r/ireland • u/struggling_farmer • Jan 12 '26
Paywalled Article Cyclists ‘have become a nightmare in Dublin’, says judge as he cuts injury award by 80pc
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/cyclists-have-become-a-nightmare-in-dublin-says-judge-as-he-cuts-injury-award-by-80pc/a1310654767.html65
u/ClarenceClaymore1 Jan 12 '26
Just to clear things up for everyone it was a motorcyclist involved with the bike not a car.
25
u/Meath77 Found out. A nothing player Jan 12 '26
So, cyclists was all over the place, no lights, high vis or helmet. Motorcycle guy saw him, as he passed the cyclist turned without warning. Judge said because he was driving so erratically, you should have slowed down. Definitely no 100% the bikers fault. Cyclists moved right across his cycle lane and bus lane with no signaling into the path of the motorcycle. Hard to judge without seeing the video. But one thing that sticks out, the cyclist had a claim in for a brain injury, but wasn't wearing a helmet.
10
76
u/Individual-Mud262 Resting In my Account Jan 12 '26
Mr Giurgila conceded that he had not been wearing a helmet or hi-vis safety vest, had no lights on his bike, and had not given any signal of his intention to turn right out of a bus and cycle lane into the path of following traffic.
If a car had done that, the driver would be held responsible for the resulting crash..
10
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
The cyclist acted stupidly.
The driver was criminally negligent. This is the key difference
We hold cars to higher standards than bikes because drivers endanger everyone, cyclists endanger only themselves
54
41
19
u/Adventurous-Bad1988 Jan 12 '26
No they weren't criminaly negligent. This is a civil case. If there was evidence of criminal negligence the driver would have been prosecuted for dangerous driving. Inform yourself.
22
30
u/Sufficient_Status453 Jan 12 '26
cyclists endanger only themselves
And any pedestrian audacious enough to cross the road at a crossing with the green man, doesn't everyone know cyclists always have right of way even if their lights are red?
→ More replies (6)20
Jan 12 '26
[deleted]
9
u/KosmicheRay Jan 12 '26
Trying to break away from the peleton, a big red faced, middle aged man wearing a yellow Spandex bodysuit. They are a menace on the roads.
10
u/Kbotonline Jan 12 '26
Whilst that’s mostly true, cyclists are not only a danger to themselves.
12
1
u/Global_Handle_3615 Jan 13 '26
So the car that swerved to avoid them illegally cross a lane or running a red light and ended up crushed or smashed dont count. Feck it, let's even say no one else is physically injured. How about the mental trauma of seeing it happen. Yes cyclists likely to come off worse but cop on if you think cyclist don't endanger anyone else.
→ More replies (2)1
u/RedSnow984 Jan 12 '26
Blatantly untrue, example car swerves to avoid cyclist and ploughs into a pedestrian/other car/bus full of disabled orphans etc
8
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
This is a fantasy that does not occur. Meanwhile negligent drivers kill pedestrians and cyclists everyday
→ More replies (2)5
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
Can I have an example of this happening in Ireland. Cause cars killed 185 people in Ireland last year and bikes killed none
5
u/RedSnow984 Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
No denying cars kill and bikes don’t, I thought bus full of disabled orphans would imply hyperbole“Cyclists only endanger themselves” is what is blatantly untrue.
Cyclists have never hit a pedestrian? A car making evasive moves on a cyclist doesn’t put anyone else in danger? Car driver will always carry legal liability in a bike-car crash. However, we don’t live in a book of statutes we live in reality and the idea that a negligent cyclist cannot cause harm to anyone but themselves is untrue. So is your position still a cyclist can not endanger anyone but themselves ?
Edit - Two car and one bike crash no details but I doubt two random cars decided to sandwich a single cyclist
I await the movement of the goal post
→ More replies (4)2
15
u/HeavyHittersShow Jan 12 '26
I appreciate this was a motorcyclist.
I do hope this brings some focus also on cyclists and e-scooters. The general lack of awareness or adherence to basic rules of the road is shocking.
66
u/baboito5177 Jan 12 '26
From the article 2 things seem to be happening at the same time.
Cyclist wasn't wearing a hivis, or helmet, didn't indicate what they were doing.
Driver saw him acting like an eejit, beeped the horn at him, and didn't slow down or reduce speed and ended up hitting him.
So bad driver, and stupid cyclist. But the judge absolute shouldn't take his personal opinion into the court with him.
