# child cyclist versus car - liability?



## wednesday (19 Oct 2015)

My god-daughter is aged 7. She lives in a horseshoe cul-de-sac. She was cycling (albeit illegally) on the footpath. A car turned into the cul-de-sac and then turned into its drive. My god-daughter didn't have time to stop and struck the vehicle, (I'm uncertain at the moment whether it was the front or rear passenger door.) Who is liable? My friend is wondering whether to offer to pay for any damage to the vehicle?


----------



## DB74 (19 Oct 2015)

Well I wouldn't be offering anyway


----------



## Rebuttal (19 Oct 2015)

No, the child is not liable, the vehicle has to have third party insurance at a minimum. This is for situations as you have just described. In fact, it could be argued that the driver could be found guilty of careless or even dangerous driving in the manner in which he turned into his driveway, as when he did this, he was crossing a public pathway and should have been aware of other persons in the vicinity when making this manoeuvre. Indeed, the fact that your Godchild did not have time to stop is very unsettling.


----------



## wednesday (19 Oct 2015)

thanks for that DB74  although it doesn't address the liability issue.

Rebuttal, this was my thoughts too. She had concussion, lost a baby tooth and another tooth cut right through her cheek. My friend took her to caredoc on Saturday evening and took her to the dentist this morning and she's too swollen to x-ray yet - turns out she now has a gum infection and is on an antibiotic. Her bike is fairly totalled too. The driver hasn't been in touch with my friend as yet to check on the wellbeing of my god-daughter.


----------



## mathepac (19 Oct 2015)

This is where the adversarial system, in law and insurance, dehumanizes human relationships. If the driver has contacted his insurance or legal adviser, he has undoubtedly been told to avoid contact or anything that might be construed as an admission of fault or liability. Asking how the child is or any expression of empathy for her or with her parents might just be seen as enough of an admission to have the insurance walk away and leave his personally liable.  The sooner we can get to no-fault insurance the better.  The lack of contact does not necessarily make him a demon.

I hope the child recovers fully, physically and mentally. I wrote recently about out residents' association advocating for money for more speed-ramps in our estate, also cul-de-sac with two loops, one in the middle one at the end. The ramps are at the entrance from the main road. The ramp advocates are the parents who turn their kids out on the street riding, cycling, boarding, skating, chasing, footballing, hurling, etc. Not one of the kids wears a reflective jacket or helmet (apart from the hurlers), not one of them has a light attached to their bike, not one of them has a clue about the rules of the road or road safety for pedestrians and there is never any sign of a parent, unless it's to supervise / train / referee the hurlers or footballers. Keeping track of the kids is up to the kids e.g. "Fantawanta have you seen Chlamydia tonight? Tell her to come home if you do."

They have now posted notices for the drivers to "Beware - Children Playing". Why not signs for the kids 

"Beware - this is a footpath for walking on"

 or 

" Beware this is a public roadway, know the rules before you use it."


----------



## peteb (20 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> No, the child is not liable, the vehicle has to have third party insurance at a minimum. This is for situations as you have just described. In fact, it could be argued that the driver could be found guilty of careless or even dangerous driving in the manner in which he turned into his driveway, as when he did this, he was crossing a public pathway and should have been aware of other persons in the vicinity when making this manoeuvre. Indeed, the fact that your Godchild did not have time to stop is very unsettling.



What are you talking about?  How is third party cover for situations like this?  The bike hit the car, not the other way around.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Oct 2015)

If your goddaughter was more seriously hurt it really would make no difference who was legally liable.

Parents who let kids out on the roads when the kids are too small to mind the traffic are bad people.


----------



## DB74 (20 Oct 2015)

I have to say that the attitude of some people on this thread is incredible. We have a situation where a 7yo child was cycling on the footpath in her cul-de-sac and someone drove into the cul-de-sac and then proceeded to pull into their drive, completely ignoring the fact that a child was cycling nearby and then child then couldn't stop in time and hit the car, lost a tooth, another tooth went through her cheek and now she has a gum infection. A few seconds later and the child could have been killed

And people here are complaining about the parenting!

Thousands of kids play out in their estates every day, yes probably most of them don't obey the rules of the road 100% of the time, they are KIDS for God's sake, is it too much to ask that people slow down and be vigilant when driving through these estates. Is it too difficult for someone when pulling into their drive to have a quick glance up and down the road to make sure that they are not going to cause an accident.

Is that what we've come to now, "well I'm in the right so I'll do what I want", whatever happened to having a bit of cop-on


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2015)

Exactly DB74. Parents, so called, abdicate all responsibility for their child's safety and well-being to someone else, unknown and unidentified. If the unfortunate child is injured as in this case, it's "someone else's" fault. Why can't parents face up to their responsibilities for their children by supervising at play? Apart from motorists who wish to use the public roads to drive on untrammelled, there are other dangers children face these days, from potential abductors or abusers. Protecting children from these dangers is also "someone else's" responsibility I take it, maybe even the motorists.

