CYCLISTS NEED TO SEE THE LIGHT !
The recent change of the clock and the onset of the winter season has brought out the usual challenges for cyclists in Dublin.
An interesting article appeared in the Irish Times last week when a pedestrian complained that he has observed a number of cyclists colliding with cars. Whilst welcoming the arrival of Dublin Bikes, he commented that “many cyclists persist with cycling without any kind of lights”.
Legally cyclists put themselves & others at risk by not using lights & high visability clothing.
The basic safety equipment which is incorporated on the Dublin Bike Scheme are worth looking at as a ‘marker’ for safety standards.
Paul Tracey
Solicitor
22nd November 2010
Cyclists in Dublin facts & figures on accidents
An eye opening report prepared by Dublin City Council from Garda statistics last year on cycling accidents throws up some revealing statistics on accidents involving cyclists.
There were approximately 427 collisions involving cyclists reported to the Garda in Dublin city over the period (2002 to 2006), 11 of which involved fatalities.
11 Fatalities
8 of these deaths were of cyclists killed by left-turning Lorries.
1 involved a vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes
1 a vehicle rear-ended the cyclist
1 was caused by a stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist.
Cars involved in 70% of cyclist accidents
- Almost 70 per cent off all cycle collisions involved cars.
- Left-turning vehicles were involved the majority of fatalities,
- The most common collision involved right-turning cars. These accounted for just fewer than 20 per cent of incidents.
- The next most common type is classified as “side swipes”, accounting for 15 per cent of collisions. These occur where a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or changing lanes hits the bicycle.
- Door opening accidents accounted for about 14 per cent of incidents
- Left-turning vehicles hitting cyclists accounted for just over 12 per cent.
Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.
The more serious a crash, the more likely it was to involve a vehicle turning left, according to the report.
While 73 per cent of fatalities were at a left turn (all involving HGVs) almost one-third resulting in serious injury to the cyclist involved a left-turning vehicle.
November the most dangerous month to cycle in Dublin?
The report also found that November was the worst month for collisions
Cyclists between the ages of 20 and 29 were the most likely to be involved in incidents
The traffic department is to put recommendations to city councilors tomorrow. Chief among these is a recommendation that Cyclops mirrors be fitted to HGVs so they can better see cyclists on their left. The report found that in the majority of left-turning collisions the HGV driver did not see the cyclist.
It also recommends that all cycle lanes be inspected annually.
Several collisions occurred when cyclists were forced to move out of the lane to avoid potholes or sunken gullies.
Top four types of cycle accidents
- Drivers turning right in front of an oncoming bicycle.
- Drivers hitting a bicycle when overtaking or changing lanes.
- Car doors being opened in front of cyclists.
- Drivers hitting cyclists when turning left.
Recommendations
- Segregation of bicycles and HGVs where possible.
- Awareness campaign on the danger of left-turning HGVs.
- Upgrade of cycle lanes to remove potholes, sunken gullies and poor surfaces.
- Enforcement of legislation regarding the use of bicycle lights.
- Encourage more cycling to produce a “safety in numbers” effect.
- Provide additional cycling infrastructure on a “most used routes” priority basis.
- “Cyclops” mirrors made compulsory on all HGVs.
Drink Driving – Disqualifications periods
Recent changes to the law bring drunk driving disqualifications into focus.
In an effort to simplify matters Paul W Tracey solicitors have prepared a short chart setting out the updated penalties.
The amendments are part of the drive to reduce road deaths where alcohol is a factor.