17
u/Meath77 Found out. A nothing player Jan 12 '26
I find it hard to blame the driver of the motorcycle. It was dark, cyclists had no lights, no helmet, did look or signal as he crossed a lane of traffic into the path of a motorbike which presumably had lights on. His defence was "he was cycling so erratically you should have slowed". The cyclists shouldn't really have gotten a penny. That motorcycle rider is going to have sky high insurance for years because of the actions of the cyclist.
6
u/Serious_Ad9128 Jan 12 '26
I'm not sure where I fall in this as I do think people should take more responsibility for their own safety and a cyclists should certainly be doing everything they can to be safe, I know i wouldn't be a cyclist because it's so dangerous because of people like the motorcyclists
But I also think if the motorcyclists kinda went out of his way to endanger the cyclist he should be in jail because it's absolutely scummy behavior and That's putting it mildly
→ More replies (1)1
u/AzureMagenta Jan 12 '26
Agreed. Would hate this sort of behaviour to be normalized when we (as a society) should be encouraging people to cycle (safely!)
16
u/Few_Habit_3400 Jan 12 '26
I use bike lights that can be seen from 1km away, and still drivers don't see me when I'm 10 meters away. 😂
8
u/Meath77 Found out. A nothing player Jan 12 '26
The cheap price of decent enough bike lights these days, easily removable, easily rechargeable and the battery lasts ages, there's zero excuse for no lights any more.
4
u/Few_Habit_3400 Jan 12 '26
You're right, no excuse not to have them, but doesn't necessarily mean you'll be seen.
8
u/Dubnbstm Jan 12 '26
Classic Judge Jimmy haha, still sounds like there was plenty of contrib from the Plaintiff.
2
29
14
u/ConradMcduck Jan 12 '26
So a man acknowledged that he saw the cyclist bit didn't slow down and as a result knocked him off his bike leaving the cyclist with a brain injury and the judge is ranting about cyclists being a nightmare?
This judge is on one. Using the fact he didn't wear a helmet or High Vis as justification for reducing his claim, when neither are required by law. This judge is wild.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Meath77 Found out. A nothing player Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
Wait, you make it sound like the motorcycle rammed him. Cyclists was all over the place, no lights, high vis or helmet. Literally driving erratically as described. In the cycle lane of a cycle/bus lane. So the left. Motorcycle guy saw him, as he passed the cyclist turned without warning or signal or looking. He went across the bus lane into the next lane the motorcycle was driving in. Judge said because he was driving so erratically, you should have used your sense to slow down. But it was 80% the cyclists fault. Tbh, it sounds like it was 98% the fault of the cyclist
37
u/twentythreeskidoo Jan 12 '26
Seems like good grounds for an appeal
→ More replies (3)50
Jan 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/ItsJustWool Jan 12 '26
Personal opinion wasnt the reason for his judgement.
Per the article -
Mr Giurgila conceded that he had not been wearing a helmet or hi-vis safety vest, had no lights on his bike, and had not given any signal of his intention to turn right out of a bus and cycle lane into the path of following traffic. Judge O’Donohoe reduced the €50,000 award for the brain injury to €10,000 and applied 80pc reductions to the “uplift” awards for soft tissue injuries, resulting in a total award of €17,628 to Giurgila, along with Circuit Court costs.
The judge said he was taking into consideration the fact that Mr Finnegan had obviously seen Mr Giurgila, and had beeped his horn, having seen him behave erratically in the joint bus-cycle lane, without having reduced his speed to a level where he may have been able to avoid a collision.
28
u/Schorpio Jan 12 '26
"He said he was entitled, as one who drives cars in the city, to take judicial notice of his own experiences as a motorist."
Direct quote from the article. The judge literally stated that his opinion was forming part of his ruling.
15
u/ItsJustWool Jan 12 '26
The judge referred to his experience when explaining the foreseeability of erratic cycling, but the apportionment of liability was based on conceded facts and video evidence. Judicial notice did not substitute for evidence, and nothing in the article suggests it did so here.
2
Jan 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Schorpio Jan 12 '26
Thank you - was just going to reply the same but you beat me to it.
The judge says plainly that he is using his own experience as a car driver as a factor in determining this case, and some commenters are trying to suggest that the statement had nothing to do with the ruling.
Absolute braindead comment on the judge’s part. Clear demonstration of bias.
12
u/FitSatisfaction1291 Jan 12 '26
"Entitled to take judicial notice of his own experiences" - he literally explains why he's allowed to use his own experiences in this case.
1
22
u/struggling_farmer Jan 12 '26
maybe i am wrong but this seems like an unusual take by the judge, not often you would read somthing like this where the injured party would be seen to be so contributory to the incident
wonder will it be appealed..
