Are decisions like this making public transport impossible in Ireland?

cdebru

www.rte.ie/news/touch/2014/0506/615613-carlos-tesch/

A Spanish student who was hit by a bus five years ago has settled his High Court action for €9m in damages.
Carlos Tesch from Madrid was only 12 when he was hit by a Dublin Bus in Bray, Co Wicklow on 4 February 2009.
Carlos, who was in Ireland learning English, suffered catastrophic head injuries.

DO NOT QUOTE SO MUCH OF ARTICLES - mod

While I have every sympathy for the young boy and his family, this seems to me to be a case of its someone's fault let's blame the bus company they have money.

The boy darted into the road into the path of a bus coming behind him, the bus was not speeding the supreme court said it was doing at most 40km/h in a 50 zone the court also said the driver acted immediately and did everything he could but that he may gave been distracted by a conversation with a passenger in the seconds before the crash.

Dublin bus are found 70% liable for his injuries the boy is 30% what about the little scumbags that were harassing the kids? Or the people who brought these kids to Ireland and had a duty of care for them and were aware of this harassment, Where is their liability ?

You simply cannot operate any vehicle in the city at a speed that anticipates any child on the footpath can enter the road at anytime, it is impossible. The law has yet again proven itself to be an ass and the principle of its OK sure its a semi state they can pay has been show to rule supreme.

foggy_lad

Are you really trying to place the blame for Irish public transport problems onto the shoulders of a 12 year old boy who has been left with Catastrophic brain injury after being hit by a bus?

Public liability insurance is there for just such accidents.

corktina

exactly. This poor lad needs the dosh, would you take it away from him? Let's get our priorities right here.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Are you really trying to place the blame for Irish public transport problems onto the shoulders of a 12 year old boy who has been left with Catastrophic brain injury after being hit by a bus?

Public liability insurance is there for just such accidents.

A bus that he ran in front of, while I sympathize the fault is not with the bus company, it is primarily with,

A the little scumbags that were harrassing the Spanish students

B the company that brought these kids to Ireland and had a duty of care to look after them and was aware of previous attacks on these kids.

It is 9 million euro, end of the day passengers are going to foot the bill with either increased fares or reduced services.

It is this attitude that public liability insurance will pay for it that is driving up costs and forcing businesses to close, it is not a magic pot of money that someone found at the end of a rainbow.

cdebru

corktina wrote: »

exactly. This poor lad needs the dosh, would you take it away from him? Let's get our priorities right here.

Of course he needs the money, but that doesn't mean an innocent party to the event should be the one held liable to pay for it.

Like I said 2 parties are primarily responsible those that made him dart onto the road and the company that brought him here and had a duty of care to him while he was here.

If the state feels it bears some responsibility then the state can help out but don't others responsible just because they have insurance.

corktina

it was said that the driver was distracted by a passenger.

coylemj

This topic has nothing to do with public transport, it could just as easily have been a Guinness delivery truck that hit the kid. Would we then be whining about the fact that us poor drinkers would be paying for the care that that kid will need for the rest of his life?

And trying to offload blame on to the company who arrange for kids to come to Ireland is nonsense, do you seriously expect them to chaperone teenage kids every minute they are outdoors? Get real FFS.

foggy_lad

On the day of the accident there were no other children involved and the boy went to cross the road to avoid any repeat of confrontations experienced on previous occasions. Who do you think should foot the bill?

It has always been the case here that if a pedestrian gets hit by a vehicle then the vehicle insurance pays, In this case there appears to have been a distraction to the driver which may have stopped him from recognising the danger that the boy was in earlier.

Gatling

Going back a few months to the strike threads haven't Dublin bus payed out 25 million + on accident claims last year alone ,

In this case going by the AH thread driver was talking to a passenger and wasn't taking notice of the young teens bobbing at the side of the road ,to take notice and wasn't prepared to take action to prevent the accident
Very similar to the gob****e who rode a horse into a bus a few years ago and got a big payout

cdebru

coylemj wrote: »

This topic has nothing to do with public transport, it could just as easily have been a Guinness delivery truck that hit the kid. Would we then be whining about the fact that us poor drinkers would be paying for the care that that kid will need for the rest of his life?

And trying to offload blame on to the company who arrange for kids to come to Ireland is nonsense, do you seriously expect them to chaperone teenage kids every minute they are outdoors? Get real FFS.

Do you think if it was guiness they would have been found liable ? Not a hope this is the twisting of logic to pay out because the courts feel sorry for the poor boy. And because it is a semi state not a private company no one gives a ****. It is magic money that can just be made up out of nowhere.

The kids had been harassed before by the same kids and had to get a teacher to assist them, what did the company do ? Contact the gardai ? Move the children to live in a different area? Provide supervision at the time and area where the previous attack had happened ?

cdebru

Gatling wrote: »

Going back a few months to the strike threads haven't Dublin bus payed out 25 million + on accident claims last year alone ,

In this case going by the AH thread driver was talking to a passenger and wasn't taking notice of the young teens bobbing at the side of the road ,to take notice and wasn't prepared to take action to prevent the accident
Very similar to the gob****e who rode a horse into a bus a few years ago and got a big payout

No they haven't


Simple question if the logic of it being the drivers fault holds water was he charged with any offence? Careless driving or dangerous driving ?
No because the supreme court admitted that he acted immediately when the boy entered the road and did everything possible. But you can't possibly stop any vehicle in all circumstances it is not possible especially if someone runs off the footpath on the nearside.

This is the courts looking for an excuse to hold someone responsible and as luck would have it a nice semi state is there to pick up the tag.

boombang

corktina wrote: »

it was said that the driver was distracted by a passenger.

