child cyclist versus car - liability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :rolleyes: (Pierse is a solicitor, this is the book).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 :rolleyes: (Pierse is a solicitor, this is the book).
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...

Your going off topic, these situations are not what they original poster wanted advice on.
 
The moderators decide what is off topic and what is appropriate. The last time I checked you were not on the moderator list.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Leo said:
Funny, perhaps you should look to represent the cyclist convicted last week of hitting a parked car in an appeal?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top