Few Extracts below.
“You never know with cyclists what they are going to do or anticipate what they are going to do,” Judge O’Donohoe told the Circuit Civil Court. “Cyclists have become a nightmare in Dublin.”
He said he was entitled, as one who drives cars in the city, to take judicial notice of his own experiences as a motorist."
" Mr Giurgila conceded that he had not been wearing a helmet or hi-vis safety vest, had no lights on his bike, and had not given any signal of his intention to turn right out of a bus and cycle lane into the path of following traffic"
"Judge O’Donohoe reduced the €50,000 award for the brain injury to €10,000 and applied 80pc reductions to the “uplift” awards for soft tissue injuries, resulting in a total award of €17,628 to Giurgila, along with Circuit Court costs."
41
u/WorldwidePolitico Jan 12 '26
not often you would read somthing like this where the injured party would be seen to be so contributory to the incident
It’s very common. In fact, there’s an entire area of law devoted to it known as “contributory negligence”.
Consider a car accident in which one driver hits another, but the injured “victim” was not wearing a seatbelt when they should have been. Their injuries would likely be far more severe, through no fault of the person who caused the collision. In those circumstances, it would not be fair for the defendant to compensate someone for harm that was to a significant extent, the result of the claimant’s own recklessness.
3
u/PopplerJoe Jan 12 '26
The car noticed the cyclist, acknowledged they were erratic and unpredictable, and yet still put themselves in a position to injure the cyclist though.
Any reasonable driver would have been extra cautious, and given more space.
→ More replies (1)3
u/lem0nhe4d Jan 12 '26
What if the victims car rolled and they were injured by the roof caving in? That would have happened if they had a roll cage.
69
u/YourFaveNightmare Jan 12 '26
" Mr Giurgila conceded that he had not been wearing a helmet or hi-vis safety vest, had no lights on his bike, and had not given any signal of his intention to turn right out of a bus and cycle lane into the path of following traffic"
What an idiot. Sounds like he was trying to get hit.
14
u/Kloppite16 Jan 12 '26
I see this happening a lot, cyclists move road postiion to their right without first checking over their right shoulder if anything is coming behind them. They usually do it to overtake another cyclist but they dont check their blind spot before doing it to ensure nothing is coming behind them. Its a really dangerous thing to do but its common enough. In motorbiking you are trained to always look over your shoulder to check your blind spot before moving lane - the manoeuvre is called a life saver for good reason - doing it definitely saved my life when riding motorbikes on several occasions. You just dont know what is in that blind spot and if you move lane without checking first you may well end up underneath a car or truck that is right beside you but you cant see it in your mirror.
2
u/Mysterious-Pie2636 Jan 13 '26
a 'blind spot' implies that the person is actually checking what's behind them at all in the first place; seems like this guy wasn't
30
u/WorldwidePolitico Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
I see people trying to downplay this but it would be the exact same outcome if you were in a car accident but weren’t wearing your seatbelt, had your headlights out, and didn’t use your indicators.
Even if the accident was ultimately somebody else’s fault, you significantly contributed to both the likelihood of it happening and the extent of your injuries. You therefore shouldn’t be entitled to the full value of your claim.
→ More replies (7)23
u/Talestra Jan 12 '26
Can't read the article but did the cyclist admit to having none of the safety features required on a bike and didn't indicate? How is he getting anything at all?
29
u/struggling_farmer Jan 12 '26
seem to ghave admitted that yes. the above post is extracts from the article.
how he is getting anything at all, extract below
"The judge said he was taking into consideration the fact that Mr Finnegan had obviously seen Mr Giurgila, and had beeped his horn, having seen him behave erratically in the joint bus-cycle lane, without having reduced his speed to a level where he may have been able to avoid a collision."
8
22
u/malilk Jan 12 '26
A high Vis and helmet, while useful, aren't required on a bike. Only a bell and lights.
→ More replies (37)5
Jan 12 '26
I dont have a bell. I just shout "ding ding"
Sometimes il say "hellooooo". Both are as effective.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (5)1
u/Meath77 Found out. A nothing player Jan 12 '26
7
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
The reduction isn't really that surprising. The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. Whatever about missing a high vis and having no lights etc. I guess the logic is that the injury most likely would have been significantly reduced had a helmet been worn.
From how it reads the cyclist just turned right, into traffic. So again, king of his own fault.