I remember reading previously that the conversation the driver had with the passenger concluded some time before the incident. Previous poster has stated that the driver acted immediately. It seems to me the passenger distraction is a red herring.

If the kid needs money to finance his care why do the public authorities in his own country provide it. I cannot see how Dublin Bus has any reasonable liability.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

On the day of the accident there were no other children involved and the boy went to cross the road to avoid any repeat of confrontations experienced on previous occasions. Who do you think should foot the bill?

It has always been the case here that if a pedestrian gets hit by a vehicle then the vehicle insurance pays, In this case there appears to have been a distraction to the driver which may have stopped him from recognising the danger that the boy was in earlier.

How could the driver recognize the danger the boy was in when you claim no other kids were involved ?

The court heard that the boy saw another boy with a hurl hiding behind a wall and took fright and ran into the path of the bus and it is not true that true that if a vehicle hits a pedestrian then the vehicle insurance pays, that is nonsense only if the driver has done something wrong which in this case he didn't. He wasn't speeding he acted immediately and did everything in his power to stop the vehicle but there simply wasn't enough time.

Who should foot the bill is a wider question whoever was responsible which in this case was not Dublin bus, if no one is responsible then it is just one of those things life sucks sometimes .

Victor

boombang wrote: »

I cannot see how Dublin Bus has any reasonable liability.

Both the High Court and Supreme Court had the facts in front of them and both disagree.

cdebru

Victor wrote: »

Both the High Court and Supreme Court had the facts in front of them and both disagree.

Which is the point ? It is flawed justice and flawed judgments these happen all the time regarding the state and semi states this is just one that made the news.

There is no way any private company would have been found liable, why because the judges would be afraid of closing the business, but this is a semi state so the customers, the tax payers and the employees can pick up the tab.

The really disappointing thing is that a guy that actually saved this child's life because of his professionalism is hung out to dry and told he is 70% responsible for this accident !!!!!
The guy should have got a medal, he did absolutely nothing wrong. It is a disgrace that in order to pay out due to sympathy for the family they don't think twice about the affect on a completely innocent party in telling him he is 70% at fault. A child ran out on to the road and looked the wrong way. It is terrible but blaming the bus driver in order to get money is just wrong.

corktina

cdebru wrote: »

Which is the point ? It is flawed justice and flawed judgments these happen all the time regarding the state and semi states this is just one that made the news.

There is no way any private company would have been found liable, why because the judges would be afraid of closing the business, but this is a semi state so the customers, the tax payers and the employees can pick up the tab.

The really disappointing thing is that a guy that actually saved this child's life because of his professionalism is hung out to dry and told he is 70% responsible for this accident !!!!!
The guy should have got a medal, he did absolutely nothing wrong. It is a disgrace that in order to pay out due to sympathy for the family they don't think twice about the affect on a completely innocent party in telling him he is 70% at fault. A child ran out on to the road and looked the wrong way. It is terrible but blaming the bus driver in order to get money is just wrong.

You don't know that, you don't have all the facts. The Court has all the facts and you should accept their judgement.

Boskowski

I think the policy of blaming the vehicles driver every time a pedestrian is involved in an accident is mad for sure. If we'd all be driving according to the law if there's potential for someone irrationally stepping out onto the road we'd all be crawling at 10 kph through urban areas. I don't agree with the decision therefore, not in that way anyway. If I was that bus driver I'd be in bits but I don't think I'd feel responsible.
Having said that I also feel it's a good thing he gets support. It's not your typical case of compo chancery. Absolutely not.

Nothing to do with shortcomings in our public transport system though. Fail to see that sort of conclusion. It happened to be a bus could have been you or me lets be honest.

boombang

corktina wrote: »

You don't know that, you don't have all the facts. The Court has all the facts and you should accept their judgement.

I agree with your first statement, I can only make my judgement on what I read in the papers etc. However, that does not mean that the courts necessarily got the decision right or that I should simply accept that they're correct.

bambergbike

Boskowski wrote: »

I think the policy of blaming the vehicles driver every time a pedestrian is involved in an accident is mad for sure. If we'd all be driving according to the law if there's potential for someone irrationally stepping out onto the road we'd all be crawling at 10 kph through urban areas.

In urban areas, a huge amount of the time a typical journey takes is not moving time, it's stopped time - waiting at lights, stop signs, yield signs, in traffic tailbacks. Accerating up to 40, 50, 60 or 70 km/h on the clear stretches of road where it is possible to do doesn't usually make journeys massively faster because this stopped time stays the same or even increases. I make nearly all of my urban journeys by bike and I have often left one point and arrived at another in exactly the same time as a car driver making the same journey even though I didn't accelerate up to seventy at any point and they did. Constant acceleration and braking just endangers vulnerable road users, gets drivers to the next red light or tailback a bit faster, and results in wear and tear on vehicles and poor fuel economy.

Having a default limit of 30 km/h in urban areas would make a lot of sense (town name sign at entry to town = 30 km/h speed limit). There would be plenty of streets excepted from such a default (with higher limits), but we could put a blanket limit of 30 in first and then sort out the exceptions and pay close attention to how we make these excepted major roads safe for higher speeds (grass buffer space between pedestrians and buses, for example).

I'm not going to comment on the specific case - the courts had the facts and I don't - but in general, if a driver is driving at 30 km/h and sees a potentially dangerous situation ahead, he can easily slow to 20 for a few seconds until he gets past the gaggle of children or whatever. It would obviously be easier for a bus driver to drive at 30 in a street with a limit of 30, so I would agree to some extent with the argument that the bus driver was just doing his job as best he could within the environment he had been given to work with. But we can and should change that environment, because the alternative to widespread 30 km/h speed limits in urban areas is either to put up with too many severe injuries and fatalities or to lock vulnerable pedestrians up and not allow them out. Children, the elderly, people with disabilities such as sight and hearing problems, anybody walking home after three pints. Of course pedestrians should look and listen and take care, but the penalty for being a bit careless in an urban area (or, for that matter, a bit blind or a bit deaf) should not be death or massive injury.

foggy_lad

corktina wrote: »

You don't know that, you don't have all the facts. The Court has all the facts and you should accept their judgement.

