FCN traffic accident

judeboy101

Was in a traffic accident bicycle v my car, as in they ran into me as I was turning left (wet day their brakes not working and cycling on foot path not cycle lane) . Guards took statements from both of us no other witnesses not even cctv. My insurance said I'm liable , fair enough, heard nothing else from guards until got letter in post telling me of fcn for accident. Can guards decide it based on 2 statements?

ED E

You could at least include what the FCPN was for.

ThisRegard

Sounds like you may have pulled in on top of them as they were continuing straight?

judeboy101

ED E wrote: »

You could at least include what the FCPN was for.

Driving without reasonable consideration.

judeboy101

ThisRegard wrote: »

Sounds like you may have pulled in on top of them as they were continuing straight?

I had made the turn before the impact, bike t boned my passanger door have it on dashcam. While I checked the cycle lane was clear I apparently failed to anticipate that someone would be cycling a bike on the foot path at high speed with ineffective breaks. My annoyance is with fact that guards never contacted me after accident for follow up despite leaving messages for them at station and that guard who initiated fcn was not guard who attended scene and took statement.

Voodoomelon

Something very wrong there, cycling on the footpath is illegal and you should not be liable.
When I was younger I cycled into a car door that swung open over the footpath on which I was cycling, from a garage forecourt, broke my collarbone. Gardai told me I was liable to pay €1000 for a new car door, which I did.

Either your Gardai heard the story wrong or there's more to the story.

judeboy101

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Something very wrong there, cycling on the footpath is illegal and you should not be liable.
When I was younger I cycled into a car door that swung open over the footpath on which I was cycling, from a garage forecourt, broke my collarbone. Gardai told me I was liable to pay €1000 for a new car door, which I did.

Either your Gardai heard the story wrong or there's more to the story.

As I said the guard who took statements at the scene was not guard who was responsible for the case. It was a case of guard x sick for day guard Y covering for him, guard y on the scene guard x when he returns decides fcn. The insurance think I'm liable despite telling them what I told u but otherwise haven't claimed. Is it usual for guards not at scene to issue fcn based on two statements?

Danbo!

You mentioned no other witnesses or cctv, but will the dashcam not help? I know it's facing forward, but will it least show you had turned before the sound of impact? Or where you stopped on the road should help?

Annoyingly enough I was in the same situation last week. Except I was the cyclist, I was in a cycle lane, the van indicated after he turned and hit me. I had the whole thing on camera and the Gardai didn't have any interest, saying it was a civil matter for damages.

judeboy101

Danbo! wrote: »

You mentioned no other witnesses or cctv, but will the dashcam not help? I know it's facing forward, but will it least show you had turned before the sound of impact? Or where you stopped on the road should help?

Annoyingly enough I was in the same situation last week. Except I was the cyclist, I was in a cycle lane, the van indicated after he turned and hit me. I had the whole thing on camera and the Gardai didn't have any interest, saying it was a civil matter for damages.

sent dash cam footage to insurance they still said i was liable. you can hear impact and position of car on footage show it was a perpendicular impact. im just shocked that the guard who took statement and was on the scene is not guard who decided fcn.

Homer

Don't pay the fine and go to court with your footage and present it to the judge. If you feel that strongly about it take your chances.

judeboy101

Homer wrote: »

Don't pay the fine and go to court with your footage and present it to the judge. If you feel that strongly about it take your chances.

the problem is it all depends on the judge on the day. i could take the hit 0f 2 penatly points plus 80 quid or risk 4 penalty points, 120 quid and an actual conviction .

ThisRegard

Both the Gardai and your insurer, who would do anything not to pay out, concede you're liable even with video so there must be something else. Can you post the video, or a link on Google maps where it happened?

beechwood55

Did you see the cyclist in your left hand mirror before you started to turn left? Were you aware that there was a cyclist going in the same direction as you (before you turned)?

judeboy101

ThisRegard wrote: »

Both the Gardai and your insurer, who would do anything not to pay out, concede you're liable even with video so there must be something else. Can you post the video, or a link on Google maps where it happened?

It'd be pretty obvious where I live from video. Tbh my only real gripes are guards never contacted me after accident until letter in post despite my repeated attempts to contact them and fact that one guard who took statements on scene but another in an office determines my guilt.

Rushden

judeboy101 wrote: »

It'd be pretty obvious where I live from video. Tbh my only real gripes are guards never contacted me after accident until letter in post despite my repeated attempts to contact them and fact that one guard who took statements on scene but another in an office determines my guilt.

It's an inspector or superintendent that makes the decision to prosecute you, doesn't make a difference what guard took the statements. As for determining your guilt, only a judge does that. The first guard that arrives at the scene doesn't have to be the one to investigate the incident. If you believe you're entirely not at fault challenge it in court .

judeboy101

beechwood55 wrote: »

Did you see the cyclist in your left hand mirror before you started to turn left? Were you aware that there was a cyclist going in the same direction as you (before you turned)?