Knowledge and use of the Rules of the Road, lights, helmets, hi-vis vests, knee and elbow protectors and appropriate supervision that's all that's needed to keep children safe from the evil motorist. Equipping and supplying all the prerequisites are the responsibility of the parents.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Oct 2015)

Really we don't have enough information to go on...

Were there parked cars obstructing the view of the driver so that the bike "appeared out of nowhere"?

If the driver had a clear view they should have seen the cyclist, and then I would expect that the courts would hold the driver mostly liable but usually in these scenarios the fact that the bike was being ridden technically illegally would see the cyclist partially liable (some percentage less than 50%).

If the driver could not have seen the cyclist and took reasonable precautions to ensure their way was clear before attempting the maneuver then I would be surprised if a court found them liable.

Note that I have no legal training, this is just from past readings of court reports in the media for these kind of claims.


----------



## Páid (20 Oct 2015)

In my view the driver is totally at fault. You always take extra care when driving near children. Also, the driver must have seen the child given that they were pulling into a driveway. If it had been a pedestrian on the footpath the driver should have yielded right of way.

From the Rules of the Road


> Children
> By their nature, children have less experience than other people in using the road, so you should make extra allowances for their behaviour.
> Take care when you are:
> 
> ...



and



> Be careful near children who are cycling. Take extra care near a school, where cyclists may emerge in groups. Remember, it is hard to predict a young cyclist’s balance and behaviour.


----------



## DB74 (20 Oct 2015)

mathepac said:


> Exactly DB74. Parents, so called, abdicate all responsibility for their child's safety and well-being to someone else, unknown and unidentified. If the unfortunate child is injured as in this case, it's "someone else's" fault. Why can't parents face up to their responsibilities for their children by supervising at play? Apart from motorists who wish to use the public roads to drive on untrammelled, there are other dangers children face these days, from potential abductors or abusers. Protecting children from these dangers is also "someone else's" responsibility I take it, maybe even the motorists.
> 
> Knowledge and use of the Rules of the Road, lights, helmets, hi-vis vests, knee and elbow protectors and appropriate supervision that's all that's needed to keep children safe from the evil motorist. Equipping and supplying all the prerequisites are the responsibility of the parents.



How do you propose a parent supervises their young child while they are out cycling? Should they run alongside them up and down the road (or footpath). Children on my road cycle up and down it every evening while their parents stand outside watching them. I'm not sure what else the parents are supposed to do. I don't think it's too much to ask that a child would be able to cycle on their own road (especially a cul-de-sac) without much more supervision than that and without having to worry that a resident is not going to take care while driving on that road. It's not that difficult to take a bit of extra care and slow down to 10-15 kph for the 2-3 minutes that you are driving somewhere where there are children present.

And as regards the original incident, I'm not sure what the parent is supposed to do here in terms of allowing the 7yo child to cycle on the footpath. There is a driver on their road who couldn't even be bothered to slow down sufficiently or even stop to allow a child to cycle past, I'm not sure whether I would want my child cycling on the road if that's what you have to deal with here. I don't think an attitude of "Mary, I need you to cycle on the road outside because it's against the law to cycle on the footpath and if you ever get knocked down and killed I need you to have been in the right so that I can win the court case" eases the pain on Birthdays or Christmas Day or every other day really.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Oct 2015)

For a number of years I had to drive through a housing estate cul-de-sac every day at about 5pm. The fear that I would hit a child was always in my mind. Sometimes a small child would stand between two parked cars, their head would not appear above the cars, they would dash across the road. No matter how slow or carefully I drove there was always the possibility of hitting one. This would have destroyed lots of people.

I was always glad when it was dark and raining because then there was less chance of kids on the street.


----------



## Andarma (20 Oct 2015)

Housing estates by their nature are full of young children. Some of those children will have some sense, some will not. As a driver, you have to assume that none of them have any sense. I have a 7 year old myself, who I thought had a bit of cop-on. We were out on the street one day, on opposite sides. A car was approaching, so I told him to wait until the car passed. He ran straight out in front of the car. 'Why did you do that, I asked, didn't I tell you to wait?' Yes, he said, but I wanted to wait beside you!


----------



## Leo (20 Oct 2015)

Parent's have a legal responsibility for their children, expecting everyone else to take extra precautions in case one does something silly is an abdication of that responsibility.