Not just one court though but also the appeals court!

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Not just one court though but also the appeals court!

So what's your point ? Courts are always correct and their decisions are above questioning ?
Just as an example that courts are not always correct in this country no matter how many times you have been through them, Nicky Kelly comes to mind.

I don't care how many courts this went through it is a flawed judgment based on sympathy rather than facts.

cdebru

bambergbike wrote: »

In urban areas, a huge amount of the time a typical journey takes is not moving time, it's stopped time - waiting at lights, stop signs, yield signs, in traffic tailbacks. Accerating up to 40, 50, 60 or 70 km/h on the clear stretches of road where it is possible to do doesn't usually make journeys massively faster because this stopped time stays the same or even increases. I make nearly all of my urban journeys by bike and I have often left one point and arrived at another in exactly the same time as a car driver making the same journey even though I didn't accelerate up to seventy at any point and they did. Constant acceleration and braking just endangers vulnerable road users, gets drivers to the next red light or tailback a bit faster, and results in wear and tear on vehicles and poor fuel economy.

Having a default limit of 30 km/h in urban areas would make a lot of sense (town name sign at entry to town = 30 km/h speed limit). There would be plenty of streets excepted from such a default (with higher limits), but we could put a blanket limit of 30 in first and then sort out the exceptions and pay close attention to how we make these excepted major roads safe for higher speeds (grass buffer space between pedestrians and buses, for example).

I'm not going to comment on the specific case - the courts had the facts and I don't - but in general, if a driver is driving at 30 km/h and sees a potentially dangerous situation ahead, he can easily slow to 20 for a few seconds until he gets past the gaggle of children or whatever. It would obviously be easier for a bus driver to drive at 30 in a street with a limit of 30, so I would agree to some extent with the argument that the bus driver was just doing his job as best he could within the environment he had been given to work with. But we can and should change that environment, because the alternative to widespread 30 km/h speed limits in urban areas is either to put up with too many severe injuries and fatalities or to lock vulnerable pedestrians up and not allow them out. Children, the elderly, people with disabilities such as sight and hearing problems, anybody walking home after three pints. Of course pedestrians should look and listen and take care, but the penalty for being a bit careless in an urban area (or, for that matter, a bit blind or a bit deaf) should not be death or massive injury.

In this case the driver was well under the speed limit, was not involved in anything other than driving the bus, acted immediately and did all in his power to avoid a collision, and imho saved that child's life but for his professionalism the parents would have only a grave to visit.
His reward is to be dragged through court and found to be 70% responsible for someone running of the near side footpath while looking the wrong way.

murphaph

I think when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian there is pretty much always some blame apportioned to the driver, no?

My mother hit a guy about 20 years ago. He was completely drunk and wearing all black/dark clothes and facing away from traffic on a rainy night on an unlit, twisty road. my mother never even hit the brakes-saw nothing of the man until she'd hit him.

Luckily he survived and made a full recovery (possibly because he was so drunk he was like a rag doll apparently) and of course my mother's insurance paid out, but in reality she had no chance of seeing him unless she was prepared to drive at 10mph....which none of us do. It's a chance you take as a motorist that a pedestrian may act recklessly in this way. It's the same here in Germany (for children at least). If a child darts out from between parked cars or whatever, the driver will be automatically found partially liable even if we all recognise that he had no chance to stop.

Sad story for all concerned really.

corktina

it's why you have insurance....

cdebru

corktina wrote: »

it's why you have insurance....

It is why insurance is so expensive in this country, If that accident had happened to the child at home in Spain not a hope they would have got that money in Spanish courts.

schemingbohemia

I can't find the link at the moment but I remember thinking at the time of the High Court decision that the way the Judge determined the bus driver should drive would mean that no bus would ever get anywhere on time.

The Judge held that the driver should have slowed to a crawl the moment he saw students on the footpath as anything could happen and the driver should expect the unexpected. How can one possibly drive to a schedule in those circumstances? The city would grind to a halt if everyone drove in such a way. It seemed to me to be a typical non-real world judgement.

I've no problem with the amount awarded, I do have a problem with the 70% fault finding of Dublin Bus, as the Supreme Court found that the driver was driving at 40km/h in a 50 km/h zone and that the driver reacted immediately.

corktina

cdebru wrote: »

It is why insurance is so expensive in this country, If that accident had happened to the child at home in Spain not a hope they would have got that money in Spanish courts.

then you should thank your god you live here! (especially if a child of yours ever had the misfortune this guy did.)

cdebru

corktina wrote: »

then you should thank your god you live here! (especially if a child of yours ever had the misfortune this guy did.)

Nonsense this country can not continue to pander to people based on sympathy, and I can guarantee you once bus routes are tendered out to private companies these massive payouts where no fault has been realistically shown will no longer happen.
No way a private company could afford insurance under those conditions and no way courts would force them to pay out under these nonsense rulings.
Seriously how would you get insurance or how much would insurance cost with this nonsense it is only possible for DB because they self insure up to €2 million on a single incident. But given this nonsense you would have to wonder what effect it will have on future premiums and what the excess will be.

bambergbike

murphaph wrote: »

It's the same here in Germany (for children at least). If a child darts out from between parked cars or whatever, the driver will be automatically found partially liable even if we all recognise that he had no chance to stop.

