Question - Who should pay the costs

keithclancy

So hypothetical situation.

A person is driving a car on a road, there is a bicycle in front with a 15 year old child cycling it in a cycle lane while texting and wearing headphones.

The person driving the car proceeds to pass the cyclist using the driving lane and while passing the child loses control moves out of the cycle lane and falls onto the bonnet of the Car.

Nobody is seriously injured, the Bicycle is damaged, the car is damaged with some dents and scrapes.

Who should pay the costs ?

Supergurrier

Haven't you heard cyclists are immune to prosecution for rta's

maceocc2

I put the car driver because I'm pretty sure that's what would actually happen, but morally the cyclist/cyclists parents should pay up.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Why is the car driver even listed as an option?

Alias G

It might depend on how close the motorist was while passing. 1.5 meters is the recommended distance when overtaking a bicycle but it is often not followed. Passing any closer may leave the motorist culpable. A cyclist will often have to swerve unexpectedly due to potholes, manholes, gusts of wind and other reasons that a car driver is not even aware of. The child in this instance may have been cycling irresponsibly, but who is to say they didn't meet a pothole. Hence the reason for adequate space when passing.

djimi

Alias G wrote: »

It might depend on how close the motorist was while passing. 1.5 meters is the recommended distance when overtaking a bicycle but it is often not followed. Passing any closer may leave the motorist culpable. A cyclist will often have to swerve unexpectedly due to potholes, manholes, gusts of wind and other reasons that a car driver is not even aware of. The child in this instance may have been cycling irresponsibly, but who is to say they didn't meet a pothole. Hence the reason for adequate space when passing.

Bikes have brakes, and cyclists have just as much responsibility to be aware of their surroundings as cars do. Potholes/manholes dont just jump out of nowhere! You can (and obviously should) leave space when overtaking anything, especially a cyclist, but there is only so much space that you can leave. Once you start the overtake, the onus in on the cyclist to be aware of what is going on, and to take precautions accordingly (ie prepare to slow down/stop if they see something ahead that they might have to avoid).

If it was two cars, and one car swerved into another car while it was being overtaken then it would be seen to be responsible; I dont see why this would be any different.

I'd guess if you went the insurance route the driver would end up paying something.

Cabaal

Did the motorist give correct clearance when passing the cyclist?

Alias G

djimi wrote: »

Bikes have brakes, and cyclists have just as much responsibility to be aware of their surroundings as cars do. Potholes/manholes dont just jump out of nowhere! You can (and obviously should) leave space when overtaking anything, especially a cyclist, but there is only so much space that you can leave. Once you start the overtake, the onus in on the cyclist to be aware of what is going on, and to take precautions accordingly (ie prepare to slow down/stop if they see something ahead that they might have to avoid).

If it was two cars, and one car swerved into another car while it was being overtaken then it would be seen to be responsible; I dont see why this would be any different.

Where did I suggest that cyclist have no responsibility of their own. I was merely pointing out that without more specific details of the overtaking manoeuver then the motorists culpability cannot be ruled out. If a cyclist hits a pothole or goes around it the net result is a deviation in their trajectory. A cyclist has no defense against being blown by a gust of wind. You cannot cycle over manholes in the wet as you will come off the bike eventually on the slippy surface. It is for these reasons that it is required of a motorist to give adequate space.

Actually, is there anything in law about the clearance needed to give cyclists? I was under the impression there was no set distance. 1.5m is recommended and is legal on the continent but I don't recall it for here.

Cabaal

Dónal wrote: »

Actually, is there anything in law about the clearance needed to give cyclists? I was under the impression there was no set distance. 1.5m is recommended and is legal on the continent but I don't recall it for here.

there is a distance stated in the ROTR off hand, also RSA have run adverts advising motorists to ensure they give a safe distance

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Cabaal wrote: »

there is a distance stated in the ROTR off hand, also RSA have run adverts advising motorists to ensure they give a safe distance

Neither have any legal base though.

slimjimmc

keithclancy wrote: »

So hypothetical situation.

