nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Those damn cyclists again!

Irishcrx

I'll probably get bashed by the fitness fanatics on here , but I have a serious pain my ass with cyclist entitlement when I'm driving to work in the morning. Twice in the last week I've been forced to swerve into an outer lane and nearly collide with another car because someone was cycling to far on the inside on the road , they ask all motorists to be aware of cyclists and that's fine, but cyclists also need to be aware of motorists and the danger they are causing in busy morning periods.

It's also grinds my gears that they slow down my trip into work by 5-10 minutes everyday by taking up the lanes , slowing down traffic , slowing down crossing lanes and they have free use of the roads while the rest of us have to pay for them.

Surely with the ammount of cyclists now they should be paying something to use the public roads even a flat fee of €30 a year or something. Don't even get me started on breaking red lights or cycling out in front of cars , I know there's laws taking action against this now but from what I see it hasn't really stopped it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MayoAreMagic

Knasher, I was talking about the point I had made.

endacl, how about every single lane you cycle on? That is what the drivers have to face. Dont get me wrong, Im not pro drivers here, there are a lot of dangerous ones out there too. The point is, put yourself in the other person's shoes and you might think differently.

SeanW

endacl wrote: »

I see what you're getting at, but I don't buy it. Seriously? People will risk being hit by a ton of metal at 30kph because they consciously consider strict liability, either in the moment or with stupidity aforethought? I don't think so.

I don't deny the existence of stupidity of course! I just don't buy that people will 'not avoid' accidents simply because somebody else will pay for their medical treatment.

Strict liability is just one of a package of things.

Pedestrians breaking red-man lights and deciding to force traffic to a stop traffic seem to be heavily influenced by the speed of traffic. From what I've read of the discussion with the OP, he or she seems to regularly encounter cyclists jumping lanes without safe clearance to do so.

Assuming that is true, it is my opinion that a package of strict liability, restrictive speed limits, and the onus on motorists of defensive driving are causal factors in the decisions of those cyclists to behave in that way.

blacklilly

CramCycle wrote: »

As someone who has been through the process, that's simply not true.The only time it happens is if the cost of the case outweighs the expected payout, makes no sense for the insurer to bother. If the cyclist is in the wrong, the Judge will award in the motorists favour and vice versa.

But as you say, many of these personal injury claims do not make it to court and are settled.

Canis Lupus

SeanW wrote: »

@endacl You would be surprised how often I see fellow pedestrians blatantly walk out into traffic - against red-man lights or other controls - on the basis that the traffic is going slow and "sure I can make the cars stop for me."

This made me laugh as a girl did this today to me on the way home from the shops at a junction. She looked right at me and walked out with a 'what you gonna do' look on her face. There was a pedestrian crossing not 10 metres from her.

People be dumb.

JuliusCaesar

sarkozy wrote: »

And on this topic, which is a daily occurrence for cyclists following the rules ... why do cyclists in Ireland just not fix and use bicycle bells. The most effective, and politest/least confrontational, way to tell people to get out of the way is this humble invention. Instead, we prefer to creep up on people or yell at people about our right of way. Seriously, get a bell. It works. It will improve cycling culture. You're not a sissy having one.

The problem is that bicycle bells can't be heard by either pedestrians with earphones on, or by drivers in cars with the radio on. I'm leaning towards getting an air-horn on my handlebars....

But until then, ting-ting!

PeadarCo

blacklilly wrote: »

I know of many incidents and have heard of many others where insurance companies have paid out. Perhaps this is not as common in the reecnt past.

To be honest part of the problem is that some insurance companies can't be bothered following through on relatively low value cases. Its just less hassle for them to pay out on small amounts than go through the rig ma role of a court battle. I've heard of instances of this beyond purely road accidents.

Actually one of the pieces of advice I've been given is if your in an accident to instruct them specifically to not pay out until you get the full facts.

But that's more to do with the cost benefit analysis of the insurance company and a person not keeping track of any claims against them.

Jawgap

blacklilly wrote: »

But as you say, many of these personal injury claims do not make it to court and are settled.

There is no way an insurance company settles out of court if the applicant is 100% wrong - if they do they're not an insurance company they're a charity.

No one would take out a policy with them and they'd have to pay out on every claim! Not a great business model, wouldn't you say?

sarkozy

You can get those really large cling-clang ones. They seem like overkill but their effin' loud.

SeanW

Jawgap wrote: »

There is no way an insurance company settles out of court if the applicant is 100% wrong - if they do they're not an insurance company they're a charity.