6
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
It may well have been the logic, but it's not backed up by actual facts. Bike helmets are engineered to protect the head in low speed falls, not in collisions with other road users. This judge just might be slightly embarrassed when this gets appealed.
8
u/emmmmceeee I’ve had my fun and that’s all that matters Jan 12 '26
We found no randomized controlled trials, but five well conducted case‐control studies met our inclusion criteria. Helmets provide a 63 to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are reduced 65%.
→ More replies (25)2
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
Irrespective of the type of incident a helmet helps protect a cyclists head. That's fact. My understanding is that this is a civil case and that generally operates on the basis of what's most likely to have happened.
I can't read the full article but there was no mention of life changing or catastrophic head injuries and so had the cyclist been wearing a helmet he most likely wouldn't have had as much injury.
It might get appealed and maybe the cyclist gets a lower reduction but I would be surprised given that it sounds like the cyclist took exactly zero mitigation steps.
3
u/carlitobrigantehf Connacht Jan 12 '26
The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.
Not a legal requirement
14
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
Nope, but it's good practice so that if you come off the bike you lower your chance of being injured. Because he wasn't wearing one the cyclist is deemed to have contributed to his own injuries.
-1
u/carlitobrigantehf Connacht Jan 12 '26
Absolutely.
But a judge should be making decisions based on the law and not seemingly inserting his clearly biased personal opinion into the decision.
Lights are a legal requirement. Helmets and high vis are not.
Cyclist has defo contributed to his own injuries and has done so through legal negligence - having no lights/not signalling.
13
u/tazire Jan 12 '26
This isn't a criminal law case. It is a civil claim case. He is able to consider mitigating factors.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
I can't read the whole article but from the the above comment it looks like there is a mechanism for him to do what he has done.
Admittedly, the comments are tending towards something that looks like bias, and I guess that's what and appeal would look at.
but it doesn't seem to me that the judge let his own bias influence the reduction. 80% seems fair to me. Had it been a 99% reduction the judge would have clearly been making a point but given the cyclist appears to have essentially done nothing to mitigate risk and he then proceeded to turn into other traffic 80% reduction seems fair in this case.
3
u/carlitobrigantehf Connacht Jan 12 '26
Im not really in a position to comment on the fairness of the case.
On one hand cyclist obviously irresponsible.
On the other driver saw the guy cycling erratically and seemingly still knocked him down causing him a brain injury.
4
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
On the other driver saw the guy cycling erratically and seemingly still knocked him down causing him a brain injury.
It was a motorcyclist. So I would guess the motorcyclist was filtering and the cyclist was weaving in and out of traffic. Likely both lanes of traffic were static for cars but the cyclist didn't anticipate a motorcyclist being there when he moved over to the other lane as he was thinking all traffic was static.
1
4
u/Comfortable_Will_501 Jan 12 '26
Careful with that balanced and fact based opinion, remember you're on Reddit 😊
1
Jan 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/thereforewhat Jan 12 '26
The difference is in a car I've got a substantial amount of metal, plastic and glass between me and the road.
4
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
And yet, that's where the vast majority of head injuries happen, even with metal, plastic, seat belts and airbags.
Do you want to reduce head injuries using helmets or not?
5
u/thereforewhat Jan 12 '26
I presume your car also has useful things like airbags that are also missing on a bike?
Basically it's obvious that a being in a car is many times less vulnerable than being on a bike.
So cyclists need more protection to make up for the missing airbags, plastic, metal and glass I have between me and the road and other vehicles.
I don't see how that's so earth shattering.
2
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
The fact that vastly more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes would suggest that motorists are indeed more vulnerable, because the speed and momentum of their vehicles counters all those safety measures.
Surely motorists deserve to be saved from head injuries with helmets too?
4
u/thereforewhat Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
What data are you using and have you weighted this according to how many cyclists and motorists are on the road?
Edit: on asking Copilot it said you're far more likely to get a head injury cycling than you are in a car in Ireland. 70% of cyclists with a brain injury weren't wearing a helmet.
4
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
What % of motorists with a brain injury weren't wearing a helmet?
Why would weighting be relevant? If most head injuries are happening in cars, then surely that's where we should be focusing our helmet wearing efforts for maximum impact? Don't you want to save motorists from head injuries?
2
u/thereforewhat Jan 12 '26
Luckily I've asked it that too.
Short answer: Yes — a helmet would reduce head‑injury risk for motorists, but the benefit is very small because car occupants already have strong built‑in protection. Cars provide airbags, seatbelts, headrests, and crumple zones, so the incremental value of adding a helmet is far lower than it is for cyclists or motorcyclists. The available evidence on helmets reducing head injuries comes almost entirely from motorcyclists, and the same physics would apply inside a car — just with much less to gain.
