Car to yield to bikes on foothpaths!

Hungrycol

Wow, I'm surprised and not surprised in equal measure!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-cycling-on-footpath-who-fell-after-incident-with-car-sees-compensation-increased-by-300pc-on-appeal-35421497.html

Quote:

"While Ms Moore should not have have been cycling on the path, her blameworthiness should be reduced by reason of the roadworks, she said. The greater blame lay with the car driver who saw her coming, she said.
"He was obliged to yield right-of-way to her even though she should not have been cycling on the footpath"."

07Lapierre

No wonder our insurance premiums are so high!

Moflojo

Hungrycol wrote: »

Wow, I'm surprised and not surprised in equal measure!

I think the basis of the judgement is that the car was emerging from a private entrance and appeared not to give due care to 'traffic' that was already travelling on the main public thoroughfare, which includes the footpath.

Lumen

I think it would be unusual to award 60k unless there was significant permanent damage.

thebiglad

07Lapierre wrote: »

No wonder our insurance premiums are so high!

Exactly - every thread whining about insurance costs - lets paste this (and the numerous other) story rather than pages of debates about being ripped off.

Cycle on the path by all means but surely should take a bit more care if doing so - we don't have all the facts but why try to ride round round the car rather than brake - able to take in the driver had window open listening to music but not stop.

From the raised cycling position could she not see the car approaching the road - 40% negligence is absurd.

The award will be nothing compared to the legal bill for the Insurer in this case.

Rant over:D

Special Circumstances

How often do elbows heal with 100% range of movement restored I wonder. Afaik there is more to an elbow fracture than a minor inconvenience of 2 weeks in a cast.

Keep_Her_Lit

What surprises me most of all is that comments have not been enabled for that Indo report. Surely an oversight that will be promptly remedied.

Carlos Orange

thebiglad wrote: »

we don't have all the facts but why try to ride round round the car rather than brake

It sounds like she was cycling the wrong way down a one way road and had to get out of the way of oncoming traffic (according to the driver). That sounds more plausible to me but I guess the judge didn't agree.

07Lapierre

psinno wrote: »

It sounds like she was cycling the wrong way down a one way road and had to get out of the way of oncoming traffic (according to the driver). That sounds more plausible to me but I guess the judge didn't agree.

Well the Advance Tyre Depot in Swords is on a two way street. But lets face it...cycling on the path is illegal and she really shouldn't have been there. 36,000k wow! (I wonder how did they come up with that figure?)

Carlos Orange

07Lapierre wrote: »

Well the Advance Tyre Depot in Swords is on a two way street. But lets face it...cycling on the path is illegal and she really shouldn't have been there. 36,000k wow! (I wonder how did they come up with that figure?)

It says the number of lanes was reduced from 2 to 1 and she was coming from his right with him looking left. Sounds like it was one way to me but I'm not familiar with the area so maybe it is 2 each way normally. Road accident articles should really have diagrams so I can follow along.

Lumen

07Lapierre wrote: »

Well the Advance Tyre Depot in Swords is on a two way street. But lets face it...cycling on the path is illegal and she really shouldn't have been there. 36,000k wow! (I wonder how did they come up with that figure?)

36,000k would indeed be an unreasonable sum.

neris

36k, its no wonder i cant get insurance for a new truck.

magicbastarder

Moflojo wrote: »

I think the basis of the judgement is that the car was emerging from a private entrance and appeared not to give due care to 'traffic' that was already travelling on the main public thoroughfare, which includes the footpath.

let's say there was a 50/50 split in liability - regardless of the fact that the woman shouldn't have been there, she was, and the car failed to take account of that; and he was the one capable of doing the damage. so i don't agree with the figure of €36k, but there is an argument to be made that she was due some damages.

interestingly, i had a situation the other night which is the closest i've come (while driving) to being involved in a collision with a bike in a while. i reverse into my driveway, as it's on a busy road, and as i was just straightening up with the rear of the car between the pillars, realised there were two young guys on bikes i'd not spotted, who'd had to stop beside me to wait for me to finish. in my defence, it was dark, they had no lights and were on the footpath - as i'd scanned the footpath, i'd obviously only scanned enough either way to take pedestrians into account. but in light of the above, it'd possibly have been interesting had we collided.

cjt156

Why can't we put in place a system where a successful insurance claim results in an injury-specific medical card? Any scan, treatment or cost associated with that particular injury; wave the card and an insurance fund is billed. That way you could cover anything from a dislocated finger to life-changing brain injury with appropriate care.