No one would take out a policy with them and they'd have to pay out on every claim! Not a great business model, wouldn't you say?

Ahem ...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90959134&postcount=50

07Lapierre

Cycled through Dublin City Centre yesterday for the first time in years. what an experience!

While cycling along Amien Street a motorist, slowed down to allow me move into the centre of the road so i could turn right!

When cycling along the quays, a taxi driver noticed me in his rear view mirror and realizing that i was travelling faster than him, he moved over to allow me to pass! ( His window was down so i said "cheers mate" as i passed! )

In general i found other cyclists more of a nuisance then the "motorized traffic".

Of course that was just one day, I'm sure if i was a regular commuter in Dublin city I might have a different experience.

CramCycle

blacklilly wrote: »

But as you say, many of these personal injury claims do not make it to court and are settled.

Not what i said at all, in fact you are now changing the game, I was talking about accidents, now you are on about personal injury. Personal injury claims are most likely going to be biased towards cyclists due to vulnerability but an insurance company will not payout if the cyclists can be shown to be more liable for the accident.

sarkozy

Cycled through Dublin City Centre yesterday for the first time in years. what an experience!

While cycling along Amien Street a motorist, slowed down to allow me move into the centre of the road so i could turn right!

When cycling along the quays, a taxi driver noticed me in his rear view mirror and realizing that i was travelling faster than him, he moved over to allow me to pass! ( His window was down so i said "cheers mate" as i passed! )

In general i found other cyclists more of a nuisance then the "motorized traffic".

Of course that was just one day, I'm sure if i was a regular commuter in Dublin city I might have a different experience.

As I mentioned earlier, good experiences transform the overall experience, improve traffic flow, and improve safety. Once the defensive walls go up between commuters, things get dangerous. We're all looking for the same thing, but the situation is just not helpful for anyone.

I have positive experiences all the time, too. For example, I signal when turning, and don't cut across pedestrians at cycle lanes when the bike lights are red/amber. It allows for more friendly interaction where all people are respected and the quality of people's lives improved.

HOWEVER, and whether you're playing devil's advocate or not, in spite of my own attitude to cycling and my own safety, I would say that cycling along both keys are still the most profoundly unsettling, stressful and occasionally terrifying things in my life right now. I honestly think to myself each time, "will I get to see my son this evening?" This is my motivator to stay safe, but I don't think many others around me at the time have that in mind.

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

Ahem ...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90959134&postcount=50

ahem.....where does it say the young lad in question was 100% at fault.

It's always a risk -to both sides - when you go to court. 'Paying in' is fairly standard - it doesn't mean the insurance company wasn't willing to go to court - the fact that the judge said

.....there was a definite risk in letting the case go to trial.

"One would have to factor in the possibility that it could be completely lost," said Mr Justice Clarke.

would seem to suggest that he thought he motorcyclist (and the insurance company) would have a good enough case to either 'win' and deprive the injured boy of a settlement or a settlement at least as large as what was on offer.

Insurance companies pay in as a hedge against going to trial - where they could lose serious bucks.......it's case of risk versus reward for both parties.

....and thanks for posting the link to this case maybe some other posters who made statements regarding similarly serious incidents can do likewise

steamengine

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

The problem is that bicycle bells can't be heard by either pedestrians with earphones on, or by drivers in cars with the radio on. I'm leaning towards getting an air-horn on my handlebars....

But until then, ting-ting!

Yep an air horn - cyclists need to be heard. I've stopped several cars in their tracks with mine, reversing out of drives, at T junctions etc., bells just don't cut it in noisy surroundings.
As for this eye contact rubbish .....enough said !

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

And a taxi only pays €82 motor tax. Whys this? Surely they pollute the same as any other car. Why are they different?

EDIT: Actually it's now a scandalous €95

No idea, probably because originally it wasn't a motor tax

but TBH it wouldn't concern me too much what they charged as it's a deductible expense anyway!

So having made the point that it doesn't bother me if the tax rate to be able to use the roads for taxis was increased what real objections to road taxing for cyclists do you have?

A I pay tax on my motor which is parked up

B I pay VAT etc. on bikes and bits n pieces

C I pay income tax

D I don't want to

E an other

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

And even use the bus lanes when they don't have a fare or are on the way to collect one. They're a disgrace Joe.

They're allowed to, just like cyclists being allowed, you need to know the laws

CramCycle

As a matter of interest are you paying the tax on the cyclist or the bike in your suggestion?

SeanW

Jawgap wrote: »

There is no way an insurance company settles out of court if the applicant is 100% wrong - if they do they're not an insurance company they're a charity.

