Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Would you support an assumed liability rule in Ireland?

  • 20-04-2022 12:21pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 269 ✭✭


    I’m not sure what jurisdictions have it, I think the Netherlands.

    Basically the operator of a car, motorbike, moped, lorry, van, bus, minibus etc. is automatically liable in the event of a collision unless otherwise proven, camera etc.

    I’m not sure how compatible it would be with common law. It would soften a lot of coughs and make people drive more carefully.

    I won’t call myself a cyclist as I usually have to dust off the saddle before setting off. If roads were safer I just might cycle more.



«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 418 ✭✭GandhiwasfromBallyfermot


    Whatever about assumed liability, I think dashcams should definitely be mandatory on all cars. This is probably the first step towards assumed liability.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,721 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    We’re one of the only countries in the EU to not have some form of it, I think it’s just us, Romania, Cyprus, Malta and not in the EU obviously but the UK.

    Most countries have just your standard you’re liable unless proven otherwise for drivers, but the Netherlands put 50% of the liability on the driver regardless, and only the other 50% can be proven to be on the vulnerable road user, which I don’t necessarily agree with.

    I do think the burden needs to be put on the drivers, but I can’t see it happening here when we still have the likes of the RSA pushing the narrative that it’s a cyclists burden to be as visible as possible, or county councils building unprotected lanes on 100km/h roads.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    Who will pay the bill for a no-fault system in Ireland ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,721 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    Presumed liability isn’t a no-fault system, it’s quite the opposite. It puts the driver at fault unless he can prove otherwise



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    I 100% support it, but I think an online portal and a willingness to prosecute/ issue FPN is the next step. Motorists only fear their pocket and their need to be able to drive. We've seen this when Penalty Points were introduced, and extended - drop off in speeding and other offences through fear of being caught, until the realisation that enforcement hadn't changed and old habits came back*.

    *came back, and then some.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,103 ✭✭✭amacca


    I wouldn't support it in any form anyway.


    It would be taken advantage of wholesale by scam artists. A local "entrepreneur" used to deliberately cause accidents so himself and yhe girlfriend could get whiplash compo.


    You would just be giving another revenue stream to scumbags, although they would be on foot or on a bike so at least they would be environmentally friendly scumbags.


    I also despite never being in any accident think its bolox you are automatically assumed to be guilty of anything so on that basis alone I would fight it tooth and nail. Never liked being blamed in the wrong. I'm surprised to learn that's implemented elsewhere tbh....I think it sucks ass.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,161 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i think one would follow the other, to a certain extent at least. many people would probably buy a dashcam if presumed liability was introduced.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    As a driver, I would absolutely. We need to realign ourselves with the understanding that vehicles are trespassers in public spaces who are allowed operate there under licence.

    A pedestrian or cyclist presents no danger to a driver, and therefore has no duty of care towards them. The operator of a vehicle presents a danger to all other road users and therefore has a duty of care towards them.

    Thus logically it makes sense that in any collision between a vehicle and vulnerable road users, the vehicle is fully liable unless they can prove no failure in their duty of care. There are very few "unavoidable" accidents. 99.99% of the time, there is something you could have done to prevent an accident, whether or not you were legally at fault. There is a much higher burden on vehicles to take those steps to avoid accidents.

    Would I take this one step further and assign the same duty of care from cyclists to pedestrians? Yes, for the most part.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,158 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Everyone should get dashcams then, its a rare event I would cycle or drive without one or the other, those scam artists don't need such a rule to act the maggot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭DoctorEdgeWild


    I wouldn't support any rule or law that assumes something so automatically. Real life has too many variables. Especially when it's people's lives we're dealing with.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,218 ✭✭✭Junior




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Would I take this one step further and assign the same duty of care from cyclists to pedestrians? Yes, for the most part.

    Nowhere near the same disparity between pedestrians and cyclist though. Would be like making all SUVs responsible for any crashes that they have with hatchbacks.