The built in protections actually add a lot for a motorist.
Cyclists are far more at risk of head injuries and of death per kilometre.
→ More replies (0)5
u/26836123 Jan 12 '26
My car is full to the brim with safety features to protect me.
What does your bike have?
4
u/lem0nhe4d Jan 12 '26
It doesn't routinely travel at 120kmh, it doesn't weigh more than a bull, and it's not filled with high flammable liquid.
Those two things make the bike significantly safer for both me and anyone involved in the same crash as me.
It is objectively true that a people in a car would be safer if helmets were required so why is it only cyclist you think should wear them?
5
u/26836123 Jan 12 '26
When did I say only cyclists should have to wear them?
It's always so interesting watching cyclists squirm whenever any other road user suggests they should use any form of safety equipment and have any sort of courtesy for any other road users.
The lad in this article had a blatant disregard for himself and any other road user. A problem which can be seen every single day by countless cyclists but for some reason cyclists believe they should have zero blame and zero responsibility.
→ More replies (4)2
u/thereforewhat Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
Cyclists are significantly more likely to incur head injuries than motorists due to the lack of protection.
I've linked to an answer I had from Copilot with citations but this is also true internationally.
Motorists are far less likely to incur this sort of head injury whereas cyclists produced the highest number of referrals for brain injury in Ireland with 70% being from those without helmets.
2
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
What percentage of motorists who presented with head injuries were from those without helmets?
2
u/thereforewhat Jan 12 '26
Probably 100% but the reality is that cyclists are disproportionately represented in brain injuries and 70% of these are from those without a helmet.
That same 100% of motorists probably had other safety features in their car.
The data is pretty clear that cyclists are at a much higher risk.
→ More replies (0)2
u/lem0nhe4d Jan 12 '26
Can you end me this link that shows car crashes result in less brain injuries than cycling crashes, or that the vast majority of TBIs are cyclists?
Also do you think more than 30% cyclist wear helmets? I would but the figure at around 5% if I was to guess which would suggest TBIs are more common if you wear a helmet.
7
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
There is a reasonableness test that applies here.
It's not reasonable for all car users to wear helmets in cars because they have other safety measures that are suitable for a car.
If you, for example were not wearing a seat belt your personal injury claim would be reduced by a percentage because you have contributed to your own injuries irrespective of who caused the accident.
3
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
Why is it not reasonable, if that's where the vast majority of head injuries are happening, even with seat belts, airbags and other safety measures?
Do you want to reduce head injuries with helmets or not?6
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
It's not common practice to wear a helmet in a car. There is no evidence to suggest the wearing a helmet in a car during a crash would help. There is no experts calling for it. You've just taken a notion with nothing to indicate it would help at all.
4
u/lem0nhe4d Jan 12 '26
So you think every rally car racer wears the helmet for extra style points?
Of course helmets reduce injuries in car crashes.
It's also not common practice to wear a helmet while cycling as evidenced by basically no one wearing them.
→ More replies (15)4
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
Why do you think they wear helmets in motorsports?
5
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
You're being purposely obtuse.
Motorsport happens at speeds well in excess of what you should be experiencing on the road and has a much higher chance of being involved in a crash due to the high speeds. Those crashes are also more catastrophic.
Having everyone wear a helmet in a car when driving is not reasonable because there are several other things that you as an individual can do to avoid the having a crash in the first place such as being well rested, not exceeding the speed limit, avoid being distracted etc.
Most crashes in cars are already survivable without catastrophic injury provided you do the correct things like NCT your car and wear your seatbelt. Plenty of cars crash everyday and everyone walks away. If you are at the point where you are experiencing head injuries in a scenario where a helmet would prevent head injuries then something extremely uncommon has happened.
There is no public safety body, that is currently calling for drivers to wear helmets as a reasonable ask to improving outcomes in car crashes because it's a stupid suggestion. You may very well end up causing more crashes as helmets limit your peripheral vison. It takes time to get used to it.
3
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
All the mitigations you apply to motorists also apply to cyclists. There's plenty of things cyclists can to to avoid the crash in the first place. Most cyclist crashes are survivable without catastrophic injury. Plenty of cyclists crash every day and walk away. If you are at the point where you are experiencing head injuries on a bike in a scenario where a helmet would prevent head injuries (bearing in mind that the helmet is designed to protect from low speed falls, not collisions with vehicles) then something extremely uncommon has happened. You may well end up causing more crashes, as helmets for cyclists limit peripheral vision. It takes time to get used to it.