A person is driving a car on a road, there is a bicycle in front with a 15 year old child cycling it in a cycle lane while texting and wearing headphones.

The person driving the car proceeds to pass the cyclist using the driving lane and while passing the child loses control moves out of the cycle lane and falls onto the bonnet of the Car.

Nobody is seriously injured, the Bicycle is damaged, the car is damaged with some dents and scrapes.

Who should pay the costs ?

I'd say the cyclist is responsible since as a road user he failed to keep his vehicle (a pedal-cycle is a vehicle under Irish law and presumably also under Dutch law) in control, left his lane and crossed into the path of another vehicle.

However, the car drive may have to share some liability if it can be shown that he could or should have prevented the collision in the first place. For example, was the driver aware the cyclist was texting and therefore not in proper control of their vehicle. If not, then should he have been given the circumstances?

beazee

loses control moves out of the cycle lane

Overtake allowing plenty of room between yourself and the cyclist (0m 40s).

Can you prove the cyclist was actualy on the phone? Have you recording?
Can you prove you actually left PLENTY of room? And not squeezed past him/her?
Is the cyclist OK? Was s/he taken to the hospital?

There is no way a cyclist could lose control and hit a car that's 5 feet to the side.

Alias G

Dónal wrote: »

Actually, is there anything in law about the clearance needed to give cyclists? I was under the impression there was no set distance. 1.5m is recommended and is legal on the continent but I don't recall it for here.

There is a recommendation of 1.5 meters in the rotr. No law as far as I am aware.

beazee

And as for being in the cycle lane, does not come into equation, use of it is not mandatory as of October 2012 revision.

Cyclists are now only obliged to use cycle lanes when a contra-flow cycle lane is present or when there is a cycle lane through a pedestrianised area

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

Macy0161

Depends on how much room the car gave when passing/ how much the cyclist actually deviated.

Mycroft H

Gotta be aware of rubbish cyclists on the road. If they look like there not in full control of the bike you should give them acres of space.

I'd say the car didn't give the cyclist enough space.

slimjimmc

beazee wrote: »

And as for being in the cycle lane, does not come into equation, use of it is not mandatory as of October 2012 revision.


http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

OP, as you are residing in The Netherlands it would be good if you could clarify where this hypothetical case occurs.

justsomebloke

ok given the cyclist is only 15 chances and they have no income and chances are even if they were held liable they wouldn't be paying

Cleveland Hot Pocket

justsomebloke wrote: »

ok given the cyclist is only 15 chances and they have no income and chances are even if they were held liable they wouldn't be paying

Surely then the parents are held liable?
After all, the damage and cost incurred by the motorist doesn't just dissappear because an errant cyclist is 15?

ironclaw

Just my view on it, but if the cyclist altered their course (Intentionally or unintentionally) then they hit the car. The car didn't hit them. The cyclist has a duty of care to those around them and by exiting their space and entering another, then in my view they are liable.

If a two cars were neck and neck on a dual lane road, and the car on the left swerved and struck the car on the right, then the car that swerved would be liable. I can't see the difference here. A bicycle is a propelled vehicle and a road user. No difference should be made in their classification or liabilities.

sebastianlieken

The original post is written from the drivers point of view and therefore I question whether or not we have the full picture.

There are always at least two sides to every story; people are especially quick to point fingers with regards to blame. I know the original post is supposed to read as a non-biased series of events.. but it doesn't.

djimi

sebastianlieken wrote: »

The original post is written from the drivers point of view and therefore I question whether or not we have the full picture.

There are always at least two sides to every story; people are especially quick to point fingers with regards to blame. I know the original post is supposed to read as a non-biased series of events.. but it doesn't.

Its a hypothetical situation and as such you take it as written.

If it was anecdotal then I would agree that it is probably only one side of the story.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

sebastianlieken wrote: »

The original post is written from the drivers point of view and therefore I question whether or not we have the full picture.