No one would take out a policy with them and they'd have to pay out on every claim! Not a great business model, wouldn't you say?

Your first post.

Jawgap wrote: »

ahem.....where does it say the young lad in question was 100% at fault.

In the article:

A YOUNG skateboarder who rolled out in front of a passing motorbike

Engineers’ estimates of the reaction time available to the motorcyclist put it at one second at most and possibly as little as seven tenths of a second.

Seems fairly clear cut to me.

It's always a risk -to both sides - when you go to court. 'Paying in' is fairly standard - it doesn't mean the insurance company wasn't willing to go to court

Huh? That's not what you said above!

would seem to suggest that he thought he motorcyclist (and the insurance company) would have a good enough case to either 'win' and deprive the injured boy of a settlement or a settlement at least as large as what was on offer.

More to the point, that the judge thought the boy deserved a big fat pay-out even though the motorcyclist did nothing wrong, and the decision to approve the settlement was made on this basis.

No matter that the effect on the motorcyclists insurance would have been the same as a multi-year ban for a criminal conviction of dangerous driving.

(With a large insurance payout on your record good luck getting insurance at a sane rate in the next 5 years, that has the same effect as a 5 year ban for dangerous driving.)

Again the precedent of this and other cases, as a non-motorist, you are free to act the c**t, do things likely to cause accidents and blame someone else i.e. a heavily regulated motorist, if an accident results. No matter whether the motorist could have prevented the accident or that such a motorist will be effectively disqualified for a very long time.

PeadarCo

Spook_ie wrote: »

EDIT: Actually it's now a scandalous €95

No idea, probably because originally it wasn't a motor tax but TBH it wouldn't concern me too much what they charged as it's a deductible expense anyway!

So having made the point that it doesn't bother me if the tax rate to be able to use the roads for taxis was increased what real objections to road taxing for cyclists do you have?

A I pay tax on my motor which is parked up

B I pay VAT etc. on bikes and bits n pieces

C I pay income tax

D I don't want to

E an other

Spook you haven't mentioned the amount cycling saves the health service. Including the above reasons less people cycling means more obese people, meaning more money needs to be spent on the health service and less on roads.

Or put it another way more cycling means more money is available to spend on the roads.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

They're allowed to, just like cyclists being allowed, you need to know the laws

I was just getting in the swing of this thread with my broad paintbush here.

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

Again the precedent of this and other cases, as a non-motorist, you are free to act the c**t, do things likely to cause accidents and blame someone else i.e. a heavily regulated motorist, if an accident results. No matter whether the motorist could have prevented the accident or that such a motorist will be effectively disqualified for a very long time.

The article is just that, an article, with that reaction time it implies the MC was travelling to close to the line of parked cars instead of holding the lane and in the same scenario, as well as travelling to fast to deal with the unexpected.

The offer is excessive if he is innocent as the judge warns that the boy (my understanding ) could lose but the insurance company have also weighed up the possibility that while the boy came out without warning, the MCs speed, proximity, failure to adapt to road conditions (you don't speed past parked cars in a built up area) would be considered factors, they would have weighed up what % of the claim would be percieved as the MCs fault and paid out on that basis.

SeanW

It's possible there were contributing factors but the root cause of the accident seems very clear. As did the view of the judiciary.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

EDIT: Actually it's now a scandalous €95

No idea, probably because originally it wasn't a motor tax but TBH it wouldn't concern me too much what they charged as it's a deductible expense anyway!

So having made the point that it doesn't bother me if the tax rate to be able to use the roads for taxis was increased what real objections to road taxing for cyclists do you have?

A I pay tax on my motor which is parked up

B I pay VAT etc. on bikes and bits n pieces

C I pay income tax

D I don't want to

E an other

A, B & C applies. The countries finance are in such a mess, but I'm guessing all fund the roads and I'm happy enough the level I pay at the moment. If roads here were funded by motor tax, along with the rates of VRT, excise, Vat from cars sales and fuel, we would have the best roads in Europe. But we don't.

Well, for a start taxing cyclists no other precedent in any other country. Cycling is a basic level of travel and to tax it makes no sense. How would it be administered for children, tourists and casual cyclists? It has benefits that far outweigh taxing it - other more cycling friendly countries (for example the Netherlands and Switzerland) have abolished charges on cycling many moons ago. It would be a retrograde step to stand on our own and start taxing cyclists - we've had enough embarrassment internationally over the past fortnight.