Four points, in no particular order:

1) Ireland doesn't technically have presumed liability and Germany does, so the legal situations are not directly comparable, although the results in this case may to have been similar enough. I think a similar German case might not have gone through so many different courts, in German law, the situation might have been a bit more cut and dried. Presumed liability would be worth introducing in Ireland, but the case for it would have to built carefully and methodically.

2) Liable, not guilty. In civil law rather than in criminal law. This isn't/shouldn't be about aportioning blame to a driver who really may not have had much of a chance to react under the circumstances. It's about making sure that the bus company bears the risks that the bus presents to third parties. One person is killed or injured every day in London by a bus - buses are large, heavy and dangerous, sometimes more dangerous than they need to be, and it's only fair for bus companies (and indirectly bus passengers) to pay for the damage they cause. Even if it was just caused by the buses being there, not by them being driven dangerously or carelessly. If they hadn't been there, nothing would have happened. Bus passengers get the benefits of the buses being there, so it's not unfair to offload the disbenefits on them as well.

3) A bus thundering past children at 40 km/h in close proximity to them doesn't sound like a safe situation. It's obviously to the driver's credit if he could legally have been going even faster and wasn't, but if the driver was operating in an inherently unsafe environment, then that environment needs to be changed.

4) Lower speeds in urban areas would prevent some collisions altogether. But, perhaps more importantly, they would mitigate the consequences of others. 30 km/h, about twice the average speed of rush hour traffic, is a sensible half-way house between "speeding" and "crawling" along that would have minimal impact on journey times.

cdebru

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I can't find the link at the moment but I remember thinking at the time of the High Court decision that the way the Judge determined the bus driver should drive would mean that no bus would ever get anywhere on time.

The Judge held that the driver should have slowed to a crawl the moment he saw students on the footpath as anything could happen and the driver should expect the unexpected. How can one possibly drive to a schedule in those circumstances? The city would grind to a halt if everyone drove in such a way. It seemed to me to be a typical non-real world judgement.

I've no problem with the amount awarded, I do have a problem with the 70% fault finding of Dublin Bus, as the Supreme Court found that the driver was driving at 40km/h in a 50 km/h zone and that the driver reacted immediately.

Exactly it would be impossible to operate any kind of public transport on the basis of this judgement, buses would literally have to move at walking pace for most of the journey. Making it completely useless to most people.

cdebru

bambergbike wrote: »

Four points, in no particular order:

1) Ireland doesn't technically have presumed liability and Germany does, so the legal situations are not directly comparable, although the results in this case may to have been similar enough. I think a similar German case might not have gone through so many different courts, in German law, the situation might have been a bit more cut and dried. Presumed liability would be worth introducing in Ireland, but the case for it would have to built carefully and methodically.

2) Liable, not guilty. In civil law rather than in criminal law. This isn't/shouldn't be about aportioning blame to a driver who really may not have had much of a chance to react under the circumstances. It's about making sure that the bus company bears the risks that the bus presents to third parties. One person is killed or injured every day in London by a bus - buses are large, heavy and dangerous, sometimes more dangerous than they need to be, and it's only fair for bus companies (and indirectly bus passengers) to pay for the damage they cause. Even if it was just caused by the buses being there, not by them being driven dangerously or carelessly. If they hadn't been there, nothing would have happened. Bus passengers get the benefits of the buses being there, so it's not unfair to offload the disbenefits on them as well.

3) A bus thundering past children at 40 km/h in close proximity to them doesn't sound like a safe situation. It's obviously to the driver's credit if he could legally have been going even faster and wasn't, but if the driver was operating in an inherently unsafe environment, then that environment needs to be changed.

4) Lower speeds in urban areas would prevent some collisions altogether. But, perhaps more importantly, they would mitigate the consequences of others. 30 km/h, about twice the average speed of rush hour traffic, is a sensible half-way house between "speeding" and "crawling" along that would have minimal impact on journey times.

Your use of hyperbole " thundering " to describe a speed of less than 25mph takes away from the rest of your post to be honest.

Other than that the fact that the bus exists does not make it responsible in and of itself for the actions of other people. If he ran into a tree could you sue the owner of the tree ? Same logic if the tree didn't exist he couldnt run into it.

Where does personal responsibility come into it ? If I run onto the road then the primary responsibility for anything that happens is mine , unless there is someone or thing that caused me to run onto the road. If it is someone that is too young to take personal responsibility then the responsibility doesn't pass to society as a whole. And it particularly doesn't fall to someone minding their own business and obeying the law who has not done anything dangerous or contributed to the accident other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

SeanW

cdebru wrote: »

Your use of hyperbole " thundering " to describe a speed of less than 25mph takes away from the rest of your post to be honest.

Other than that the fact that the bus exists does not make it responsible in and of itself for the actions of other people. If he ran into a tree could you sue the owner of the tree ? Same logic if the tree didn't exist he couldnt run into it.

Where does personal responsibility come into it ? If I run onto the road then the primary responsibility for anything that happens is mine , unless there is someone or thing that caused me to run onto the road. If it is someone that is too young to take personal responsibility then the responsibility doesn't pass to society as a whole. And it particularly doesn't fall to someone minding their own business and obeying the law who has not done anything dangerous or contributed to the accident other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Logic. Personal responsibility. Due process for motorists. Fair distribution of guilt/liability.

Values that are alien to some.

bambergbike

This shouldn't be about personal responsibility, moral responsibility or criminal responsibility. Of course people who make mistakes or misjudgements are responsible for their own actions. If somebody is exposed to a risk and then makes a mistake and falls victim to whatever the specific hazard is as a result, of course it can be argued that it's their own fault. I'm certainly not saying it isn't. What I'm arguing is that the people who expose other people to risks, usually because they benefit in some way from doing so, have a duty to compensate the people who fall victim to the hazards they have created. Financially. That's the logic behind presumed liability in the countries that have it. The question of who is at fault can be left for criminal proceedings. Civil cases focus on whether A should compensate B (because otherwise A would be offloading the inherent risks of his mode of transport onto B, and that would hardly be fair).