Passed cyclist before I turned, they were in cycle lane, checked mirror no one in cycle lane or foot path, made turn, cyclist obviously had gone onto footpath their breaks mot working went into side of my car. Is it reasonable to expect a bicycle to switch from lane to footpath and to have no ability to stop because that seems like the reason I'm being done? i.e i should have expected this happening?

amcalester

judeboy101 wrote: »

Passed cyclist before I turned, they were in cycle lane, checked mirror no one in cycle lane or foot path, made turn, cyclist obviously had gone onto footpath their breaks mot working went into side of my car. Is it reasonable to expect a bicycle to switch from lane to footpath and to have no ability to stop because that seems like the reason I'm being done? i.e i should have expected this happening?

How soon after passing the cyclist did you turn left?

Should you have waited behind him before turning?

judeboy101

amcalester wrote: »

How soon after passing the cyclist did you turn left?

Should you have waited behind him before turning?

15 seconds, tbh I checked my mirrors saw no bike assumed he had crossed road, checked foot path where my car would cross and made my way left.

amcalester

judeboy101 wrote: »

15 seconds, tbh I checked my mirrors saw no bike assumed he had crossed road, checked foot path where my car would cross and made my way left.

Did you turn left across a footpath?

judeboy101

amcalester wrote: »

Did you turn left across a footpath?

Yes its access to bank carpark so no high kerb.

ThisRegard

judeboy101 wrote: »

15 seconds, tbh I checked my mirrors saw no bike assumed he had crossed road, checked foot path where my car would cross and made my way left.

15 seconds is a long time. If you the road was clear you would have been well turned by then.

Edit, that's a bit clearer. You turned across a footpath, you weren't turning left on a road. Should have put that in your first post. You were careless in being unaware of anyone on the footpath, regardless of what they were doing.

amcalester

judeboy101 wrote: »

Yes its access to bank carpark so no high kerb.

That's why you're liable so, those on the footpath have right of way (even if they shouldn't be there).

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

judeboy101

ThisRegard wrote: »

15 seconds is a long time. If you the road was clear you would have been well turned by then.

Ironically I was taking the turn slowly to be careful.

judeboy101

amcalester wrote: »

That's why you're liable so, those on the footpath have right of way (even if they shouldn't be there).

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

Holy feck, next time ill drive on the footpath lol. That makes sense.

ThisRegard

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ironically I was taking the turn slowly to be careful.

Yeah, but you since later clarified you weren't taking a left off the road, you were cutting across a footpath.

...And Justice

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ironically I was taking the turn slowly to be careful.

Get yourself a barrister. I've been though this process. I was not at fault, but all the fingers pointed to me . The truth came out in the end.

judeboy101

...And Justice wrote: »

Get yourself a barrister. I've been though this process. I was not at fault, but all the fingers pointed to me . The truth came out in the end.

It'd be me v guards (cyclist isn't claiming) and that only ends one way.

jimmycrackcorm

judeboy101 wrote:

It'd be me v guards (cyclist isn't claiming) and that only ends one way.

You got the fcpn for driving across the footpath without checking if anyone was approaching from your left.

If the cyclist had stayed on the cycle lane then he would have still been hit because he would have been visible in your wing mirror regardless of being on the path or the lane.

mikeecho

Your insurance company believes you were in the wrong.
A Garda believes you were in the wrong.
I presume the cyclist believes you were in the wrong.
And you believe you weren't in the wrong.

Take your chances on whether a judge will believe you weren't in the wrong.

judeboy101

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You got the fcpn for driving across the footpath without checking if anyone was approaching from your left.

If the cyclist had stayed on the cycle lane then he would have still been hit because he would have been visible in your wing mirror regardless of being on the path or the lane.

As I said in an earlier post I checked that the cycle lane was empty before moving therefore if a cyclist was there I wouldn't have moved. I also checked footpath I was about to cross and again it was empty. And as I have said before, the cyclist t-boned me.

judeboy101

mikeecho wrote: »

Your insurance company believes you were in the wrong.
A Garda believes you were in the wrong.
I presume the cyclist believes you were in the wrong.
And you believe you weren't in the wrong.

Take your chances on whether a judge will believe you weren't in the wrong.

So one garda attends the scene, takes statements appraised the scene and conditions etc. Sends details to another garda who he was covering for who doesn't contact me despite leaving my details and then this garda sends it to his su who decides my fate. So tell me which garda thinks I'm in the wrong? All 3? If the cyclist thought I was wrong why no claim?

ThisRegard

judeboy101 wrote: »

I also checked footpath I was about to cross and again it was empty. And as I have said before, the cyclist t-boned me.

