter which I doubt i'd pursue over a buckled wheel.

Isn't even sure of what happened, in the other doored thread the OP has no independant witnesses therefore liability isn't clearly with the driver of either vehicle. Hence why I said in another post get witnesses where ever possible even if it means staying down on the deck, of course a truly independant witness may put you into the frame as being liable but that's a chance you take.

@Beauf Do you classify my replying to your posts as dragging a subject off topic, if so then I apologise but perhaps you should consider whether your post was pertinant in the 1st place

beauf wrote: »

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

thomas98798

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Are you dyslexic? My post said involved in a rta, not injured. When you decide to check back in with reality, we are here.

No need to make disparaging remarks referring to people as being dyslexic. Its insulting to people who actually suffer from dyslexia because you don't seem to understand what being dyslexic means, but that is a can of worms that you can work out in your own time.....However the rest of your post does raise the following question.

Are you stupid?

Tell me forest did you happen to read my whole post, or did you just look for one word. Injury and injured party are very different. I decided to use the phrase injured party, as i wanted to demonstrate that there appears to be a strong line of support in this forum, that promotes cyclist in a manner that its unfair to motorists, when they are involved in a rta.....in the op case he is the injured party.....as he is claiming to have suffered loss due to the actions of another. This loss could be financial, physical, psychological etc hence the wording used was injured party not injury.....

Still can't believe you called me dyslexic, what an idiot. LOL

thomas98798

Spook_ie wrote: »

@NoPants In the case of the OP


Isn't even sure of what happened, in the other doored thread the OP has no independant witnesses therefore liability isn't clearly with the driver of either vehicle. Hence why I said in another post get witnesses where ever possible even if it means staying down on the deck, of course a truly independant witness may put you into the frame as being liable but that's a chance you take.

@Beauf Do you classify my replying to your posts as dragging a subject off topic, if so then I apologise but perhaps you should consider whether your post was pertinant in the 1st place

Well said. Hear hear.

Spook_ie

Lawr wrote: »

That is pretty scary. I am a licensed driver in this country, not from this country, and I have to say, the idea of pedestrians yielding to turning traffic is counter-intuitive. As you say, that is not the legal principal in operation in my home country (US), nor is it my experience in other countries I have visited in Europe. I wondered why drivers seem so out of sorts when I assume right of way when crossing a street where there is no cross-walk or light. They come at you like they're not going to stop, and sometimes they don't. They just as soon run you down, the cheek of you.

Scary maybe but no legal basis

SI 294/1964

(2) Bye-laws 12, 15, 16, 29, 33 and 35, paragraph (1) of bye-law 23, paragraph (1) of bye-law 36 and paragraph (1) of bye-law 38 of these bye-laws shall apply save where non-compliance therewith does not, and is not likely to, endanger or inconvenience other traffic or a pedestrian.

I don't believe it's been superceded and you'll find it peppered around other SIs such as SI 332/212

(a) where the road on which he or she is driving terminates at the junction, yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians on the other road

Lusk_Doyle

thomas98798 wrote: »

No need to make disparaging remarks referring to people as being dyslexic. Its insulting to people who actually suffer from dyslexia because you don't seem to understand what being dyslexic means, but that is a can of worms that you can work out in your own time.....However the rest of your post does raise the following question.

Are you stupid?

Tell me forest did you happen to read my whole post, or did you just look for one word. Injury and injured party are very different. I decided to use the phrase injured party, as i wanted to demonstrate that there appears to be a strong line of support in this forum, that promotes cyclist in a manner that its unfair to motorists, when they are involved in a rta.....in the op case he is the injured party.....as he is claiming to have suffered loss due to the actions of another. This loss could be financial, physical, psychological etc hence the wording used was injured party not injury.....

Still can't believe you called me dyslexic, what an idiot. LOL

I didn't say that you were dyslexic. I asked a perfectly reasonable question because you seem to see things written that aren't actually there. It wasn't a disparaging remark and your attempt to divert attention away from the subject is laughable. Again. I'm not stupid in answer to your question. My post, to which you responded, made zero mention of injury or fault or otherwise. You chose to spin it to suit your agenda which, quite frankly I've had enough of.

thomas98798

Zyzz wrote: »

As with your input. When we get these threads theres always a handful of users with a low post count that have nothing useful to say and continually post just to sh*t stir.

And you are a prime example.

