Register to Comment
Page 731 of 742 FirstFirst ... 231631681721729730731732733741 ... LastLast
Results 7,301 to 7,310 of 7415
Like Tree2991Likes
  1. #7301
    riven riven is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,209

    Quote Originally Posted by Dedogs View Post
    everyones wrong bar the cyclist????
    Seriously if reading comprehension is that much of a problem, please stop posting. I clearly did not say that the cyclist was right or had no responsibility.

    Further you are supporting statements made with regard to normal driving on a road or motorway to allow the driver not to check the lay od the land when manoeuvring out of a blind entrance. Current practice, as evident by thousands of such entrances around Ireland, is to use aids like mirrors on the opposite wall or cameras to manoeuvre from these entrances. The judge did not even consider current, standard practice.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #7302
    Dadaist Dadaist is offline
    Dadaist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    13,916

    Quote Originally Posted by riven View Post
    Not really. Ask the question "When is a car allowed on the footpath?".

    Clearly the simple answer to this is when there is no traffic there. This is also logical as if we used "legal traffic" say, then put a spaceship there and we have an accident. That is the point about risk, we are trying to lower the risk to avoid the accident scenario. The highest risk scenario here is a car manoeuvring out of a blind entrance (onto a footpath) without checking if the path is clear.

    You can look at the other scenario but you would end up having different fault trees for the different potential users. What about a mobility scooter? If you deal with the highest risk, you have done something concrete to lower the risk rather than having to deal with many scenarios of lower risk, which on their own achieve little.

    That is why I think there is a possibility of precedent here. However it would be a brave team to use it as any sane judge would throw it out as clearly, a car have to take care when driving onto a footpath.
    There is not enough information in the article. Was there evidence backing up the driver's assertion that they were moving at a slow pace across the footpath? If true is this relevant? I can only imagine that the judge took the way the driver crossed the path into account.

    The only precedent I see here is that if you cycle on the footpath and you hit something hard it is on you. Your mobility scooter is a good example, or a kid/adult on a bike coming out of the entrance, no judge in the country is going to award in favour of a cyclist illegally cycling on a footpath in these circumstances. Yes, a car is a bigger object to hit, but the severity of the injury incurred would still have to be assessed if damages were to be awarded.
    Last edited by Dadaist; 12th March 2018 at 11:03 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #7303
    riven riven is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,209

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadaist View Post
    There is not enough information in the article. Was there evidence backing up the driver's assertion that they were moving at a slow pace across the footpath? If true is this relevant? I can only imagine that the judge took the way the driver crossed the path into account.
    Think about the causes of the accident. You need the cyclist and the car to be present, in some combination. Thus how they are moving does not come into how they caused the accident as they are the cause. Those issues come into the mitigation or what I called in engineering terms, the conditional modifier. This is where the judge could have assigned more or less blame to either party. But it is impossible to assign no blame to wither party unless there is a clear reasons to do so. So unless the cyclist ignored a car on the pavement completely and acted like a blind bat, then you would not be able to assign blame completely.

    And we know this was not the case as it was focusing on the cyclist being on the footpath as opposed to a car driving out onto footpath traffic.

    The only precedent I see here is that if you cycle on the footpath and you hit something hard it is on you. Your mobility scooter is a good example, or a kid/adult on a bike coming out of the entrance, no judge in the country is going to award in favour of a cyclist illegally cycling on a footpath in these circumstances. Yes, a car is a bigger object to hit, but the severity of the injury incurred would still have to be assessed if damages were to be awarded.
    The precedent, that I admit will not be used, is that the car did not check if there was traffic on the footpath before proceeding. The driver admitted as much and the defence of such actions referred to driving on a road or motorway, and so is not valid. The action that causes the risk is what sets the precedent. Not the actors.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #7304
    Dadaist Dadaist is offline
    Dadaist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    13,916

    Quote Originally Posted by riven View Post
    Think about the causes of the accident. You need the cyclist and the car to be present, in some combination. Thus how they are moving does not come into how they caused the accident as they are the cause. Those issues come into the mitigation or what I called in engineering terms, the conditional modifier. This is where the judge could have assigned more or less blame to either party. But it is impossible to assign no blame to wither party unless there is a clear reasons to do so. So unless the cyclist ignored a car on the pavement completely and acted like a blind bat, then you would not be able to assign blame completely.

    And we know this was not the case as it was focusing on the cyclist being on the footpath as opposed to a car driving out onto footpath traffic.



    The precedent, that I admit will not be used, is that the car did not check if there was traffic on the footpath before proceeding. The driver admitted as much and the defence of such actions referred to driving on a road or motorway, and so is not valid. The action that causes the risk is what sets the precedent. Not the actors.
    Maybe yourself, or someone else here, can explain to me the way a compensation case works? If only one side is claiming damages is anything other than whether damages are awarded up for legal scrutiny?

    It seems the case was dismissed due to the combined factors of the cyclist admitting that he was the cause of the accident and that there was no evidence that the driver had been driving recklessly. The judge specifically cited the admission of the cyclist and the report from the forensic engineer.

    If there is no evidence of wrong doing how can damages be awarded?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #7305
    riven riven is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,209

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadaist View Post
    Maybe yourself, or someone else here, can explain to me the way a compensation case works? If only one side is claiming damages is anything other than whether damages are awarded up for legal scrutiny?

