Is it an offence for a cyclist to leave the scene of an accident?

Lumen

This is obvs not a moral question, which is why I'm posting it here.

UK context:

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

RTA 1961 section 106

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/enacted/en/print#sec106

No idea if that's the right Act.

Perhaps definition of "vehicle" is relevant, but I'm confused by the fact that it isn't defined in the Act.

Grassey

I'd assume from glancing at the definition section that:

“pedal cycle” means a vehicle which is a pedal bicycle or pedal tricycle;

“pedal bicycle” means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon;

Therefore the same obligation would apply. Given that there are subsequent sections for example speed limits that are strictly defined to mechanically propelled vehicles, you'd assume that in the absence of such definition all vehicles are covered?

Otherwise it'd completely add fuel to the fire that these rogues cyclists can go around scratching cars and banging wing mirrors with impunity as we all are apparently wont to do.....

GM228

Lumen wrote: »

This is obvs not a moral question, which is why I'm posting it here.

UK context:

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

RTA 1961 section 106

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/enacted/en/print#sec106

No idea if that's the right Act.

Perhaps definition of "vehicle" is relevant, but I'm confused by the fact that it isn't defined in the Act.

Vehicle is defined in the Road Traffic Act 1961 Act (as amended) and answers your query:-

‘vehicle’ means a mechanically propelled vehicle, a trailer or semi-trailer, an animal-drawn vehicle or a pedal cycle

And yes S106 is the appropriate section here.

Lumen

Great, so could you fine people please confirm the obligations?

I think they are:

- Keep the bicycle at the scene (no idea what "for a period which is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case" means in practice)
- If AGS is present, give name and address to them (actually covered by s108 and probably elsewhere)
- If AGS not present, give name and address to other party or person minding them
- If AGS not present and everyone incapacitated, contact AGS with details ASAP

GM228

Lumen wrote: »

Great, so could you fine people please confirm the obligations?

I think they are:

- Keep the bicycle at the scene (no idea what "for a period which is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case" means in practice)
- If AGS is present, give name and address to them (actually covered by s108 and probably elsewhere)
- If AGS not present, give name and address to other party or person minding them
- If AGS not present and everyone incapacitated, contact AGS with details ASAP

Spot on, you simply stay long enough as reasonable to exchange information (name, address, and registration and insurance details for motor vehicles), after that there is no requirement to remain any longer.

If there is no injury to a person there is no legal requirement to report to Gardaí.

Grassey

It also seems to be contingent on 106.—(1) Where injury is caused to person or property in a public place

So if no injury, then no obligation to hang around and exchange details? *


*Though it'd make sense to should something be noticed post accident.

Peregrinus

Grassey wrote: »

It also seems to be contingent on 106.—(1) Where injury is caused to person or property in a public place

So if no injury, then no obligation to hang around and exchange details?

Yes, but note that it's injury to person or property. So if there's damage to any of the vehicles involved (including the bike) s. 106 applies.

GM228

Grassey wrote: »

It also seems to be contingent on 106.—(1) Where injury is caused to person or property in a public place

So if no injury, then no obligation to hang around and exchange details? *


*Though it'd make sense to should something be noticed post accident.

That is correct, "injury" to property means damage.

Whilst S106 applies to injury to a person or property, only injury to a person requires the Gardaí be informed.

Lumen

Relatedly, it seems also that "driver" includes operator of a pedal cycle.

“driving” includes managing and controlling and, in relation to a bicycle or tricycle, riding, and “driver” and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly;

Which means cyclists can in theory be convicted of careless or dangerous driving (s52 and s53 respectively), since those use the term "vehicle" and "driver" and not "mechanically propelled vehicle".

GM228

Lumen wrote: »

Relatedly, it seems also that "driver" includes operator of a pedal cycle.



Which means cyclists can in theory be convicted of careless or dangerous driving (s52 and s53 respectively), since those use the term "vehicle" and "driver" and not "mechanically propelled vehicle".

Not just in theory, cyclists have been prosecuted for careless driving.

Never heard of a dangerous driving charge, but it is possible, also note that many dangerous driving charges see a reduction to careless driving anyway.

It was also possible to convict a cyclist of "furious" driving causing bodily harm until 2010 under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, and that still applies in the UK - a cyclist was only convicted of such last week.

UrbanFox

Side bar question if I may please.