    There is also not the same expectation of pedestrians that to be following any standard set of rules in how they negotiate the shared spaces. A cyclist riding along the motorway and the car driver can expect them not to have been there in the first place. A pedestrian walking the wrong way down a cycle path though and it wouldn't be quite as unexpected, or a pedestrian suddenly changing direction or not looking behind them as they change positions on the shared path.



  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal



    Dashcams and speed limiters.

    It's insane our max speed limit is 120km/hour but there are cars that can do 200km plus. No push for speed limits on cars but people pushing big time for a very low limits on scooters.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,161 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭DoctorEdgeWild


    I’ll make it a bit clearer to help.


    I don’t support laws that have a high level of assumption, unless no alternative is available. The current system, where nothing is assumed at first, and is investigated, is my preferred choice.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    We already have that high level of assumption in our system though, which favours the motorist. Successful mitigation of blame for things that aren't a legal requirement of VRU (like Hi-viz), and successful mitigation based on not complying with the law such as driving at a speed you can safely stop in the distance you can see (hence "low sun" being successful when a VRU is killed).

    Presumed liability would rebalance the judicial and policing system into application of the actual laws of the State.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭DoctorEdgeWild


    So if you’re against assumption, you think the solution, is to add more assumption?

    Is that not like putting out a fire, with more fire?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,103 ✭✭✭amacca


    It makes perfect sense. What makes a lot less sense to me is assigning liability to a person just because they are driving/a motorist.....blanket nonsense like that makes no sense.

    I also think the statement that cyclists have no duty of care to a driver is a bit silly....less perhaps, but no duty of care...I don't think so, their actions can cause harm to a driver too.....if they have to take evasive action etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,103 ✭✭✭amacca


    I'm not saying they need the rule, I'm saying they would use a rule like it to their advantage....they didn't need 20k payouts for a hard to disprove injury such as whiplash either to try it on but it was quite the incentive etc

    It would imo be an unforseen consequence of just automatically asigning liability to one category of humans



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,161 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    someone correct me on this, but isn't presumed liabilty usually implemented just for insurance purposes?

    i don't think a motorist could be prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian, under presumed liability; it's to assign damages, and is not a legal judgement.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    I'm not against assumption. I want the presumed liability, because it would force the system to use the actual laws of the State to prove a cyclist or pedestrian contributed. This doesn't happen in motoring offences in this State.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭DoctorEdgeWild


    ...but in an incident where it couldn't be proved, such as me cycling into a turning truck with no witnesses around, you'd be OK with that truck driver suffering the consequences of my choice? That's the bit I'm struggling to understand. The law should protect both him and me from the other person's actions. I totally agree that the current system needs improving, but this is the opposite.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,158 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    This is correct

    Its strict liability (not assumed), in your example, its 50% (In Denmark), to the driver if no other parties are involved, and then its to court for the rest. The truth is, it is not much different than here anyway, only it makes the trip to court far quicker and easier if it is needed but it has nothing to do with criminal actions, it is for civil court in a very narrow band of circumstances.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭DoctorEdgeWild


    In my example, the driver would automatically be assumed to be 50% at fault? They would then have to prove their actions played no part in the collision? It seems like an unfair situation considering I (in my example, which of course, would be rare to say the least) am totally at fault.

    Something about that seems unfair to me. Making laws that assume when they don't have to, seems unjust to me. I am open to being corrected if I'm misunderstanding something here.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,158 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    So to be clear, this is not in a criminal case, only in a civil case. It has no affect on criminal proceedings as far as I am aware. The 50% is only where (and this is from memory so apologies if there are errors, I read an article on Irish Cycle or similar years ago), depending on if no other parties were involved in any way, where it has been determined on both sides if either party could have avoided it or not. Long story short, it is a bit like a civil case here, in your scenario, where someone manages to pull off the scam outside of witnesses and make it look genuine, it becomes I said/you said situation, and it would end up 50/50 which is presumably what would happen here unless the motorist could have mitigated by being a better driver in which case it sways more against them.

