Cyclist in collision with car - damage!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan Burgess said:
So the judge is awarding damages because it's against an insurance company? .
Click to expand...

That's how it works in Ireland, well it certainly worked that way when I lived there. You should take a trip down the courts and you'll see how it works.

Where I am now, you wouldn't even take a case, never mind get awarded anything. It's up to people to look after themselves and not go suing the council because a curb has a slight indention or a paving stone is not 100% even. I won't even go into how they cordon off large holes when doing roadworks.

About the whiplash, as everybody is on a frenzy of cyclists versus motorists, I thought as I was pointing out the wrongs of cyclists and suing, I might as well point out motorists who sue for non existant whiplash.
 

I'd say a fair few would be caused by people (usually who have negligible experience of cycle) droning on about staying left when in reality its not always the safest place to be. Ditto Hi Viz instead of proper lights, and not the fairy lights you see so many with.

Lack of driver awareness of cyclists is a far bigger issue.

[broken link removed]
 
Bronte said:
I wouldn't think either the running into the car nor the 10K payout are urban myths. If the cyclist was injured it's quite possible that a judge may have ordered a payout, depending on the facts of the case.
Click to expand...

Bronte said:
I didn't want to point out that, but that's the way it works.

I know a student girl, at fault, had an accident with a car, she went to A&E, had a tiny mark on her knee and got a few grand in court. This is not an urban myth.
Click to expand...

Bronte said:
That's how it works in Ireland, well it certainly worked that way when I lived there. You should take a trip down the courts and you'll see how it works.
Click to expand...
I'd challenge you to find one press report of a claim being paid to cyclist after hitting a properly parked car. Claims are only paid out where negligence is proven.

If the car was illegally parked, or the owner opened the door without checking, then a cyclist might be able to claim. A cyclist running into a legally parked car would not be able to claim against the motorist.


AlbacoreA said:
Lack of driver awareness of cyclists is a far bigger issue.

[broken link removed]
Click to expand...

Good article.
 
RainyDay said:
If the car was illegally parked, or the owner opened the door without checking, then a cyclist might be able to claim.
Click to expand...

That happened to me a few years back on the Belgard road. The motorist was very apologetic and admitted liability. He also made sure I had his contact details and reg number in case I needed to take it further. Luckily other than a cracked rib there was no harm done so I didn’t make a claim.
 

That was the reason,i think the insurance company paid out without going to court.. but as always it affected his insurance premium,, i can assure everyone this was not an urban myth
 
postman pat said:
That was the reason,i think the insurance company paid out without going to court.. but as always it affected his insurance premium,, i can assure everyone this was not an urban myth
Click to expand...

It was in the Indo so maybe it was as some posters on this forum don't believe anything they say (because they are not as pro-union and left wing as the Irish Times).
 
postman pat said:
That was the reason,i think the insurance company paid out without going to court.. but as always it affected his insurance premium,, i can assure everyone this was not an urban myth
Click to expand...

Just let me understand this a bit more - you have a hard-nosed insurance claims person, who's main job is to find reasons NOT to pay claims, looking at a scenario which has NEVER been tested in court (cyclist running to legally parked car), who then decides that he is going to give €10k to the cyclist for no particular reason?

Sorry, but I don't believe that this happened. You've either been misinformed or misled, or been told half the story. Insurance companies don't pay out unless they know that they would lose in Court. Courts don't order payouts unless there is negligence.
 

Hi Rainyday.
there is such a thing as walk away money,when an insurance company decides for whatever reason that it not worth taking a case to court,it actually happened to myself a few years back i was knocked off a motorcycle by a car, in the space of a week a rep from the car drivers insurance company was at my DOOR with an offer to settle and after a bit of talking i settled.. i had a check within a week so it does happen Rainyday..and it really was a 50 50 case
anyway how do you know so much..are you a polititian?


regards ..Pat
 

The difference is, in your case, it was 50:50. When a cyclist cycles into a legally parked car, it is 0:100, against the cyclist. There is no reason for the insurance company to pay 'walk away' money, as there is no liability on the car owner or insurance company - unless of course, there is more to the story than you have told us.
 

You can never ever say it's 0:100. Insurance claims never work like this.

Postman Pat is absolutely correct when he refers to insurance companies settling, as he calls it 'walk away money'.

