TD Ciaran Cannon hit by SUV, suffers serious injury

The HSA is responsible for health and safety in the workplace. I am not sure if they would get involved in this. However they look at the total issue and how safety can be improved. They could actually put some onus on the cyclist for his own safety. This is similar in the workplace where protocols are put in place which place responsibility on the worker for his own safety

This incident was between a car and a cyclist. Yes a truck driver is in his workplace. However the HSA would defer to the Gardai as it's a traffic accident. Where they would get involved is where poor truck lighting was an issue or where something on the truck was part of the accident.

There remit is totally different to Gardai. They have a total remit for workplace safety. If the roadway was considered to be a workplace they could decide to remove all cyclist from the workplace

Everyone agrees it sh1t driving now you might actually address questions in my post. Can you forget about the driver an deal with the cyclist actions even if honest answers might be less than complementary of his risk avoidance.

Good roadcraft? You'd advise a loved one to cycle in that manner.

The car beside was stopped not slow moving. Stopped beside a busy entrance/junction on a road he knew well and didn't correct his speed.

He's entitled not to but would you advise it or not?

He's not on the quays in Dublin or along the canal, he's in Galway were cyclists are much more scare and less likely that an average motorist will even consider a cyclist overtaking in that location. Whether they should or shouldn't is irrelevant in terms of assessing the risk.

Slow moving traffic stopping at entrances/junctions is a regular feature of traffic and one a cyclist should consider in order to keep themselves safe or can they just discount the risk because they are entitled to overtake?

...

Why did the DPP not prosecute

They must have felt it was not a case they could win in court. They are independent of the state. It's is there decision and there decision alone. Maybe there analysis was that the driver was not completely at fault.

We do not know as the case did not go to court.

Regardless of what or who signals you. Its the driver who is ultimately responsible. So take that "go on to hell" advice from a passenger at your peril.

Get me Book of evidence and I'll have an educated guess.

Why are questions that some cyclist could learn from and avoid an accident the wrong questions? They are the wrong questions because you don't like the answers.

It's exactly the comparison.

You might as well say when driving and you have green light you should stop and check there isn't a lorry breaking the lights because you will end up worse off.

If a truck does hit you, you'll be at fault because you're at greater risk.

Now you're asking will you let someone drive knowing that if a 40 ton truck hits them they get hurt possibly killed.

It's a blind turn across traffic...at speed. Seating position my Barney.

The driver can’t see through other vehicles…that’s a simple fact… he is within his rights to make the turn… the cyclist should have been cognisant of that fact… slowed down when approaching the junction / turn and checked for traffic… had he done so he will see the vehicle turning and react accordingly…

a good common sense decision by the DPP

The DPP disagree with you evidently..

Was he completely blind ? he would have checked, what he could see at the time he started his turn there was no traffic, but the cyclist had the opportunity themselves to slow whilst approaching the turn and break in traffic.