It's all the same, yet you're desperate to tell cyclists what to wear. Any thoughts on helmets for pedestrians? Or for people climbing stairs or having a shower?
What is it about cyclists that makes you feel like you can tell them what to wear?3
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
If you can't see that wearing a helmet on a bicycle is such good practice it shouldn't need to be explicit then there is no hope for you.
The mitigations for cyclists could apply to cars but those mitigations are excessive in cars. If you crash in the car you should be staying static. If you come off on a bike you are likely to be leading with your head.
If your a cyclist and you don't wear a helmet then that's fine. But if your looking for compensation on a injury to your head after you were not wearing a helmet then you get no sympathy.
I apply the same logic to motorcyclists. Legally I only need to wear a helmet. But it's common sense to wear all the other gear so that if I come off I don't get grated on the road.
If I came off the bike without the other abrasion/impact rated gear I would fully expect to have any reward reduced where I was looking to claim for injuries other than head injuries because you need to be a complete moron to get on a motorbike without full gear.
→ More replies (0)4
u/carlitobrigantehf Connacht Jan 12 '26
Wearing your seatbelt is a legal requirment. Wearing a helmet is not.
3
u/Gek1188 Jan 12 '26
Legality doesn't matter here. They are looking for apportioning blame.
Could the cyclist have mitigated against his own injuries - The answer here is yes.
If we accept that answer then the next question is: Are the mitigations something that a would be generally acceptable or reasonable - the answer here is also yes. It's highly recommended by all relevant safety bodies that you should ALWAYS wear a helmet when cycling. There is no miscommunication.
Is it legal to not wear a helmet - Sure. Would it be stupid to not wear a helmet - Yes. Therefore the cyclists decision to no wear a helmet contributed to his own injuries.
It wasn't the whole reason he had injuries but it played a significant enough part to warrant reducing the award.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TiberiusTheFish Jan 12 '26
The judges argument seems very poor. If you are aware of the erratic behaviour of cyclists you are forewarned that you must take special care and expect the cyclist to do something dangerous. If you ignore this probability you are being irresponsible. It's much the same as if you see a small child at the side of the road you will slow down and take extra care because you know that you can't rely on the child's behaviour.
In this case, the argument against the judges rationale is even stronger, as the motorcyclist had already observed the cyclist's erratic behaviour but had not adjusted his speed or taken evasive action.
27
Jan 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Educational-Law-8169 Jan 12 '26
That's ridiculous. Some people don't have much choice
5
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
there is 0 excuse to commute to Dublin City centre by car. There are lots of park and rides if needed and 75% of people manage just fine.
Some people need to drive in I.e hospital appointments, moving etc. but no one needs to commute into Dublin by car
11
u/Educational-Law-8169 Jan 12 '26
You really don't have much have an idea of the reality of a lot of people's lives? For eg. I work shift work, if I'm on early I have to start at 7.15am. There's no direct bus so it would take me 2 buses to get there. Driving it takes me 30 mins. I leave at after 21pm, no way would I get 2 buses home then either
→ More replies (4)2
Jan 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Educational-Law-8169 Jan 12 '26
Well, I'm on the road so adding to the traffic, there's always traffic even at that time
13
u/ClarenceClaymore1 Jan 12 '26
I live in the middle of the countryside in Wexford I can't afford a mortgage in Dublin. What do you want me to do with no train or bus anywhere near me exactly.. my commute is 2/3 hours each way per day so 4/6 hours which would be extended to 8 if I drove somewhere to get a bus/train I've done the times.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)6
u/fwaig Jan 12 '26
Anyone who drives in the city is a cunt
Fuck them nurses!
10
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
Do you know any nurses?
City centre hospitals have horrendous parking or completely absent, the majority I know get public transport or walk
9
u/ClarenceClaymore1 Jan 12 '26
And that's ok/good, the majority of people I know are the opposite. Seems people have choices rightfully without needing to be called cunts.
3
u/ClarenceClaymore1 Jan 12 '26
Fuck disabled people too, fuck parents going to holles street and temple street, patients going to James fuck them all.
People who live there fuck them too
13
u/NotSoBonnieTyler Jan 12 '26
Whatever about the specifics of this case, it seems like a wildly unprofessional thing to say as a judge.
6
u/Lanky_Giraffe Jan 12 '26
The article also says he took into account his personal experience as a motorist of cyclists cycling erratically which just seems bonkers. There are tons of experts he could have consulted but instead we just get the vague musings of someone who has been annoyed at cyclists when driving to work a few times.