Even if I or a newspaper knew of a case where a judge ruled, wrongly, in favour of someone, do you actually think I or the newspaper could print that. It would be tantamount to accusing the judge of being wrong, and judges are never wrong.

_______________

There sure are a lot of stressed drivers/cyclists/bus travellers on this thread, they need to take a chill pill.
 
Bronte said:
You can never ever say it's 0:100. Insurance claims never work like this.

Postman Pat is absolutely correct when he refers to insurance companies settling, as he calls it 'walk away money'.
Click to expand...
Insurance claims are based on law. A cyclist cycling into a legally parked car is 100% in the wrong by law. Insurance companies will pay 'walk away' money if there is a substantial chance of losing in Court. If a cyclist cycles into a legally parked car, there is zero chance of losing in Court.

If it's not 0:100, then there is more to the story than has been told here.
Bronte said:
Even if I or a newspaper knew of a case where a judge ruled, wrongly, in favour of someone, do you actually think I or the newspaper could print that. It would be tantamount to accusing the judge of being wrong, and judges are never wrong.
Click to expand...
Newspapers regularly challenge judges, particularly in some of the recent cases of lenient sentancing of rapists or sex abusers. But regardless, I'm not looking for a newspaper report that says the judge was wrong. I'm looking for any newspaper report - just the facts - that shows a payout was made in circumstances comparable to the case described here, where a cyclist cycled into a legally parked car. Or a report of any case where there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. If these kinds of cases are happening often enough to be setting a precedent, it shouldn't be hard to find a report or two.
 
The number of lifeboats on our nation's roads have thankfully decreased significantly in recent years...

Well so be it, at least then they will be 'paying' to use the road like the rest of us! Also, the increased number of public transport users will increase their profits allowing them to invest in the service and avoid another fare increase. This can only be a good thing in a struggling economy. My issue isn't particularily with the time of my commute (I can accept traffic gets randomly heavy at times) but the unnecessary delay cyclists cause by their poor manners and behaviour on our roads.
 

Why do you obsess with this narrow focus on motor tax (which comes nowhere near the cost of paying for road insfrastructure, btw). Why don't you look at the VAT that cyclists pay on their bike purchase, repairs and servicing? Why don't you look at the reduced load on public transport? Why don't you look at the reduced load on the health service? Why don't you look at the reduced balance of payments through less imported fuel?

And finally, why don't you look at the poor manners and behaviour of many drivers on the road?

Take off the blinkers.
 
DazzyR said:
...Well so be it, at least then they will be 'paying' to use the road like the rest of us!
Click to expand...

If you think cyclist don't pay tax that contributes to the roads, then you don't understand how the tax system works.


Considering cycling is on average quicker around town than getting a bus. Its logical to suggest that its not cyclists that are causing significant delays to the bus. Also adding more passengers to the route will increase your delays, and will still not make it profitable. it runs at a loss.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2012/0608/324115-dublin-bus-tells-staff-of-cuts-to-save-15m/

I took the train and bus this week (across Dublin) and my journey time was anywhere from 70 mins to 90 mins. On the bike it takes me 45~60 mins. Its a vastly more pleasant experience, than standing crammed on a train for the same journey. Or a fogged up bus.
 
he value of bikes and related goods being brought into the country for sale has reached €49.14 million..

...In Ireland there were 95,000 bikes sold last year and 91,732 new vehicles sold.

.
Click to expand...

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...ustry-soars-to-record-values-heres-the-proof/


[broken link removed]
 
Both cyclists and motorists do stupid and dangerous things. The constant is that cyclists come out the worst of any accident. Motorists need to be very aware of cyclists, be more patient and understand how vulnerable they are on the road.

The government is rightly incentivising people to cycle. It saves money, increases personal health and frees up traffic flows. Mixing cyclists with motorists is dangerous but mixing them with pedestrians is more dangerous. We have to deal with reality and that means continuing to do what we are currently doing; doing what’s possible within our current infrastructure to make cycling safer.

The discussion about whether cyclists should be allowed in bus lanes and what tax they pay is ridiculous; we are citizens of the state and all citizens have an equal right to access public infrastructure.
Even if cyclists slowed buses down, which they don’t, they should still be in the bus lanes. Maybe the answer is to call them something other than bus lanes. Do remember that when you sit on a bus that cyclist is subsidising your trip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register