I would also like to think that society as a whole would be willing to accept some responsibility for attempting to keep people safe on our roads even when they make a mistake or misjudgement. Because otherwise, as I've said, an awful lot of people would have to be kept locked up inside, or would be locked into begging lifts rather than getting around under their own steam. Do we really want to live like that?

It doesn't take much speed for a bus to have a lot of momentum (momentum = mass x velocity) and - as we've unfortunately seen - to inflict a lot of damage. In that context, I'm quite happy to stand by my choice of words.

Banjoxed

foggy_lad wrote: »

The boy went to cross the road to avoid any repeat of confrontations experienced on previous occasions. Who do you think should foot the bill?

The shower of little scumbags that caused this to happen. If they didn't create hassle where there was none, then this would not occur.

A teeny bit more law and order and a lot less Magic Money Tree, folks.

foggy_lad

corktina wrote: »

it's why you have insurance....

Indeed, third party insurance is compulsory in Ireland.

Banjoxed wrote: »

The shower of little scumbags that caused this to happen. If they didn't create hassle where there was none, then this would not occur.

A teeny bit more law and order and a lot less Magic Money Tree, folks.

It would cost more to chase them and get them to court and even then they wouldn't be found liable.

SeanW

corktina wrote: »

exactly. This poor lad needs the dosh, would you take it away from him? Let's get our priorities right here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this kid getting what he needs. I just think the source is wrong, i.e. an innocent party. First, the scumbags that caused the problem should have anything they own taken from them, likewise their parents, and a garnishment on their wages or more likely benefits taken in prepituity. Then for the kid to be cared for as well as can be by the national health system, whether of Spain or Ireland.

I am not a lawyer, but I can imagine the childs' actions are pretty much the textbook definition of duress.

bambergbike wrote: »

Having a default limit of 30 km/h in urban areas would make a lot of sense (town name sign at entry to town = 30 km/h speed limit). ... but we could put a blanket limit of 30 in first and then sort out the exceptions and pay close attention to how we make these excepted major roads safe for higher speeds (grass buffer space between pedestrians and buses, for example).

You've lost me. You do realise that many of our "urban" areas are nothing of the sort? There are a lot of so-called "urban" areas where 50kph is ridiculously slow, let alone 30kph which would be just silly.

Take for example this "urban arterial" or whatever the hell the planners call them today, outside (officially, inside) my hometown of Longford. https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.718027,-7.760405,3a,62.8y,170.2h,81.57t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sC_P2imbDKce1oI1MR_KxyQ!2e0

What do you see? Trees, one off houses, fields, agricultural sheds, country lane junctions. And a fingerpost roadsign saying "Longford 2km" pointing to the North. Speed limit? 50kph, the same as the towns Main Street. Reason? Probably something to do with this "urban street" being within a mile of the town proper. What you propose to do is to wallpaper such "urban areas" with 30kph limits in what seems to be no more carefully considered a fashion than that of a drunken redneck shooting a shotgun. If I were to say what I really think of your suggestion, I would probably be banned.

Of course pedestrians should look and listen and take care, but the penalty for being a bit careless in an urban area (or, for that matter, a bit blind or a bit deaf) should not be death or massive injury.

By far the vast majority of illegal behaviour I observe from so called "vulnerable" road users, i.e. cyclists and pedestrians, has nothing to do with disability or geniune absent mindedness, but to do with intentional lawbreaking. I walk in Dublin City most every day these days and I find the find the behaviour of non-motoring road users to be astonishing. It is absolutely crystal clear to me from what I have seen and read that the ONLY factor restricting the illegal behaviour of cyclists and some pedestrians, is the fear of getting flattened by a motorist.

This is who strict liability and reduced speed limits would protect, 99.999999999% of the time.

You propose, by means of Strict Liability and lowered speed limits, to empower such people. People like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g

that I see routinely from both pedestrians and cyclists, albeit in a less spectacular fashion. I would like to know why.

cdebru

bambergbike wrote: »

This shouldn't be about personal responsibility, moral responsibility or criminal responsibility. Of course people who make mistakes or misjudgements are responsible for their own actions. If somebody is exposed to a risk and then makes a mistake and falls victim to whatever the specific hazard is as a result, of course it can be argued that it's their own fault. I'm certainly not saying it isn't. What I'm arguing is that the people who expose other people to risks, usually because they benefit in some way from doing so, have a duty to compensate the people who fall victim to the hazards they have created. Financially. That's the logic behind presumed liability in the countries that have it. The question of who is at fault can be left for criminal proceedings. Civil cases focus on whether A should compensate B (because otherwise A would be offloading the inherent risks of his mode of transport onto B, and that would hardly be fair).

I would also like to think that society as a whole would be willing to accept some responsibility for attempting to keep people safe on our roads even when they make a mistake or misjudgement. Because otherwise, as I've said, an awful lot of people would have to be kept locked up inside, or would be locked into begging lifts rather than getting around under their own steam. Do we really want to live like that?

It doesn't take much speed for a bus to have a lot of momentum (momentum = mass x velocity) and - as we've unfortunately seen - to inflict a lot of damage. In that context, I'm quite happy to stand by my choice of words.

There is no inherent risk, if pedestrians and motorists follow the laws of this state barring a mechanical failure in which case the motorist or in this case the company is liable.
Both parties have a right to be there, the bus on the roadway and the pedestrian on the provided footpath the "risk" only occurred when the pedestrian left the footpath and entered the roadway without due care and attention.

