Cycling into a car parked in a cycle lane and damaging the car.

JackieChang

Who's at fault?

HeidiHeidi

I'm no legal expert, but at a guess I'd say the moving thing that hit the stationary thing might be at fault

Bigus

I'd say there's contributary factors on both sides , so neither cyclist or driver 100% at fault, but probably driver more at fault , only a court could really decide.

dr.fuzzenstein

Did the car appear out of thin air directly in front of you, giving you no chance to avoid it? Then maybe.
Otherwise I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could possibly hope to blame a stationary object that they crash into. Legal matters are sometimes grey, but I don't see how this could be in any way the car owner's fault.
The car should not be parked in a cycle path, but that is an entirely different matter.

joeysoap

You see it everywhere. And while the Gardai pass no heed most of the time it might be illegal


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/unacceptable-flanagan-hits-out-at-drivers-parking-in-cycle-lanes-1.3541728

aaakev

Bigus wrote: »

I'd say there's contributary factors on both sides , so neither cyclist or driver 100% at fault, but probably driver more at fault , only a court could really decide.

Is this a real answer based on the op?

cruizer101

Bigus wrote: »

I'd say there's contributary factors on both sides , so neither cyclist or driver 100% at fault, but probably driver more at fault , only a court could really decide.

The driver of the car that is completely stationary is at fault
How on earth could they be considered at fault, yes they shouldn't be there but that doesn't mean the cyclist shouldn't observe them there and avoid.

ridonkulous

Was there intent by the cyclist to hit the stationary car? I ask because hitting a stationary object is pretty damn stupid no matter where the object is on the road. If the car was a pedestrian who would be at fault? If a pedestrian was standing in the middle of the road and a car hit them who do you think would be at fault?

JackieChang

I just saw this video and thought I'd ask.

Start at about 1 min 10 seconds.

ERLUAD

Cycle Tracks
Mandatory cycle tracks

For mandatory cycle tracks, no parking or stopping at any time. A mandatory cycle track is indicated by a solid white line.

Non-mandatory cycle tracks

For non-mandatory cycle tracks, you can park for a maximum of 30 minutes while actively loading or unloading a vehicle.. A non mandatory cycle track is indicated by a broken white line

Cycle tracks operate on a 24 hour basis unless otherwise indicated on a time plate.

Grassey

ridonkulous wrote: »

If a pedestrian was standing in the middle of the road and a car hit them who do you think would be at fault?

ah that's not a fair comparison, what would be better would be "If there was a cyclist on the road and a car hit them..."

Because going by recent reported news the last few years the driver wouldn't be at fault because they "couldn't see the cyclist" due to them all being invisible if not wearing builders vests.

Logically then a cyclist wouldn't be at fault for hitting a car parked in the cycle lane if it didn't have magic blinky parking lights on and/or a reflective strip down the boot as it would effectively be invisible to the human eye. No?

seamus

There are very few scenarios where you can hit a stationary object - be that a vehicle, pole, wall, tree, person - and the other object is at fault rather than you.

"It shouldn't have been there" isn't generally a defence in this country, stationary objects impeding your progress are hazards and you are obliged to react appropriately.

If it was the case that the car was at fault, then by the same logic you could ram someone who's blocking your driveway, and sue them for damages.

The video in question was made as a reaction by a cyclist to being told that they had to stay in the cycle lane all the time; the cyclist simply making the point that staying in the cycle lane all the time isn't an option.

The same obligation doesn't exist in Ireland, so the argument is moot.

Eggs For Dinner

I hear similar all the time. "The other car had no tax/NCT/Insurance, so he is at fault because he shouldn't have been on the road".

dr.fuzzenstein

I find the tree comparison the best.
Would you blame a tree if you crashed into it? I'm sure some would and have tried to get compo from the owner...

JackieChang

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I find the tree comparison the best.
Would you blame a tree if you crashed into it? I'm sure some would and have tried to get compo from the owner...

If the tree was in the middle of a cycle lane surely I could sue the council if I broke my neck cycling into it by accident.

HeidiHeidi

JackieChang wrote: »

If the tree was in the middle of a cycle lane surely I could sue the council if I broke my neck cycling into it by accident.

But why/how would you cycle into it (either by accident or design) when you could cycle around it?

Spook_ie

And if the car was immobile because of a breakdown or prior incident, cyclist responsibility to be aware of his/her surroundings.

dr.fuzzenstein

JackieChang wrote: »

If the tree was in the middle of a cycle lane surely I could sue the council if I broke my neck cycling into it by accident.

