Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

Pinch Flat

I went to the guards with video footage of being tailgated aggressively within a few inches, beeped at then overtaken into oncoming traffic and squeezed to the side of the road, almost taking me off the bike by some nutter in a van in February. That was then and have heard nothing. This sort of behavior is just not taken seriously by the guards “sure it’s just some fella on a bike”.

Kaisr Sose

RobbieMD wrote: »

Strange. It’s provided for under Section 106 of the Road Traffic Act

Thats what I said too and the Garda said he knew what the RTA said. He then said he would check things with colleagues and never heard anything more. I can't post more on this incident until matters conclude.

They are not consistently or regularally enforcing the laws that are there and it has become a free for all on the roads as a result.

In my opinion, the lack of resources comments from them are self serving. They would be no different if they had more feet on the ground.

Chiparus

magicbastarder wrote: »

if there was no contact and no damage to claim, there's nothing actionable from an insurance point of view, so why would the garda pass over those details?

Im not saying to sue, I am suggesting you ask the guard to get the other drivers insurance details.

magicbastarder

again; if there's nothing actionable from an insurance point of view, why would you expect the garda to hand over the insurance details?

Eamonnator

Chiparus wrote: »

Im not saying to sue, I am suggesting you ask the guard to get the other drivers insurance details.

For what reason?

Chiparus

average_runner wrote: »

Claim culture is alive

Sure is , and it seems to be more effective than asking the Guards to do something.

Chiparus

Eamonnator wrote: »

For what reason?

Because you are considering making an insurance claim.:)

Chiparus

magicbastarder wrote: »

again; if there's nothing actionable from an insurance point of view, why would you expect the garda to hand over the insurance details?

That is for a court/PIAB to decide , not the guards.

Eamonnator

Chiparus wrote: »

That is for a court/PIAB to decide , not the guards.

If there is no injury, why would the Personal Injuries Assessment Board be interested?

Chiparus

Eamonnator wrote: »

If there is no injury, why would the Personal Injuries Assessment Board be interested?

They may not be interested, but thats not for the guard to decide.

magicbastarder

You're saying a Garda has to give out insurance details on your say so?

magicbastarder

Genuinely confused here. You're going to the Gardai, telling them you had an altercation with a motorist, but one with no insurance implications, and say they are legally required to hand over insurance details?

Chiparus

magicbastarder wrote: »

You're saying a Garda has to give out insurance details on your say so?

If you feel you were injured as a result of the actions of driver.

Chiparus

magicbastarder wrote: »

Genuinely confused here. You're going to the Gardai, telling them you had an altercation with a motorist, but one with no insurance implications, and say they are legally required to hand over insurance details?

That is not for the guards to decide.

Kaisr Sose

average_runner wrote: »

Claim culture is alive

As is the culture of speeding and lack of regard for vulnerable road users on our roads

average_runner

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

As is the culture of speeding and lack of regard for vulnerable road users on our roads

It is for sure but still doesn't make it correct in what you are trying to do.

Report the driver for sure to the garda. But don't try to pass the cost onto us that are good drivers.

Seth Brundle

Weepsie wrote: »

It isn't though. It would be merely pointing out to their insurer that they are insuring a person who drives dangerously and their premium might be at risk.

Insurer won't do anything, nor can they really do anything. They don't enforce the laws, nor should they.

Kaisr Sose

average_runner wrote: »

It is for sure but still doesn't make it correct in what you are trying to do.

Report the driver for sure to the garda. But don't try to pass the cost onto us that are good drivers.

I incurred medical expenses and my rear shifter/brake lever had a part broken in it. The purpose of insurance is to put people back where they were prior to incident. That is what I am trying to do.
The tag 'claim culture' is unfair on genuine cases. The problem is bogus or exaggerated claims, some arising from staged events.

Seth Brundle

Weepsie wrote: »

No they shouldn't. However, if there is evidence of dangerous driving against someone, not merely one word against another, it would need to be video evidence really, then there should be a facility where an insurer can review that and note it for policy renewal or even cancellation.

Too much is dependent on the whim of a garda's mood when reporting these days and even then you get vast inconsistencies in the same stations

A video won't necessarily provide evidence of who was driving. There would be so many appeals against an insurer doing this that it wouldn't be cost effective.
Furthermore the driver was not convicted or found guilty of an offence. It should be up to the gardai to enforce the law and the insurer to assign risk based on the outcome of any investigation.

average_runner

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I incurred medical expenses and my rear shifter/brake lever had a part broken in it. The purpose of insurance is to put people back where they were prior to incident. That is what I am trying to do.
The tag 'claim culture' is unfair on genuine cases. The problem is bogus or exaggerated claims, some arising from staged events.

I am talking about the original post where no injuries occurred and not one where a person got injured

average_runner

Weepsie wrote: »

No they shouldn't. However, if there is evidence of dangerous driving against someone, not merely one word against another, it would need to be video evidence really, then there should be a facility where an insurer can review that and note it for policy renewal or even cancellation.

Too much is dependent on the whim of a garda's mood when reporting these days and even then you get vast inconsistencies in the same stations

Insurance company cant find someone guilty.

magicbastarder

Chiparus wrote: »

That is not for the guards to decide.

as above, i think we're talking at cross purposes here. i was referring to a post where (IIRC) someone suggested asking the gardai for insurance details relating to an incident where there was no contact and no physical damage.

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

No they shouldn't. However, if there is evidence of dangerous driving against someone, not merely one word against another, it would need to be video evidence really, then there should be a facility where an insurer can review that and note it for policy renewal or even cancellation.

Too much is dependent on the whim of a garda's mood when reporting these days and even then you get vast inconsistencies in the same stations

Seth Brundle wrote: »

A video won't necessarily provide evidence of who was driving. There would be so many appeals against an insurer doing this that it wouldn't be cost effective.
Furthermore the driver was not convicted or found guilty of an offence. It should be up to the gardai to enforce the law and the insurer to assign risk based on the outcome of any investigation.

The insurer doesn't have to prove who was driving. If the vehicle that they insure is being driven in a dangerous manner, that's an issue for the policy holder and the insurer. The policy holder could be asked to produce evidence that it was being driven by a different driver on a different policy if necessary.


I've reported drivers to insurers in the past and had reasonably positive responses from at least one insurer.

Chiparus

magicbastarder wrote: »

as above, i think we're talking at cross purposes here. i was referring to a post where (IIRC) someone suggested asking the gardai for insurance details relating to an incident where there was no contact and no physical damage.

The actual effect is that the guard will have to visit the motorist and ask for their insurance details.

average_runner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The insurer doesn't have to prove who was driving. If the vehicle that they insure is being driven in a dangerous manner, that's an issue for the policy holder and the insurer. The policy holder could be asked to produce evidence that it was being driven by a different driver on a different policy if necessary.


I've reported drivers to insurers in the past and had reasonably positive responses from at least one insurer.

How did you find out the insurance company?

average_runner

Chiparus wrote: »

The actual effect is that the guard will have to visit the motorist and ask for their insurance details.

Can gardai give private information out?

magicbastarder

Chiparus wrote: »

The actual effect is that the guard will have to visit the motorist and ask for their insurance details.

but in this scenario, if you've nothing to claim against his or her insurance, why would the garda request that information or give it to you?

AndrewJRenko

average_runner wrote: »

How did you find out the insurance company?

By looking at the disc on the windscreen

AndrewJRenko

Chiparus wrote: »

The actual effect is that the guard will have to visit the motorist and ask for their insurance details.

Can't they look up the motor tax database?

tuxy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can't they look up the motor tax database?

Would that work? I just put in random info when I tax my car online.