Instead we throw a wad of cash at someone and bid them on their way.

On a related topic - I tripped over a feckin' dog and broke me bleedin' elbow last year; where's my 36 grand...?

rollingscone

Lumen wrote: »

I think it would be unusual to award 60k unless there was significant permanent damage.

You would be wrong.

General damages calculated on pain and suffering over time are incredibly subjective and Judges tend to be generous, some especially so.

The average settlement here is stupidly high compared to other European jurisdictions.

On the other hand people with catastrophic life changing injuries are more likely to be short-changed here than in some jurisdictions where a typical soft tissue injury claim might net well under €5k.

The ruling on liability would stem from the relative onus on each party to ensure that it was safe to proceed in the manner they were.

Even where cycle paths exist cyclists are at least based on some cases I know expected to yield at breaks in the path such as entrances. The Judge may have felt that the responsibility of the driver was disproportionate to the cyclist because of the potential for harm.

Arguably it could have been a jogger or a sprinting toddler that crossed the drivers path and had he proceeded in the same manner as the court felt it likely they had the driver would have been fully liable.

Lumen

rollingscone wrote: »

General damages calculated on pain and suffering over time are incredibly subjective and Judges tend to be generous, some especially so.

Can you cite any examples?

Arbitrary

Lumen wrote: »

Can you cite any examples?

I'm an example. I was involved in a horrific car accident over in France, other driver was at fault. I had multiple fractured vertebrae, 3 week hospital stay, 4 months in a top body cast. My vertebrae were also compressed and it caused havoc with my digestion system. I'll likely have trouble in my later years.

I had to quit all contact sports,basically all the things I loved doing most.

Payout was 15k. Ireland is the treasure Island of insurance claims as far as Europe is concerned.

rollingscone

Arbitrary wrote: »

I'm an example. I was involved in a horrific car accident over in France, other driver was at fault. I had multiple fractured vertebrae, 3 week hospital stay, 4 months in a top body cast. My vertebrae were also compressed and it caused havoc with my digestion system. I'll likely have trouble in my later years.

I had to quit all contact sports,basically all the things I loved doing most.

Payout was 15k. Ireland is the treasure Island of insurance claims as far as Europe is concerned.

I believe the typical soft tissue injury claim in France is around €2k

ford2600

On who was at fault for accident just a few things
https://goo.gl/nzlOjr

Looking at location, van driver had nothing to impair his view of road/footpath and should have seen cyclist approach. She shouldn't have been there, but she wasn't invisible. It's my experience as a pedestrian that most motorists will assume right of way in most similar situations. In general my experience as a pedestrian is worse than that as a cyclist; most driver's are oblivious to the rights/vulnerability of pedestrians.

From the Plaintiff's point of view here, she would have been better often putting here energy into getting better/healing than looking for money. On responsibility she shouldn't have been cycling on footpath and on a lot of footpaths she would have been 100% responsible(say your typical restricted sight lines on private entrance) but in this scenario the original 85/15 split seems about right.

On the award I have no idea how they calculated it.

In general terms this type of award isn't the reason for high insurance in the main; why?
* the accident actually happened
* she actually had a real injury than medics could agree on.

There is no perfect way to make insurance work; we all want low premiums and good cover. In a perfect world that's possible, but once a system has to be robust enough to deal with a very small minority of scam artists and a much larger number who exaggerate injuries it gets complicated/difficult/adversarial pretty quickly.

The main problem currently in Ireland is staged accidents and the high awards for soft tissue injuries which can't be disproven by medics.

On staged accidents a success for an insurance company might be a quick thorough investigation(costing maybe 20k) which nips claim in the bud where they don't have to pay out. The absence of a specialist garda unit with an active red flag/sh1t list database is a major hindrance to stopping staged accidents here. Even when caught red handed here the appetite for a criminal investigation is non existent.

I'm not sure how to limit typical payouts for whiplash etc, by SI maybe but I don't know. Personally I don't have much sympathy/believe most people claiming for Mickey Mouse accidents; I've walked away from two decent crashes over the years and played football within 3 hours of one and two days of the other(not smart either I know).