To strictly answer the liability issue taking all the 'won't someone think of the children' hysteria out of it, it is illegal for a person of any age to cycle on a footpath. Cycling on a footpath at a speed beyond which you can stop if a pedestrian or motorist pulls out of a driveway could be considered reckless. Without knowing the exact location and the situation re parked cars, street furniture, hedges/trees, etc., there isn't enough information to confirm whether the driver had a reasonable chance to see the cyclist.  Look at the case of the child killed in Kilkenny last year, in that case the child was on foot and entered the roadway, no fault was attributed to the driver.


----------



## Páid (20 Oct 2015)

Leo said:


> .....it is illegal for a person of any age to cycle on a footpath. Cycling on a footpath at a speed beyond which you can stop if a pedestrian or motorist pulls out of a driveway could be considered reckless.


It's not that clear cut. The motorist also has a duty of care to pedestrians, cyclists, other vulnerable persons, etc. You also have to take the age of the cyclist into account. 

Even if the motorist had the right of way they must proceed with caution. If the drivers view is not clear then they should take extra caution. It is my view that a car turning off the road into a drive would have to yield to anyone using the footpath whether they were cycling on it illegally or not.

I lived in a horseshoe cul-de-sac for about two years. It was very popular with families because there is less passing traffic than on other roads in the estate. Consequently, kids from other roads in the estate came to play in the cul-de-sac and there were always parents supervising the kids. Even so, every time I drove in to or out of the cul-de-sac I was expecting a child to run out in front of me or after a ball or from behind a car.


----------



## Leo (20 Oct 2015)

Páid said:


> It's not that clear cut. The motorist also has a duty of care to pedestrians, cyclists, other vulnerable persons, etc. You also have to take the age of the cyclist into account.



Yeah, that's what I was getting at in relation to anything that could have potentially obstructed the drivers view. Very few people park in a driveway at 30+km/h, so a child capable of proper control of a bicycle probably had enough time to react (again probably, because we're all just speculating here). If they were not capable of proper control, they should not be out on the public roads unsupervised.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

The child was not out on the public road, the child was on the pathway as far as I can gather, again, this is exactly why cars have to have a minimum of third party insurance. The vehicle in question was not pulling out of a driveway, on the contrary, it was pulling into a driveway so they should have been alert to see the potential for what actually transpired. The Kilkenny case quoted by Leo was a completely different set of circumstances.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

peteb said:


> What are you talking about?  How is third party cover for situations like this?  The bike hit the car, not the other way around.


If a cyclist hits your car when you are driving, the cyclist can take a claim against your insurance policy for any damage to the bike or injury to the person. Regardless of who is at fault, most insurance companies will settle with the claimant as the extortionate fees charge by our wigged legal types in defending a case will, in most cases, far exceed any claim by the third party. Welcome to the real world.

Peteb, have you ever heard of the legal concept of contributory negligence.


----------



## Leo (20 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> The child was not out on the public road, the child was on the pathway as far as I can gather, again, this is exactly why cars have to have a minimum of third party insurance. The vehicle in question was not pulling out of a driveway, on the contrary, it was pulling into a driveway so they should have been alert to see the potential for what actually transpired. The Kilkenny case quoted by Leo was a completely different set of circumstances.



The pathway is a public space. Young children should not be cycling there at all, let alone unsupervised if they are not capable of doing so safely. If they injure other children or damage other people's property, their parents are liable.

It's also very rare that a claim will settle in favour of a cyclist hitting a car where there isn't evidence of the driver being at fault.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

If there is contributory negligence on the part of the motorist, ( which given the sparse facts relating to the circumstances of the incident, is not conclusive ) then no matter if the pedestrian or cyclist is high on drugs, the insurance company will pay out.

In relation to the last line of the above post, it is relatively common for insurance companies to settle cases ( without the consent of the policyholder ) even where the policyholder is in the right. Look at those sneaky terms and conditions in your motor insurance policy, the insurance company reserves this right.


----------



## peteb (20 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> If a cyclist hits your car when you are driving, the cyclist can take a claim against your insurance policy for any damage to the bike or injury to the person. Regardless of who is at fault, most insurance companies will settle with the claimant as the extortionate fees charge by our wigged legal types in defending a case will, in most cases, far exceed any claim by the third party. Welcome to the real world.
> 
> Peteb, have you ever heard of the legal concept of contributory negligence.



Rebuttal, I'm very familiar with the concept.  You should probably read a bit more of other posts by other people before you throw in silly questions in such a manner. 

As Leo has said in reference to your other point, its very rare.   Have you heard of how insurance works??


----------



## peteb (20 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> If there is contributory negligence on the part of the motorist, ( which given the sparse facts relating to the circumstances of the incident, is not conclusive ) then no matter if the pedestrian or cyclist is high on drugs, the insurance company will pay out.
> 
> In relation to the last line of the above post, it is relatively common for insurance companies to settle cases ( without the consent of the policyholder ) even where the policyholder is in the right. Look at those sneaky terms and conditions in your motor insurance policy, the insurance company reserves this right.