Paul Tracey Solicitors provide legal defence to drunk driving charges in the greater Dublin area and can be contacted at 01 8745656
or visit our website for further information www.traceysolicitors.ie
Updated periods of disqualification under the 2006 Act:Section 49 (2, 3, 4) Drunk Driving and Section 50 (2, 3, 4) Drunk in Charge:
| Mandatory Period of Disqualification | ||
| 1st Conviction | 2nd Conviction(within 4 years) | |
| Breath Alcohol Concentration | ||
| 35 – 44 Mcg | 1 year | 2 years |
| 45 – 66 Mcg | 2 years | 4 years |
| 67 Mcg or over | 3 years | 6 years |
| Blood Alcohol Concentration | ||
| 81 mg – 100 mg | 1 year | 2 years |
| 101 mg – 150 mg | 2 years | 4 years |
| 151 mg or over | 3 years | 6 years |
| Urine Alcohol Concentration | ||
| 107 – 135 mg | 1 year | 2 years |
| 136 – 200 mg | 2 years | 4 years |
| 201 mg or over | 3 years | 6 years |
22/07/09
Road Accident compensation award reduced against drunk driver!
A significant Road Accident compensation award was reduced against drunk driver today where the injured party was aware of the consumption of alcohol by the driver .
The Supreme Court has ruled a young man who travelled in a car driven by another man whom he knew had several alcoholic drinks is 35 per cent liable for serious injuries suffered in a subsequent accident, not 15 per cent as found by a judge in the original High Court hearing.
On that basis, the three judge court today reduced to a €1.3 million damages award by High Court Judge Ray Moran to €890,000 arising from the accident in Co Tipperary 10 years ago.
The court dismissed arguments by the car driver’s legal team that the High Court should have dismissed Mr Moran’s entire case against the driver after it found as a fact Mr Moran got into a car with a driver whom he knew had been drinking.
The case arose from an accident on the night of April 23rd/24th 1999 when Mr Moran, Ashbrook Heights, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, was travelling as a front seat passenger in a car driven by Mr Fogarty, Sapwell, Ballingarry, Co Tipperary. Both men were drinking earlier in a bar in Nenagh and they and a woman friend all left the bar at closing time and travelled together in the car driven by Mr Fogarty.
On their homeward journey, the car collided with a wall and Mr Moran suffered head and other injuries as a result of which, it was claimed, he was physically unable to continue his apprenticeship as a block layer. It was also claimed he would have difficulty looking after himself into the future arising from his injuries.
Mr Moran later took High Court proceedings against Mr Fogarty and was awarded € 1.3 million damages, reduced to €1.1 million as a result of that court’s finding of 15 per cent contributory negligence by Mr Moran in getting into a car with a driver whom he knew had been drinking.
Mr Fogarty appealed against the award on several grounds, including that Mr Moran was not entitled to damages as the cause of his injuries was the accident and he would not have suffered those had he refused to travel with a driver whom he knew was intoxicated.
In a reserved judgment today, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, with whom the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray and Ms Justice Susan Denham agreed, ruled the greater blameworthiness in the case must lie with the driver..
It was Mr Fogarty’s decision to drive to the bar in Nenagh and to drive home, notwithstanding the consumption of alcohol, the judge said. It was Mr Fogarty who had control of the car and its driving and it was he who represented a danger not just to
Mr Moran but other road users and the public in general. The accident was entitely attributable to Mr Fogarty’s driving.
consumed alcohol. They had also spent from about 8.30pm to at least 1am in the bar together and, in each other’s presence, drank between six and nine alcoholic drinks over that time.
Mr Moran knew, or certainly ought to have known, Mr Fogarty’s ability to drive was impaired by drink and, quite clearly, he ought not to have driven, the judge said.
Given all the circumstances, the judge said the aportionment of 15 per cent fault to Mr Moran represented “a significant disroportion” between the respective blameworthiness of the two. The court would set aside the 15 per cent finding and replace it with one of 35 per cent for Mr Moran and 65 per cent for Mr Fogarty.
The case shows the balancing a court must take into account when dealing with drunk driving cases. Clearly people who are injured at the hands of drunk drivers are entitled to compensation for their injuries. Those however who consent to travel with drivers whom they know to be drunk have to have regard for the risk they are undertaking when they do so.
The case does not set a precedent for all such cases as clearly the circumstances of each case must be taken into account.
Paul Tracey
21/07/2009