Nonsense about assumed liability does not improve road safety it is just a charter for the feckless and reckless to do as they please and never be in the wrong.

This stands logic on its head my house is a risk if you decide to try and walk through its walls should I be liable for having a house for my benefit in the way of where you want to walk?

Nobody needs to be locked up, people just need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they are feckless or reckless and they cause yourself injury that is not someone else's responsibility to compensate you for your own fecklessness or recklessness. Now that is not a charter to run people over, it is the law as it is supposed to be you are only liable if you did something wrong you must yield to pedestrians but if you physically cant because of their action that is not your fault it is theirs.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Indeed, third party insurance is compulsory in Ireland.



It would cost more to chase them and get them to court and even then they wouldn't be found liable.

Third party insurance is to pay out where you are liable not a blanket to cover those reckless of their own safety.

They are far more liable for the injuries to that boy than Dunlin bus is they however are getting off Scot free while DB is paying out €9 million for something they did not cause nor could not avoid.

SeanW

cdebru wrote: »

Third party insurance is to pay out where you are liable not a blanket to cover those reckless of their own safety.

That's how it SHOULD work, and I imagine compulsory insurance would be a lot cheaper if actually worked that way.

They are far more liable for the injuries to that boy than Dunlin bus is they however are getting off Scot free while DB is paying out €9 million for something they did not cause nor could not avoid.

A situation which some consider perfectly just.

Carawaystick

Cdebru, there is always a risk of motor traffic/pedestrian interaction.
Look at the pedestrians killed on the footpath on Wellington quay, or the grandmother killed on a path at a bus stop by a Garda driving a car over her
Or the woman killed on the path at the tram junction on Jervis St

cdebru

Carawaystick wrote: »

Cdebru, there is always a risk of motor traffic/pedestrian interaction.
Look at the pedestrians killed on the footpath on Wellington quay, or the grandmother killed on a path at a bus stop by a Garda driving a car over her
Or the woman killed on the path at the tram junction on Jervis St

There is no inherent danger unless the laws are not obeyed or there is a mechanical fault, all you have given examples of is exactly that, and if either party fails in their legal obligations they bear the liability for the accident .

Pedestrians have a legal obligation to take care of their own personal safety when interacting with vehicles and motorists have a legal obligation to yield to pedestrians whenever possible.

If you are reckless with your own safety then anything including other people pose a risk to your safety but if you are being reckless the responsibility for that risk and any consequences is with you not the other people merely because they exist.

SeanW

Carawaystick wrote: »

Cdebru, there is always a risk of motor traffic/pedestrian interaction.
Look at the pedestrians killed on the footpath on Wellington quay, or the grandmother killed on a path at a bus stop by a Garda driving a car over her
Or the woman killed on the path at the tram junction on Jervis St

Assuming that you are accurate in these claims, they do not involve Strict Liability, since in all cases it is clearly a fault with a motor, either a mechanical or driver fault.

As said above, a law abiding pedestrian or cyclist has nothing whatsoever to fear from a safely/legally operating vehicle.

monument

I see many lawbreaking pedestrians.
I see many lawbreaking cyclists.
I see many lawbreaking motorists.

But only one of these things comes with regular fatal and serious injoury danger, and is inherent a danger even before the law breaking starts.

cdebru wrote: »

Pedestrians have a legal obligation to take care of their own personal safety when interacting with vehicles and motorists have a legal obligation to yield to pedestrians whenever possible.

I see the latter part of that disobeyed more often and more clearly than the former.

That's both in towns down the county and in Dublin and Galway etc.

Even in the city centre in Dublin where masses of people jaywalk (which is wrong), you have a "balance" (for want of a better word) of a massive amount of drivers doing things like breaking filter red lights onto ped crossings and blocking crossings or moving across when the green man is on. Fewer, but significant amounts of motorists break red lights, many more break amber lights and reach crossing at the same time as people get a green man light.

cdebru wrote: »

Simple question if the logic of it being the drivers fault holds water was he charged with any offence? Careless driving or dangerous driving ? ....

Criminal liability and insurance-level civil liability are separated across the EU and likely elsewhere.

Criminal liability always has a far higher burden of proof and far high bar.

cdebru wrote: »

This is the courts looking for an excuse to hold someone responsible and as luck would have it a nice semi state is there to pick up the tag.

That does not hold water given the private driver stories others have given on the thread.

cdebru wrote: »

It is why insurance is so expensive in this country, If that accident had happened to the child at home in Spain not a hope they would have got that money in Spanish courts.

Spain's rules on loads of things are loose or widely unenforced. In that regard, it's a basket case compared to most of westren Europe.

cdebru wrote: »

Nonsense this country can not continue to pander to people based on sympathy, and I can guarantee you once bus routes are tendered out to private companies these massive payouts where no fault has been realistically shown will no longer happen.
No way a private company could afford insurance under those conditions and no way courts would force them to pay out under these nonsense rulings.
Seriously how would you get insurance or how much would insurance cost with this nonsense it is only possible for DB because they self insure up to €2 million on a single incident. But given this nonsense you would have to wonder what effect it will have on future premiums and what the excess will be.

Strict liability works just fine in countries with tendered out public transport services.

And Luas already works fine here tendered out.

cdebru wrote: »

Exactly it would be impossible to operate any kind of public transport on the basis of this judgement, buses would literally have to move at walking pace for most of the journey. Making it completely useless to most people.

The Netherlands and Germany have clearer cut strict liability and are know for having a good network of bus and tram services.