Categoric crap.  Its actually more likely that a cyclist's (and veering away from it being a child) personal liability under their household contents cover will pay out the claim made by the motorist against the cyclist.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

peteb said:


> Rebuttal, I'm very familiar with the concept.  You should probably read a bit more of other posts by other people before you throw in silly questions in such a manner.
> 
> As Leo has said in reference to your other point, its very rare.   Have you heard of how insurance works??


I obviously know more about how insurance works than you do


----------



## peteb (20 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> I obviously know more about how insurance works that you do



I'd like to make a, oh wait, a rebuttal!  Oh the irony.  
Been around long enough not get involve in a hair pulling fight in the school yard!


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

peteb said:


> Categoric crap.  Its actually more likely that a cyclist's (and veering away from it being a child) personal liability under their household contents cover will pay out the claim made by the motorist against the cyclist.




*Cyclist Collides With My Car - Insurance Company To Invite Claim*
Submitted by xzzx on Tue, 13/11/2012 - 14:19

[broken link removed]


I am a car driver. I've just had a very disturbing call from my insurance company after I reported to them, for information only, the fact that a pedal cyclist had collided with my car whilst I was in slow-moving/stationary traffic when I was edging forward (meaning I was moving forward when traffic conditions allowed and was stationary when they did not) to turn left from a main road onto a side road.  The cyclist came up the inside of me and hit the side of my car, denting it. He remained on his feet and the bicycle remained between his legs. I asked the cyclist three times if he had been hurt and he replied 'no' each time, and after giving me his name and address rode off with no problem.  He also said his bike appeared to be undamaged. I was stationary when the cyclist hit my car, although had moved a few feet forward a second or two earlier.  The cyclist said he did not expect to speak to me again and at the time I could see no damage to my car (in the light I can see a small dent). The cyclist had a light on his bicycle but I noticed it was not switched on despite it being after dark. The street was lit.

My insurance company were given all the above information.  Their 'liability assessor' has advised me that in a collision between a cyclist and a car, that the car driver is always deemed to be at fault.  When I asked for details of the law or rules that indicated this, he said it was their company policy and not a law nor in the highway code.  He said that they were going to write to the cyclist to ask him if he intended to claim for injury or damage.  I asked him not to invite a claim and he said it was their decision and not mine.

We did have a fairly heated discussion - with the liability assesor making completely inappropriate analogies such as who would I think was to blame if someone edged out FROM a side street into a main road and I hit them.  I pointed out that I was turning left from a main road INTO a side street (completely different), that the cyclist had come up the inside of me (I was at all times no more than about two feet from the kerb), and was obviously riding at a speed that was inappropriate for the road conditions if he had been unable to stop as I edged forward slowly in traffic that was stationary for long periods.  The cyclist even apologised for shouting at my car as he approached as he said he had seen I was turning left and wanted me to stop - I did not hear him shouting.

I am left now in fear that the insurance company will write to the cyclist and bring a claim against me/my insurance policy for which I will end up paying in future premiums etc. because it is convenient for them to do so.  The assessor said that judges in legal cases always come down on the side of the cyclist which also concerned me.  This means that they take the view it is better to write, settle a claim for a few hundred pounds and know that the matter was settled.  He said that I had admitted I was moving ('edging forward') and that meant the blame was mine.  My definition of edging forward had been clearly advised to him per above and he was certainly not my advocate.

My questions are: Do judges really favour cyclists in these sorts of events, can the insurance company override my wishes and 'invite' a claim, and does it sound like if a claim is made I have a strong legal position to defend it?


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

I rest my case, I live in the real world, cyclist do not require insurance to cycle in public places, drivers of vehicles however do.


----------



## peteb (20 Oct 2015)

As opposed to make it look like it came from here, you should probably be clear, Rebuttal, for the reading public that you have copied this from a UK website.  

do you live in the real world Ireland or real world UK?


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

Ireland and the UK have the same common law legal systems, so the same principles of law apply in both Countries. Hence courts in this Country can rely on legal precedents and determinations in the UK. I would have expected an insurance expert like yourself to have known this very basic fact. Face facts, you are wrong!


----------



## peteb (20 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> Ireland and the UK have the same common law legal systems, so the same principles of law apply in both Countries. Hence courts in this Country can rely on legal precedents and determinations in the UK. I would have expected an insurance expert like yourself to have known this very basic fact.



Cultural differences between jurisdictions affects insurance covers outside of your common law.  

As I said, not really interest in pig-tailing pulling fight.  So roll on.


----------



## Leo (20 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> I obviously know more about how insurance works that you do



Such baseless statements do nothing to strengthen your argument.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (20 Oct 2015)

In the UK, if I am hit by an uninsured driver then I have to claim off my own policy and will lose my no claims bonus as well as being stung for the excess......