Well I may have less posts than you but I certainly added more to this thread than you.... given that your opening post was.

"No, not at all"

It didn't even make sense...

Maybe it should be a word count rather than post count that should be displayed on profiles

thomas98798

[quote="Lusk_Doyle;87195211"I didn't say that you were dyslexic. I asked a perfectly reasonable question because you seem to see things written that aren't actually there. It wasn't a disparaging remark and your attempt to divert attention away from the subject is laughable. Again. I'm not stupid in answer to your question. My post, to which you responded, made zero memtion of injury or fault or otherwise. You chose to spin it to suit you agenda which, quite frankly I've had enough of.[/quote]


You asked me if I suffered from dyslexia, because you don't know the difference between the word "injury" and the phrase "injured party".

Also your dyslexia comment is even more laughable given your last post

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

My post, to which you responded, made zero memtion of injury or fault or otherwise. You chose to spin it yo suit you agenda which, quite frankly I've had enough of.

Memtion......you agenda haha

Beasty

@thomas98798 do not post in this thread again or you will be banned from the forum

Everyone else, please ignore his posts

Any questions, PM me - do not respond in-thread

budgemook

Wow. This thread got out of hand since I last looked.

"Compo" mad I am.

Hmmzis

thomas98798 wrote: »

And the award for the most self righteous over dramatic post goes too.........Hmmzis

Come on lads, your making this driver or to be some sort of menace that needs to be locked up in the high security wing of portlaoise prison.

OP and the rest of ye are only looking for one thing, these posts stink of the compo claim culture that has caused insurance prices to become so inflated that ordinary hard working people just can't afford to drive to work. Shame on you all.

Yes, it is dramatic and so is the outcome of a human being crushed by a car.

Beasty

thomas98798 is thread-banned - please do not respond to his posts as he is unable to reply

gtx

beauf wrote: »

Why. You're trying to drag this off topic into cyclist needing insurance when its not worked anywhere in the world. Its a complete dead end. You can't simply open a door or pull out from the kerb into someones path with no responsibility. Taxis are especially bad for just stopping in dangerous locations with no warning. Letting passengers out etc. It can be hard to prove, but that's why dash and head cams are becoming so popular.

But in lots of cases its is clear who's at fault.

Ah that's not true worked in the Netherlands for two years and we needed person insurance. so if you got injured you claimed from your self especially handy if you run into or get hit by a car while on the bike.

also it would cut down on claims, as you are less likely to claim of your own insurance, in less serious cases. again in my own opinion.

I feel cyclist should have insurance as bikes can do a lot a damage to cars. pedals scraping them, running into doors etc etc....!!

Qualitymark

Anyone who's in an accident is shocked and unlikely to make sensible decisions. So the rule should be:

always call the Gardaí if an accident happens.

The gardaí who arrive will breathalyze both parties and take statements from both parties and from witnesses, and can take CCTV from local shops. If there is a problem or a claim later - for example, if the cyclist in the original post turns out to have concussion, which often won't show symptoms immediately - then the details of the accident are already on record.

gtx

Qualitymark wrote: »

Anyone who's in an accident is shocked and unlikely to make sensible decisions. So the rule should be:

always call the Gardaí if an accident happens.

The gardaí who arrive will breathalyze both parties and take statements from both parties and from witnesses, and can take CCTV from local shops. If there is a problem or a claim later - for example, if the cyclist in the original post turns out to have concussion, which often won't show symptoms immediately - then the details of the accident are already on record.

Point taken...

monument

gtx wrote: »

Ah that's not true worked in the Netherlands for two years and we needed person insurance. so if you got injured you claimed from your self especially handy if you run into or get hit by a car while on the bike.

also it would cut down on claims, as you are less likely to claim of your own insurance, in less serious cases. again in my own opinion.

I feel cyclist should have insurance as bikes can do a lot a damage to cars. pedals scraping them, running into doors etc etc....!!

You might have lived there but you don't seem to have it right...



http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/

For the motorist to be held not at all liable for costs, the cyclist needs to have caused the "damage on purpose, or his/her behaviour was so careless, that it can be seen as 'recklessness verging on intent'." If the collision involves a child under 14, the driver is held 100% liable for costs (unless it can be proven that the child did it on purpose -- being reckless does not matter for children).

Bring it on if you're going to follow the Dutch modal -- but take note that the their law on this only codified what was happening in court before hand.

gtx

Nice Chart...:cool: