Ireland’s transport minister has joined the widespread criticism of a judge who called cyclists a “nightmare” during a recent civil court hearing, the country’s transport chief branding the extraordinary comments about people who ride bikes in Dublin “ill-judged and ill-informed”.
Judge James O’Donohoe made the comments while presiding over a civil court hearing assessing damages for a motorcyclist’s collision with a cyclist. The cyclist, Ioan Giurgila, suffered a brain injury and 12 soft tissue injuries but saw his damages slashed by 80 per cent by O’Donohoe to €17,628 and costs.
During that hearing, the judge told the court he was entitled, as a motorist who uses Dublin’s roads, to take judicial notice of his own experiences, the judge telling the hearing: “Cyclists have become a nightmare in Dublin.”
“You never know with cyclists what they are going to do or anticipate what they are going to do,” he continued.
In the week since the comments came to light, O’Donohoe has faced criticism from across the political landscape, including from the Irish prime minister, as well as from cycling campaigners. Last week, Labour made a formal complaint to the judicial standards body over O’Donohoe’s remarks, and now Irish transport minister
Darragh O’Brien has joined the prime minister and politicians from other parties in standing up to the comments.
“I think the comments themselves were ill-judged and ill-informed,” he told Newstalk’s breakfast radio show. “I think that all of us have a job, all road users, to respect each other. And as I said there were 14 cyclists who lost their lives last year; there were many motorists lost their lives as well and, indeed, pedestrians.”
O’Donohoe, who it has also emerged was in 2012 fined after pleading guilty to failing to take breathalyser test, has been reported to the judicial standards body. Last week, Taoiseach Micheál Martin described the judge’s comments as “wrong” while answering a question in the Dáil (Irish Parliament).
“I reject any stereotyping of cyclists or any categorisation of cyclists,” he said. “I don’t want to breach any separation of powers, but I’m very clear that any general comment to the effect that it impacts negatively in terms of the perspective on cyclists is wrong. It shouldn’t happen.
“We should be very clear about the importance of cycling and facilitating cyclists and also being very careful in terms of contested space on our roads in terms of making sure that we protect cyclists.”
The Irish Cycling Campaign suggested the language “risks normalising hostility towards people who choose to travel by bike”, while Cycling Ireland expressed disappointment at the attitude of the judge.
Ciaran Cannon, President of Cycling Ireland, said: “It is disappointing to hear cyclists spoken about in this way. People who cycle are not an abstract group. They are parents, students, healthcare workers and older people simply trying to get home safely. They deserve to be spoken about with fairness and respect.
“Words matter, particularly when they come from figures whose role is to be fair and evidence based. Language that risks framing vulnerable road users as a problem, rather than people, can unintentionally contribute to misunderstanding and hostility.”
As the reaction runs into its second week, transport minister O’Brien was also talking about the Irish government’s newly announced €360 million funding for active travel and greenways for 2026.
“This year alone, we’ll be adding another two hundred [kilometres of cycle lanes] and would also support things like training for school kids in particular,” he said. “And the cycle training programme, which last year funded about 43,000 primary school kids training them how to cycle appropriately and learning the rules of the road.
“So, this programme, I think, is really significant in the sense that it gives other options for people and the infrastructure so they can walk and cycle.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
11 thoughts on “Judge “ill-judged” over much-criticised court comments about “nightmare” cyclists, says Irish transport minister”
Cycling Ireland ‘disappointed
Cycling Ireland ‘disappointed’ ?? The judge made bigoted observations and reduced the payout by 80%. That should warrant more than a disappointment, and CI should support the cyclist to make an appeal and pursue having the judge removed from their position
Iirc, the 80% reduction was
Iirc, the 80% reduction was because he found the cyclist 80% to blame for the collision. Now that decision might be explained by his obvious prejudice, but assuming it wasn’t and it was based on the facts or the findings, then he was correct to reduce the damages by 80%.
If he’d found the other party entirely to blame but he still came up with some other reason to reduce the cyclist’s damages by 80%, then he would have had to have had a compelling reason to do so and I think that would have been mentioned in the reports, but I don’t remember reading anything to that effect.
This was my reading of the
This was my reading of the previous article on this as well I seem to remember. The guy is a predjudiced cunt but the reduction was potentially fair.
It seems to me that it wouldn
It seems to me that it wouldn’t have taken much to convince the judge that the cyclist was 80% to blame for the collision. “He was riding a bicycle in the road and not using a cycle path somewhere else” or “He wasn’t wearing a crash helmet and hi-viz” or simply “He’s a cyclist”
To be strictly fair to the
To be strictly fair to the judge, albeit through clenched teeth, in the original story it did mention evidence that was apparently uncontested by the cyclist’s lawyer that he was riding before
sunsetsunrise (corrected) without any lights, that he was riding unsteadily across the road and that he pulled from the bus lane into the general traffic lane in front of the motorcyclist without signalling. It wasn’t just the judge’s blatant bias that was responsible for the reduction, although it obviously helped.Rendel Harris wrote:
What’s the problem with riding before sunset without any lights?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think Rendel mis
spoketyped, and meant ‘before sunrise‘ – it was 6am, in September.Sorry, yes as MDF says below,
Sorry, yes as MDF says below, I meant before sunrise!
Muddy Ford wrote:
The original story covers this. Suggest you read it rather than assuming.
FWIW the cyclist was a naughty boy.
The cyclist pulled out of a
The cyclist pulled out of a bus lane into the general lane without apparently looking or was unsteady on their bike? How about the motorcyclist decided to overtake the cyclist even though they knew the bus lane was ending and the cyclist would likely rejoin the carriageway, or was a little bit wobbly? It is the responsibility of the overtaker to ensure it is safe to do so. When I drive my car or my motorbike, I observe and try to predict the movements of everyone in my scope of vision. I look at how the driver 3 cars in front is behaving before I overtake, because if he’s constantly switching lanes without indicating there’s a good chance he wont be considering me even if I technically have the right of way. It’s what has kept me from being smashed into for over over 40yrs so far.
There’s nothing in the
There’s nothing in the original story about the bus lane ending, and you’ve left out the fact that the cyclist had no lights and didn’t signal. Both parties are to blame and that’s reflected in the court verdict, the compensation has just been adjusted to reflect the share of blame. Whether that adjustment is fair or not, and how much the obvious bias of the judge has influenced it, is a matter for debate, but shifting the entire blame onto the motorcyclist is unjustifiable. I don’t think you’re correct in saying that a person passing someone in another lane has the responsibility for the safety of the first party, if two vehicles are progressing in adjacent lanes it is surely the responsibility of the driver/rider who wishes to change lanes to make sure it’s safe, not the person who is legally progressing in their own lane? In this instance the motorcyclist was quite rightly found to be partially at fault because he identified the hazard and sounded his horn but didn’t brake as he should have, but in general if someone swerves from one lane to another without indicating into the path of a driver or rider legally using the other lane any coming together is clearly the responsibility of the person switching lanes.