Would you support an assumed liability rule in Ireland?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

Cool story bro.

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

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 🤷‍♂️

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

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

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)