The only way to find out is to find a tree, cycle into it and sue the council.
Mind you, nothing would surprise me in Ireland. I bet you'll get €60k.
And since Buncranna Pier, any onlookers will also get compensation for mental trauma.
Compo for everyone! Checks of €40k will be sent to every household in the country.

dr.fuzzenstein

After successfully suing DCC, level up.
Cycle into the forest, hit a tree there and sue the forest company.

Grassey

Is a pothole not a stationary object and yet people can successfully claim off the council for damages?

seamus

JackieChang wrote: »

If the tree was in the middle of a cycle lane surely I could sue the council if I broke my neck cycling into it by accident.

No. The tree is a hazard. The onus is on you to avoid it.

Unless you can prove that the tree appeared without warning and due to the negligence of the council.

Grassey wrote: »

Is a pothole not a stationary object and yet people can successfully claim off the council for damages?

Councils will often just pay out rather than deal with the hassle.
Successfully suing in court for this is quite rare because you have to prove that the council actually did something wrong. A pothole on its own is not the council's fault unless they created it.
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/motorist-sues-council-over-pothole-damage-27497687.html

Del2005

seamus wrote: »

Councils will often just pay out rather than deal with the hassle.
Successfully suing in court for this is quite rare because you have to prove that the council actually did something wrong. A pothole on its own is not the council's fault unless they created it.
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/motorist-sues-council-over-pothole-damage-27497687.html

I thought it was that you could sue the council if it was reported and not fixed. If I hit a pothole today and report it to the council I get nothing, if you hit it 2 days later they'll pay compensation as they have left the road in a dangerous condition.

seamus

I'm not sure on the specifics, I think purely by convention they pay out small claims because it's cheaper than paying a barrister in court.

In the strictest sense of the word, failure to repair a pothole (whether you are aware of it or not) is nonfeasance, which is not actionable.

In other countries there's case law (and hard law) which creates a form of moral/social contract between the council and the public, which makes them liable for damages once they're aware of them, or if it can be proven that the council haven't been properly monitoring the road surface.

This doesn't exist in Ireland.

deisedevil

If I was driving around a bend in a road and a car was parked on the road for no reason and I hit it am I at fault? As in, if it would be impossible to have stopped in time.

HeidiHeidi

deisedevil wrote: »

If I was driving around a bend in a road and a car was parked on the road for no reason and I hit it am I at fault? As in, if it would be impossible to have stopped in time.

You would be - what if it was a cyclist or pedestrian or child?


You need to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

Sleeper12

I get it's a cycle lane but a cyclist still has to cycle with due care. They could have killed a child without knowing it.

The mind boggles.

Sleeper12

HeidiHeidi wrote:

But why/how would you cycle into it (either by accident or design) when you could cycle around it?

I see many cyclists texting as they cycle or video calling. I see many motorists doing likewise

deisedevil

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

You would be - what if it was a cyclist or pedestrian or child?


You need to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

I understand what you mean but I'm thinking that there would be many situations where if someone broke down on a road, particularly some country roads, it would be impossible for an oncoming car to stop in time. Imagine if the cyclist is on a cycle lane with a sharp bend and a large hedge or wall lining it. If someone parked on that bend you'd have very little chance of being able to stop in time. Surely the blame should shift to the driver who didn't take due care to park his car where it was safe to do so rather than the cyclist who was cycling in a lane that should have been free of obstructions. Just seems that it shouldn't be so black and white. (I say shouldn't but I'm also assuming that it is that black and white legally speaking and it's tough luck if you happen to be the cyclist)

Peregrinus

You should not be driving (or cycling) at a speed such that you can't stop within the limit of your vision, end of. That's one of the reasons why you slow down when approaching a blind curve.

Glass fused light

deisedevil wrote: »

I understand what you mean but I'm thinking that there would be many situations where if someone broke down on a road, particularly some country roads, it would be impossible for an oncoming car to stop in time. Imagine if the cyclist is on a cycle lane with a sharp bend and a large hedge or wall lining it. If someone parked on that bend you'd have very little chance of being able to stop in time. Surely the blame should shift to the driver who didn't take due care to park his car where it was safe to do so rather than the cyclist who was cycling in a lane that should have been free of obstructions. Just seems that it shouldn't be so black and white. (I say shouldn't but I'm also assuming that it is that black and white legally speaking and it's tough luck if you happen to be the cyclist)

Both cars and bicycles have these things called brakes, they are a legal obligation and use or lack of use removes the grey area when it comes to crashing or not crashing into stationary objects.

seamus

deisedevil wrote: »

I understand what you mean but I'm thinking that there would be many situations where if someone broke down on a road, particularly some country roads, it would be impossible for an oncoming car to stop in time. Imagine if the cyclist is on a cycle lane with a sharp bend and a large hedge or wall lining it. If someone parked on that bend you'd have very little chance of being able to stop in time. Surely the blame should shift to the driver who didn't take due care to park his car where it was safe to do so rather than the cyclist who was cycling in a lane that should have been free of obstructions. Just seems that it shouldn't be so black and white. (I say shouldn't but I'm also assuming that it is that black and white legally speaking and it's tough luck if you happen to be the cyclist)

http://www.roadcraft.co.uk/roadcraft/

Everyone should read this, not just emergency services.