    I could be corrected on this, but we already have similar laws here in regards rear ending someone, there is effectively a strict liability on the following vehicle unless there are other factors at play.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Not very fair to make someone 100% liable if automatically if there is a chance they arent.

    Make it mandatory for all round cameras on cars and for all cyclists to have a helmet cam. Problem solved. No cam from either side and they are liable.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,158 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Again, a misunderstanding of the law, it does not make the motorist 100% liable, just in a narrow set of circumstances 50% liable, the narrowness of which means that in most scenarios, they would have been found at least 50% liable anyway. So other than speeding up the legal process, it really would have no great affect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭DoctorEdgeWild


    If it doesn't have a great affect, and I accept your explanation totally, what's the value of it? If it costs a few more people an injustice of any kind, then maybe it makes for bad law?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    But you are blaming some people for somethi9ng they didnt do.

    Its guilty until proven innocent which is a sorry road to go down if you ask me.

    I am both a cyclist and a motorist and ive seen wreckless dangerous behaviour on both modes.

    How about we get the facts in a situation before assuming someone is guilty of something.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,840 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    Absolutely not. We already have crazy cases where people are awarded 1/4 of a million for walking out in front of a car while at a red light for pedestrians.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,158 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Just to be clear, I am not in favour or against such legislation until I see it written down with details. Assumed liability as a technical term is a non starter, it would be impossible to legislate for and go against the general accepted principles upon which such laws are based. Strict liability is simply a way to speed up a process in a narrow number of cases, no one is presumed guilty, it isn't used in criminal cases, only civil as far as I am aware and effectively speeds up what we already do. These are cases where it is a motorist vs pedestrian/cyclist, where absolutely no other party can be deemed to be involved, where it has been established whether there was anything either party could have done to avoid the incident and so on. I'm not in favour of it until I see it written down, but based on lets say the Dutch model, it will just clear a few cases through the courts quicker or get people to settle on the steps alot easier. Cases that people describe about insurance fraud etc. most won't fall under this as there are other factors. Personally, I'm not sure it would have any practical affect other than rile up a few hot heads who can't read and speed up the process in civil cases where solicitors might be more inclined to shake hands and be done long before court.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,198 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    If only there was some kind of disincentive to stop cyclists from playing chicken with juggernauts and ramming into them for the craic. Perhaps they would need to legislate against it?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,161 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the word 'guilt' is being thrown around a lot, and to reiterate - this is not something which has any bearing on whether someone is going to be found legally guilty of any offence. this is not presumed liability for driving offences, it's presumed liability for damages. i.e. in a case where a motorist and a cyclist are in a collision, and the cyclist's bike is totalled, the cyclist can automatically claim for the cost of a new bike off the motorist's insurance unless the motorist has proof the cyclist was culpable.

    also, there has been much progress made in reducing insurance payouts recently too, it's kinda funny how this news doesn't get the same attention as the headline grabbing 'quarter of a million damages awarded for crotch injury suffered while truck surfing' ones.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭DoctorEdgeWild


    Sadly laws have to protect us all from people who might wish to do us harm. Including those who would risk themselves to cause harm to others.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,198 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Well I'll pray for you that if a cyclist ever deliberately crashes into your truck head on at speed, that you survive to tell the tale of your ordeal



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭DoraDelite


    Risk themselves? They'd be killing themselves if they threw themselves in front of a HGV. Seriously, have a think about that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Saw a lad pull a television in a pub down on top of himself once, one of those old huge crt tvs. He came over to myself and a friend after he did it and said "you two are witnesses. That telly fell on my head, did you see it". We said ok to get him to go away. Went to the owner on the way out and told him what we saw.

    He didnt know this but we actually did see the whole thing through the gap between the seat back ant the glass partition from about 15 feet away. For a good 10 minutes we were looking at them wondering what they were at.