It was obviously not empty though.

judeboy101

ThisRegard wrote: »

It was obviously not empty though.

If someone was there I would have hit them with front. I was crossing the path when cyclist t-boned me. And impacted on the back of the passenger door.

mikeecho

judeboy101 wrote: »

So one garda attends the scene, takes statements appraised the scene and conditions etc. Sends details to another garda who he was covering for who doesn't contact me despite leaving my details and then this garda sends it to his su who decides my fate. So tell me which garda thinks I'm in the wrong? All 3? If the cyclist thought I was wrong why no claim?

Garda 1 took details from you
Garda 2 tool details from cyclist

Garda 2 compiled both statements, forwarded to a sgt/ inspector for recommendations.
A Sgt or inspector recommended that you get a ticket.

Garda 2 issues a ticket.

You can pay it or contest it in court.

ED E

Why do those looking for advice always make getting info like pulling teeth.....


What if the cyclist had been a kid on a scooter legitimately using the path. Pay the fine and take it as a lesson would by my humble opinion.

judeboy101

mikeecho wrote: »

Garda 1 took details from you
Garda 2 tool details from cyclist

Garda 2 compiled both statements, forwarded to a sgt/ inspector for recommendations.
A Sgt or inspector recommended that you get a ticket.

Garda 2 issues a ticket.

You can pay it or contest it in court.

Garda 1 took my statement Garda 1took cyclist Garda one inspected car and bike and determined faulty breaks on bike Garda 2 forwards to inspector/sgrnt

Johnny Jukebox

judeboy101 wrote: »

Garda 1 took my statement Garda 1took cyclist Garda one inspected car and bike and determined faulty breaks on bike Garda 2 forwards to inspector/sgrnt

Garda 1 formed an opinion on faulty brakes - that could be easily dismissed in court as a Garda is not a professional mechanical engineer and the bike would need to be tested and assessed in a proper facility.

judeboy101

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

Garda 1 formed an opinion on faulty brakes - that could be easily dismissed in court as a Garda is not a professional mechanical engineer and the bike would need to be tested and assessed in a proper facility.

So Garda 2? Has he formed an opinion?

Johnny Jukebox

judeboy101 wrote: »

So Garda 2? Has he formed an opinion?

Doesn't matter if its Garda 1 or Garda 2 or Garda N.

You'd need a professional certified engineer to make an assessment of a mechanical function (or malfunction) before it would hold any weight in a court room.

judeboy101

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

Doesn't matter if its Garda 1 or Garda 2 or Garda N.

You'd need a professional certified engineer to make an assessment of a mechanical function (or malfunction) before it would hold any weight in a court room.

But surely if Garda 1 takes both statements attends scene, puts hs name to both statements and leaves on desk of garda2, what is Garda 2's job? Does one need an engineer if there were actually no breaks on the bike?

...And Justice

judeboy101 wrote: »

It'd be me v guards (cyclist isn't claiming) and that only ends one way.

It was me vs the gardai and I won. Get yourself sorted with a good brief.

mikeecho

judeboy101 wrote: »

Garda 1 took my statement Garda 1took cyclist Garda one inspected car and bike and determined faulty breaks on bike Garda 2 forwards to inspector/sgrnt

Either way... You can pay it or contest it in court.

But everyone else involved in the incident thinks you're in the wrong.

Skatedude

cyclist should not have been on the footpath , but all traffic on the footpath still has right of way over you so you have no case. You can't win this one.

CeilingFly

I think the issue you have is that you had past out the cyclist, therefore you knew a cyclist was in the vicinity and when you were turning in you should have identified where rhe cyclist was and be certain that the cyclist was not approaching.

You also say 15seconds - you may find that in reality it was less than 10.

But no matter, you had seen the cyclist and when going off the main carriageway into a carpark, crossing over a pedestrian right of way, you did not ensure that the cyclist you had seen a few seconds earlier was not in the vicinity.

That's how the gardai and insurance company see it and that's how a judge will see it.

As they say, expect the unexpected.

kirving

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

Garda 1 formed an opinion on faulty brakes - that could be easily dismissed in court as a Garda is not a professional mechanical engineer and the bike would need to be tested and assessed in a proper facility.

I'd be paying for the bike to be properly assessed.

I cycle, and drive, and this is the exact kind of behavior that gets cyclist killed. Blindly fly up the inside of a car or truck, and then wonder why they get knocked down. I see it every day of the week, absolutely zero awareness for their surroundings, and no appreciation that in every single collision, they'll come off worse than the car driver.

TheChizler

They were in a cycle lane before they 'disappeared' when the OP crossed the footpath. I honestly can't see how the person on the bike can be to blame. You don't overtake somebody just before you turn left.