There are always at least two sides to every story; people are especially quick to point fingers with regards to blame. I know the original post is supposed to read as a non-biased series of events.. but it doesn't.

Normally on a forum when there is a description of an incident we rarely hear both sides - so must assume that the correct description is given

It is all hypothetical.

EDIT: As djimi said above :P

sebastianlieken

djimi wrote: »

Its a hypothetical situation and as such you take it as written.

If it was anecdotal then I would agree that it is probably only one side of the story.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Normally on a forum when there is a description of an incident we rarely hear both sides - so must assume that the correct description is given

It is all hypothetical.

EDIT: As djimi said above :P

Well then from a purely hypothetical point of view laid out by the exact series of events as defined in the original post, the cyclist *should* pay - but this is purely idealistic, and good luck!

ciotog

ironclaw wrote: »

Just my view on it, but if the cyclist altered their course (Intentionally or unintentionally) then they hit the car. The car didn't hit them. The cyclist has a duty of care to those around them and by exiting their space and entering another, then in my view they are liable.

If a two cars were neck and neck on a dual lane road, and the car on the left swerved and struck the car on the right, then the car that swerved would be liable. I can't see the difference here. A bicycle is a propelled vehicle and a road user. No difference should be made in their classification or liabilities.

I suspect that before a judge a difference would be considered; a cyclist/bicycle is more vulnerable to obstacles like potholes or manhole covers. So the passing distance may come into consideration. My own view is that the cyclist's parents should be paying either in full or partially if it was a close pass (did a close pass cause the cyclist to swerve reactively for example).

One other aspect that I'd have to look up is whether or not the cycle lane would be considered a distinct lane or part of the driving lane 'in' or along which it is located (some of the advisory cycle lanes around Dublin, for example, are in the driving lane such that a cyclist and a motorist may not both occupy them side by side).

Johnny Jukebox

As a cyclist, the following incomplete list of things could cause me to deviate from my line;

• Sudden gust of wind
• Manhole or shore cover
• Road debris like broken glass, branches etc
• Small furry animals
• Deer (only on the Enniskerry Road)
• Gougers throwing or mimicking throwing objects at me
• Overtaking other cyclists
• Overtaking runner or peds walking on the side of the road
• Overhanging branches/bushes/brambles
• Puddles of water
• Parked vehicles
• Especially parked vehicles with a visible occupant increasing the chances of being doored

As a motorist overtaking a cyclist, I am conscious of all of the above and hence treat it as a high risk maneuver, slowing down and backing off as necessary until *absolutely* safe to pass. And so far so good, touch wood.

keithclancy

slimjimmc wrote: »

OP, as you are residing in The Netherlands it would be good if you could clarify where this hypothetical case occurs.

Ireland really, I was curious as I saw the same question posed for the Dutch rules.

sebastianlieken wrote: »

The original post is written from the drivers point of view and therefore I question whether or not we have the full picture.

There are always at least two sides to every story; people are especially quick to point fingers with regards to blame. I know the original post is supposed to read as a non-biased series of events.. but it doesn't.

Maybe I didn't write in a Neutral enough way :P

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=769082423119440&set=a.210042275690127.60830.169590773068611&type=1&theater

So in the Dutch Question the kids was 13 not 15.

The Answer ?

Since its a matter of Weak vs Strong vehicle then its the fault of the Car driver.

Shared blame may be attributed if the child is over 14, but if they are under 14 then all the costs lie with the drivers insurance regardless of whose fault it was.

Mycroft H

I know in Scotland they have an automatic presumption of fault on the car where it's involved in a collision between a bike/pedestrian. Such a thing wouldn't be a bad idea here.

slimjimmc

Mycroft H wrote: »

I know in Scotland they have an automatic presumption of fault on the car where it's involved in a collision between a bike/pedestrian. Such a thing wouldn't be a bad idea here.