This should mention a specific technique in cornering, where you look for the "vanishing point" of the road. This is the point at which you can no longer see around the corner.



This is also the famous "distance you can see to be clear"; you should never drive at a speed where you would be unable to stop before the vanishing point.

It's more commonly taught to motorcyclists, but it's equally relevant to all road users.

In 99.9% of situations, if you are "surprised" by a stationary object in the road and cannot stop in time, then you were travelling too fast.

Sleeper12

seamus wrote: »

http://www.roadcraft.co.uk/roadcraft/

Everyone should read this, not just emergency services.

This should mention a specific technique in cornering, where you look for the "vanishing point" of the road. This is the point at which you can no longer see around the corner.



This is also the famous "distance you can see to be clear"; you should never drive at a speed where you would be unable to stop before the vanishing point.

It's more commonly taught to motorcyclists, but it's equally relevant to all road users.

In 99.9% of situations, if you are "surprised" by a stationary object in the road and cannot stop in time, then you were travelling too fast.

I would suggest that if a bike can't stop in that distance that they do not have their eyes on the road at all. Remembering that they most likely have the option of going around the stopped car.

seamus

Bicycle, absolutely. But you can still get up to decent speeds on a bicycle, so the "vanishing point" technique is just as relevant for them as any road user. I use it myself frequently when out on a country road. Some corners still need you to slow down to less than 20km/h, even on a bicycle.

PlaneSpeeking

JackieChang wrote: »

Who's at fault?

The cyclist all the live long day.

NUTLEY BOY

First principles.

Cyclist owes a duty of care which includes looking where you are going. Failure to observe the parked car in to which they crash is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the cyclist.

As regards the motorist it is hard to see how the mere act of parking a car in a cycle lane - albeit it unlawfully - constitutes an act of negligence. It certainly does not confer a magic immunity from responsibility on the cyclist.

As far as potholes are concerned they are a different species of event altogether as they are defects in the highway for which there can be a virtually strict liability if the evidence stands up.

C.O.Y.B.I.B

Sorry to slightly hijack the thread , but I had a scenario a couple of years ago where I cycled into the back of a car while changing lanes.
I was looking over my shoulder to.make sure it was safe to switch lanes , which it was , however at exactly the same time as I switched lane, the car which was in front and to my right hit the brakes as he thought a pedestrian was about to walk out in front of him . I went into the back of him and over the handlebars . Few bumps and bruises , no major bike damage and a couple of smashed lights on the car. Driver got out , checked I was ok , said not to worry about damage and left . I was still a little dazed and said thanks , but in hindsight , I couldn't figure out who was at fault .

Peregrinus

You were at fault, I'm sorry to say. Ran into the vehicle in front of you when it braked suddenly. If you had bee driving a car in this circumstance, would you have any doubt about whether you were at fault?

I get that you were checking the traffic behind you, itself a reasonable and necessary safety measure. But what you should have done was slow down and/or fall back, so that you would be able to do this without the risk of running into the car ahead of you if driving conditions changed while you were making your check.

Peregrinus

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I would suggest that if a bike can't stop in that distance that they do not have their eyes on the road at all. Remembering that they most likely have the option of going around the stopped car.

Which raises a point. If you park in the cycle lane and a cyclist cycles into you because he fails to see you, he's a fault. But if he does say you and takes evasive action and an accident results, you may well be held to be at least partly at fault. Or, if you being there obscures his view of some other hazard, and an accident results. Or lots of things, really.

In short; a cyclist running directly into you is not likely to result in liability. But that doesn't mean you can park in the cycleway with no risk of incurring any liability.

Sleeper12

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which raises a point. If you park in the cycle lane and a cyclist cycles into you because he fails to see you, he's a fault. But if he does say you and takes evasive action and an accident results, you may well be held to be at least partly at fault. Or, if you being there obscures his view of some other hazard, and an accident results. Or lots of things, really.

In short; a cyclist running directly into you is not likely to result in liability. But that doesn't mean you can park in the cycleway with no risk of incurring any liability.

Agreed.
Saying the car was illegally parked isn't an excuse. What if a council works vehicle, Garda vehicle, car clampers were stopped there. Or worse a child standing there. All have the right to stop in the cycle lane in the course of their of duties. At least some of them are allowed. Bottom line is pedestrians, cyclists & motorists have a responsibility / duty to watch where they are going