The act of claiming is not good from a perspective of optimal healing, you are going to be rewarded the slower you heal and the more it impacts your life. Your legal representatives will in their heart of hearts be disappointed if a badly injured person makes a miracle recovery.

Comparisons with other European countries, while stark doesn't fully account for the typical greater social protection in terms of injury benefit/public hospital care.

There is no perfect system, our hard wiring to think first of ourselves over the group is one of our strongest instincts. Good read even if he is an awful pr1ck
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61535.The_Selfish_Gene

marklazarcovic

Lumen wrote: »

I think it would be unusual to award 60k unless there was significant permanent damage.

I'd be looking for a hell of a lot more than 60 k for significant permanent damage to myself

tomasrojo

ford2600 wrote: »

In general my experience as a pedestrian is worse than that as a cyclist; most driver's are oblivious to the rights/vulnerability of pedestrians.

I find that too.

ford2600 wrote: »

There is no perfect system, our hard wiring to think first of ourselves over the group is one of our strongest instincts. Good read even if he is an awful pr1ck
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61535.The_Selfish_Gene

Private Eye's parody of his self-obsessed and weirdly callous Twitter activity is a good read.

Lumen

marklazarcovic wrote: »

I'd be looking for a hell of a lot more than 60 k for significant permanent damage to myself

"significant permanent damage" might be as simple as a scar on a limb.

marklazarcovic

Lumen wrote: »

"significant permanent damage" might be as simple as a scar on a limb.

that aint what it sounds like at all

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

"significant permanent damage" might be as simple as a scar on a limb.

I don't know what the terms mean in legal or medial contexts, but that to me would be damage, permanent, but not significant. Unless you had a promising careers as a hand model, like George did in Seinfeld.

Lumen

marklazarcovic wrote: »

that aint what it sounds like at all

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know what the terms mean in legal or medial contexts, but that to me would be damage, permanent, but not significant. Unless you had a promising careers as a hand model, like George did in Seinfeld.

That's the point. Whose limb is being scarred? How long/ugly is the scar?

If it was my limb, nobody cares. It was a six year old kid being thrown through a plate glass window by a car that had mounted the footpath you might have a different view.

That's the argument for subjective awards. Loss is relative.

magicbastarder

ford2600 wrote: »

on a lot of footpaths she would have been 100% responsible(say your typical restricted sight lines on private entrance)

any driver coming out of a sight restricted entrance should do so slowly so there shouldn't be any possibility of an impact like this. i can't see to the left as i come out my driveway, so i've to inch out; i can't imagine a scenario where i hit someone (rather than them hitting me) that i wouldn't be significantly to blame.

ford2600

magicbastarder wrote: »

any driver coming out of a sight restricted entrance should do so slowly so there shouldn't be any possibility of an impact like this. i can't see to the left as i come out my driveway, so i've to inch out; i can't imagine a scenario where i hit someone (rather than them hitting me) that i wouldn't be significantly to blame.

The possibility an impact depends on speed of person on footpath; a pedestrian travelling at 1.4m/s is a different proposition to a cyclist at 7 m/s.

Where sight line are restricted to sub 10m before significant encroachment on footpath what is even the most careful driver to do?

To save people having to read Dawkins, the Kerry saying "it's easy to be generous with the neighbour's ass" covers it.

magicbastarder

ford2600 wrote: »

Where sight line are restricted to sub 10m before significant encroachment on footpath what is even the most careful driver to do?

i'd say that then boils down to it being a case of the cyclist hitting the car, rather than the car hitting the cyclist.

Special Circumstances

Arbitrary wrote: »

I'm an example. I was involved in a horrific car accident over in France, other driver was at fault. I had multiple fractured vertebrae, 3 week hospital stay, 4 months in a top body cast. My vertebrae were also compressed and it caused havoc with my digestion system. I'll likely have trouble in my later years.

I had to quit all contact sports,basically all the things I loved doing most.

Payout was 15k. Ireland is the treasure Island of insurance claims as far as Europe is concerned.

Are you saying that what you got was generous/fair for those injuries and consequences? I can't tell if you are saying Ireland has it right or wrong.



Personally... treatment instead of cash wouldn't sit well with me if I could never enjoy what I enjoyed as a leisure pastime. Can't do more than 40k cycle without your neck/back/elbow hurting? But shur your treatment was paid for you ungrateful sac de merde.