I may be very wrong on this but on vague recollection I think that was the case here but was changed some years ago as the thinking was pedestrians and cyclists ought to have a duty of care to themselves and other road users too.

corktina

Cabaal wrote: »

Did the motorist give correct clearance when passing the cyclist?

the cyclist was in the bike lane, the motorist in his own lane. Are you suggesting that all bike lanes do not give enough clearance for cars to pass ?

beazee

corktina wrote: »

Are you suggesting that all bike lanes do not give enough clearance for cars to pass ?

Now you have it!
They do not. Fact!

"Allowing plenty of space when over-taking a cyclist..." where plenty is MUCH more than what's left of the 2ft wide bike lane.
http://vimeo.com/61895259

djimi

Mycroft H wrote: »

I know in Scotland they have an automatic presumption of fault on the car where it's involved in a collision between a bike/pedestrian. Such a thing wouldn't be a bad idea here.

Its a terrible idea in fairness. Too many cyclists/pedestrians do ridiculously stupid things at the best of times; the last thing we need is for them to feel they can take less responsibilty for their own safety.

If a cyclist breaks a red light for example and gets hit by a car then its their own fault, same goes for someone running out in front of cars. You cant have a catch all "youre always at fault" rule for something like that.

justsomebloke

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Surely then the parents are held liable?

doubt the parents would be held responsible

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

After all, the damage and cost incurred by the motorist doesn't just dissappear because an errant cyclist is 15?

it mightn't disappear but that doesn't mean the cyclist would have to pay given his age

dr.fuzzenstein

Alias G wrote: »

It might depend on how close the motorist was while passing. 1.5 meters is the recommended distance when overtaking a bicycle but it is often not followed. Passing any closer may leave the motorist culpable. A cyclist will often have to swerve unexpectedly due to potholes, manholes, gusts of wind and other reasons that a car driver is not even aware of. The child in this instance may have been cycling irresponsibly, but who is to say they didn't meet a pothole. Hence the reason for adequate space when passing.

This gives me new confidence on my bike!
It's great, I can listen to music, text, look at my phone, swerve wildly and without looking and not only am I immune from any injury whatsoever (because I am never at fault, nothing can possibly happen to me), the evil motorist will pay for all his damage and my bike and phone and anything else that got damaged.
Bejaysus, isn't being a cyclist great!
I will from now on randomly hop from footpath to the road, over a pedestrian crossing, wrong way down one way streets, through pedestrianised areas and even cycle through the shopping mall. And on my way home use the 2nd or 3rd lane of the motorway because I have a god given right to be there.
Except cyclepaths. Work of the devil, sadly I can't use them, because I will instantly burst into flames should I go on one.
Te world owes me, everyone is just conspiring against me and I Am Entitled!

justsomebloke

slimjimmc wrote: »

I may be very wrong on this but on vague recollection I think that was the case here but was changed some years ago as the thinking was pedestrians and cyclists ought to have a duty of care to themselves and other road users too.

ye a cyclist was held responsible for the damages and lost his driving licence

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

Tenzor07

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This gives me new confidence on my bike!
It's great, I can listen to music, text, look at my phone, swerve wildly and without looking and not only am I immune from any injury whatsoever (because I am never at fault, nothing can possibly happen to me), the evil motorist will pay for all his damage and my bike and phone and anything else that got damaged.
Bejaysus, isn't being a cyclist great!
I will from now on randomly hop from footpath to the road, over a pedestrian crossing, wrong way down one way streets, through pedestrianised areas and even cycle through the shopping mall. And on my way home use the 2nd or 3rd lane of the motorway because I have a god given right to be there.
Except cyclepaths. Work of the devil, sadly I can't use them, because I will instantly burst into flames should I go on one.
Te world owes me, everyone is just conspiring against me and I Am Entitled!

Nice rant there!

Obviously you don't drive around the roads of Dublin..

dr.fuzzenstein

justsomebloke wrote: »

ye a cyclist was held responsible for the damages and lost his driving licence

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

"I couldn't possibly have run the red light. I was cycling in rush-hour traffic and if I ran the red light I would have been squashed by on-coming traffic," he added.