A question asked on a board in a foreign country - seriously?


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2015)

@Mrs Vimes I'm not sure if that's a serious question but have a look at Motor Insurers' Bureau.  This mirrors our own scheme.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (20 Oct 2015)

Thanks for that link mathepac, wasn't aware of it. Differs from our MIBI scheme though in that:


> Claims will be considered for the cost of repairing/replacing your vehicle (comprehensively insured policyholders precluded), hire charges, loss of use and property damage. An injured party can also claim for treatment and/or rehabilitation for pain and suffering. Legal costs are paid in full by the MIB once the claim is proven.



Friend of mine got caught out on it a few years ago.

@Rebuttal, while it is true that the higher courts here do ocassionally entertain the use of UK judgements as precedent they do not necessarily follow them as although both systems (along with Aus, Canada and a few others) use Common Law, they have (obviously) many different laws.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

peteb said:


> Cultural differences between jurisdictions affects insurance covers outside of your common law.
> 
> As I said, not really interest in pig-tailing pulling fight.  So roll on.



Peteb,

These cultural differences between jurisdictions in no way affect how insurance companies apply the terms of a mortgage policy, seriously you are clutching at straws. Oh and by the way it's your common law as well, unless you believe you don't have to abide by it. So roll on yourself.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

Leo said:


> Such baseless statements do nothing to strengthen your argument.


I don't care if you don't like hearing the truth about the matter, facts is, from your posts, I definitely do know more about insurance and how it works.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

Mrs Vimes said:


> Thanks for that link mathepac, wasn't aware of it. Differs from our MIBI scheme though in that:
> 
> 
> Friend of mine got caught out on it a few years ago.
> ...



Mrs Vimes,

If you read a history book the English ruled over this Country for 800 years odd. When we became a separate sovereign Country, we imported all this English law onto our statute and renamed it. The common law principles remained the same and still do to this day. Fact. Whether you like it or not. There is no real significant difference between how an insurance assessor or loss adjuster looks at an insurance claim in this Country or in the UK.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (20 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> Mrs Vimes,
> 
> If you read a history book the English ruled over this Country for 800 years odd.



Link? 



Rebuttal said:


> When we became a separate sovereign Country, we imported all this English law onto our statute and renamed it.



When we became a separate sovereign country we didn't have a whole lot in the way of insurance law or road traffic law for that matter. Obviously our laws have developed in a similar fashion to those in the UK but I don't think it's correct to say we merely renamed *all* English laws.



Rebuttal said:


> The common law principles remained the same and still do to this day.



"Common law principles" basically refers to precedent as a guiding factor in how judges rule. A poster on a board in a foreign country stating that she was told by a Loss Assessor, who she appears to think didn't understand the circumstances of her accident in the first place, would not constitute precedent in an Irish court.



Rebuttal said:


> Fact. Whether you like it or not.



You have a very dismissive and condescending attitude towards posters who disagree with you which is fortunately uncommon on this particular board. Stick around a while, apparently some people don't notice for at least a month.



Rebuttal said:


> There is no real significant difference between how an insurance assessor or loss adjuster looks at an insurance claim in this Country or in the UK.



You would find it extremely significant if you had comprehensive insurance and were hit by an uninsured driver, losing your no claims bonus, or were the victim of a hit and run without spare money for your legal costs.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

Where should young children be cycling, on the road ! If a child does damage another persons property, the liability may fall on the parents, but only in specific circumstances. The child themselves cannot be held liable, even if the damage caused is deliberate ( age of criminal responsibility in this Country is 12 years of age )

However, in the case alluded to by the original poster, a motorist had turned in from a road and was proceeding into their driveway when the child, cycling their bike on the footpath, collided with the car. Most 7 year old girls would not be travelling at 30 km/h ( not in Tour de France ), so the question that begs to be asked, why did the driver of the vehicle not see the child. Pedestrians and cyclists take precedence over vehicles with regard to right of way when on a footpath or indeed on our roads. If the driver didn't see the child when they ought to have, that is called careless or dangerous driving. If the driver did see the child but continued to make the manoeuvre, thinking they would make it into the driveway before the child arrived at that point, that may also be classed as careless or dangerous driving.

Indeed, even if the car was parked in the driveway, driverless and the end of the car was sticking out onto the footpath, the owner of the vehicle would be liable if the child collided with it. They could also be summons by the Gardai for being parked wholly or partially on a footpath. The simple fact is, the bicycle and child do not require third party insurance, the vehicle and it's owner do.

I hope peteb likes my post.


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2015)

http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/21/no...n-footpaths-says-minister-ahead-of-new-fines/

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...use-footpaths-will-not-be-fined-31342974.html

I'm glad they've cleared that up - again!