The whole "a mandarin fell off the conveyer belt in Dunnes and I haven't slept a wink since" stuff is farcical but cases like this?
It's kinda like the whole motor insurance whiplash thing.... do you know what would cut the payouts for whiplash drastically? If people stopped being d1ckheads and had a bit of consideration and respect for other road users etc.

If you're in charge of 1.5 ton of metal... try not to hit any pedestrians or cyclists with it even if they aren't 100% in the right.

LeChienMefiant

ford2600 wrote: »

It's my experience as a pedestrian that most motorists will assume right of way in most similar situations. In general my experience as a pedestrian is worse than that as a cyclist; most driver's are oblivious to the rights/vulnerability of pedestrians.

Yep, It's like stop lines don't exist for one thing. Part of the problem is that there is zero enforcement of traffic rules. It will have to change if we're going to get people out of their cars and reduce emissions.

It does not matter. The onus is on the person pulling out to make sure the way is clear.

ted1

Lumen wrote: »

36,000k would indeed be an unreasonable sum.

22-83k for a fractured elbow. Depends on how bad it is
Page 42. http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/Forms-Guidelines/Book-of-quantum.pdf

Macy0161

Car should be yielding to anyone using the path, I'd have thought? There's a serious issue with motorists assuming they have right of way. It was a cyclist, could've been a runner or child on a scooter legitimately using the footpath. That could be part of the judges logic on blame.

Victor

Cyclist needed multiple surgeries.

ford2600 wrote: »

From the Plaintiff's point of view here, she would have been better often putting here energy into getting better/healing than looking for money. On responsibility she shouldn't have been cycling on footpath and on a lot of footpaths she would have been 100% responsible(say your typical restricted sight lines on private entrance)

Anyone coming out of a private entrance, when they can't see what's on the footpath would likely be nearly 100% responsible.

but in this scenario the original 85/15 split seems about right.

The appeal court judges, who had the facts before them, not the Indo, decided differently: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/c0241ef7f048a25e802580ba003355eb?OpenDocument

Commotion Ocean

Why couldn't she have waited her turn to use the single lane like most normal road users.

ford2600

Victor wrote: »

Cyclist needed multiple surgeries.Anyone coming out of a private entrance, when they can't see what's on the footpath would likely be nearly 100% responsible.

The appeal court judges, who had the facts before them, not the Indo, decided differently: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/c0241ef7f048a25e802580ba003355eb?OpenDocument

So a cyclist doing 25km/h on a footpath impacting with a motorist edging out a driveway with restricted sightlines is 100% in the right? In my 20 years experience I've never seen a judge find anything but the opposite.

The difference here, it seems, is the sight lines available to both parties of each other. One was occupying an illegal position on footpath and as such should have been "ready to stop" mode given the hazard she posed to herself. In spite of this she assumed she had the same right of way as a pedestrian on footpath?

85/15 seems ok with me, maybe 75/25. You might be happy doffing your cap to judges, I'll call it as I see it thanks.

The facts according to judgement
"He was looking to his left and was, according to Ms. Moore, listening to music with his window open. (I'm on footpath in an illegal position and driver ahead doesn't see me) As he emerged onto the footpath and across her proposed path of travel in one continuous slow movement, she shouted(don't brake or anything mind) at him to alert him of her approach, but he kept going. Ms. Moore then found herself having to take last minute evasive (cycle like a moron and you will end up in such sceanarios) action which she did by cycling around the bonnet of his car onto the roadway. In the course of this manoeuvre she fell heavily to the ground on her left elbow and sustained serious injuries to which I will later refer.

The bits in brackets are mine

Macy0161

dfeo wrote: »

Why couldn't she have waited her turn to use the single lane like most normal road users.

Could've been a runner doing sprint intervals. Motorist still should've been looking and giving way. Cyclist being in the wrong does not automatically mean the motorist was in the right.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

Cyclist needed multiple surgeries.Anyone coming out of a private entrance, when they can't see what's on the footpath would likely be nearly 100% responsible.

That would imply a complete absence of duty of care to other road users when using a footpath, in my mind. On what aspect of justice or specifically the RTAs as amended would abdicate someone from taking due diligence while using a footpath at speed and observing entrances or openings on to the public and the potential hazards that derive thereof?

If someone exits an existing private entrance and emerges at slow speed as the only person in a vehicle, what more could they do than emerge at an extremely slow speed after opening their side window?