Can a cyclist be penalised for riding in excess of the speed limit ? If so, what are the penalties ?

GM228

UrbanFox wrote: »

Side bar question if I may please.

Can a cyclist be penalised for riding in excess of the speed limit ? If so, what are the penalties ?

No, speed limits and the offence of speeding applies to mechanically propelled vehicles only.

Peregrinus

Although in most contexts cycling in excess of the speed limit is likely to support a case for careless or even dangerous driving.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Although in most contexts cycling in excess of the speed limit is likely to support a case for careless or even dangerous driving.

I doubt it, perhaps some, but not most.

Whilst speeding can result in a dangerous driving charge, it is extremely rare for such a charge for those who a speed limit actually applies to - the motorist. Since speed limits simply don't apply to cyclists it would most likely be unfair to hold it in itself against a cyclist in support of any charge - the speed of the cyclist may be a consideration in itself but the fact that they were in excess of a speed limit which does not apply to them would be irrelevant.

Remember the test for dangerous driving will involve "speed" amongst other things as opposed to "speeding" having regard to the manner which a reasonably prudent person, having regard to all the circumstances, would recognise as involving a direct, immediate and serious risk to the public. In other words you could be under the speed limit and face the charge and equally be over the speed limit and not face the charge.

Grassey

Peregrinus wrote: »

Although in most contexts cycling in excess of the speed limit is likely to support a case for careless or even dangerous driving.

I would also find it hard to believe that as speed limits do not apply, travelling in excess of a posted motor vehicle limit would be in itself careless or dangerous for a cyclist?

I could agree that in case of an injury to person/property that the relative speed of cyclist be taken into consideration in addition to their road behaviour and these combined could support careless or dangerous driving.

Descending Howth hill at 70kmh may not be careless or dangerous if within the cyclists ability/control. Descending at 70km/h through a crowd of jaywalkers would likely be more careless & dangerous, no?

NUTLEY BOY

I remember a newspaper report of a DC prosecution in Donegal a few years ago for dangerous driving where Gardaí established that the driver was driving at a huge speed. There was no accident. No other persons were in the area and so nobody was imperilled.

The DJ struck out the summons. As far as I remember the thinking was that speed alone was not of itself evidence of dangerous driving.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As far as I remember the thinking was that speed alone was not of itself evidence of dangerous driving.

Correct, speeding in and of itself isn't dangerous driving but can lead to the charge as an element of the offence, but it must be shown that there was a "direct, immediate and serious risk to the public" before dangerous driving applies.

Victor

Watching the Garda Twitter account, it seems they go for arrest + dangerous driving charge at about 180km/h.

hullaballoo

Victor wrote: »

Watching the Garda Twitter account, it seems they go for arrest + dangerous driving charge at about 180km/h.

That's driving at 150% of the 120km/h limit so do they do the same for driving at 150% of the lesser limits from what you can tell? Or do they only bring dangerous driving charges for breaking the upper limit?

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

That's driving at 150% of the 120km/h limit so do they do the same for driving at 150% of the lesser limits from what you can tell? Or do they only bring dangerous driving charges for breaking the upper limit?

I don't think there is any specific % rule they use, all comes down to the Guard on the day aswell as location etc as the surroundings would also need to be taken into consideration and if there is any direct, immediate and serious risk to people.

hullaballoo

Yes, I know it's not established or formal policy but I'm just wondering anecdotally is there a tendency for the majority to implement that sort of a rule. We are all aware that a lot of the time being 10% over the limit won't see you stopped/ticketed but that it's still possible if you are detected over the limit by someone who isn't feeling too lenient.

Victor

Is it an offence for a pedestrian to leave the scene of a collision?

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, I know it's not established or formal policy but I'm just wondering anecdotally is there a tendency for the majority to implement that sort of a rule.

Anecdotally yes the majority* operate along that way.

*It's the minority and those whos actions are dictated by what sort of day they are having who upset the consensus.

GM228

Victor wrote: »

Is it an offence for a pedestrian to leave the scene of a collision?

No.

Grassey

So pedestrians can go around crossing roads where there is no pedestrian green light with impunity, and if they hit a car knocking off wing mirrors and such as they all always do, they can just walk off into the sunset without recourse for the poor car driver?

Thats mad Joe, and those pedestrians don't even pay walking tax, wear normal clothes etc...