That is hysterically funny beyond words.
Erm, he did and he was. No limit to how deluded some people are.

650Ginge

djimi wrote: »

Bikes have brakes, and cyclists have just as much responsibility to be aware of their surroundings as cars do. Potholes/manholes dont just jump out of nowhere! You can (and obviously should) leave space when overtaking anything, especially a cyclist, but there is only so much space that you can leave. Once you start the overtake, the onus in on the cyclist to be aware of what is going on, and to take precautions accordingly (ie prepare to slow down/stop if they see something ahead that they might have to avoid).

If it was two cars, and one car swerved into another car while it was being overtaken then it would be seen to be responsible; I dont see why this would be any different.

You take responsibility for the overtake surely.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

djimi wrote: »

Its a terrible idea in fairness. Too many cyclists/pedestrians do ridiculously stupid things at the best of times; the last thing we need is for them to feel they can take less responsibilty for their own safety.

If a cyclist breaks a red light for example and gets hit by a car then its their own fault, same goes for someone running out in front of cars. You cant have a catch all "youre always at fault" rule for something like that.

Oh trust me, it doesn't work that way.
I've been on the receiving end!

keithclancy

justsomebloke wrote: »

ye a cyclist was held responsible for the damages and lost his driving licence

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

You know, I hate hate to Judge based on appearance, but I have the feeling the Judge threw the book at him because he was being a complete bollox.

Alias G

corktina wrote: »

the cyclist was in the bike lane, the motorist in his own lane. Are you suggesting that all bike lanes do not give enough clearance for cars to pass ?

Just because the cyclist is in another lane, doesn't mean it is safe to pass at a distance of only a few inches from their handlebars which is what frequently happens with on-road cycle lanes. It is still necessary to overtake safely and appropriately. At those type of distances, a slight wobble from a strong gust could lead to a horrific outcome.

Alias G

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This gives me new confidence on my bike!
It's great, I can listen to music, text, look at my phone, swerve wildly and without looking and not only am I immune from any injury whatsoever (because I am never at fault, nothing can possibly happen to me), the evil motorist will pay for all his damage and my bike and phone and anything else that got damaged.
Bejaysus, isn't being a cyclist great!
I will from now on randomly hop from footpath to the road, over a pedestrian crossing, wrong way down one way streets, through pedestrianised areas and even cycle through the shopping mall. And on my way home use the 2nd or 3rd lane of the motorway because I have a god given right to be there.
Except cyclepaths. Work of the devil, sadly I can't use them, because I will instantly burst into flames should I go on one.
Te world owes me, everyone is just conspiring against me and I Am Entitled!

Nobody is suggesting any of that but don't let it get in your way of having a brain-dead rant. Heres an idea, why not contribute to the discussion next time.

dr.fuzzenstein

Alias G wrote: »

Just because the cyclist is in another lane, doesn't mean it is safe to pass at a distance of only a few inches from their handlebars which is what frequently happens with on-road cycle lanes. It is still necessary to overtake safely and appropriately. At those type of distances, a slight wobble from a strong gust could lead to a horrific outcome.

Alias G wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting any of that but don't let it get in your way of having a brain-dead rant. Heres an idea, why not contribute to the discussion next time.

I don't see you contributing anything other than a braindead defense of the cyclist at all costs.:rolleyes:

ciotog

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This gives me new confidence on my bike!
It's great, I can listen to music, text, look at my phone, swerve wildly and without looking and not only am I immune from any injury whatsoever (because I am never at fault, nothing can possibly happen to me), the evil motorist will pay for all his damage and my bike and phone and anything else that got damaged.
Bejaysus, isn't being a cyclist great!
I will from now on randomly hop from footpath to the road, over a pedestrian crossing, wrong way down one way streets, through pedestrianised areas and even cycle through the shopping mall. And on my way home use the 2nd or 3rd lane of the motorway because I have a god given right to be there.
Except cyclepaths. Work of the devil, sadly I can't use them, because I will instantly burst into flames should I go on one.
Te world owes me, everyone is just conspiring against me and I Am Entitled!