Victor

lucernarian wrote: »

That would imply a complete absence of duty of care to other road users when using a footpath, in my mind. On what aspect of justice or specifically the RTAs as amended would abdicate someone from taking due diligence while using a footpath at speed and observing entrances or openings on to the public and the potential hazards that derive thereof?

Are you suggesting a child can't run on the footpath?

If someone exits an existing private entrance and emerges at slow speed as the only person in a vehicle, what more could they do than emerge at an extremely slow speed after opening their side window?

If you can't see, get someone to help you drive out and in the long term, don't have a gate / boundary where you can't see out.

I think he didn't even hit her - she fell off!

27. While cycling on a footpath is prohibited as per the Regulations already referred to, as the trial judge observed in the course of his judgment, it is a fact of life that people, for a wide range of reasons, end up cycling on the footpath. Young children regularly ride their bicycles or scooters along footpaths and the motorist intending to drive across a footpath must protect against the possibility that someone might be cycling towards them.



The above is not unreasonable.
Let's be fair, apart for the "Won't someone please think of the children" it is a fact of life that you should always be prepared for cyclists on the foothpath


Also right in stating that just because she was incorrect in one aspect does not absolve him of his responsibilities

32. As to the Regulations, it is clear that Ms. Moore was in breach of Regulation 13 and Mr. Mahon in breach of Regulation 8. I am satisfied that Regulation 8 obliged Mr. Mahon to yield right-of-way to anybody actually using the footpath at the time he intended to cross it. He is not to be relieved of that obligation just because the approaching cyclist was cycling on the footpath contrary to Regulation 13

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he didn't even hit her - she fell off!

He caused her to fall off

Did he? Or was she going too fast to react to a car she should have plenty of time to see, by the picture?

magicbastarder

i'll go with the opinion of the judge over your speculation in this case.

John_Rambo

Where I pull out from where I work is a footpath that is frequently used by cyclists, so you have to inch out keeping an eye out for them.

Do I yield for them? Bloody right I do, the last thing I want to do is hit someone, be they illegally cycling or not!

Commotion Ocean

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'll go with the opinion of the judge over your speculation in this case.

So if a judge let a murderer (or Hitler) walk free, would you still side with him?
You're only defending her because she's a cyclist.

tomasrojo

And on page 4 we went Godwin.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

Are you suggesting a child can't run on the footpath?

If you can't see, get someone to help you drive out and in the long term, don't have a gate / boundary where you can't see out.

At speed pretty obviously means faster than a child could run, something greater than 15km per hour. Bit of a straw man there - hardly a way to discuss something seriously on a forum.

Long term, "don't have a gate"?! This is a risible point, akin to "let them eat cake". Most planning regs have derailed requirements for sightlines and so on with vehicular entrances onto public areas.

That attempt at a justification comes off the back of an earlier post pointing out the judgement in the face of Indo doublespeak. In the context of liability, does anyone envisiage a situation where due care extends to applying for planning permission for, and then implementing works on private property boundaries to allow for appropriate sightlines onto a footpath?

It's also a shame that you didn't read my post pointing out that the scenario is for where the driver is the only occupant. More broadly, I'm also including that there's no neighbours, people out walking their dogs, other people in the property as well as nobody else in the vehicle to assist with the potential manoeuvre.

The other questions by other posters have been conveniently ignored too. Hmmm.

lucernarian

John_Rambo wrote: »

Where I pull out from where I work is a footpath that is frequently used by cyclists, so you have to inch out keeping an eye out for them.

Do I yield for them? Bloody right I do, the last thing I want to do is hit someone, be they illegally cycling or not!

This. And it's a straightforward thing to do in keeping with the rules of the road and indeed moral duty.

Though some here do think that there is a liability on the driver if anyone is hit, no matter how slowly edging out is done and no matter how difficult it is to see or hear past e.g. a boundary wall.

magicbastarder

dfeo wrote: »

So if a judge let a murderer (or Hitler) walk free, would you still side with him?

Can you come back to me when you have a coherent argument?

amcalester

dfeo wrote: »

Why couldn't she have waited her turn to use the single lane like most normal road users.

Why couldn't he have waited his turn to use the footpath like most normal road users?

What is a normal road user by the way?

One that obeys traffic laws or one on 4 wheels instead of 2.

My own thoughts are that she should have been held 50% culpable for the accident.