    First the guy started feeling the shelf to see how strong it was. Then went over with his friend to sit at the table under it with their drinks. Gave it a few tugs til it was loose. Sat under it and then put 2 hands up and hung out of it like a monkey. Pulling it til it fell down on top of him. There was no blood, so he broke the glasses on the table then and cut his hand and wiped it all over himself. And the screams out of him. We told the owner if he needed witnesses to give up a call. Never heard anything back after that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,198 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    People do the funniest things dont they?

    Heres another good one.

    They were causing injuries to each other on purpose in this one too.

    I was going to get a few more for you, but sure they are so easy to find you can do it yourself.

    If you think people are beyond injuring themselves for money in this country I think you might be on your own.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,198 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Do you know what the word "cyclist" means? Can you find me a story with a cyclist?


    I reckon I can pull a few up about cyclists getting run over and either killed or left handicapped by drivers. Will we have a competition on who can get the most stories maybe? You get the kamikaze cyclist ones and I'll get the ones ran over



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,161 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    is there a general problem in this country with people using bikes to make false insurance claims? if so, i'd like to see some better evidence.

    and i'll posit that there's not - it's easy to be involved in a car on car collision and walk away with no injuries except fake ones. it's much harder to stage a bike on car collision without actually running the risk of being hurt.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,049 ✭✭✭cletus


    Yes it's the Sun, and yes it's a rag, but I couldn't find the YouTube link.

    I'm neither for nor against such a rule until I see how it would work, but the video above is just for a bit of balance. People in all sorts of situations will try and game the system.


    There are other videos I've seen, of both pedestrians and cyclists doing similar, but once they know there's a camera they jog on.

    Now whether people will go to the extreme of actually deliberately being hit by a vehicle, I don't know, but (obviously anecdotally) I know someone who deliberately lost the tip of their finger in a mincing machine for a claim 🤷‍♂️



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,198 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    You must have a different version of the video which shows the cyclist deliberately crashing into a truck.

    I saw a better one years ago in Dublin here a fella got off a bike and jumped onto the bonnet and some oul' wan in the car gave him awful abuse and laughed at him and told him they had a dashcam

    Still, none of that has any relevance. Bring in the rule and then everyone can get their dashcam and be protected against any chancers. Presumption of liability against the driver. A presumption can be rebutted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,049 ✭✭✭cletus


    I never mentioned a cyclist and a truck, and I also said I wasn't necessarily against such a rule, but people are acting like others don't currently try to game the system, and this rule would be no different.


    I've seen the video you're talking about too, couldn't find it with a quick search, and I'm on my holiers with the family, so I'm off for some lunch, and probably a daytime beer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,198 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Well I'll see your irrelevant videos and raise you this one



    Do you think the driver had the right of way there?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,049 ✭✭✭cletus


    How are they irrelevant. They are literally people, on bicycles, pretending to by hit by vehicles, presumably for some monetary gain.

    The posts above mine (mb's as an example) asked if this was a thing that happened. I can't comment on the frequency, but it obviously does happen



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,161 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    it clearly does happen to some extent, but that's why i asked was it a 'general problem' - it's possible those reports are in the news precisely because they're exceptional (and clear) - someone brake testing another driver in a car would not make it into the news because that's much more common



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This was the one of the taxi that was mentioned, what a clown.





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭DoctorEdgeWild


    Didn’t think I’d have to spell things out so simply to be understood but here we are.


    I am on a bicycle.

    I see a person I hate turning his truck.

    I cycle carefully towards him at a difficult point in his manoeuvre, colliding with his truck. Throwing myself clear of danger onto the ground.

    The new rule being discussed in this thread would make the truck driver liable for this accident automatically.

    I believe this is not a good thing.

    I believe laws need to protect us from these gougers who wish to fake accidents, not make it easier for them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,049 ✭✭✭cletus


    You could be absolutely right, mb, but if there's a conversation being had, it might as well be an honest one, and pretending that people on bicycles somehow are the only ones who don't try take advantage of stuff like this is not being honest (not that I'm suggesting this is what you are doing)



  • Advertisement
Advertisement