@Rebuttal - I notice your unattributed grab from a UK website above mentions the "The Highway Code". In this country we use "The Rules of the Road".


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

both relatively the same, what is your point.


----------



## Bronte (21 Oct 2015)

I'm with Rebuttal on this, if this went to court, which it wouldn't you can be sure the car driver is at fault.  Cyclists will always win and the child was 7 years old for heavens sake in a cul de sac.  We all have seen kids on bikes on footpaths, why are they on footpaths, because it's safer,  there are even countries where children are allowed on footpaths because it is seen as safer than the roads for them.

Go to an insurance company or court with this and the cyclist will win.  Even if you could prove that the parent was negligent, the most you'd get is something knocked off the compensation for contributary negligence.  If however this was America, then Judge Judy would apply different rules perhaps.  But the Irish system is very closely aligned to the UK system. 

If I were the driver I'd be ever so grateful the child was basically fine.


----------



## Leo (21 Oct 2015)

There is case history here where cars have hit cyclists who were deemed to be cycling dangerously, and the courts found the cyclist liable.

Remember the case of the guy on New Street a couple of years back? Went through a red light and was subsequently hit by a car. Note, the car hit him, he didn't hit the car. The cyclist denied he had gone through the lights on red, but was still found liable and banned from driving for a year.


----------



## Leo (21 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> Mrs Vimes,
> 
> If you read a history book the English ruled over this Country for 800 years odd. When we became a separate sovereign Country, we imported all this English law onto our statute and renamed it. The common law principles remained the same and still do to this day. Fact. Whether you like it or not. There is no real significant difference between how an insurance assessor or loss adjuster looks at an insurance claim in this Country or in the UK.



Barrister Robert Pierce has a 1440 book on the 400+ regulations that make up Irish road traffic law. 

If you're going to state 'fact', you must provide a link.


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

Leo,

Yes, these cyclists were probably found guilty under the Road Traffic Act, for dangerous driving of a pedal cycle and where therefore culpable. A child cannot be found guilty of this offence, in any case, there no evidence that the child was cycling the bike dangerously.

Let me try and explain it better to you. Imagine you are at a crossroads, you are driving a vehicle, you proceed across the junction and a cyclist collides into the side of your vehicle from the road you are crossing. Who is at fault. The answer is, you are 100% at fault. You proceeded across a junction and did not yield to the cyclist.

Now imagine the public pathway outside your driveway is a crossroads. You are driving into your driveway. In other words you are crossing this junction. You must yield to other users of the public pathway, that being pedestrians and cyclists, if you do not yield and the pedestrian or cyclist does not have enough time to stop and they hit your car or the car runs over their foot, you are liable for any damage or injury. I hope this clarifies matters.


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

Leo said:


> Barrister Robert Pierce has a 1440 book on the 400+ regulations that make up Irish road traffic law.
> 
> If you're going to state 'fact', you must provide a link.


In 1440, Ireland was a part of Britain, you need a refresher course on history. The Normans invaded this Country in 1169. In 1177 Prince John Lackland was made Lord of Ireland by his Father Edward,  King of England. Those 400 or so of mentioned laws are English based. The victor writes the rules of law.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (21 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> Let me try and explain it better to you. Imagine you are at a crossroads, you are driving a vehicle, you proceed across the junction and a cyclist collides into the side of your vehicle from the road you are crossing. Who is at fault. The answer is, you are 100% at fault. You proceeded across a junction and did not yield to the cyclist.



If the cyclist ignored a yield sign at his side of the junction then he is at fault. There have been numerous cases (generally district court so not reported in the media) where cyclists have been held liable for damage to cars in such situations.

I fully agree that in the circumstances described in the OP the driver would likely be found to be at fault but not every driver -v- cyclist case is a straightforward situation where the driver is at fault, no matter what you and some randomer on a UK board believe.

Insulting the mods is generally frowned upon too  (Pierse is a solicitor, this is the book).


----------



## Páid (21 Oct 2015)

He means a 1440 *page *book on road traffic law, which in my view cannot be applied to a 7 year old child cycling on the footpath.


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

Paid,

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding, you are correct of course in relation to the 7 year old cyclist. The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 12 years of age, as I have already mentioned. I am quite surprised that a moderator on this site would continue to pursue an argument and indeed dispense advice to the original poster, which is clearly erroneous.


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> Let me try and explain it better to you. Imagine you are at a crossroads, you are driving a vehicle, you proceed across the junction and a cyclist collides into the side of your vehicle from the road you are crossing. Who is at fault. The answer is, you are 100% at fault. You proceeded across a junction and did not yield to the cyclist.