Disclosure first, I'm a cycle campaigner so I'm biased . Liability in RTIs involving cyclists and motorists seems to be inconsistent here in Ireland. A lot of people hold the view that the cyclist will always come out the 'winner' in terms of how liability is assigned. Cleveland seems to have been involved in an incident that worked out unfavourably (without knowing anymore that's the best way I can phrase it). On the other hand I'm aware of incidents that have turned out with liability correctly assigned (to the cyclist) and incorrectly because the attending Garda dismissed the incident (taxi overtaking and hitting cyclist in the oncoming traffic lane) with "I can see how that could've happened". There are plenty of careless cyclists out there, some of whom will bring about an incident because of their behaviour or in most cases serve to antagonise more motorists. I'm hopeful that on the spot fines will help here (but as with most road traffic legislation the magic word is 'enforcement') but at the moment it's not possible to get a list of offences that will be covered (I'm hoping RLJing gets included although it's not mentioned currently).

My own experience is that the mix of careless or illegal cycling you describe would quickly result in serious injury for me if I engaged in it (I'm not claiming to be the perfect bicycle driver either). Close passes are my biggest issue day to day - they frequently cause problems when dealing with some of the awful roads I use

ciotog

keithclancy wrote: »

Ireland really, I was curious as I saw the same question posed for the Dutch rules.



Maybe I didn't write in a Neutral enough way :P

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=769082423119440&set=a.210042275690127.60830.169590773068611&type=1&theater

So in the Dutch Question the kids was 13 not 15.

The Answer ?

Since its a matter of Weak vs Strong vehicle then its the fault of the Car driver.

Shared blame may be attributed if the child is over 14, but if they are under 14 then all the costs lie with the drivers insurance regardless of whose fault it was.

Is this because of the concept of strict liability (not literally in Dutch law) for such RTIs (weak vs strong)?

Chris_Heilong

1.5 meters puts the driver on the other side of the road, now imagine there were two cyclists breast to each other there would be hell.

keithclancy

ciotog wrote: »

Is this because of the concept of strict liability (not literally in Dutch law) for such RTIs (weak vs strong)?

AFAIK its because they are so pro cycle here.

Even pedestrians are below bicycles, its bloody gas, you see a lovely cycle lane and then a dirt track for the 'footpath'

ArnieSilvia

Well, this hypothetical scenario kind of proves the point of having a dash cam saving all the hassle at courts and potential claims. That's for sure.

Picture says more than thousand words and if judge saw a nice video of careless muppet on a bicycle (if care was taken by driver during manouver and appropriate distance was provided) then the verdict is obvious.

On a side note, I ride a bicycle casually with kids, use the lanes provided and it wrecks my head when I see other cyclists not using the lanes "because they can"

dr.fuzzenstein

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Well, this hypothetical scenario kind of proves the point of having a dash cam saving all the hassle at courts and potential claims. That's for sure.

Picture says more than thousand words and if judge saw a nice video of careless muppet on a bicycle (if care was taken by driver during manouver and appropriate distance was provided) then the verdict is obvious.

On a side note, I ride a bicycle casually with kids, use the lanes provided and it wrecks my head when I see other cyclists not using the lanes "because they can"

It describes the nub of the problem.
In Holland and other countries, everyone knows how to behave and acts accordingly. That's why the system works in these countries.
In Ireland everyone also knows how to behave, but the Irish have a built in drive to pervert the rules as much as they can. It goes back to English rule IMO, if you can't fight your enemy openly, you just follow their rules in such a way as to not do anything wrong, but on the other hand to make it annoying and confusing for the enemy.
Sadly the Brits have left and the Irish are only doing it to themselves.