So, your conclusions sound reactive and baseless.

cdebru wrote: »

Both parties have a right to be there, the bus on the roadway and the pedestrian on the provided footpath the "risk" only occurred when the pedestrian left the footpath and entered the roadway without due care and attention.

That's bull. Pedestrians have a clear legal right to cross the road anywhere 15 meters away from a crossing.

Try and cross with due care and attention and you still get a large number of drivers some distance away from you to make no attempt at slowing down and often to speed up to get you to move faster.

Pedestrians are scared in to running across even the smaller residential streets in some places.

People are often forced out into the road by motorists parking on footpaths -- such illegal parking is epidemic.

SeanW wrote: »

Assuming that you are accurate in these claims, they do not involve Strict Liability, since in all cases it is clearly a fault with a motor, either a mechanical or driver fault.

It still involves strict liability as such makes sure there is never any or very limited question.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

This is who strict liability and reduced speed limits would protect, 99.999999999% of the time.

You propose, by means of Strict Liability and lowered speed limits, to empower such people. People like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g

that I see routinely from both pedestrians and cyclists, albeit in a less spectacular fashion. I would like to know why.

Going to have to call bull**** in that one.

On a daily bases without I see at least a few motorists passing a zebra crossing without yielding to an old person, a school child or a person pushing a pram waiting in fear to cross. Putting one foot on the road or not makes little or no difference. And many motorists regularly see fit to approach this zebra crossing at speeds between 55-70km/h in a 50km/h zone which stared a 1km or so back the road lines with houses, estates and two shops (so by no means the middle of nowhere where higher speeds would be ok).

Elsewhere where there are no crossing provided for 100s of meters, people are "encouraged" by motorists and cyclists to hurry up if they dare try to cross the road. That encouragement comes sometimes in the form of not slowing down and, other times, by speeding up slightly.

For every idiot who cyclists like that there's tens of children, people who are old and less able to cross and others who have mobility impairments.

And for every idiot who cyclists like that there's also 100s of fit and able people walking and cycling who are just trying to get from A to B or whatever.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Criminal liability always has a far higher burden of proof and far high bar.

True, criminal liability generally requires "proof beyond reasonable doubt" whereas civil liability requires proof to the standad of the "balance of proabilities".

No jurisdiction that treasures due process has a standard of "you're part of a non-favoured group, so you are automatically guilty." That's the difference.

Speaking of the difference between criminal and civil liability, say the OP story had been a case of a private motorist who had been struggling financially, and a cycle courier who had caused the accident by his/her own illegal behaviour.

A €9,000,000 payout would preclude that motorist from getting car insurance at least in the following 5 years, and even at that at a sane premium, if ever.

It would have the same practical effect as taking away their driving license, possibly forever.

Furthermore, a routine of such payouts could raise insurance premia so far beyond anything that is reasonably affordable as to drive other law abiding motorists off the road in the same fashion.

You, bambergbike, Iwannahurl and others believe that this is fair and proprtionate, given the behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists and the already staggering costs imposed on motorists by government, especially in Ireland. I would like to know why.

That's bull. Pedestrians have a clear legal right to cross the road anywhere 15 meters away from a crossing.

IANAL but as far as I know, the law allows pedestrians to cross almost anywhere, but does not give them absolute priority without being at a junction, a zebra crossing or a green man.

It still involves strict liability as such makes sure there is never any or very limited question.

What you mean is "there is never any due process or opprotunity for the motorist to present a defense."

If a motorist behaves irresponsibly and causes harm, the law does not require strict liability for them to be found responsible.

monument wrote: »

Going to have to call bull**** in that one.

Well, I'm going to have to call bull on your call of bull, because I walk around Dublin city centre most days and I observe that the vast majority of illegal/irresponsible behaviour by cyclists and pedestrians has nothing to due with impariment, duress or genuine mistake, and everything to do with disrespect for the law, including what I consider to be very serious cases of pedestrians and cyclists breaking a red light against oncoming traffic on the basis that the oncoming car/bus/taxi is going slowly enough that they can be forced to stop on their green.

On a daily bases without I see at least a few motorists passing a zebra crossing without yielding to an old person, a school child or a person pushing a pram waiting in fear to cross. Putting one foot on the road or not makes little or no difference. And many motorists regularly see fit to approach this zebra crossing at speeds between 55-70km/h in a 50km/h zone which stared a 1km or so back the road lines with houses, estates and two shops (so by no means the middle of nowhere where higher speeds would be ok).

All of which is clearly both wrong and illegal and should be treated as such. You will get no argument from me there.

I am just wondering why if a motorist causes an accident in or near your above crossing under the conditions you describe, they should be treated the same in the courts as a motorist who gets into an accident when the cause is reversed? That's what doesn't make any sense.

Sheldons Brain

monument wrote: »

I see many lawbreaking pedestrians.
I see many lawbreaking cyclists.
I see many lawbreaking motorists.

But only one of these things comes with regular fatal and serious injoury danger, and is inherent a danger even before the law breaking starts.

While fatal injuries caused by cyclists are unusual they are possible and less serious injury is very likely. Motor vehicles moving on footpaths are extremely unusual, many lout cyclists proceed this way as a matter of routine and are not subject to any road testing nor required to have insurance.

monument

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

While fatal injuries caused by cyclists are unusual they are possible and less serious injury is very likely. Motor vehicles moving on footpaths are extremely unusual, many lout cyclists proceed this way as a matter of routine and are not subject to any road testing nor required to have insurance.

As another poster pointed out, motorists kill (and also injure) people on footpaths all the time.

Motorists moving on footpaths is also very common -- the epidemic levels of footpath parking requires such. Requirement for road testing does not seem to stop them.

SeanW wrote: »

No jurisdiction that treasures due process has a standard of "you're part of a non-favoured group, so you are automatically guilty." That's the difference.