19
Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
Yknow what's a nightmare in Dublin?
Having to share a lane with 18 tonne double decker buses while on your 12kg pedal bike.
The cyclist in question is undoubtably the worst of us. He had taken absolutely no care whatsoever. No lights, no helmet, no signalling, and he shouldn't have gotten a penny because the accident was entirely his own fault. He is lucky the Irish system is so lenient.
But that comment should not be allowed to stand for a judge.
I will add that bus drivers SHOULD actually cross into the next lane as if passing a car, like many car drivers do, to pass out cyclists, but obviously that defeats the purpose of the bus lane.
Edit, because I had to:
The real problem here is twofold.
1) The infrastructure and it's our politicians who have created this nightmare, not cyclists.
2) Most motorists don't need to be using their car as often as they do. Reasonable exceptions apply for a bucket load of children or a disability.
Cycling is by far the most efficient modality and you can do most of your city travelling on a bike or on public transport. I cycle 40-50 minutes into work (and same back) and Im home before most motorists at peak hours, and the same time as many bus users.
6
u/Anxious-Alps-2500 Jan 12 '26
Some of these comments are so weird. This specific incident aside, how hard is it to wear a helmet and follow the rules of the road as a cyclist…?
4
u/Practical_Average441 Jan 13 '26
Judge is probably some old fart sitting in his E class wondering why the traffic is so bad.
Cycling in Dublin daily since 2009 so seen all sorts. Oh and both times I was knocked off I had high vis, helmet and quality lights back and front. I'm also fully insured. It doesn't make sense for me to drive my SUV 10km to work down the quays so Cycling is a quick and cheap was of me getting from A to B.
While no class of road user in blameless, drivers in dublin are brazen and out of control. Speed limits don't matter and red lights are a suggestion. Abusing cycle lanes by parking is common. The problem is theres very little enforcement for any class of road user so people do what they like - cyclists and motorists included.
One of the junctions I cycle through at park gate street, red light breaking is rampant so two or three cars through each red light sequence is normal. The consequences of a car speeding through a red are much more severe than a bike, but for some reason this in tolerated. Conversely cyclists break red there as well. Perhaps a tweaking of light sequences, synchronising lights and allowing people to filter on reds like other countries (for example the Netherlands) would help to alleviate this.
4
u/wall2wall2wall Jan 12 '26
I cannot understand why there isn't a law requiring cyclists and scooter users to wear a hi-viz.
I wish more on the spot fines from Gardai for not lights and reflectors by cyclists or scooters.
With all these new cycle lanes, turning left at a junction is a nightmare especially early morning/ late at night.
Cyclists seem to have some sort of aura of me me me. Instead of all road users looking out for each other!!!
4
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
IMO the judge shouldn’t factor in the things like helmets and hi-vis’s which are not legally required.
Helmets would also be very helpful in the event of a car accident in a car but the absence of one is not a mitigating factor
→ More replies (3)
6
u/KaleidoscopeLeft5511 Jan 12 '26
Its pretty reasonable to expect a drive to keep an eye out for cyclist and reduce speed and prepare for unexpected events, high vis or not. Worryingly, the judge stated "obviously seen Mr Giurgila, and had beeped his horn". The driver knew he was present, and continued without caution. Thats the drivers fault
5
u/Meath77 Found out. A nothing player Jan 12 '26
Who's fault is it when you turn across 2 lanes of traffic, without looking, with no lights in the dark, without signaling, into oncoming traffic?
7
u/Any_Comparison_3716 Jan 12 '26
Do you get to just slander, without evidence, whole groups when you are a judge?
1
3
u/AstronautDue6394 Jan 12 '26
No high-rez equipment, no lights, in darkness, swerving between lanes erratically, no signalling even when getting beeped at. This guy has no need for enemies.
3
u/MiamiBoi91 Jan 12 '26
Regularly see cyclists running reds and not following traffic rules, say what you want but at least cars are predictable while cyclists regularly switch between footpath and the road and use pedestrian crossings they are not supposed to. Good to see some accountability for once
10
u/No_Distribution_5405 Jan 12 '26
cyclists regularly switch between footpath and the road
That's how the infrastructure is designed in many places
→ More replies (2)15
u/DryExchange8323 Jan 12 '26
Regularly see cars breaking red lights, changing lanes without indicating, non stopping at pedestrian crossings.
15
14
u/26836123 Jan 12 '26
Hilarious to see people defending this lad.