What if you hit a cyclist cycling where they should not be? 
On the wrong side of the road? 
Going the wrong way down a 1-way street?  
Would that not be a more pertinent scenario?

As for common law, surely it would be most relevant to areas of law that have changed least since the 19th century... i.e. not motor vehicles, most of the regulations in this area having been laid down post independence.


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

Mrs Vimes said:


> If the cyclist ignored a yield sign at his side of the junction then he is at fault. There have been numerous cases (generally district court so not reported in the media) where cyclists have been held liable for damage to cars in such situations.
> 
> I fully agree that in the circumstances described in the OP the driver would likely be found to be at fault but not every driver -v- cyclist case is a straightforward situation where the driver is at fault, no matter what you and some randomer on a UK board believe.
> 
> Insulting the mods is generally frowned upon too  (Pierse is a solicitor, this is the book).




Mr Vimes,

Is there yields signs outside everyone's driveways. The answer is no, so you can take it there was no yield signs or marking of any kind on the crossroad analogy I used to try and simplify the matter for Leo.


----------



## mathepac (21 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> Let me try and explain it better to you. Imagine you are at a crossroads, you are driving a vehicle, you proceed across the junction and a cyclist collides into the side of your vehicle from the road you are crossing. Who is at fault. The answer is, you are 100% at fault. You proceeded across a junction and did not yield to the cyclist.


You made a right hames of that.

The vehicle in the act of crossing the junction has right of way therefore the cyclist must yield as the other vehicle has established right of way by being there first and starting to cross first. If the cyclist now attempts to cross and hits the other vehicle in the side, the cyclist is in the wrong. The cyclist, who has control of a vehicle has entered the junction not having right of way and has also failed to stop in time in order to avoid a collision. At least two counts against the cyclist, none against the other vehicle.

Are you making that nonsense up?


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

odyssey06 said:


> What if you hit a cyclist cycling where they should not be?
> On the wrong side of the road?
> Going the wrong way down a 1-way street?
> Would that not be a more pertinent scenario?
> ...



Your going off topic, these situations are not what they original poster wanted advice on.


----------



## mathepac (21 Oct 2015)

The moderators decide what is off topic and what is appropriate. The last time I checked you were not on the moderator list.


----------



## Leo (21 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> Indeed, even if the car was parked in the driveway, driverless and the end of the car was sticking out onto the footpath, the owner of the vehicle would be liable if the child collided with it. They could also be summons by the Gardai for being parked wholly or partially on a footpath. The simple fact is, the bicycle and child do not require third party insurance, the vehicle and it's owner do.



Funny, perhaps you should look to represent the cyclist convicted last week of hitting a parked car in an appeal?


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

mathepac said:


> You made a right hames of that.
> 
> The vehicle in the act of crossing the junction has right of way therefore the cyclist must yield as the other vehicle has established right of way by being there and starting to cross first. If the cyclist now attempts to cross and hits the other vehicle in the side, the cyclist is in the wrong. The cyclist, who has control of a vehicle has entered the junction not having right of way and has also failed to stop in time in order to avoid a collision. At least two counts against the cyclist, none against the other vehicle.
> 
> Are you making that nonsense up?



Again you are incorrect, if the vehicle attempts to cross a junction and the other user, this time a cyclist, has not got time to break and collides with the vehicle, then the car that entered the junction did so against the rules of the road and is liable. What you are saying is that if the vehicle has control of the junction and there is a collision with the vehicle, then the vehicle in control of the junction is not liable, this is correct, but this is not the scenario alluded to by the original poster.

From the facts of the case disclosed, it appears to me the driver is at fault. They did not see the 7 year old cycling on the pathway. This is careless if not dangerous driving in anyone's book.


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

mathepac said:


> The moderators decide what is off topic and what is appropriate. The last time I checked you were not on the moderator list.


Either are you


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

Leo said:


> Funny, perhaps you should look to represent the cyclist convicted last week of hitting a parked car in an appeal?



Leo,

Again, for the third and final time, the child in the situation alluded to is 7 years of age. They do not have any criminal responsibility, so would never be represented in the first instance. Is this fact sinking in. Hello, anybody in the bungalow!!!

The case you allude to in your great example, relates to a vehicle lawfully parked up, not dangerously parked, or parked wholly or partially on a footpath so the situation is completely different.


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

Dear or dear!! Chalk and cheese!!!


----------



## mathepac (21 Oct 2015)

@Rebuttal But I'm not posting that other posters are off topic with their comments.

Anyone in control of a vehicle must approach a junction at a speed that allows them sufficient braking time; failure to do so may render the vehicle operator liable to prosecution under laws governing careless or dangerous driving. As a motorist I make sure to allow myself sufficient braking time. I do not make myself (or hold myself) responsible for the actions of others on the roads (or footpaths). I may avoid a collision by anticipating stupidity / lack of experience but that is due to my experience and skill, nothing else. Therefore as I  stated correctly in my preceding post, the cyclist is in the wrong.