Three main points here:

(1) It's liability and not guilt. These are not as interlinked as people thing.

(2) It's noting to do with being a "favoured" or "non-favoured" group.

(3) It's not fully strict, even where the system is codified in written law. There's usually wiggle room or factors taken on board -- both in the non-codified (and unclear and seems to only kick in upper courts) Irish system and the codified Dutch system.

With the Dutch system, this link goes into detail on the topic, and as it says: "The driver always at fault? This flow chart makes clear it is not that simple!" ... http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/

BTW I'm not a fan of moving to a codify the Irish system any time soon as the issue is too complex for even a tiny bit of rational debate. There's too much misunderstanding on both sides. But maybe a more unified court approach might be a good idea.

As the link points out, even the name "strict liability" is somewhat misleading. It's not strict and with adults it's shared.

SeanW wrote: »

IANAL but as far as I know, the law allows pedestrians to cross almost anywhere, but does not give them absolute priority without being at a junction, a zebra crossing or a green man.

Nobody has absolute priority anywhere.

But where a pedestrian has started crossing (away from a crossing etc and without jumping out in front of traffic which has no chance of stopping) motorists and cyclists are supposed to yield. Both motorists and cyclists are not allowed by law to keep going and so speeding up to rush people should be out of the question.

SeanW wrote: »

If a motorist behaves irresponsibly and causes harm, the law does not require strict liability for them to be found responsible.

Indeed, but the law has fairly high bars to find somebody responsible and where there's no witnesses etc, strict liability also covers motorists behaving irresponsibly and puts them at least part responsible for costs (in the Dutch system 100% for children without ill intent and 50% for adults).

SeanW wrote: »

Well, I'm going to have to call bull on your call of bull, because I walk around Dublin city centre most days and I observe that the vast majority of illegal/irresponsible behaviour by cyclists and pedestrians has nothing to due with impariment, duress or genuine mistake, and everything to do with disrespect for the law, including what I consider to be very serious cases of pedestrians and cyclists breaking a red light against oncoming traffic on the basis that the oncoming car/bus/taxi is going slowly enough that they can be forced to stop on their green.

I was not answering your why question, I was challenging your bs that "99.999999999% of the time" strict liability and reduced speed limits would protect protect the idiot cyclist in the video.

He/she is closer to 00.000000001% than they are to 99.999999999%.

SeanW wrote: »

I am just wondering why if a motorist causes an accident in or near your above crossing under the conditions you describe, they should be treated the same in the courts as a motorist who gets into an accident when the cause is reversed? That's what doesn't make any sense.

Not sure what your asking... Is it if motorist who cause an accident and motorists who do not should be treated the same? If so, I'm not saying that.

paddyland

It has to be said that the greatest annoyance to me as a pedestrian has to be cyclists.

I walk on the footpath. I walk in the park. I walk along the strand. I walk along leisurely, or sometimes I walk in a hurry. Sometimes I cross roads.

No matter where I walk, I encounter cyclists. Sometimes cycling sedately, but far more usually, bombing along.

If I need to cross the road, I use the traffic crossing, or if there is none, then I look and cross carefully. I can see a car coming, and he can see me. Often, I get courtesy from a car driver, if I am trying to cross, or half way across. Never will you get such courtesy from a cyclist. Never. They will mow you down rather than give you space.

What about all these lovely country parks we have developed in recent decades? Killarney National Park is a great example. Miles and miles of walks, through forestry, along rivers, out in the open. Nowhere in that park can you walk in absolute relaxation without that sudden rush of air as a would be Tour de France maniac swishes past you on a narrow track at 30mph or more.

What is it about most cyclists that they simply have to battle forward at full pelt, mowing anything and everything out of their way? Pedestrian on the path in front of them? Get out of the way. Car turning left in the distance in front? Race up their inside at top speed, instead of measuring your pace so that neither needs to stop. Bus behind in the bus lane? Stop pedalling, and coast along on your bicycle, wobbling left and right, making sure everyone on the bus is inconvenienced as much as possible. Don't start pedalling until the bus gets his sole opportunity to pass, then pedal like mad.

Anyway, just to get back to my initial point. Perhaps I am at risk of dying every time I set foot outside my door, by a speeding motorist. But in forty years of living and walking all over the place, I have hardly ever been buzzed by a car, while getting buzzed by maniac cyclists is a daily occurrence.

Who do I sue if I get walloped by a flying bicycle?

monument

You seem to have a large issue with some other motorists when you drive, but you somehow think pedestrians don't also regularly encounter these ill behaving motorists.

Amazing.

paddyland wrote: »

Who do I sue if I get walloped by a flying bicycle?

Exactly the same person a cyclist sues if they get hit by a "flying bicycle".

And it's just like who a cyclist sues when a jaywalking pedestrian knocks then off their bike.

Vic_08

monument wrote: »

You seem to have a large issue with some other motorists when you drive, but you somehow think pedestrians don't also regularly encounter these ill behaving motorists.

Amazing.



Exactly the same person a cyclist sues if they get hit by a "flying bicycle".

And it's just like who a cyclist sues when a jaywalking pedestrian knocks then off their bike.

The owner of the bus that was was minding it's own business in the next lane under whose wheels you got pushed of course.

And so we are back on topic of putting liability where it should be; the responsible party as opposed to the easy target who carries licences, reg plates, insurance and deep pockets.

monument

Vic_08 wrote: »

... as opposed to the easy target who carries licences, reg plates, insurance and deep pockets.

AKA the main source of danger on the roads.

Maybe you're forgetting that's why the use of cars, vans and trucks requires licences, reg plates, and insurance.

And as for "easy target" often they are not such easy targets as shown by hit and runs.