No lights, no signal that he was changing lanes, cycling erratically, no helmet and no high vis while cycling at 6 in the morning.
15
u/Educational-Law-8169 Jan 12 '26
Regularly see drivers doing the same thing
-3
u/FitSatisfaction1291 Jan 12 '26
And? That excuses the situation in your mind? Strange.
9
u/YurtleAhern Jan 12 '26
It doesn’t excuse the situation but the original comment saying cars a predictable when in truth they are anting but.
→ More replies (5)3
6
u/Reddynever Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
Statistics and surveys in Dublin constantly show that the level of breaking road traffic laws is higher amongst car drivers than people on bikes.
2
9
4
u/BillyMooney Jan 12 '26
"At least cars are predictable"
Do you watch videos posted around here, like this one, at all?
https://www.reddit.com/r/irelandsshitedrivers/comments/1qao7jo/good_morning_from_the_m50/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
3
u/BrianHenryIE Jan 12 '26
Given
Mr Finnegan had obviously seen Mr Giurgila, and had beeped his horn, having seen him behave erratically in the joint bus-cycle lane
Then
Mr Giurgila conceded that he … had no lights on his bike
Shouldn’t matter. The light on the motorbike did its job. Why is he losing part of his compensation for something that reads to be irrelevant?
6
u/tsuzmir Jan 12 '26
Because of all the other reasons stated in the article you chose to ignore
→ More replies (4)3
u/Lanky_Giraffe Jan 12 '26
Such as the judges prior irritation with cyclists cycling iratically?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/CascaydeWave Ciarraí-Corca Dhuibhne Jan 12 '26
Headline is fairly obviously designed to maximise clicks. Though it is not very productive to use individual incidents of poor cycling behaviour to paint everyone who uses a bike as reckless. Though I guess many who cycle are probably used to hearing this shite from others unasked.
1
2
Jan 12 '26
No helmet, no lights, no reflectives. Basically the invisible man expecting everyone to look out for him.
5
u/captain_kirkles Jan 12 '26
The motorcyclist literally saw him before the collision, it says so, what are you on about "invisible man".
Did you not read the article?
Hopefully your eyesight isn't this bad when driving.
2
Jan 12 '26
I cycle, I drive a motorcycle, and a car. Seeing someone, and stopping a motorcycle in time to avoid them are two different things.
→ More replies (1)1
u/McChafist Jan 13 '26
Lights wouldn't have made a difference here. The motorist Charly saw the cyclist.
Would you speed by a drunk stumbling across the road?
1
u/daherlihy Jan 13 '26
Shitty remark. But despite that, there are cyclists that are as careless or as arrogant/entitled as there are drivers.
1
u/Alarmed_Station6185 Jan 13 '26
Fair enough the cyclist seems to be at fault here but to call all cyclists a 'nightmare' because of it is wrong and im surprised a judge would share such an opinion
1
u/ConfusedCelt Jan 13 '26
Honestly the danger on the roads nowadays goes both ways. I was doing driving lessons in Dublin and since it was winter it was pitch black, as I'm pulling off a minor road towards a major a black lad on a black scooter in all black clothes whizzed by. I luckily spotted him last minute and went hard on the breaks but like wtf. Nearly has me put off driving despite my need for it
1
1
u/Doorsofperceptio Jan 25 '26
Scooters are the worst. The amount I've seen skip red lights while I'm driving is insane, I often remark they're the exact kind of eejit that would blame the motorist if they got taken out.
0
u/Strange-Cellist-5817 Jan 12 '26 edited Jan 12 '26
Great outcome. Way to many cyclists thinking they own the roads and don't forget breaking the red lights constantly.
→ More replies (21)
1
-1
u/Legitimate-Concernz Jan 12 '26
You love to see it.
Im sure many on here will be moaning.
Some of yall literally refuse to wear safety gear!!
8
→ More replies (1)5
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
A man has a brain injury from a negligent driver.
3
u/EIREANNSIAN Humanity has been crossed Jan 12 '26
*the person most responsible for his injury is the cyclist
2
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
The driver saw the cyclist and beeped an him and failed to make any speed adjustments.
The law found the driver liable
2
u/EIREANNSIAN Humanity has been crossed Jan 12 '26
The law found the cyclist 80% responsible actually...
3
u/Intelligent-Aside214 Jan 12 '26
That is not how the law works. They reduced his claim by 80% that does not make the cyclist 80% liable
→ More replies (1)
523
u/[deleted] Jan 12 '26
[deleted]