An experienced cyclist might have anticipated the car turning in to the driveway and adjusted her speed accordingly. The signs would have been for example, a change in engine note, indicators, brake-lights etc. A 7 year-old doesn't have the experience to look out for these signs (or has never been tutored by lazy parents to look out for them) and therefore *must* be supervised while cycling in a public place. This unfortunate case bears all the hallmarks of careless / useless parenting as I said originally


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

mathepac said:


> @Rebuttal But I'm not posting that other posters are off topic with their comments.
> 
> Anyone in control of a vehicle must approach a junction at a speed that allows them sufficient braking time; failure to do so may render the vehicle operator liable to prosecution under laws governing careless or dangerous driving. As a motorist I make sure to allow myself sufficient braking time. I do not make myself (or hold myself) responsible for the actions of others on the roads (or footpaths). I may avoid a collision by anticipating stupidity / lack of experience but that is due to my experience and skill, nothing else. Therefore as I  stated correctly in my preceding post, the cyclist is in the wrong.
> 
> An experienced cyclist might have anticipated the car turning in to the driveway and adjusted her speed accordingly. The signs would have been for example, a change in engine note, indicators, brake-lights etc. A 7 year-old doesn't have the experience to look out for these signs (or has never been tutored by lazy parents to look out for them) and therefore *must* be supervised while cycling in a public place. This unfortunate case bears all the hallmarks of careless / useless parenting as I said originally




Mathepac,

what if the driver in question was entered their driveway to quickly, was on a mobile phone etc. In relation to anticipation, that duty also applies to the driver of an mpv, ( more so ). Did they not anticipate that the 7 year old would not be able to stop in time, because if they did not, or if they did not see the child, they can be found guilty of dangerous driving.

The fact that the child cyclist was not able to anticipate due to their age, as referred to by you, should have alerted any driver to be extra vigilant, so that argument by you, actually bolsters my opinion, that in this particular case, the driver was in the wrong.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (21 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> The fact that the child cyclist was not able to anticipate due to their age, as referred to by you, should have alerted any driver to be extra vigilant, so that argument by you actually bolsters my opinion, that *in this particular case*, the driver was in the wrong.



So you have accepted that it is possible for a cyclist to be in the wrong in a collision with a car?


----------



## Leo (21 Oct 2015)

Just too many assumptions being assumed as 'facts' here. If the OP wishes to update the thread or clarify any aspect, please reply. No more assumptions or alleged facts without evidence.


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

Mrs Vimes said:


> So you have accepted that it is possible for a cyclist to be in the wrong in a collision with a car?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Mrs Vimes,
> ...




Mrs Vimes,

Yes, but they can still claim off the car's insurance. The only time an insurance company will defend such an action by a cyclist is if it is a clear cut case that the cyclist is 100% wrong and the driver of the vehicle is 100% right. ( balance of probabilities and risk assessment as to likely success in defending case in court )


----------



## Mrs Vimes (21 Oct 2015)

Rebuttal said:


> Mrs Vimes,
> 
> Yes, but they can still claim off the car's insurance. The only time an insurance company will defend such an action by a cyclist is if it is a clear cut case that the cyclist is 100% wrong and the driver of the vehicle is 100% right. ( balance of probabilities and risk assessment as to likely success in defending case in court )



So, not never, just rarely. You previously insisted that there were no circumstances in which a driver could win a case for damages against a cyclist.


----------



## Rebuttal (21 Oct 2015)

where is that post ?


----------



## Mrs Vimes (21 Oct 2015)

That's what you say in post #26 where you copied a post in which a person is complaining that a cyclist hit into her:



Rebuttal said:


> My insurance company were given all the above information. Their 'liability assessor' has advised me that *in a collision between a cyclist and a car, that the car driver is always deemed to be at fault. *When I asked for details of the law or rules that indicated this, he said it was their company policy and not a law nor in the highway code. He said that they were going to write to the cyclist to ask him if he intended to claim for injury or damage. I asked him not to invite a claim and he said it was their decision and not mine.


----------



## Leo (21 Oct 2015)

OP, PM me if you've anything further to add...


----------



## Leo (6 Nov 2015)

Wednesday asked me to let everyone know the conclusion:



			
				wednesday said:
			
		

> My god-daughters gum infection has been resolved. Her adult teeth have not been compromised by the impact and my friend (her mother) has no intention of taking any action against the driver. The driver has finally been in touch with my friend (albeit some 4 days post accident) and he has no intention of trying to claim for his car damage from my friend.
> 
> All is good in the world
> 
> Thank you so much for all your insights


----------

