Cyclist who crashed red lights gets €180k compensation

Bizarre. Driver was doing only 33kph. Witnesses agree the cyclist came out of nowhere too fast for anyone to be able to react.

Driver would have had to be clairvoyant apparently.
 
arbitron said:
Bizarre. Driver was doing only 33kph. Witnesses agree the cyclist came out of nowhere too fast for anyone to be able to react.

Driver would have had to be clairvoyant apparently.
Click to expand...
The article says the cyclist had already gone through the red light when the taxi started moving. Seems like they didn't look before proceeding
 
Is this the section you mean?
He said the cyclist broke a red light at the junction and was cycling through when the lights on the taxi driver’s side turned green and vehicles moved off and the taxi driver advanced.
Click to expand...
I don't read that in the same way. Right after that it says:
 
That being the case, the taxi driver may have proceeded on orange rather than on green. I get beeped at to go on orange at pedestrian lights. I take my time going back to the beepers to explain the rules of the road to them, leaving the driver's door open of course.
 
This is just:
1) the fact that drivers are legally obliged to have insurance which provides a pot of money
2) Ireland has low disability income supports and limited public healthcare coverage.

The courts are basically redistributing income to the less fortunate. It’s a pretty expensive way of doing so.
 
It is probably an agreement between both sides and driven by the taxi driver insurance company. 20% liability the outcome of negotiation. There is a school of thought that just being on the road as a driver imposes some liability on you while being faultless in the accident. Especially against cyclists and pedestrians.
 
I’m fairly clear on this and it appears the taxi driver and the cyclist broke the Rules of the Road. I don’t agree with the large amount of compensation awarded either. But, who am I to assess injuries as I have no medical qualifications? The Rules state motorists and cyclists must approach traffic lights in a careful manner and proceed only when it is safe to do so. Was most care taken by the motorist and the cyclist? - Probably not.

33kms per hour looks slow, but there are several tons of car against a few lbs of bicycle and cyclist. No contest!

Until all road users learn to behave with common sense and total care lawsuits such as this will remain with us.
 
I think it won't be long before it becomes the norm to drive with a dashcam in Ireland as they do in eastern Europe.
 
It makes perfect sense in an Irish context. Nobody gets paid unless the insured driver is found liable. The judge who presumably is formally a barrister knows how this works. As do the insurance companies and all involved. The cyclist isn't insured and won't be paying anyone. That only leaves one person - the driver.

It is entirely irrelevant that the driver was not at fault. Surely you know this by now.
 
Last edited:
I was driving through the city recently and needed to make a left turn. Checked my wing mirror, as I always do, and saw a cyclist coming from behind in the cycle lane. I stopped the my car so they could pass unobstructed on the inside. However, the cyclist anticipated that I would make the turn and chose to swerve out of the cycle lane into my lane. As result, he ended up going straight into the back of me, came of his bike, scratching the back of the my car. I got out to check on the guy. Thankfully he wasn't hurt and also, thankfully, he didn't try to blame on the incident on me. However, judging from the tut tuts and dirty looks I was getting from those standing on the street the right and wrongs of the situation didn't seem to matter. It seems like a collision or any incident between a motorist and a cyclist and the driver of the car is automatically presumed guilty.
 
Last edited:
Calico said:
It seems like a collision or any incident between a motorist and a cyclist and the driver of the car is automatically presumed guilty.
Click to expand...
I presume you've forgotten the case a few years back where a driver was cleared of killing a cyclist due to sun glare. Like they couldn't have expected glare on a bright sunny day or slowed down a little when unable to see the road right in front of them.

I think people are missing that this was a settlement, and not a court judgement, and in the world of insurance, blame is very rarely attributed 100% to one party. The insurance company here have clearly decided that paying out €190k is a lesser cost risk than arguing this out in court.

It serves as an important reminder that while on the roads you still have a duty of care towards idiots who act recklessly, and having right-of-way is no guarantee that insurers will settle in your favour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register