Ultimately taxing it will discourage cycling, which is enjoying unprecedented growth. People are realising that the days of 40% of journeys of less than 5km in a vehicle of 20% occupancy are coming to a close. Dublin City Council have openly admitted that they are no longer catering for the private car. There are no plans to run roads over or under Dublin to facilitate lazy people who insist on driving very short distances.

I also cycle a zero emission vehicle, it has no engine. Other road users enjoy zero tax - but for some reason they seem to get overlooked? Garda cars, Diplomatic vehicles, road sweepers. Or are you saying they should be brought into the net as well?

Anyway, we've flogged this one long enough. Taxing cyclists is simply never going to happen. Unless of course you manage to get yourself elected and promoted to Minister for Transport, in which case it would happen. But, in the real world, no. Everytime this is pointed out, yiu see taxing as a panacea. Arguments are pout forweard where it winn not / cannot work. But otyher than saying tax, tax, and tax again, you have no presecent to back up your argument.

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

Your first post.

In the article:

Seems fairly clear cut to me.

etc
etc
etc.

OK, now here's what I actually said...

Jawgap wrote: »

There is no way an insurance company settles out of court if the applicant is 100% wrong - if they do they're not an insurance company they're a charity.

No one would take out a policy with them and they'd have to pay out on every claim! Not a great business model, wouldn't you say?

and here's what you replied with....

SeanW wrote: »

Ahem ...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90959134&postcount=50

You're idea that 'it seems fairly clear cut' is based on a 350 word report in a news paper? Unless you are going to tell me that you were privy to all the papers in the case, the engineer's report, the probability calculations associated with the reaction time, the photos / video of the site etc etc...

The judge didn't think the boy deserved a 'big fat payout' - the judge was managing the case (as they do before they go to hearing). The insurance company offered and on balance the judge decided it was in the interests of the child to accept the settlement rather than go to trial where the kid could have got more, but equally he could have got less or nothing.

Nice - that you think a five year old on a skateboard was acting 'the c**t' - is this really the best case you can come up with?

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson - "is this really your idea of a conclusive case - five year olds and skateboards? Please tell me that you have something more. Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned their hopes to a skateboard."

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

It's possible there were contributing factors but the root cause of the accident seems very clear. As did the view of the judiciary.

Effectively the insurance company was paying not to go to court (€240k is 'only' about 12 days of legal fees - assuming the insurance company would have used a senior and a junior counsel) - and the judge in the interests of the kid was happy to take their money.

He wasn't taxing them and he didn't set the amount to be paid.

They could easily have burned through an equivalent amount to defend the case, won it and then have judge decline to make an order on costs. The payment had nothing to do with attributing liability and everything to do with mitigating the potential cost to the company - it's called doing business.

AntiVirus

Bio Mech wrote: »

Did you leave out a "d" that completely changes the whole point of your post?

Do you think they should be fine?

Do you think they should be fined?

The devil is in the D!

There should have been a "d" there :-D I'm blaming the keyboard.

I also think cyclist should be fined for cycling with no lights at dusk or at night time and also for not wearing a helmet. I know its not popular with some cyclists here but that's how it should be.

blackwhite

CramCycle wrote: »

As someone who has been through the process, that's simply not true.The only time it happens is if the cost of the case outweighs the expected payout, makes no sense for the insurer to bother. If the cyclist is in the wrong, the Judge will award in the motorists favour and vice versa.

No - the insurance company will often pay out if the cost to settle is less than the expected cost to defend the claim.

Insurance companies will often assess that it is cheaper to pay someone to bugger off than to incur solicitor costs to defend an action, and risk not being awarded or not being able to recover costs.

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

motor tax

tax rate

A tax

B VAT

C tax

The obsession with Tax.. Tax.. and more tax goes on!

Jawgap

AntiVirus wrote: »

There should have been a "d" there :-D I'm blaming the keyboard.

I also think cyclist should be fined for cycling with no lights at dusk or at night time and also for not wearing a helmet. I know its not popular with some cyclists here but that's how it should be.

..........and we're offfffffff.......

There should really be a thread somewhere discussing the relative merits or otherwise of helmets.......it would take up more than a page or two.......

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

As a matter of interest are you paying the tax on the cyclist or the bike in your suggestion?

Good question, as a lot of cyclists have more than one bike it would need to be on the basis of per person, which means it can be associated with also requiring a license to cycle, no license, no tax, no high viz with a registration on it, no use of the roads. No longer cycling surrender the high viz
Now set the license age to the age of criminal responsibility and allow those under it to cycle under supervision while they learn about using roads