    It seems the case was dismissed due to the combined factors of the cyclist admitting that he was the cause of the accident and that there was no evidence that the driver had been driving recklessly. The judge specifically cited the admission of the cyclist and the report from the forensic engineer.

    If there is no evidence of wrong doing how can damages be awarded?
    I cannot answer the first part.

    The second part is clearly false from what we have seen in the report. The claim of the motorist was that it was unreasonable to have knowledge of what was on the path. The example used (man with red flag) is based on driving on a normal road or motorway. In principle you can argue that this is true as it is unreasonable to have someone in front of every car and probably could be shown to be less safe.

    However as I said, when manoeuvring from blind or difficult entrances it is standard practice to have aids in these situations. This is evident by countless examples around the country. The driver did not thus adhere to standard practice, which is reckless under health and safety legislation. The defense is garbage
    When Mr Quinn’s counsel suggested to the court that Mr Altendorf’s daughter could have got out of the car and walked ahead to check if anyone was coming, Judge Baxter asked if he was suggesting someone should always walk ahead of emerging vehicles. Mr English, who appeared with Dillon Eustace Solicitors for Mr Altendorf, said it was ridiculous to suggest that a relative or friend should be asked to walk ahead “perhaps with a red flag” in such circumstances.
    Why not? Why not have aids like mirrors? Clearly the motorist did not do everything that could have been done, as the judge falsely asserts. And as none of these are considerably expensive or would put others at increased risk, AFARP is clearly attainable.

    Regardless of who gets what award as both were behaving recklessly (again that is not decided by the cause of the accident), the judge certainly should have had the foresight to comment on this. There was definitely proof of negligence on both parties; on the cyclist for being on the footpath and on the car owner for mounting a footpath without a clear indication of the traffic on the path.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #7306
    riven riven is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,209

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadaist View Post
    Maybe yourself, or someone else here, can explain to me the way a compensation case works? If only one side is claiming damages is anything other than whether damages are awarded up for legal scrutiny?

    It seems the case was dismissed due to the combined factors of the cyclist admitting that he was the cause of the accident and that there was no evidence that the driver had been driving recklessly. The judge specifically cited the admission of the cyclist and the report from the forensic engineer.

    If there is no evidence of wrong doing how can damages be awarded?
    Here is the rub of the green.

    Cyclist was acting recklessly by driving on the pavement. So the question is was the driver? If the driver knew what the status of traffic was on the footpath, he would not have been "inching out" slowly. He would have moved out and in one fell swoop. So clearly the driver did not known the status of traffic on the footpath before he mounted it, and could have done more like installing mirrors, reversing into his drive or placing someone on the footpath.

    Yet the judge say he did all that he could. Very low threshold for all that he could there i.e. don't check anything.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7307
    SPN SPN is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22,652

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadaist View Post
    Maybe yourself, or someone else here, can explain to me the way a compensation case works? If only one side is claiming damages is anything other than whether damages are awarded up for legal scrutiny?

    It seems the case was dismissed due to the combined factors of the cyclist admitting that he was the cause of the accident and that there was no evidence that the driver had been driving recklessly. The judge specifically cited the admission of the cyclist and the report from the forensic engineer.

    If there is no evidence of wrong doing how can damages be awarded?
    It is based on the concept of Duty Of Care under Common Law.

    In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence.


    After that it gets very complicated.

    I'd suggest the Google Machine if you want to go into it more.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #7308
    SPN SPN is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22,652

    Quote Originally Posted by riven View Post
    Cyclist was acting recklessly by driving on the pavement. So the question is was the driver? If the driver knew what the status of traffic was on the footpath, he would not have been "inching out" slowly. He would have moved out and in one fell swoop. So clearly the driver did not known the status of traffic on the footpath before he mounted it, and could have done more like installing mirrors, reversing into his drive or placing someone on the footpath.

    Yet the judge say he did all that he could. Very low threshold for all that he could there i.e. don't check anything.
    The judge heard the evidence, and the judge came to the conclusion that the driver had done enough.

    You, on the other hand, are starting with a prejuduce, and trying to second guess what happened without access to all the facts.

    Your assumption that the driver was reversing out being a particular red flag.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #7309
    Toland Toland is offline
    Toland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    75,840

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    ...

    Your assumption that the driver was reversing out being a particular red flag.
    You've got it wrong there. He assumes nothing of the sort. The sentence in which he suggests "reversing into his drive" is disjunctive -- i.e. it contains an "or" clause.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #7310
    SPN SPN is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22,652

    Quote Originally Posted by Toland View Post
    You've got it wrong there. He assumes nothing of the sort. The sentence in which he suggests "reversing into his drive" is disjunctive -- i.e. it contains an "or" clause.
    Why would he suggest "reversing into his drive" unless he was implying that he was reversing out of his drive?

    Quote Originally Posted by riven View Post
    So clearly the driver did not known the status of traffic on the footpath before he mounted it, and could have done more like installing mirrors, reversing into his drive or placing someone on the footpath.
    If you look at Google Streetview you will see exactly why the prejudices that Riven is peddling are irrelevant.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment