# Pedestrian looking at phone hit by cyclist gets compensation



## T675Rich (18 Jun 2019)

Apologies if this has been posted or this is the wrong place, also the source but I couldn't see it covered elsewhere.

A pedestrian who stepped out into the road while looking at their phone has been awarded compensation from a cyclist who hit her:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7152963/Yoga-teacher-staring-phone-hit-cyclist-wins-compensation.html

The judge said that the pedestrian was also partially to blame but as "cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways" said it was 50/50. 

I find this amazing and slightly worrying tbh. Hopefully it doesn't set a precedent for people to get compensation from cyclists if they step out on them without looking. Or puts people off cycling, having said that the vids I have seen in London look scary. 

Would he be able to counter sue though and get half his damages from her?


----------



## MichaelW2 (18 Jun 2019)

"She 'panicked' and tried to dodge back to a traffic island, but the cyclist, who had been travelling at between 10-15mph, swerved in the same direction and hit her. "

This is the typical pedestrian behaviour that results in collision. Cyclist goes for the gap behind the pedestrian. Pedestrian panics, reverses direction without warning and jumps backward into the space the cyclist was aiming for.


----------



## Venod (18 Jun 2019)

When I read your post I thought it may be reasonable to expect the cyclist to be prepared and alert to zombies on their phones, but after reading the article I think the cyclist was treated unfairly, not only did the pedestrian step out in front of the cyclist and when altered by the cyclist they stepped back into his path, he was clearly trying to avoid a collision.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jun 2019)

I hope he had insurance. I was knocked off by a car nearly 5 years ago, and as I went down my bike clipped another cyclist. The cyclist sued me as the driver did a runner. I believe the case has been settled (ie paid out).


----------



## MichaelW2 (18 Jun 2019)

This is why you need that free 3rd party insurance that comes with club membership. Damaged don't have an upper limit.


----------



## Arjimlad (18 Jun 2019)

The judge held the pedestrian 50% responsible for the collision whilst confirming the cyclist was primarily responsible. A good reason to make sure you have insurance - mine is on buildings & contents. I have enough trouble avoiding phone zombies when walking on the pavement let alone riding.


----------



## CXRAndy (18 Jun 2019)

Seems worthy of an appeal. Whilst pedestrians have right of way once on carriageway, there is a care of duty by the pedestrian to make sure its safe to cross. Looking at your phone whilst crossing isn't taking take care.


----------



## Crackle (18 Jun 2019)

fossyant said:


> I hope he had insurance. I was knocked off by a car nearly 5 years ago, and as I went down my bike clipped another cyclist. The cyclist sued me as the driver did a runner. I believe the case has been settled (ie paid out).


Do you know how much for? I'm just curious as to whether it's actually worth the insurance, the risk must be vanishingly small.


----------



## Cycleops (18 Jun 2019)

Very worrying comments by the judge. How can cyclists legislate for the actions of unpredictable zombie pedestrians.
Doesn't say what her injuries apart from cuts and concussion but hopefully her yoga exercises in exotic locations will help her recover.
She called him 'arrogant and reckless' but surely that could be applied to her.


----------



## PaulB (18 Jun 2019)

In the spirit of 'keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer' I read the comments on stories like this in the Daily Heil to see just how far their readership can be coerced into hating cyclists so we know what we could be facing out there. But reading the comments on this shows there's been an outbreak of common sense. Despite the usual foaming-at-the-mouth hatred reserved for cyclists, the overwhelming number of comments on this show just which side the readership is on and apart from the odd one or two, they are opposed to the stupid woman and the stupid judicial decision.


----------



## Accy cyclist (18 Jun 2019)

I had a similar incident last year. This pedestrian actually saw me but just strolled out in front of me making me swerve to avoid him. His response to my anger was "You've got breaks haven't you? If so f..k..g use them"! Would he have stepped out in front of a car that has breaks? Maybe so because he did look a bit thick!


----------



## Smudge (18 Jun 2019)

Its a complete travesty that the cyclist can be found 50% responsible and have to pay compo, makes me wonder if the judge had a prejudice against cyclists.
Its also put out a great message to zombies..... Carry on in your self absorbed little world, the rest of us will just have to be responsible for your safety.


----------



## Ian H (18 Jun 2019)

Cycleops said:


> ... How can cyclists legislate for the actions of unpredictable zombie pedestrians...


By not causing panic with aggressive use of an airhorn; by riding sensibly in a congested area with pedestrians, who are predictably unpredictable (like a lot of cyclists).


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jun 2019)

Ian H said:


> By not causing panic with aggressive use of an airhorn;



That's why I fitted a bell, using an airhorn on pedestrians is not a good idea. Against motorised traffic it's great but pedestrians don't need to be scared out of their wits by one.

Oh, and a non-DM link to the story https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...s-she-crossed-road-on-her-phone-a4169716.html


----------



## recumbentpanda (18 Jun 2019)

I look forward to the logical extension of this principle of ‘presumed liability for cyclists’ to car drivers.


----------



## si_c (18 Jun 2019)

I'm on the fence a bit about this one. On the one hand the pedestrian was clearly in the wrong, but on the other hand as responsible road users we should adjust our cycling to meet the environment around us. The fact that she "retreated to a traffic island" implies that a reasonable person could assume that pedestrians are likely to try to cross there - as they so frequently do and adjusted speed or stopped accordingly.

Whilst it's frustrating that pedestrians can do unexpected things, this in itself is not unexpected, perhaps if he'd spent more time controlling his bike and less time honking his horn this would never have happened.

Edit to add: it will be interesting to see what level of compensation is awarded - a significant amount or a token amount.


----------



## Chris S (18 Jun 2019)

"Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way"
WTF?


----------



## MichaelW2 (18 Jun 2019)

si_c said:


> I'm on the fence a bit about this one. On the one hand the pedestrian was clearly in the wrong, but on the other hand as responsible road users we should adjust our cycling to meet the environment around us. The fact that she "retreated to a traffic island" implies that a reasonable person could assume that pedestrians are likely to try to cross there - as they so frequently do and adjusted speed or stopped accordingly.
> 
> Whilst it's frustrating that pedestrians can do unexpected things, this in itself is not unexpected, perhaps if he'd spent more time controlling his bike and less time honking his horn this would never have happened.
> 
> Edit to add: it will be interesting to see what level of compensation is awarded - a significant amount or a token amount.


She retreated to the traffic island by jumping backwards into the bit of road she had just crossed and that the cyclist was aiming for.
Very few riders are prepared for pedestrians to literally jump backwards into their path. This seems to have been the case with that infamous cade of the woman killed by a cyclist on a fixie a year or two ago.
The rider controlled his bike into empty road.


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Jun 2019)

T675Rich said:


> ... "cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways" ...


Does the same apply to motorists?


----------



## Cycleops (18 Jun 2019)

Unusually nearly all the comments in the DM article are supportive. Second best was; 'So if a person walks off a cliff whilst looking at their mobile phone the cliff is also to blame'.


----------



## nickyboy (18 Jun 2019)

These incidents are rarely 100% the fault of one party, hence the need for a judge to make a determination. Like @si_c it is not cut and dried. It was presumably an urban area with lots of pedestrians so a cyclist maybe should be taking it easy and be "expecting the unexpected"? At the same time it appears the pedestrian walked off a traffic island without looking. It is reported that the cyclist's speed was 15mph at impact after some braking so he must have been going reasonably quickly

I would like to see an extension of "expect the unexpected" to vehicle drivers and cyclists. It doesn't seem to be applied in the same way as this case


----------



## Ian H (18 Jun 2019)

Cycleops said:


> Unusually nearly all the comments in the DM article are supportive.



That alone should sound warning bells.


----------



## si_c (18 Jun 2019)

nickyboy said:


> These incidents are rarely 100% the fault of one party, hence the need for a judge to make a determination. Like @si_c it is not cut and dried. It was presumably an urban area with lots of pedestrians so a cyclist maybe should be taking it easy and be "expecting the unexpected"? At the same time it appears the pedestrian walked off a traffic island without looking. It is reported that the cyclist's speed was 15mph at impact after some braking so he must have been going reasonably quickly
> 
> I would like to see an extension of "expect the unexpected" to vehicle drivers and cyclists. It doesn't seem to be applied in the same way as this case


That's more or less my thoughts, if we want people to be required to drive considerately around cyclists we should extend the same courtesy to those who are more vulnerable than us.

The same argument holds that cyclists rarely hurt anyone by being on the roads - pedestrians even less so. If we are going to take a position on the one hand we should at least apply the logic consistently in all cases rather than picking or choosing when we do.


----------



## PK99 (18 Jun 2019)

Many cyclists want to see the law changed to Presumed Liability in a Car v cyclist collision. The logical position if that were to be applied is a Hierarchy of liability.

Bike trumps car
Pedestrian trumps bike.


----------



## Cycleops (18 Jun 2019)

Ian H said:


> That alone should sound warning bells.


I wonder if those warning bells would be loud enough to wake up pedestrians?


----------



## Ian H (18 Jun 2019)

Cycleops said:


> I wonder if those warning bells would be loud enough to wake up pedestrians?



I doubt it. So the onus remains with cyclists and motorists to take due care.


----------



## CXRAndy (18 Jun 2019)

Chris S said:


> "Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way"
> WTF?



That is correct and rightly so. A rule of law which is often ignored by mainly vehicles but applies to cyclists. 

The common error is people assuming when a car is turning into a junction the pedestrian has to get out of the way, but if the pedestrian is already on the road then vehicle driver has wait for them to clear the carriageway. 

I suspect this is where the 50/50 judgement lay. But in my extremely limited knowledge, I would of thought the pedestrians actions of not paying attention(staring at phone) to crossing would negate their chance to claim-but hey what do I know

Interesting the damages amount- if alot I reckon cyclists will appeal.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (18 Jun 2019)

Was in reasonably forseeable that a ped might step off the pavement? Yes
Did the rider have a duty of care towards the ped to ride in a manner which anticipated and avoided same? Yes
Was the rider negligent in that he failed to avoid the ped in the circumstances? Yes
Was the ped also negligent in failing to play her part in ensuring her own safety? Yes

I think the question is with no 3 of those, given she dodged backwards, but also weighed will be speed, use of loud horn etc.


----------



## Andy in Germany (18 Jun 2019)

PK99 said:


> Many cyclists want to see the law changed to Presumed Liability in a Car v cyclist collision. The logical position if that were to be applied is a Hierarchy of liability.
> 
> Bike trumps car
> Pedestrian trumps bike.



This is the current legal situation here*. I'm presumed to be at fault if I hit a pedestrian when cycling, and a car driver is presumed responsible in a collision with me.

I'm also legally required to have a bell, and use same to warn pedestrians of my approach. I also have to expect them to do something like jump backwards if they hear my bell.

The annoying thing in this case is that cyclists are being held to this principle, but in the UK motorists aren't.

[_Edit: 'Here' being in Germany. Didn't make that clear earlier_...]


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jun 2019)

Chris S said:


> "Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way"
> WTF?




It makes sense to me; if the pedestrian isn't afforded the right of way then a collision is inevitable.


----------



## bigjim (18 Jun 2019)

> I'm also legally required to have a bell,


I don't think that is correct. I think it' "equipped with a warning device". So new bikes are sold with a bell. Whether that warning device can be one's voice has yet to be legally tested, as far as I'm aware.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jun 2019)

bigjim said:


> I don't think that is correct. I think it' "equipped with a warning device". So new bikes are sold with a bell. Whether that warning device can be one's voice has yet to be legally tested, as far as I'm aware.




He's in Germany so he's right for his location.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> The judge held the pedestrian 50% responsible for the collision whilst confirming the cyclist was primarily responsible.


This does not make sense to me.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2019)

PK99 said:


> Many cyclists want to see the law changed to Presumed Liability in a Car v cyclist collision. The logical position if that were to be applied is a Hierarchy of liability.
> 
> Bike trumps car
> Pedestrian trumps bike.


I tell this to the kid:- "On the road, cars are the fast moving heavy things. On a shared use path, it's you"


----------



## T675Rich (18 Jun 2019)

It's interesting reading through these comments, I can see both points of view but I do worry about the compensation element, compensation culture is already ridiculous in motor accidents I would hate to see people walk out in front of cyclists for a claim like they do in the who crash for cash business.

I can't really get up to that speed generally and the areas with a lot of pedestrians I take even more care but that's fine on my commute where there isn't many places, In London it looks to be a constant hazzard. 

It's interesting looking at the Fails comments section, its two groups they hate, cyclists and phone addicted millennials, their heads are probably imploding trying to decide which is worse.


----------



## Andy in Germany (18 Jun 2019)

KneesUp said:


> I tell this to the kid:- "On the road, cars are the fast moving heavy things. On a shared use path, it's you"



That's what I say to my kids on shared use paths: "You're the most dangerous thing here, so make sure you keep people safe".

I was well proud to see Elder Son last week braking carefully when he passed pedestrians on the shared use path, and calling back "Kids" when he saw any children.


----------



## Andy in Germany (18 Jun 2019)

bigjim said:


> I don't think that is correct. I think it' "equipped with a warning device". So new bikes are sold with a bell. Whether that warning device can be one's voice has yet to be legally tested, as far as I'm aware.





glasgowcyclist said:


> He's in Germany so he's right for his location.



As usual I assumed I know what I mean so everyone else should too... as @glasgowcyclist says, I'm in a different country. Mountain bikes have to be sold as "Sports equipment" because they don't fulfil the law.


----------



## benb (18 Jun 2019)

There's a massive difference between according pedestrians priority when they have already started to cross the road, and having to be responsible for pedestrian's safety when they step into the road without looking (and then leap back into your path) 

The cyclist clearly did as much as any reasonable person could have to avoid a collision. They weren't going dangerously fast. 
Are we saying people don't need to bother checking the road is sufficiently clear before crossing it?

We all know that if the woman had been hit by a driver, it wouldn't have got anywhere near a courtroom.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Jun 2019)

T675Rich said:


> Would he be able to counter sue though



Not now, he's out of time.


----------



## fossyant (18 Jun 2019)

Crackle said:


> Do you know how much for? I'm just curious as to whether it's actually worth the insurance, the risk must be vanishingly small.



No, but it was possibly quite a fair few £k - badly broken elbow that hasn't healed well - he fell very strangely TBH. Shoot happens and BC's solicitor just said than goodness you had insurance. Daft thing is, the other fella did nothing, didn't report to police, didn't get MIB involved etc. etc where I did all that. Sometimes they will just settle if they can't, in all probabilities, prove fault.


----------



## nickyboy (18 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> There's a massive difference between according pedestrians priority when they have already started to cross the road, and having to be responsible for pedestrian's safety when they step into the road without looking (and then leap back into your path)
> 
> The cyclist clearly did as much as any reasonable person could have to avoid a collision. They weren't going dangerously fast.
> Are we saying people don't need to bother checking the road is sufficiently clear before crossing it?
> ...



Of course people need to check, the fact the pedestrian didn't is the reason her compensation was halved. The issue is whether the cyclist was travelling at a speed appropriate to the situation or not. Busy urban area with (presumably) lots of pedestrians wanting to cross the road. My first reaction would be to ride slowly. As I mentioned earlier, the cyclist was travelling at approximately 15mph when they collided with the pedestrian so was going faster than that before braking. That feels too fast for the circumstances and it seems the judge held a similar opinion


----------



## bigjim (18 Jun 2019)

Andy in Germany said:


> As usual I assumed I know what I mean so everyone else should too... as @glasgowcyclist says, I'm in a different country. Mountain bikes have to be sold as "Sports equipment" because they don't fulfil the law.


Did not know that. I've chanced it then when cycling Germany.


----------



## bigjim (18 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> There's a massive difference between according pedestrians priority when they have already started to cross the road, and having to be responsible for pedestrian's safety when they step into the road without looking (and then leap back into your path)
> 
> The cyclist clearly did as much as any reasonable person could have to avoid a collision. They weren't going dangerously fast.
> Are we saying people don't need to bother checking the road is sufficiently clear before crossing it?
> ...


Doesn't the highway code for pedestrians say "check left, check right, check left again"? 15mph? If a car was travelling at that speed, would that be too fast? Be interesting to know how they worked out the 15mph.


----------



## Crankarm (18 Jun 2019)

Crackle said:


> Do you know how much for? I'm just curious as to whether it's actually worth the insurance, the risk must be vanishingly small.



Believe you me you want insurance because if you are held liable in any claim against you as in say a case like this then legal and medical bills, etc can be crippling. You could end up losing any assets you have e.g. house, etc. If this claimant had ended with serious injuries being fed through a straw lying in a hospital bed for the rest of their life then the bills for their care, loss of earnings could be absolutely astronomical potentially many millions which would bankrupt many people. Maybe the other side would be generous but some how I don't see given this claimant brought her claim although she seems to have been negligent herself walking into the road while eyes glued to her mobile phone. I just hope she had to pay her own costs. She was probably insured so her insurer will pick up any legal costs and disbursements where as the cyclist may not have been so lucky and could be facing a huge bill for costs plus damages on top.


----------



## flake99please (18 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> The cyclist clearly did as much as any reasonable person could have to avoid a collision. They weren't going dangerously fast.



I would have to disagree. Had the cyclist been travelling at a speed of 8-10mph, I doubt there would have been any collision.


----------



## Crankarm (18 Jun 2019)

Chris S said:


> "Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way"
> WTF?



Yup, that's a fundamental principle of the HWC. Even if the hypothetical ped has their head down, eyes glued to their phone searching for ambulance chasing lawyers.


----------



## Crankarm (18 Jun 2019)

T675Rich said:


> Apologies if this has been posted or this is the wrong place, also the source but I couldn't see it covered elsewhere.
> 
> A pedestrian who stepped out into the road while looking at their phone has been awarded compensation from a cyclist who hit her:
> 
> ...



He may have counter claimed, we are not told whether he did nor not, but the fact that he has been held liable for the collision i.e. he was negligent and damages of a reduction of 50% will be awarded against him suggests the judge felt the claimant had some responsibility for the collision which makes a bit a of mockery of their decision given the cyclist and witnesses all maintained the claimant stepped off the pavement with her eyes glued to her mobile not keeping sufficient look out. If I was the defendant I would be questioning how my case was defended.


----------



## MichaelW2 (18 Jun 2019)

Crankarm said:


> If I was the defendant I would be questioning how my case was defended.



You expect in car crash cases that the expert witness giving evidence are experts in the field of car crashes. I don't think anyone is an expert in bicycle crashes and there seems to be very little research to reference.
In the case last year about the fixie rider who killed a pedestrian, braking distance of a legally equipped bike was measured using a fat tyre MTB with V or disc brakes, not a road bike with two caliper brakes and identical tyres to the ones in question.
There seems to be no data on stopping distances for different bike types, tyres, rider weights into which new data can be fitted and assessed. Or on response times.
Defense lawyers seem to be pretty clueless when it comes to challenging cycle crash evidence.


----------



## Crackle (18 Jun 2019)

Crankarm said:


> Believe you me you want insurance because if you are held liable in any claim against you as in say a case like this then legal and medical bills, etc can be crippling. You could end up losing any assets you have e.g. house, etc. If this claimant had ended with serious injuries being fed through a straw lying in a hospital bed for the rest of their life then the bills for their care, loss of earnings could be absolutely astronomical potentially many millions which would bankrupt many people. Maybe the other side would be generous but some how I don't see given this claimant brought her claim although she seems to have been negligent herself walking into the road while eyes glued to her mobile phone. I just hope she had to pay her own costs. She was probably insured so her insurer will pick up any legal costs and disbursements where as the cyclist may not have been so lucky and could be facing a huge bill for costs plus damages on top.


Hmm, I've thought about it many times but never bothered. I still think the risk to me is the greater and my own cycling is suburban. I'm still not sure it's worth taking out for me, I stress the, for me, others situations may well be different. I imagine the majority of cyclists don't have insurance, this doesn't change my mind.

Edit: After checking, my own House Insurance does cover me anyhow for £2m


----------



## Crankarm (18 Jun 2019)

Crackle said:


> Hmm, I've thought about it many times but never bothered. I still think the risk to me is the greater and my own cycling is suburban. I'm still not sure it's worth taking out for me, I stress the, for me, others situations may well be different. I imagine the majority of cyclists don't have insurance, this doesn't change my mind.



Well I consider it a no brainer as joining British Cycling or similar includes 3rd party cover and you are supporting cycling. If you have 3rd party liability attached to house insurance then this could be your saviour although check the small print to see if RTAs and partciualry an activity such as cycling would be covered. If you did have a claim and used this cover your over all house insurance premiums might go up as a result but this would be insignificant compared to having to pay damages yourself. As I say 3rd party insurance from membership of cycling organisations is a no brainer imho. I wouldn't want to he held personally liable and risk losing my house, other assets and watching my life collapse as I was made bankrupt. But that's just me.


----------



## PK99 (18 Jun 2019)

Crackle said:


> Do you know how much for? I'm just curious as to whether it's actually worth the insurance, the risk must be vanishingly small.



That is exactly what you need insurance for: the low probability, high consequence event.


----------



## Kempstonian (18 Jun 2019)

Didn't stepping into the road without looking used to be called jaywalking? And wasn't that an offence?

If she hadn't stepped in front of him there would have been no accident. If she had looked where she was going she wouldn't have stepped out. Therefore she's at fault in my book.

Bedfor town center is largely pedestrianised and phone zombies are all over the place. A guy I know was walking along one day and he saw one of these zombies was heading straight for him, so he stood still when she was about 10 metres away. She kept coming (must have been at a critical point in her Candy Crush game)... he waited until she was about to walk into him and then (in his best drill sargeant voice) he shouted "LOOK WHERE YOU'RE GOING!"

I don't think she finished her game.


----------



## PK99 (18 Jun 2019)

Kempstonian said:


> Didn't stepping into the road without looking used to be called jaywalking? And wasn't that an offence?
> 
> If she hadn't stepped in front of him there would have been no accident. If she had looked where she was going she wouldn't have stepped out. Therefore she's at fault in my book.
> 
> ...



I normally use "BOO!"


----------



## booze and cake (18 Jun 2019)

I usually loudly use the passive aggressive 'wakey effin wakey'. And this happens pretty much every single day with people on phones in London. I am amazed there is seemingly no duty or responsibility on pedestrians to look before steeping into the highway. And how many drivers have got off with much, much worse?

I think this sets a dangerous precedent, this case and the Charlie Allison case hint that the best course or action for a cyclist involved in an accident is to simply leave the scene ASAP before being identified, assuming they are able, which is not a good situation at all.


----------



## Slick (18 Jun 2019)

I think it sounds fair enough, especially if it means more protection for cyclists who are hit by vehicles. My guess would be a bit of a hollow victory for the ped as the award will more than likely be fairly low.


----------



## Crackle (18 Jun 2019)

PK99 said:


> That is exactly what you need insurance for: the low probability, high consequence event.


Again, hmmm. How high a consequence is the average cycle accident, I still think the chance of hitting someone is vanishingly low and being sued even lower and them winning, lower again. 40 years, never hit anyone. Never say never but really I try not too because it will hurt, me. 

Also, I've had people step out on me. I don't swerve, I just try to stop, otherwise it becomes a guessing game.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (18 Jun 2019)

If it's 50:50 liability surprised one party is being asked to make a payout to the other. I'd have thought it'd just be a case of equal responsibility no payout.


----------



## Crankarm (18 Jun 2019)

MichaelW2 said:


> You expect in car crash cases that the expert witness giving evidence are experts in the field of car crashes. I don't think anyone is an expert in bicycle crashes and there seems to be very little research to reference.
> In the case last year about the fixie rider who killed a pedestrian, braking distance of a legally equipped bike was measured using a fat tyre MTB with V or disc brakes, not a road bike with two caliper brakes and identical tyres to the ones in question.
> There seems to be no data on stopping distances for different bike types, tyres, rider weights into which new data can be fitted and assessed. Or on response times.
> Defense lawyers seem to be pretty clueless when it comes to challenging cycle crash evidence.



I wasn't thinking in the respect of braking distances, but more along the lines that of the two parties the claimant was clearly the more at fault than the cyclist. The cyclist didn't actually do anything wrong. He gave a warning, tried to avoid the collision where as the pedestrian did nothing of the sort. They contributed to it. Sure pedestrians have right of way crossing a road but this is not absolute. They surely have to take reasonable care to their own safety and that of others. Walking straight out into a road with out looking with your vision glued to a mobile phone could be viewed as careless at best and down right dangerous at worst.

I just wonder what resources the cyclist has and whether he has the funds to appeal or alternatively a cycling organisation could take the case on his behalf as it raises such a shocking precedent. Zombie peds glued to their mobile phones are such a frequent menace these days legislation and case law needs to get up to date. It's absurd that the law should condone some one just walking out into the road glued to their mobile phone cause a serious collision whether they themselves are injured or not and effectively get away with it.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (18 Jun 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> If it's 50:50 liability surprised one party is being asked to make a payout to the other. I'd have thought it'd just be a case of equal responsibility no payout.


It's not 50-50. The cyclist was found liable, but the payment to the pedestrian will be reduced by 50% due to her contributory negligence. A fine distinction.


----------



## PK99 (18 Jun 2019)

Crackle said:


> Again, hmmm. How high a consequence is the average cycle accident, I still think the chance of hitting someone is vanishingly low and being sued even lower and them winning, lower again. 40 years, never hit anyone. Never say never but really I try not too because it will hurt, me.
> 
> Also, I've had people step out on me. I don't swerve, I just try to stop, otherwise it becomes a guessing game.



A guy I rode with for a while 10 years ago had had a £40,000 payout following a broken hip resulting from a crash caused by a fellow cyclist.


----------



## DaveReading (18 Jun 2019)

bigjim said:


> Doesn't the highway code for pedestrians say "check left, check right, check left again"?



No, that's been replaced by "swipe left, swipe right, swipe left again" (after stepping off the kerb). 

As for checking, looking right-left-right is better than left-right-left in the UK.


----------



## swee'pea99 (18 Jun 2019)

Have to say my first instinct was outrage. How can you step out onto the road without looking, cause an accident in which a cyclist also gets injured - having done nothing wrong, then have the gall to sue him, then actually get _damages_? The law surely is an ass. But the (commendably thoughtful) discussion on this thread has won me over to the view that the judge probably, actually, got it about right. Neither was blameless, and as a general rule, it behoves the more dangerous to look out for - and make allowances for - the more vulnerable, _even if they're being an arse_. You have to expect people to do that.

It reminded me of a post I made on the Alliston case:



swee'pea99 said:


> Haven't read the whole thread, but I have to say that while the no-brake thing is probably what will sink him - he was definitively breaking a specific law, and someone died as a result - in my experience it's the no-brain thing that does the real damage.
> 
> I frequently cycle down a busy stretch of road, with much (slow- or not-moving) traffic, many high-sided vehicles, any number of jaywalkers threading thru' the traffic (many of them foreign, and all too likely to look 'the wrong way') and meanwhile cyclists are flying along at high speed, whizzing past, eg, buses, in such a way that brake/no-brake would be utterly irrelevant. If someone stepped out from (or, worse, pushed a buggy from behind) a bus, they'd plough into them, no question. Of course the vast majority of the time they get away with it. But I do often wonder what, if anything, is going through their tiny minds...the utter lack of imagination they display. And like I say, this is a pretty much daily occurrence. Sad truth is, the world is full of imbeciles, and a fair number of them are on bikes.



As someone said upthread, why was the rider honking a horn and swerving? If an idiot steps out in front of you, you shouldn't be honking or swerving, you should be slamming on the anchors. Period, as they say. You should, in short, be doing everything possible to avoid harming another person. However stupidly they may be behaving. At the risk of inviting the hex, I have to say that I commuted 15 miles a day into and out of London for upwards of a decade and never came even close to hitting anyone.

At a glance, it could seem that "It's absurd that the law should condone some one just walking out into the road glued to their mobile phone..." - but it didn't. What 'the law' seems to have said is that neither party was blameless, but the cyclist - as the more dangerous 'vehicle' bears the heaviest responsibility. Which, on reflection seems about right.

I think my favourite single quote, on an excellent thread, has to be:



T675Rich said:


> It's interesting looking at the Fails comments section, its two groups they hate, cyclists and phone addicted millennials, their heads are probably imploding trying to decide which is worse.



I changed my mind on the internet. Do I get like a badge or something?


----------



## Smudge (18 Jun 2019)

DaveReading said:


> No, that's been replaced by "swipe left, swipe right, swipe left again" (after stepping off the kerb).
> 
> As for checking, looking right-left-right is better than left-right-left in the UK.



Yep, its always look right left right, as we drive on the left in uk.
Was perfectly explained in those public information films in the 70's & 80's from cartoon cats called Charlie and Dave Prowse with his broad Bristol accent.


----------



## sheddy (19 Jun 2019)

Time for a new road safety film showing cell brains how to put their phone down when crossing.


----------



## classic33 (19 Jun 2019)

sheddy said:


> Time for a new road safety film showing cell brains how to put their phone down when crossing.


Health warning on them when sold.

A ready market for an app that informs you you're approaching a road edge and puts the phone on standby.


----------



## Smudge (19 Jun 2019)

sheddy said:


> Time for a new road safety film showing cell brains how to put their phone down when crossing.



Indeed..... "Charlie says, look where you're fecking going you self centered, self absorbed tw@t"


----------



## booze and cake (19 Jun 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> .......................At a glance, it could seem that "It's absurd that the law should condone some one just walking out into the road glued to their mobile phone..." - but it didn't. What 'the law' seems to have said is that neither party was blameless, but the cyclist - as the more dangerous 'vehicle' bears the heaviest responsibility. Which, on reflection seems about right.....



But isn't that presumed liability, something many cyclists have been arguing in favour of for years. It would be sodding typical that if they introduced presumed liability in this country it would only apply to cyclists, and not to drivers or any other road users.


----------



## classic33 (19 Jun 2019)

booze and cake said:


> But isn't that presumed liability, something many cyclists have been arguing in favour of for years. It would be sodding typical that if they introduced presumed liability in this country it would only apply to cyclists, and not to drivers or any other road users.


One good argument against mixing the two, in the same place.


----------



## Seevio (19 Jun 2019)

I think that the whole argument should be whether the bike rider could reasonable stop in a safe manner when the pedestrian stepped out. 

The article isn't clear but as the bike rider had time to sound his horn, I'm inferring that he could have stopped rather than swerving. 

As a sidenote, Drago would be spinning in his virtual grave. It's priority not right of way.


----------



## Smudge (19 Jun 2019)

I find it astonishing, that you can be riding your bike on the public highway, perfectly legally, not riding in any way dangerously or hazardously. Then a pedestrian, who deliberately takes no notice of what's going on around them, walks onto the road in front of you, giving you no chance of avoiding them.
And for this you have to pay THEM compensation !


----------



## booze and cake (19 Jun 2019)

classic33 said:


> One good argument against mixing the two, in the same place.



But we can't reasonably expect to permanently keep peds, cyclists and drivers separate across the whole country, so we need a system that works for all road users, and presumed liability at least seems fairer, if its applied to everyone and not just cyclists!


----------



## classic33 (19 Jun 2019)

booze and cake said:


> But we can't reasonably expect to permanently keep peds, cyclists and drivers separate across the whole country, so we need a system that works for all road users, and presumed liability at least seems fairer, if its applied to everyone and not just cyclists!


You're right, we can't expect to keep the three completly seperate. But why mix wheeled traffic with foot traffic. Other than where they should meet, on the roads. On foot, you will at sometime have to travel on the roads.

Presumed liability, if introduced here, should apply across all road users. Not a select few. We need to be wary of knee jerk reactions to such incidents. Often they are overkill. Having identified the "hazard", you remove it and make things "safe" again. Instead of ticking box's on a sheet, you're doing the risk assesment realtime.


----------



## Milkfloat (19 Jun 2019)

I am a big fan of presumed liability, but what is done is shift the burden to prove innocence onto the party more likely to cause damage. It does not automatically mean that they are guilty. Using the defence that the other party was on the phone and stepped back into way of harm, together with 3 witnesses coming firmly on your side would often shift the blame. Presumed liability does not have a real bearing on this particular case.


----------



## Bazzer (19 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> I find it astonishing, that you can be riding your bike on the public highway, perfectly legally, not riding in any way dangerously or hazardously. Then a pedestrian, who deliberately takes no notice of what's going on around them, walks onto the road in front of you, giving you no chance of avoiding them.
> And for this you have to pay THEM compensation !



I think the point is whether speeds of "up to 15mph" were appropriate in a city centre where there were crowded pavements. Whilst your style of riding itself may not be a hazardous or dangerous, given the unpredictable behaviour of pedestrians and their priority on roads, your speed needs to be tempered to the circumstances.


----------



## theclaud (19 Jun 2019)

MichaelW2 said:


> She retreated to the traffic island by jumping backwards into the bit of road she had just crossed and that the cyclist was aiming for.
> *Very few riders are prepared for pedestrians to literally jump backwards into their path. *This seems to have been the case with that infamous cade of the woman killed by a cyclist on a fixie a year or two ago.
> The rider controlled his bike into empty road.



They should be - it's a very common reaction. Aiming for the space the pedestrian is leaving behind is the most attractive option for a brisk but civic-minded cyclist, who wishes to conserve momentum without bullying people put of the way. However, it's liable to take some pedestrians by surprise, especially if they didn't notice you were coming when they started to cross. To honk the horn *and* swerve behind is to send conflicting messages - the pedestrian doesn't need to be alerted to your presence if your course of action depends on him continuing what he was doing.


----------



## rugby bloke (19 Jun 2019)

Bazzer said:


> I think the point is whether speeds of "up to 15mph" were appropriate in a city centre where there were crowded pavements. Whilst your style of riding itself may not be a hazardous or dangerous, given the unpredictable behaviour of pedestrians and their priority on roads, your speed needs to be tempered to the circumstances.


This is an interesting thought. I regularly ride much quicker than 15 mph through London, the pavements naturally always have pedestrians on them, who could in theory, step out onto the road at any time. Perhaps I should reconsider the speed I ride at. As on all regular rides there are certain points where I am on high alert for random pedestrians crossing the road - the bus stop on the approach to Holborn Circus is a particular black spot. In the other situations I am pretty much looking to keep up with the traffic.


----------



## Globalti (19 Jun 2019)

The judgement seems entirely reasonable to me - if cyclists want to be treated as equals to motorists in the road-users' hierarchy they need to learn to use the road like motorists, which means looking out for hazards like dozy pedestrians. It's the minority of cyclists who rush around with a warped sense of entitlement who give the law-abiding majority of cyclists a bad name.


----------



## Johnno260 (19 Jun 2019)

I think this set a bad precedence.

I'm not saying the cyclist is not at fault, but the fact remains as a road user I have seen phone zombies walk into lamp posts, parked cars etc at the end of the day we teach our kids from a young age how to cross a road, if she had looked and paid attention before stepping into the road then it wouldn't have happened.

but hey least her yoga retreats have gotten a ton of free advertisement....

The comment about the air horn meh those bells do nothing in a busy street with traffic people and zombies with earphones, good luck using a bell.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> I find it astonishing, that you can be riding your bike on the public highway, perfectly legally, not riding in any way dangerously or hazardously. Then a pedestrian, who deliberately takes no notice of what's going on around them, walks onto the road in front of you, giving you no chance of avoiding them.
> And for this you have to pay THEM compensation !



For me, a key phrase used by the judge is "_pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way_ [priority]". I infer from that that the woman hadn't simply stepped off the kerb and into the cyclist's path unavoidably but was already established in crossing. 

The rider sounded a horn warning but was obviously too close to take proper evasive action when the pedestrian reacted as she did. An audible warning should be given with enough time for the parties involved to react safely, not in a panic. Being so close when sounding the horn that evasive action fails means the warning was given too late.


----------



## benb (19 Jun 2019)

It's the double standards that are galling.

We all know that had the person been driving a car instead of riding a bike, no one would be saying that 10-15MPH was too fast, and there would have been no payout to the injured pedestrian.

As for presumed liability, the key word is "presumed".
It doesn't mean the more dangerous vehicle is automatically at fault.


----------



## T4tomo (19 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> I find it astonishing, that you can be riding your bike on the public highway, perfectly legally, not riding in any way dangerously or hazardously. Then a pedestrian, who deliberately takes no notice of what's going on around them, walks onto the road in front of you, giving you no chance of avoiding them.
> And for this you have to pay THEM compensation !


I think, and we don't know having not seen all the court evidence, but the Judge is implying the cyclist did actually have a chance to avoid them. Indeed he honked his airhorn and swerved, rather than trying to stop.

Like some others, I initially was thinking if you step into the road looking at your phone you deserve all you get, but actually on reflection, you do deserve the other road user making their best endeavours to stop. 

To often I see cyclists in London yelling get out the way and riding at or close to pedestrians who are in the "wrong" place. It is frustrating but pedestrians about to do something stupid are spottable and we should do out best to avoid them, just as cars should give cyclists room and respect and not drive in a manner that put us in danger.

Sadly patience and courtesy are in short supply in some areas of our road network. 

Hopefully this case will raise awareness that first priority for any road user is to stop / slow down at first sign of danger. If it helps rid the world of airhorn on bikes, all the better.


----------



## PK99 (19 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> I find it astonishing, that you can be riding your bike on the public highway, perfectly legally, not riding in any way dangerously or hazardously. Then a pedestrian, who deliberately takes no notice of what's going on around them, walks onto the road in front of you, giving you no chance of avoiding them.
> And for this you have to pay THEM compensation !



But, if you are riding through busy pedestrian thronged areas where pedestrians cross and are riding at speed and cannot stop in time, it is arguable that your riding was not "not in any way dangerous or hazardous" which seems to be what the judge found.


----------



## Smudge (19 Jun 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> For me, a key phrase used by the judge is "_pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way_ [priority]". I infer from that that the woman hadn't simply stepped off the kerb and into the cyclist's path unavoidably but was already established in crossing.
> 
> The rider sounded a horn warning but was obviously too close to take proper evasive action when the pedestrian reacted as she did. An audible warning should be given with enough time for the parties involved to react safely, not in a panic. Being so close when sounding the horn that evasive action fails means the warning was given too late.



I guess it all comes down to how near the cyclist was to her when she stepped off the curb. The judge will only have the witnesses as independent accounts of what happened. Witnesses aren't always totally reliable, they can differ from one to another and witnesses can be prejudicial in how they see things.
I expect on another day, with a different judge, the outcome could have gone in the cyclists favour.
But knowing what a hazard these smartphone zombies can be, and having extremely close calls with them myself, i'm on the cyclists side in this instance. But none of us can be 100% sure either way, because we weren't there.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> It's the double standards that are galling.
> We all know that had the person been driving a car instead of riding a bike, no one would be saying that 10-15MPH was too fast, and there would have been no payout to the injured pedestrian.



I agree about the double standards but does this mean we should lower the standard expected of people on bikes too so that the more vulnerable user is further disadvantaged?



benb said:


> It doesn't mean the more dangerous vehicle is automatically at fault.



It doesn't presume fault, which is for the criminal courts, but presumes liability for damages via the civil courts. This is an important distinction.


----------



## swee'pea99 (19 Jun 2019)

booze and cake said:


> But we can't reasonably expect to permanently keep peds, cyclists and drivers separate across the whole country, so we need a system that works for all road users, and presumed liability at least seems fairer, if its applied to everyone and not just cyclists!


Spot on. And pending that, any cyclist (and driver, needless to say) should commit to doing everything in their power to avoid hurting other people, even stupid ones. Which doesn't mean travelling at less than 15mph, or any other arbitrary speed. It just means riding in a way - including at a speed - which is appropriate to the conditions and circumstances, particularly the presence and likely/possible actions of other people.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (19 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> I guess it all comes down to how near the cyclist was to her when she stepped off the curb. The judge will only have the witnesses as independent accounts of what happened. Witnesses aren't always totally reliable, they can differ from one to another and witnesses can be prejudicial in how they see things.
> I expect on another day, with a different judge, the outcome could have gone in the cyclists favour.
> But knowing what a hazard these smartphone zombies can be, and having extremely close calls with them myself, i'm on the cyclists side in this instance. But none of us can be 100% sure either way, because we weren't there.


IIRC there was another cyclist who stated that the rider was at fault, but their account was disregarded by the Judge, who took account of the other peds., who said that Yoga Lady was at fault. I'm more puzzled the more I think about it - not the verdict, which I understand, but the process of how she arrived at it, and explained it.
One where the original full judgement would need to be read, I think.


----------



## Johnno260 (19 Jun 2019)

He had more witnesses saying she was at fault, considering we aren't the most popular road users that speak volumes to me.

I have been victim of someone else causing an accident due to their bad mistakes, and I was found at fault, so I have sympathy with the cyclist here.

I was backing onto my driveway with the flow of traffic, and someone came round the corner speeding, he massively over steered and swerved across the verge and pavement on the other side of the road and took out a telegraph pole. crash investigator said he was travelling way to fast and if was dong the speed limit had ample time to stop, my insurance said I was in the road and an obstacle, yea I barely had my front wheels on the road as I had almost completed my maneuver, but they basically didn't want a court battle.

Get better solicitor and do as you please pretty much.


----------



## T4tomo (19 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> It's the double standards that are galling.
> 
> We all know that had the person been driving a car instead of riding a bike, no one would be saying that 10-15MPH was too fast, and there would have been no payout to the injured pedestrian.
> 
> ...


It's not the speed that mattered here, it's the actions of the cyclist. If a car driver had honked, not braked and tried to squeeze past the pedestrian, pretty sure the judge wouldn't be letting them off Scott free.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Jun 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> If it's 50:50 liability surprised one party is being asked to make a payout to the other. I'd have thought it'd just be a case of equal responsibility no payout.



It appears that only one party sought damages. Had the cyclist done so too, his award would similarly have been reduced by 50%. There's nothing to say the amount he may have been awarded would be the same though.


----------



## Dommo (19 Jun 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> Spot on. And pending that, any cyclist (and driver, needless to say) should commit to doing everything in their power to avoid hurting other people, even stupid ones.



Indeed, as aggravating as it is to have to take responsibility for the safety of morons who don't believe they should do it themselves, it's part of being a road user. My ride takes me past places such as Buckingham Palace and Parliament Square and I've not hit a ped (yet) and it's not through the mindfulness of their actions... For example, I come down Constitution hill at easily 40 kph, but I never think to try and carry any speed through the corner at the bottom since you can pretty much guarantee people just strolling out to take photo in the middle of the cycle lane. To be honest I rather enjoy dropping to a slower speed and then shouting "Eyes up, lemmings!!!" as I approach and watch them scatter. 

As far as phone zombies when I'm on foot though... My *second* favourite thing is just looking directly at them and not moving out of their way so we walk straight into each other.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (19 Jun 2019)

Johnno260 said:


> He had more witnesses saying she was at fault, considering we aren't the most popular road users that speak volumes to me.
> 
> I have been victim of someone else causing an accident due to their bad mistakes, and I was found at fault, so I have sympathy with the cyclist here.
> 
> ...


Just apropos of your incident, remember in future that you don't have to allow your own insurers to handle it. I have personal experience of this where mine wanted to go 50-50 (because cheaper) and I told 'em to stuff it, and went to a Claims Mgt company, and won.


----------



## PK99 (19 Jun 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> Spot on. And pending that, any cyclist (and driver, needless to say) should commit to doing everything in their power to avoid hurting other people, even stupid ones.



As a general principle of life:

"...every person should commit to doing everything in their power to avoid hurting other people, even stupid ones."


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Jun 2019)

PK99 said:


> As a general principle of life:
> 
> "...every person should commit to doing everything in their power to avoid hurting other people, even stupid ones."



Or as the Highway Code puts it:

_The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they do advise you when you should give way to others. 
Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident_


----------



## benb (19 Jun 2019)

T4tomo said:


> It's not the speed that mattered here, it's the actions of the cyclist. If a car driver had honked, not braked and tried to squeeze past the pedestrian, pretty sure the judge wouldn't be letting them off Scott free.



That's a rather odd way of interpreting the facts of the case, as we know them.
What makes you think the cyclist didn't brake?

I completely agree it's incumbent on all road users to make allowances for the mistakes of others, but I can't see how the cyclist is at fault at all from the account. The pedestrian stepped directly into the cyclist's path - it's not really different from someone pulling out from a side road is it?


----------



## MichaelW2 (19 Jun 2019)

The Starling Crossing is an intriguing and possibly useful update of the pedestrian crossing, adapting to users.

http://umbrellium.co.uk/initiatives/starling-crossing/


----------



## icowden (19 Jun 2019)

I agree that this:
_
He had more witnesses saying she was at fault, considering we aren't the most popular road users that speak volumes to me._

is important. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is an appeal.


----------



## T4tomo (19 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> That's a rather odd way of interpreting the facts of the case, as we know them.
> What makes you think the cyclist didn't brake?
> ?


The bit where its reported he sounded an airhorn and swerved and the absence of any reporting that says he tried to stop. 

As I also said earlier in the thread, we're all guessing a bit, as we weren't in course to see and hear the evidence.


----------



## Johnno260 (19 Jun 2019)

Like you said, it’s all guess work on our part, but swerving is still trying to avoid the person, we don’t know distances if it was wet etc maybe he felt there wasn’t time to brake.


----------



## benb (19 Jun 2019)

T4tomo said:


> The bit where its reported he sounded an airhorn and swerved and the absence of any reporting that says he tried to stop.
> 
> As I also said earlier in the thread, we're all guessing a bit, as we weren't in course to see and hear the evidence.



I guess you missed this part from the article then:

"Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his bike, as well as shouting, swerving and *braking *in a bid to avoid the pedestrian"


----------



## numbnuts (19 Jun 2019)

I wonder if a helmet/bike cam would have influenced the judge as she has amnesia _(rather handy for her) _and then everybody could have seen what really happened, it will be interesting to see how much she gets.


----------



## Kempstonian (19 Jun 2019)

It may be that if he hadn't sounded the horn he would have been able to swerve behind her. After all it seems to be the horn that frightened her into jumping backwards.


----------



## Johnno260 (19 Jun 2019)

Kempstonian said:


> It may be that if he hadn't sounded the horn he would have been able to swerve behind her. After all it seems to be the horn that frightened her into jumping backwards.



I think he would be damned either way, ring a bell with all that background noise, not be heard as everyone has noise cancelling ear/headphones and hit her anyway.

This is why I love my rural routes and avoid town centers as much as possible.


----------



## Kempstonian (19 Jun 2019)

Probably best to give no warning at all because if she had taken another step forward, instead of backwards, there would most likely have been enough room for him to get through.


----------



## Origamist (19 Jun 2019)

Seems like an equitable judgment to me.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (19 Jun 2019)

Kempstonian said:


> Probably best to give no warning at all because if she had taken another step forward, instead of backwards, there would most likely have been enough room for him to get through.


When we used to be younger and even more foolish, one learned to throw sharp objects directly at friends, lest they moved into said sharp object's path when one threw to miss them.


----------



## middleagecyclist (19 Jun 2019)

Few years ago i cycled into a pedestrian who stepped into the road. I got bad facial injuries and 40 mins of amnesia (could only recall from the point of getting into the ambulance which I could work out by my etrex). Just passed a parked van, saw the ped on the pavement with his back to the road, realized I was in a left turn lane so glanced rt shoulder to merge back into main traffic, on looking forward realized the ped had stepped off the high kerb onto the road. I was doing <10mph, knew I was going to hit him despite hard braking and then...witnesses say I took him out and then face planted the kerb. I have no memory of the event. Lost half a tooth, got a nasty periorbital haematoma and multiple facial abrasions, front wheel wrecked and forks twisted. The ped had general aches but no serious injuries. I tried to get ped details to sue but the Police were not forthcoming after the event. Officer at the scene though was great and made clear all the witnesses said I had no chance to avoid collision. Lesson? Every thing which has ability to move is a potential killer. Glad I had insurance though in case the ped made out I was at fault.


----------



## T4tomo (19 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> I guess you missed this part from the article then:
> 
> "Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his bike, as well as shouting, swerving and *braking *in a bid to avoid the pedestrian"



No reference to braking in the Evening Standard article.


----------



## alicat (19 Jun 2019)

middleagecyclist said:


> Few years ago i cycled into a pedestrian who stepped into the road. I got bad facial injuries and 40 mins of amnesia (could only recall from the point of getting into the ambulance which I could work out by my etrex). Just passed a parked van, saw the ped on the pavement with his back to the road, realized I was in a left turn lane so glanced rt shoulder to merge back into main traffic, on looking forward realized the ped had stepped off the high kerb onto the road. I was doing <10mph, knew I was going to hit him despite hard braking and then...witnesses say I took him out and then face planted the kerb. I have no memory of the event. Lost half a tooth, got a nasty periorbital haematoma and multiple facial abrasions, front wheel wrecked and forks twisted. The ped had general aches but no serious injuries. I tried to get ped details to sue but the Police were not forthcoming after the event. Officer at the scene though was great and made clear all the witnesses said I had no chance to avoid collision. Lesson? Every thing which has ability to move is a potential killer. Glad I had insurance though in case the ped made out I was at fault.



That's terrible. I would give it a 'like' if it didn't give the wrong impression.


----------



## NorthernDave (20 Jun 2019)

One correspondents take on this:

Telegraph: It's time to ban walking under the influence of smartphones.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/mind/time-ban-walking-influence-smartphones/


----------



## nickyboy (20 Jun 2019)

NorthernDave said:


> One correspondents take on this:
> 
> Telegraph: It's time to ban walking under the influence of smartphones.
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/mind/time-ban-walking-influence-smartphones/


Tbh in London I am walking and looking at my phone a hell of a lot of the time.

I use Google maps to navigate around. It's by far the most efficient way. It's very easy to become unaware of your surroundings while doing this

Phones are here to stay, you can't effectively ban their use while walking (all I would do is use an a to z which is even worse). We all just have to accept and get used to the phone zombies and modify our behaviour accordingly


----------



## benb (20 Jun 2019)

I also frequently look at my phone whilst I am walking. I don't think this is an issue.
What I don't do is just wander into the road still looking at it, not having checked properly for traffic.


----------



## classic33 (20 Jun 2019)

nickyboy said:


> Tbh in London I am walking and looking at my phone a hell of a lot of the time.
> 
> I use Google maps to navigate around. It's by far the most efficient way. It's very easy to become unaware of your surroundings while doing this
> 
> Phones are here to stay, you can't effectively ban their use while walking *(all I would do is use an a to z which is even worse).* We all just have to accept and get used to the phone zombies and modify our behaviour accordingly


When was the last time you saw an A to Z, or similar, being used as much as a phone.


----------



## skudupnorth (20 Jun 2019)

I see phone zombies everywhere on the commute to work, they are like skittish lemmings looking at their precious phones and not taking any notice of their surroundings. This poor cyclist is the victim and the judge is obviously a typical arse who does not like cyclists. 
He has basically opened the flood gates to all the stupid people who through their own fault, get injured and then can blame someone else for their stupidity ! 
What would have happened if she had walked in front of a car ? What would have happened if the cyclist ended up under a car after she had caused the accident ? I would sue her back and make sure the press have a field day like they have for this innocent cyclist to warn other phone zombies that stupid people shouldn’t benefit from their own actions


----------



## DaveReading (20 Jun 2019)

skudupnorth said:


> This poor cyclist is the victim and the judge is obviously a typical arse who does not like cyclists.
> 
> He has basically opened the flood gates to all the stupid people who through their own fault, get injured and then can blame someone else for their stupidity !



She has indeed ...


----------



## Stephenite (20 Jun 2019)

There was a case in here in Norway a few years back where a cyclist went into the back of a car that had stopped in the middle of the road. There was an incident during the Lillehammer to Oslo ride and the driver stopped to help the crashed riders in front of him. The driver was found liable under the objective responsibility (presumed liability) law. But the cyclist got a 25% reduction in his payout because he should have been looking where he was going.

The judge in this case seems to have decided England is going to have a objective responsibility (presumed liability) law. Great! But as it's been said upthread. This ought to go for everyone not only cyclists.


----------



## fossyant (20 Jun 2019)

Don't get me started on phone zombies on trails/bridleways - the ruddy creatures have found them too.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (20 Jun 2019)

nickyboy said:


> Tbh in London I am walking and looking at my phone a hell of a lot of the time.
> 
> I use Google maps to navigate around. It's by far the most efficient way. It's very easy to become unaware of your surroundings while doing this



So you think that just because you act like a complete idiot when out on the street that everyone else should watch out for you because you are too stupid & irresponsible to take care of your own safety?
How about doing what normal sensible people do when they want to read a map; stop walking, stand still, get your bearings, put the map/phone away, then start walking again?


----------



## sheddy (20 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> I also frequently look at my phone whilst I am walking. I don't think this is an issue.
> What I don't do is just wander into the road still looking at it, not having checked properly for traffic.



So look at where you are going and listen to the audio instructions....


----------



## Pat "5mph" (20 Jun 2019)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> How about doing what normal sensible people do when they want to read a map; stop walking, stand still, get your bearings, put the map/phone away, then start walking again?


This method works with paper maps, up to a point.
Well, if you have a long street to follow, otherwise you need to consult more often.
However, one needs to walk with Google map: it will show you the way from your current position.
If you stop, the wee Google man stops too, stuck in repeating "turn left, turn left..."
If you don't turn, you don't get the next set of instructions.


----------



## numbnuts (21 Jun 2019)

Cyclist faces bankruptcy after he is forced to pay £100k in court costs and compensation because he was not insured
sorry it's the Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ga-teacher-Gemma-Brushett-knocked-London.html


----------



## alicat (21 Jun 2019)

It's a shame he didn't counterclaim against her for stepping into his path. It does reinforce the wisdom of having insurance.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Jun 2019)

> But if he had been insured and launched a counter claim, Ms Brushett would have been only allowed to claim £7,000 in costs.


Not sure I understand this quote from the report, does it mean that by simply issuing a counterclaim there would be limited liability but only if insured.


----------



## Smudge (21 Jun 2019)

Soon, you will need insurance when walking, just in case you bump into someone.
She has only gained a paltry £4K in pursuing this, but in the process has ruined someone financially.


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jun 2019)

The poor guy is facing bankruptcy now;
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...g-at-her-phone-faces-bankruptcy-a4172661.html


----------



## Phaeton (21 Jun 2019)

Cycleops said:


> The poor guy is facing bankruptcy now;
> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...g-at-her-phone-faces-bankruptcy-a4172661.html


https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/p...cyclist-gets-compensation.250372/post-5657413


----------



## Chris S (21 Jun 2019)

I frequently have near misses with pedestrians when I cycle into town (a lot of them seem to be stoned).
Can anybody recommend a cycling insurance company? My bike isn't worth much so I just need Third Party.


----------



## numbnuts (21 Jun 2019)

https://www.cyclinguk.org/join


----------



## Phaeton (21 Jun 2019)

I can see a big jump in the number of companies offering insurance going forward


----------



## nickyboy (21 Jun 2019)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> So you think that just because you act like a complete idiot when out on the street that everyone else should watch out for you because you are too stupid & irresponsible to take care of your own safety?
> How about doing what normal sensible people do when they want to read a map; stop walking, stand still, get your bearings, put the map/phone away, then start walking again?


To provide the contra-argument, do you think it is reasonable for a cyclist to ride as fast as they like when they know there are lots of idiots around who may step out into the road?


----------



## T4tomo (21 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Not sure I understand this quote from the report, does it mean that by simply issuing a counterclaim there would be limited liability but only if insured.


If that is the case, he's been badly advised by his lawyers. I note no figure has yet been put on costs, that is just her parasite lawyers milking it with a big claim. 2 day court hearing shouldn't be £100k in fees.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Jun 2019)

nickyboy said:


> To provide the contra-argument, do you think it is reasonable for a cyclist to ride as fast as they like when they know there are lots of idiots around who may step out into the road?


Not sure we know what speed he was doing


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Jun 2019)

T4tomo said:


> If that is the case, he's been badly advised by his lawyers. I note no figure has yet been put on costs, that is just her parasite lawyers milking it with a big claim. 2 day court hearing shouldn't be £100k in fees.



He did not get a lawyer until it was too late.


----------



## NorthernDave (21 Jun 2019)

Chris S said:


> I frequently have near misses with pedestrians when I cycle into town (a lot of them seem to be stoned).
> Can anybody recommend a cycling insurance company? My bike isn't worth much so I just need Third Party.



British Cycling membership includes TP legal cover at most grades.
Roughly £35/year and if you don't get that and more back from the various freebies and discount deals offered as part of the membership I'd be surprised. 

Check though as you might already have legal protection through your house insurance - just make sure it covers you while cycling.


----------



## Johnno260 (21 Jun 2019)

NorthernDave said:


> British Cycling membership includes TP legal cover at most grades.
> Roughly £35/year and if you don't get that and more back from the various freebies and discount deals offered as part of the membership I'd be surprised.
> 
> Check though as you might already have legal protection through your house insurance - just make sure it covers you while cycling.



This! I soon as I started racking up more miles I signed up. and the discounts more than paid for it.


----------



## Chris S (21 Jun 2019)

NorthernDave said:


> Check though as you might already have legal protection through your house insurance - just make sure it covers you while cycling.


I renewed my home insurance last week and I unticked the legal protection option


----------



## Johnno260 (21 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> I can see a big jump in the number of companies offering insurance going forward



The other guy who cycles in the office renewed his insurance after reading this story.

I think it's disgusting and I hope it's just a case of a greedy lawyer pushing for above the odds compensation.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Jun 2019)

Chris S said:


> I renewed my home insurance last week and I unticked the legal protection option


There is no certainty that legal protection is the same as 3rd party liability


----------



## nickyboy (21 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Not sure we know what speed he was doing


My question is should a cyclist modify their speed in the knowledge that there are plenty of phone zombies around who may step out onto the road?
Or should a cyclist ride at whatever speed they like (be that slow or fast) regardless?
And if it's agreed that maybe a cyclist should modify their speed in these circumstance is it not the case that failure to do so means the cyclist has some responsibility in any ensuing accident?


----------



## Jody (21 Jun 2019)

fossyant said:


> Don't get me started on phone zombies on trails/bridleways - the ruddy creatures have found them too.



Made worse when they have headphones in.


----------



## si_c (21 Jun 2019)

Chris S said:


> I renewed my home insurance last week and I unticked the legal protection option


Give them a ring - they'll let you add it back on.


----------



## Johnno260 (21 Jun 2019)

nickyboy said:


> My question is should a cyclist modify their speed in the knowledge that there are plenty of phone zombies around who may step out onto the road?
> Or should a cyclist ride at whatever speed they like (be that slow or fast) regardless?
> And if it's agreed that maybe a cyclist should modify their speed in these circumstance is it not the case that failure to do so means the cyclist has some responsibility in any ensuing accident?



The ruling said 50/50% share of responsibility, he had 4 witnesses saying she was at fault, she had 1 witness, that it equates to 100k in costs if she is equally responsible?

People should cycle as per the situation sure, but he had the green light and she stepped into the road without looking, it's why we teach our children to look and listen *before* stepping into the road.

This is why I gave my number to a driver recently, some dozy muppet ran into the road while he was turning right, she ran straight into the side of his car, he was stationary waiting for a gap in the traffic, she knocked her self onto the floor and was screaming at the driver that it was his fault, I can see a self entitled little snowflake like that seeing this story and attempt to sue the driver for her stupidity.


----------



## bigjim (21 Jun 2019)

I find it hard to understand how this judge is a cycling expert. Were other experts called to give evidence? Who decides appropriate speed, reactions by sounding the horn, swerving around the obstacle etc?


----------



## Johnno260 (21 Jun 2019)

if she had stepped in front of a london bus doing 10-15mph it would've been a lot messier.


----------



## Chris S (21 Jun 2019)

si_c said:


> Give them a ring - they'll let you add it back on.


Changing my policy will probably cost me more than the £35 CTC want 
And, like Phaeton said, legal protection may not include the actual damages


----------



## booze and cake (21 Jun 2019)

Johnno260 said:


> if she had stepped in front of a london bus doing 10-15mph it would've been a lot messier.



And tellingly if that had happened it wouldn't have even made the news.....


----------



## Johnno260 (21 Jun 2019)

The other issue is people using headphones and noise cancelling ones as well, I just think they have set a dangerous precedence with this ruling.


----------



## booze and cake (21 Jun 2019)

Is anyone else annoyed that most of the press reports about this case refer to Gemma Brushett as a yoga teacher. She may run a few yoga classes on the side, but her principle employment seems to be working for a 'financial institution' in the city. Is that a bank? Bit vague isn't it after being so specific on the cyclists job as a landscape designer.

If the press had said 'banker' I think they feel she would have received less sympathy, so the entire story seems to be have been deliberately worded to cast the cyclist in a bad light and not the pedestrian. And most of the reports I've seen make no mention at all about her job for a financial institution. It seems very biased reporting to me. 

It seems like they may as well have gone the whole hog and added animal lover and part time charity worker Ms Brushett was crashed into by tattooed death metal fan Mr Hazeldean......


----------



## numbnuts (21 Jun 2019)

This is going to happen again very soon “walking zombie for cash", so be on your guard.


----------



## tom73 (21 Jun 2019)

It got even worse she want's cost's too about 100K. Look's like he guy is on his way to bankruptcy just go's to show you really do need insurance.
What ever the right's or wrong's in this case or another maybe how ever you got cover just get covered. 
https://road.cc/content/news/262582...h-pedestrian-facing-bankruptcy-after-claimant


----------



## bigjim (21 Jun 2019)

Evidently he "ploughed into her at up to 15mph". I thought they both collided?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Jun 2019)

bigjim said:


> Evidently he "ploughed into her at up to 15mph". I thought they both collided?



That means between 0mph - 15mph, could be 4mph could be 12mph. How was that determined, actual GPS data (which will only cover his position to the nearest second and not that useful for actual speed) ?


----------



## booze and cake (21 Jun 2019)

I'm no farmer but I thought ploughing was slow.

The press do this sort of thing all the time, again its framing the cyclist in a bad light from the off. I've lost count of the times they report a cyclist involved in accident with a car, like the car was driving itself. No it was the driver who crashed their car into.....Yet conversely I have never heard of a report where a car was involved in an accident with a bicycle, as it hints there's no rider involved, and if they did people would think its ridiculous. Double standards again.


----------



## fossyant (21 Jun 2019)

Must say, a teenager (late teens) stepped out in front of my car a few minutes ago - walking towards me, headphones in, just not looking and stepped out. Fortunately I wasn't going fast (10 mph) and had already seen him and was well over to the right - the look on his face when he realised what he had done !


----------



## Bazzer (21 Jun 2019)

Johnno260 said:


> The other issue is people using headphones and noise cancelling ones as well, I just think they have set a dangerous precedence with this ruling.



I had one just the other day on my commute. Running with his dog, (not on a lead), he decided to cross the road without looking backwards, just in front of me. He seemed to have decided that nothing but him and his dog are out at 5.30 am and was very fortunate my spidey senses kicked in as I approached and I wasn't one of the driving morons I encounter all too frequently.


----------



## Slick (21 Jun 2019)

tom73 said:


> It got even worse she want's cost's too about 100K. Look's like he guy is on his way to bankruptcy just go's to show you really do need insurance.
> What ever the right's or wrong's in this case or another maybe how ever you got cover just get covered.
> https://road.cc/content/news/262582...h-pedestrian-facing-bankruptcy-after-claimant


His go fund me page is looking healthy though. 

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-cover-rob-hazeldean039s-legal-fees


----------



## Phaeton (21 Jun 2019)

nickyboy said:


> My question is should a cyclist modify their speed in the knowledge that there are plenty of phone zombies around who may step out onto the road?


Yes


nickyboy said:


> Or should a cyclist ride at whatever speed they like (be that slow or fast) regardless?


No


nickyboy said:


> And if it's agreed that maybe a cyclist should modify their speed in these circumstance is it not the case that failure to do so means the cyclist has some responsibility in any ensuing accident?


Correct the judge ruled 50/50 so presumably the judge ruled he was still traveling too fast for the circumstances & she should have looked before she stepped out. Again pure speculation but the imjuries she sustained plus the loss of earnings etc. must have equated to £8Kish so she was granted £4Kish damages.

But the issue is not the damages it is the fact she had far better council than he did, if he had any, it's all the court costs, solicitors & barrister fees which are his problem, but as somebody put higher up, how the costs can amount to £100K is beyond comprehension to me.

Edit:- On the fundraising page they are only after £21K so where the £100K came from is anybodies guess, unless it's called journalistic license


----------



## bigjim (21 Jun 2019)

> Edit:- On the fundraising page they are only after £21K so where the £100K came from is anybodies guess, unless it's called journalistic license


They have reached their target. The judge has intimated costs will be 20K . Her greedy lawyers are after 100K.


----------



## Daddy Pig (21 Jun 2019)

Can he not sue her in a civil court for causing an accident by wonton moronic behaviour?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Jun 2019)

Daddy Pig said:


> Can he not sue her in a civil court for causing an accident by wonton moronic behaviour?



Not now, more than three years after the incident. He's missed his chance.


----------



## bigjim (21 Jun 2019)

Evidently he doesn't believe in the blame culture which is why he didn't pursue her in the first place. He's giving any surplus to some aid scheme that he' supports and has been sponsoring a child over there for 13 years. If he went bust this gift would be at risk. Works for a Mental Health charity. Doesn't sound like your typical hoodlum.


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (21 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> But the issue is not the damages *it is the fact she had far better council than he did*, if he had any, it's all the court costs, solicitors & barrister fees which are his problem, but as somebody put higher up, how the costs can amount to £100K is beyond comprehension to me.
> 
> Edit:- *On the fundraising page they are only after £21K so where the £100K came from is anybodies guess, unless it's called journalistic license*



In the GoFundMe page for Mr Hazeldean, it says:

"_£4,300 for the compensation, payable in 14 days. 
£10,000 to cover the pedestrian's legal fees, payable in 21 days (this may increase when the final cost award is declared as *they are seeking around £100,000 in costs - but £10,000 was the amount indicated by the judge*).
£7,000 to cover Robert's own legal fees._"

Mr. Hazeldean's solicitor's statement on the status of costs is worthy of note:

"_The Personal Injury team is acting for Mr Robert Hazeldean in defending a claim brought against him by Gemma Brushett.

Unfortunately, *Mr Hazeldean had not felt able to instruct solicitors at the outset due to costs. He therefore tried to deal with the case as a litigant in person. The Claimant took advantage of this and has now sought almost £100,000 in costs. We are strongly resisting this as a total abuse of process, and are pleased to report that the court has listed this matter for a third occasion. The court has ordered that the Claimant pays our client’s costs of this third hearing.*

Emma Farrell, head of the Personal Injury team, said; “If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the Claimant’s legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690. If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order._”

The judge is clearly unhappy with Ms Brushett racking up disproportionate "costs" of c£100,000 unreasonably under the circumstance (vs £10,000 indicated by the judge). If she proceeds the way it seems to be going, chance is that most if not all the excess claimed will be rejected, with shortfall resulting may or may not be covered by her insurer. If not, she might have to eat some/all herself, depending on prior agreement between her and her lawyers. Additionally, her "damages" awarded, which is merely £4300 (presumably 50% of £8600 to account for 50:50 blame allocation), is going to be decimated by his lawyers' costs at the third hearing.

Hence it is far too early to say whether Ms Brushett will end up with anything. If not, it would be poetic justice for Ms Brushett, imho.

Consequently, it is also too early to say if she had/has "better" counsel.


----------



## classic33 (21 Jun 2019)

Her yoga classes must have been bringing in a fair bit.


----------



## Johnno260 (21 Jun 2019)

classic33 said:


> Her yoga classes must have been bringing in a fair bit.



All the free advertising she has gotten as every news article mentions it.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Jun 2019)

Is robot moronic yoga a thing


----------



## flake99please (22 Jun 2019)

Johnno260 said:


> All the free advertising she has gotten as every news article mentions it.



Certainly a service I shall avoid


----------



## DaveReading (22 Jun 2019)

Johnno260 said:


> All the free advertising she has gotten as every news article mentions it.



She might be regretting some of it. 

From How did it go - Running and Yoga 26K:


> "The Chamonix valley sits at the foot of Mt Blanc which provides a stunning backdrop to this introduction to mountain trails combined with relaxing yoga sessions following each run. On this holiday we provide a 2 half-day running adventure break combined with yoga led by Gemma Brushett, aimed at yogis looking to discover trail running, co-led by Karen Gill (www.irunlikeagirl.org.uk) in the mountains for the first time, as well as more experienced runners looking for a spot of comfort whilst pursuing their passion for running and yoga."



Contained (as of last night) only one review:


> "Cyclist
> 
> Did the 26k over 2 Days in 2019
> Make sure you don’t knock Gemma over, she’ll sue you. It’s unbelievable that’s she was in the wrong, by not paying attention and has now bankrupt a poor bloke."



The review has now been removed, as well as any mention of the lady's name on the website.

I suspect she is now coming to an understanding of what a Pyrrhic victory is.


----------



## Illaveago (22 Jun 2019)

I think people are becoming too complacent and not looking where they are going . 
A chap in his 70's crossed a road right in front of me yesterday without even lifting his eyes from the prescripion he was looking at . He only noticed me when he looked behind to see me drive past him .
What chances will these people have when electric and autonomous vehicles become the norm ?


----------



## NorthernDave (22 Jun 2019)

Illaveago said:


> I think people are becoming too complacent and not looking where they are going .
> A chap in his 70's crossed a road right in front of me yesterday without even lifting his eyes from the prescripion he was looking at . He only noticed me when he looked behind to see me drive past him .
> What chances will these people have when electric and autonomous vehicles become the norm ?



No need to worry - when autonomous emergency braking and pedestrian avoidance becomes prevelant, people will be able to wander about without paying attention even more, safe in the knowledge that the car will stop. Probably.


----------



## Illaveago (22 Jun 2019)

NorthernDave said:


> No need to worry - when autonomous emergency braking and pedestrian avoidance becomes prevelant, people will be able to wander about without paying attention even more, safe in the knowledge that the car will stop. Probably.


Where I see it breaking down is when they design the sotware to suit different countries views on Jaywalking. If it is designed for countries where the laws are applied it will assume that people will behave predictably and not suddenly leap out without warning .
I have noticed that some people have adopted a new technique for crossing on Zebra crossings . Walk casualy along the pavement as if you are continuing straight on, without so much as a glance over your shoulder suddenly leap onto the crossing !


----------



## classic33 (22 Jun 2019)

DaveReading said:


> She might be regretting some of it.
> 
> From How did it go - Running and Yoga 26K:
> 
> ...


Same piece is available elsewhere.

Wondering if this is the same person. BRUSHETT, Gemma Louise


----------



## theclaud (22 Jun 2019)

bigjim said:


> I find it hard to understand how this judge is a cycling expert. Were other experts called to give evidence? Who decides appropriate speed, reactions by sounding the horn, swerving around the obstacle etc?



How much of a Cycling Expert does one need to be to understand that one shouldn't ride one's bike into a person (even an annoying person), and that if one does, one ought to answer for it? [Sorry about all the 'ones' - I sound like the farking queen]. This is a fairly depressing thread, with the majority of people swallowing a load of Dail Mail divide-and-rule propaganda. That sh*trag is biased against the pedestrian, not the cyclist, in this instance. Hence the extremely temporary BTL 'support' for the cyclist, and the 'yoga teacher' characterisation. See also 'phone zombie', 'snowflake' etc. We should stand up for pedestrians, not run them down - they are on the frontline here. This isn't an opinion on the costs, which do sound excessive. Good on @nickyboy and a few others for sticking up for streets as social space.


----------



## bigjim (22 Jun 2019)

> How much of a Cycling Expert does one need to be to understand that one shouldn't ride one's bike into a person (even an annoying person),


I didn't realize that he deliberately rode into her. I thought he tried to avoid her and she stepped back into him. or his path. Apologies, my mistake. I don't know if she is annoying or not, I've never met her.


----------



## alicat (22 Jun 2019)

^^^ me too. I thought she wandered out in to the road while looking at her phone and he did his best to avoid her but failed when she heard his airhorn and stepped backwards.


----------



## numbnuts (22 Jun 2019)

bigjim said:


> I didn't realize that he deliberately rode into her. I thought he tried to avoid her and she stepped back into him. or his path. Apologies, my mistake. I don't know if she is annoying or not, I've never met her.


He didn't


> Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his bike, as well as shouting, swerving and braking in a bid to avoid the pedestrian - but ploughed into her at up to 15mph.


----------



## PK99 (22 Jun 2019)

alicat said:


> ^^^ me too. I thought she wandered out in to the road while looking at her phone and he did his best to avoid her but failed when she heard his airhorn and stepped backwards.



I'm sure we have all seen the you tube vids of AirZoundMan blasting his horn at full blast in a "Get Out Of My Farking Way" manner - Lewis AKA "son of the winds" was a classic example. I'm guessing, but that is what the Cyclist who criticised most likely meant. Yes the lady was daft, but to ride at that speed, in that area, with that number of pedestrians around was poor cycling form.

Also a warning, horn or bell, normally prompts either stop or retreat, to aim for a gap that was likely to narrow was very poor cycling. ​


----------



## Kempstonian (22 Jun 2019)

PK99 said:


> I'm sure we have all seen the you tube vids of AirZoundMan blasting his horn at full blast in a "Get Out Of My Farking Way" manner - Lewis AKA "son of the winds" was a classic example. I'm guessing, but that is what the Cyclist who criticised most likely meant. Yes the lady was daft, but to ride at that speed, in that area, with that number of pedestrians around was poor cycling form.
> 
> Also a warning, horn or bell, normally prompts either stop or retreat, t*o aim for a gap that was likely to narrow was very poor cycling.* ​


And stepping into the road without looking was very poor pedestrianing. I learned not to do that in infancy. "Stop, look both ways, wait for a gap and then cross". Its not rocket science. Even kids can do it. If this young woman had there wouldn't have even been an accident.


----------



## theclaud (22 Jun 2019)

bigjim said:


> I didn't realize that he deliberately rode into her. I thought he tried to avoid her and she stepped back into him. or his path. Apologies, my mistake. I don't know if she is annoying or not, I've never met her.


Call me old-fashioned, but I think we shouldn't ride into people, deliberately or not. It's a bit annoying when people pay zero attention, because it puts more onus on everyone else - it doesn't justify knocking them over tho. The stepping back thing is entirely foreseeable, and arguably caused by his use of the airhorn.


----------



## Kempstonian (22 Jun 2019)

btw was her drink ok? The phone zombies around here usually have a phone in one hand and a drink bottle (or coffee) in the other.


----------



## theclaud (22 Jun 2019)

Kempstonian said:


> And stepping into the road without looking was very poor pedestrianing. I learned not to do that in infancy. "Stop, look both ways, wait for a gap and then cross". Its not rocket science. Even kids can do it. If this young woman had there wouldn't have even been an accident.


It's all part of the endless campaign to teach people to get out of the way of cars. I see it's worked on you.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Jun 2019)

theclaud said:


> It's all part of the endless campaign to teach people to get out of the way of cars. I see it's worked on you.


No cars involved


----------



## theclaud (22 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> No cars involved


Right - the Green Cross Code and Tufty and all that bollocks is nowt to do with cars. Got it.


----------



## bigjim (22 Jun 2019)

theclaud said:


> It's all part of the endless campaign to teach people to get out of the way of cars. I see it's worked on you.


Or to teach people not to allow themselves be killed or injured. Especially our precious children and grandchildren. What example do these careless phone addicted adults set?


----------



## nickyboy (22 Jun 2019)

Here's a thought experiment.

You're cycling along, minding your own business when you spot a group of small children on a school trip standing by the side of the road. You have right of way. When you see them do you:

a) Continue riding as if they weren't there
b) Slow down because they're kids and kids may do unpredictable things like walking out into the road. 

Now of course people will say "adult pedestrians aren't small children and should know better". Of course that's true. But whether they should know better or not isn't relevant. What matters is whether you, the cyclist, might reasonably expect somebody (a kid, an adult, whatever) to do something unpredictable and modify your cycling accordingly


----------



## Phaeton (22 Jun 2019)

theclaud said:


> Right - the Green Cross Code and Tufty and all that bollocks is nowt to do with cars. Got it.


Quiet day in the dark place?


----------



## Kempstonian (22 Jun 2019)

theclaud said:


> It's all part of the endless campaign to teach people to get out of the way of cars. I see it's worked on you.


Isn't keeping out of the way of cars a good idea when you are a pedestrian? You're only going to lose in an accident situation. That woman was lucky she stepped in front of a bike and not a car.


----------



## Johnno260 (22 Jun 2019)

I think main issue is the disproportionate compensation.

Also as I said before, he had more witnesses saying she was in the wrong.

Hitting a ped should be avoided ofc, but if they’re paying zero attention and step into a road that has a green light then sorry root cause of the incident is her.

I don’t mean to sound like an uncaring tool but if she had paid attention this whole issue would’ve been avoided.

In T Wells I see people run between parked buses all the time to cross the road to the train station how none of these morons has been killed is beyond me.


----------



## classic33 (22 Jun 2019)

Johnno260 said:


> I think main issue is the disproportionate compensation.
> 
> Also as I said before, *he had more witnesses saying she was in the wrong.*
> 
> ...


She is reported as disagreeing with the cyclist(her witness) over what happenned.

But as can be seen from the piece given earlier. Her yoga instruction wasn't exactly what most people would think of if it were said to them. She was one half of a "company" that charged upwards of €300 per day, per person taking part.

She's run up a large legal bill, and seems prepared to bankrupt someone else to avoid paying it.


----------



## nickyboy (22 Jun 2019)

Johnno260 said:


> I think main issue is the disproportionate compensation.
> 
> Also as I said before, he had more witnesses saying she was in the wrong.
> 
> ...


The compensation isn't a lot. 

What happened was she (the plaintiff) claimed compensation. He (the defendant) handled her claim himself without legal advice. He chose not to counterclaim. In doing so, he laid himself wide open to a claim for costs. If he lost (as he did) he would be liable for costs. If he had counterclaimed then there would probably have been an equitable split of costs on the basis his counterclaim would have probably been successful. He chose not to counterclaim. That was a big mistake

What has happened is the plaintiff's lawyers have made some crazy claim of £100,000. There is no way this will be successful. But for sure the defendant will have to pay costs because the judge has found in favour of the plaintiff. Having said that, I heard tonight that the crowdfunding of his legal costs was more than £40k which will, apparently, be more than the costs awarded


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (23 Jun 2019)

theclaud said:


> How much of a Cycling Expert does one need to be to understand that one shouldn't ride one's bike into a person (even an annoying person), and that if one does, one ought to answer for it? [Sorry about all the 'ones' - I sound like the farking queen]. This is a fairly depressing thread, with the majority of people swallowing a load of Dail Mail divide-and-rule propaganda. That sh*trag is biased against the pedestrian, not the cyclist, in this instance. Hence the extremely temporary BTL 'support' for the cyclist, and the 'yoga teacher' characterisation. See also 'phone zombie', 'snowflake' etc. *We should stand up for pedestrians, not run them down - they are on the frontline here.* This isn't an opinion on the costs, which do sound excessive. Good on @nickyboy and a few others for sticking up for streets as social space.



Personally, I see no reason to stand up for this particular pedestrian.

I think what is noteworthy about this case is not so much the right and wrong of the pedestrian (which is clear) or the cyclist (which is less clear, but given the location/time/reports of the circumstance, what the judge said rings true to me: "Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have a right of way. Mr Hazeldean did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.").

What is interesting about this case is how it was prosecuted. Frankly I am flabbergasted as to how Ms Brushett managed to rack up costs of c£100k. It is practically certain, given the Defendant is what many lawyers would call a "man of straw" financially, no insurer or no-win-no-fee ambulance chaser would have allowed it to happen, because there was little prospect of it ever being paid by the Defendant, never mind given the costs being well over 10 times the damages assessed, it would draw the ire of the court and be disallowed. It is also likely to draw negative attention from their regulatory bodies to her lawyers too - it simply makes no sense to me.

I think the likely root of all this, is that the Claimant's pocket is as deep as the Defendant's is shallow, and her prosecution, which evidently has been professionally advised so likely rejected, was even more poorly conducted than the Defendant's defence. The likely result, is not only has she gained notoriety nationally, she is also going to lose a lot of money for her vindictiveness too.


----------



## fossyant (23 Jun 2019)

You've got to predict the unpredictable when near others. Take shared use paths. I get miffed when folk have a dig when you've not got a bell, but you've slowed to walking pace and politely asked to pass. The fact that they didn't hear the bike over rough ground and splashing through puddles makes you realise they wouldn't have heard anyway. Headphones, and dogs on extending leads are another you have to be careful of.

Car drivers seem to get away with things like this. If the person had stepped infront of a car, you can bet the driver would be scott free.

Get insurance folks, crazy stuff like this does happen


----------



## icowden (24 Jun 2019)

look - the yoga instruction is fundamental to the story. that’s why most news outlets have run with a MASSIVE picture of the lady posing in her yoga gear. so that people can understand that this wasn’t just a personal injury story, but an injury to an *attractive*_* yoga teacher *which will SELL LOTS OF PAPERS!!

Jouno’s at the daily fail must have thought they’d won the jackpot when they found the pictures._


----------



## classic33 (24 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> look - the yoga instruction is fundamental to the story. that’s why most news outlets have run with a MASSIVE picture of the lady posing in her yoga gear. so that people can understand that this wasn’t just a personal injury story, but an injury to an *attractive*_* yoga teacher *which will SELL LOTS OF PAPERS!!
> 
> Jouno’s at the daily fail must have thought they’d won the jackpot when they found the pictures._


What about CNN, Fox and the many other outlets that used them?

Pictures of someone who has filed her occupation as "None", in a company formed last year. Where she is the only name on current records.


----------



## Cycleops (24 Jun 2019)

Now we are told that the streets are 'social spaces' perhaps she can go and practice her yoga in the middle of the road.


----------



## Kempstonian (24 Jun 2019)

classic33 said:


> What about *CNN, Fox and the many other outlets that used them*?
> 
> Pictures of someone who has filed her occupation as "None", in a company formed last year. Where she is the only name on current records.


Like the Evening Standard (apparently website of the year ). There's a link on page 1 of this thread.


----------



## DaveReading (24 Jun 2019)

classic33 said:


> Pictures of someone who has filed her occupation as "None", in a company formed last year. Where she is the only name on current records.



I suspect that very few people actually make a living from teaching yoga, and I'd be surprised if she is among that number.

That said, the investment bank that she works for (according to her LinkedIn profile) seem to be under the impression that they still employ her as a Business Development Manager: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/adviser/adv/contact-us


----------



## PK99 (24 Jun 2019)

DaveReading said:


> I suspect that very few people actually make a living from teaching yoga, and I'd be surprised if she is among that number.
> 
> That said, the investment bank that she works for (according to her LinkedIn profile) seem to be under the impression that they still employ her as a *Business Development Manager: *https://www.vanguard.co.uk/adviser/adv/contact-us



not quite correct:

"is responsible for* supporting business development managers* and financial planners"

ie not highly paid.


----------



## NickWi (25 Jun 2019)

The Claimants Barrister's point of view.
https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/

As read it, and I might be exagerating a bit here, but the cyclist appears to have done a sound the horn, head down, go for it charge, and expected others to get out of the way.


----------



## C R (25 Jun 2019)

The solicitor for the pedestrian puts his side here.

https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/

I don't have much argument against the award of compensation, it is the costs claim that I find objectionable, and the fact that the lesson he thinks the case gives is the need for cyclists to have insurance for cases like this. It would have been nice for him to have thought about the road safety aspects of the case.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (25 Jun 2019)

C R said:


> The solicitor for the pedestrian puts his side here.
> 
> https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/
> 
> I don't have much argument against the award of compensation, it is the costs claim that I find objectionable, and the fact that the lesson he thinks the case gives is the need for cyclists to have insurance for cases like this. It would have been nice for him to have thought about *the road safety aspects of the case.*


I expect that we might have pilloried him for straying outside his field of expertise.


----------



## Phaeton (25 Jun 2019)

Wonder if he has any connection to any insurance companies?


----------



## Cycleops (25 Jun 2019)

C R said:


> It would have been nice for him to have thought about the road safety aspects of the case.


It would have been nice yes but that was not his job or his intent in making this statement. I believe he wanted people to be aware of the facts where many thought the blame lay solely with the lady who stepped out.


----------



## classic33 (25 Jun 2019)

Cycleops said:


> It would have been nice yes but that was not his job or his intent in making this statement. I believe he wanted people to be aware of the facts where many thought the blame lay solely with the lady who stepped out.


One of those simple things that used to be taught at school dropped out of favour, and then re-introduced. Check before you step into the road, don't assume it's safe to do so.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (25 Jun 2019)

classic33 said:


> One of those simple things that used to be taught at school dropped out of favour, and then re-introduced. Check before you step into the road, don't assume it's safe to do so.


Just as we should emphasise that road users should only proceed when they can see the way ahead to be clear.


----------



## classic33 (25 Jun 2019)

Bonefish Blues said:


> Just as we should emphasise that road users should only proceed when they can see the way ahead to be clear.


Vehicle was already moving, having passed through on green. _"You may proceed, but only if it is safe to do so"_

Now get the same message over/across to motor vehicle drivers.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (25 Jun 2019)

classic33 said:


> Vehicle was already moving, having passed through on green. _"You may proceed, but only if it is safe to do so"_
> 
> Now get the same message over/across to motor vehicle drivers.


We should all comply.

From his own witness statement:
_“…..can see people crossing at the junction of King William Street with Cannon Street so I have sounded my airhorn on my bike, which caused people to part and leave a gap in the middle of the road. I continued up towards King William Street, but due to the people in the middle island and still crossing I was positioned on the right hand side of my lane, close to a yellow bollard on the middle island. 
_
Mostly, people get away with it, or exercise greater caution. He didn't on this day, with life-affecting consequences.


----------



## Arjimlad (25 Jun 2019)

I rather get the impression that Mr Hazeldean's evidence and witnesses might have been better presented.


----------



## nickyboy (25 Jun 2019)

C R said:


> The solicitor for the pedestrian puts his side here.
> 
> https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/
> 
> I don't have much argument against the award of compensation, it is the costs claim that I find objectionable, and the fact that the lesson he thinks the case gives is the need for cyclists to have insurance for cases like this. It would have been nice for him to have thought about the road safety aspects of the case.



Putting to one side the quantum of the costs (the widely reported £100k is being said to be much too high), the defendants problem was that he chose not to counterclaim. Had he counterclaimed, the plaintiff would have been the defendant in his counterclaim. As a result, what would probably have happened was that he would be found liable for the initial claim (and thus have to pay costs or a substantial part thereof) but she would have been found liable for the counterclaim (and thus have to pay costs or a substantial part thereof).

Were I a regular urban cyclist I would certainly have specific insurance to cover the legal costs associated with an issue like this. Luckily all I have to deal with are errant sheep which would be difficult to claim against were they to jump out into the road, regardless of whether they were on their mobile phones or not


----------



## benb (26 Jun 2019)

So having pondered this for a while, I have come to the following opinions:

- If there were pedestrians already in the road, and the cyclist went for a gap behind the last one, who then unexpectedly changed direction back into his path, then on balance I would agree that he was partially liable for the collision for not leaving sufficient room to account for unexpected behaviour like this, which was a reasonably foreseeable event. 

- If the pedestrian started to cross while the cyclist was already very close, making a collision very hard to avoid, then I don't see how the cyclist was liable at all.

- I don't think we have enough information to know for sure which of the 2 above actually happened, or something between the 2.

- Regardless of the above, the judgement should, IMO, have given more serious criticism of the pedestrian crossing whilst looking at her phone and not checking for traffic at all.

- I look forward to judges coming to similar judgements when a driver hits a cyclist who unexpectedly changes direction.


----------



## icowden (26 Jun 2019)

The costs claim is pie in the sky anyway. It's just a random figure plucked out of the air. There will be court costs, the barristers fees and the solicitors costs, plus his barrister and solicitor. He does appear to have had very poor legal advice on this.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (26 Jun 2019)

icowden said:


> The costs claim is pie in the sky anyway. It's just a random figure plucked out of the air. There will be court costs, the barristers fees and the solicitors costs, plus his barrister and solicitor. *He does appear to have had very poor legal advice on this.*


He doesn't appear to have taken, or listened to Legal Advice, it seems to me. 

He might not want to contribute to the Claims Culture (as he's reported as saying), he might think it's smart to represent himself. Either a fool, or arrogant, or naive, or summat, but certainly not smart. It's a bit like the interminable episodes of Grand Designs where people think they can do things that they manifestly can't.


----------



## Origamist (26 Jun 2019)

benb said:


> So having pondered this for a while, I have come to the following opinions:
> 
> - If there were pedestrians already in the road, and the cyclist went for a gap behind the last one, who then unexpectedly changed direction back into his path, then on balance I would agree that he was partially liable for the collision for not leaving sufficient room to account for unexpected behaviour like this, which was a reasonably foreseeable event.
> 
> ...



The cyclist had time to move to the right of the lane, overtake another cyclist and sound his airzound on the approach to a busy junction. It looks very much like he did so in order to warn others of his presence but also to maintain momentum through a junction with a large amount of pedestrian activity. That was a risk the cyclist was prepared to take. The pedestrian crossed the road without checking it was clear to do so, that was a risk she was prepared to take. If it was me on the bike, I would accept partial responsibility for the collision.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (26 Jun 2019)

Origamist said:


> The cyclist had time to move to the right of the lane, overtake another cyclist and sound his airzound on the approach to a busy junction. It looks very much like he did so in order to warn others of his presence but also to maintain momentum through a junction with a large amount of pedestrian activity. That was a risk the cyclist was prepared to take. The pedestrian crossed the road without checking it was clear to do so, that was a risk she was prepared to take. If it was me on the bike, I would accept partial responsibility for the collision.


...as the judgement indicates, in essence.


----------



## Firesprite (28 Jun 2019)

Our judiciary seem to be totally arbitrary when it comes to handing down judgements. I remember there was a case a year or so ago where a person was knocked down on a crossing by a motorist in Dorset. The motorist was exonerated on the basis that the person crossing should have looked first to make sure that approaching motorists recognised that the person was about to use the crossing and that they had slowed accordingly indicating acknowledgement that the person was there. I cannot therefore reconcile these two cases. Why should a cyclist be expected to " be prepared for people to behave unexpectedly" when a motorist is not?

The only winners here are ambulance chasing lawyers, from now on you have to expect compo-hunters taking a dive in front of you


----------



## PK99 (28 Jun 2019)

Firesprite said:


> Our judiciary seem to be totally arbitrary when it comes to handing down judgements. I remember there was a case a year or so ago where a person was knocked down on a crossing by a motorist in Dorset. The motorist was exonerated on the basis that the person crossing should have looked first to make sure that approaching motorists recognised that the person was about to use the crossing and that they had slowed accordingly indicating acknowledgement that the person was there. I cannot therefore reconcile these two cases. Why should a cyclist be expected to " be prepared for people to behave unexpectedly" when a motorist is not?
> 
> The only winners here are ambulance chasing lawyers, from now on you have to expect compo-hunters taking a dive in front of you



I guess you are relying here on newspaper reports. Reading the actual nuanced and complete judgements is much more informative.


----------



## Drago (28 Jun 2019)

Our legal system and judiciary are a joke. Despite the smug and insincere talk of justice, it exists only to feed those that suckle its teat. Any justice that may happen along the way is purely coincidental. 

We all know there is no such thing as "right of way", we all know that stepping out blindly onto the tarmac does not suddenly make you properly "established" upon it, yet that's what the judge said. Yep, a judge, one of whom recently made the news because he asked in open Court what an internet was....that's how connected with reality they are.

Get yourself insurance, because the world is run by idiots and the script is clearly written by fools.


----------



## Firesprite (28 Jun 2019)

PK99 said:


> I guess you are relying here on newspaper reports. Reading the actual nuanced and complete judgements is much more informative.


The only thing that I expect to be correct in a newspaper is the date and even then I would double check with another source. As to this case I did spend half a day in the public gallery. As to the Dorset case a friend was one of the Police officers who was in court that day..

This time last year in Cambridge (Cycling Hell because of all the shared pavements), I had a run in with a phone zomble from one of the colleges who dashed out of a college doorway, face glued to her phone while carrying a load of bags in to the road knocking me to the ground sideways leaving me with a fractured shoulder joint (Ball and socket). Yelled a load of abuse at me while I was on the ground for being in the her way before getting into what I suspect was awaiting Uber cab. Before driving off leaving me there. While people stood around taking pictures, It was thanks to another passing cyclist that help was called for. You can not set this type of injury and had to be in a sling for four months while it mended. Had to sleep sat in a chair for the first month. I lost four months income because of her. Her college was no help declining to handover the tapes from the doorway CCTV or id who she was. She may have been a final year student who had finshed and was flying back to her own country, never to return. 

I have lost some movement in that joint, but you can see while I'm able to look at it from another point of view.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (28 Jun 2019)

Firesprite said:


> Our judiciary seem to be totally arbitrary when it comes to handing down judgements. I remember there was a case a year or so ago where a person was knocked down on a crossing by a motorist in Dorset. The motorist was exonerated on the basis that the person crossing should have looked first to make sure that approaching motorists recognised that the person was about to use the crossing and that they had slowed accordingly indicating acknowledgement that the person was there. I cannot therefore reconcile these two cases. Why should a cyclist be expected to " be prepared for people to behave unexpectedly" when a motorist is not?
> 
> The only winners here are ambulance chasing lawyers, from now on you have to expect compo-hunters taking a dive in front of you


Are you attempting to compare a criminal case with a civil case, perhaps?


----------



## Daddy Pig (28 Jun 2019)

Drago said:


> Our legal system and judiciary are a joke. Despite the smug and insincere talk of justice, it exists only to feed those that suckle its teat.


----------



## nickyboy (2 Jul 2019)

Bonefish Blues said:


> Are you attempting to compare a criminal case with a civil case, perhaps?


Burden of proof and all that.....


----------



## Bonefish Blues (2 Jul 2019)

nickyboy said:


> Burden of proof and all that.....


Indeed. OJ Simpson can tell us all about it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jul 2019)

nickyboy said:


> Burden of proof and all that.....



Burden of proof still lies with the party bringing the action, it's the standard of proof that differs.


----------



## Drago (2 Jul 2019)

Except in POCA cases, where the burden of proof rests with the defendant to prove they came by the money or assets honestly.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (2 Jul 2019)

Drago said:


> Except in POCA cases, where the burden of proof rests with the defendant to prove they came by the money or assets honestly.


The money was just resting in your account, I know.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jul 2019)

Drago said:


> Except in POCA cases, where the burden of proof rests with the defendant to prove they came by the money or assets honestly.



As with many general legal principles, there are always exceptions.


----------



## Drago (2 Jul 2019)

I before E, and all that.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Jul 2019)

Drago said:


> I before E, and all that.



That's a good one because there are many more words that break that rule (900+) than follow it (40 something).


----------



## DaveReading (2 Jul 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's a good one because there are many more words that break that rule (900+) than follow it (40 something).



Not if you use the full version of the rule (i.e. it only applies to words with a long "e" sound), in which case there are hardly any exceptions.


----------



## Drago (2 Jul 2019)

_Hardly_ any. That's inconceivable.


----------



## T675Rich (5 Jul 2019)

Finally caught up on this after being away, it's definitely eye opening, think I may get me a British Cycling membership to be on the safe side.


----------



## rliu (10 Jul 2019)

Firesprite said:


> Our judiciary seem to be totally arbitrary when it comes to handing down judgements. I remember there was a case a year or so ago where a person was knocked down on a crossing by a motorist in Dorset. The motorist was exonerated on the basis that the person crossing should have looked first to make sure that approaching motorists recognised that the person was about to use the crossing and that they had slowed accordingly indicating acknowledgement that the person was there. I cannot therefore reconcile these two cases. Why should a cyclist be expected to " be prepared for people to behave unexpectedly" when a motorist is not?
> 
> The only winners here are ambulance chasing lawyers, from now on you have to expect compo-hunters taking a dive in front of you



For context there is a Scottish case which took over 10 years to be appealed up to the Supreme Court, where the first instance judge thought a 13 year old child being dropped off by a school minibus in rural Scotland was 90% contributorily negligent for stepping in front of a car that was going 60mph on a bendy country road in dark conditions. This was reduced to 70% on appeal in Scotland and then to 50% at SC.

http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-jackson-v-murray-2015-uksc-5/

The ludicrous first instance decision just shows these decisions all just come down to personal biases of judges. (Bearing in mind the claimant suffered severe brain injuries here and the value of the claim was over £2m, it's breathtaking that the legal system put a family through this)


----------



## Bonefish Blues (10 Jul 2019)

rliu said:


> For context there is a Scottish case which took over 10 years to be appealed up to the Supreme Court, where the first instance judge thought a 13 year old child being dropped off by a school minibus in rural Scotland was 90% contributorily negligent for stepping in front of a car that was going 60mph on a bendy country road in dark conditions. This was reduced to 70% on appeal in Scotland and then to 50% at SC.
> 
> http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-jackson-v-murray-2015-uksc-5/
> 
> The ludicrous first instance decision just shows these decisions all just come down to personal biases of judges. (Bearing in mind the claimant suffered severe brain injuries here and the value of the claim was over £2m, it's breathtaking that the legal system put a family through this)


I think the use of 'bias' is incorrect - professionals in every field read and interpret things differently, as we are currently finding with the medical profession. Whatever the spilt, there was contributory negligence found by the Supreme Court.

Whilst clearly a terrible case for the family and the child herself, the nature of the injuries shouldn't be a factor considered in 'putting the family through this', no matter how distressing. Clearly one would wish the the Judge in the first instance had apportioned more equitably, as in the (split 3-2) Supreme Court did, but one suspects there may still have been an appeal/appeals, given that the Supreme Court was asked to rule that there had been no contributory negligence at all.


----------



## rliu (10 Jul 2019)

Bonefish Blues said:


> I think the use of 'bias' is incorrect - professionals in every field read and interpret things differently, as we are currently finding with the medical profession. Whatever the spilt, there was contributory negligence found by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Whilst clearly a terrible case for the family and the child herself, the nature of the injuries shouldn't be a factor considered in 'putting the family through this', no matter how distressing. Clearly one would wish the the Judge in the first instance had apportioned more equitably, as in the (split 3-2) Supreme Court did, but one suspects there may still have been an appeal/appeals, given that the Supreme Court was asked to rule that there had been no contributory negligence at all.



A bias isn't a synonym for a prejudice, a bias can be a subconscious leaning that oneself isn't aware of at all. So I'm not saying the first instance judge was motivated by a particular agenda.

A reduction in the portioning by 40% is huge and in this instance is a difference of about £900k in general damages to the claimant. A well functioning legal system shouldn't have such a big difference between the different tiers of the judiciary.

https://www.brownejacobson.com/insu...ources/legal-updates/2015/05/jackson-v-murray

This has a more detailed outline of the facts, the defendant saw the school bus was stopped and its lights were on but made no attempt to slow or proceed more cautiously. Contrast that with the rationale the DJ gave in this Hazeldean case and I don't see how any decision of 90% contributory negligence is reconcilable.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (10 Jul 2019)

My picking up on bias was its common vernacular meaning, where it carries those connotations.

You'll note that the Supreme Court split 3-2 on its final judgement.


----------



## rliu (10 Jul 2019)

Bonefish Blues said:


> My picking up on bias was its common vernacular meaning, where it carries those connotations.
> 
> You'll note that the Supreme Court split 3-2 on its final judgement.


 
Problem is in all these contributory negligence appeals, the lead judge always says that assessing contributory negligence 'isn't a precise science', and that appeal courts shouldn't reverse a first instance decision unless there is a fundamental error in application of the law. This is a bigger driver for why it was a 3-2 split decision than the consideration that the first instance decision isn't ludicrous - they were all reluctant to erode trust in the judicial system, just some were, on balance, more minded to give a fair outcome to the claimant than others.


----------



## rliu (10 Jul 2019)

RecordAceFromNew said:


> In the GoFundMe page for Mr Hazeldean, it says:
> 
> "_£4,300 for the compensation, payable in 14 days.
> £10,000 to cover the pedestrian's legal fees, payable in 21 days (this may increase when the final cost award is declared as *they are seeking around £100,000 in costs - but £10,000 was the amount indicated by the judge*).
> ...



It's pretty easy to keep racking up costs in the litigation process - charge £600 an hour by charging for Partner reviews rather than £150 an hour for a trainee or newly qualified associate; prepare multiple witness statements and submissions; missing deadlines so that it takes an application to get court approval for an extension etc. This is why it's common practice to take out an after the event (ATE) insurance policy in the civil litigation process - like nearly all insurance policies, you pay a policy excess and anything above that is covered by the insurer, who are in a better position to haggle down the bill with other side solicitors their end in any case


----------



## classic33 (10 Jul 2019)

An easier way is to instruct three seperate legal teams to deal with your case. As happenned in this one.

As time goes on, more of "hits" for this case get removed from the internet. Each one, court judgement included, just increases the bill.


----------



## numbnuts (24 Feb 2020)

*Cyclist settles case for £30,000 after hitting pedestrian who was looking at phone 
https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...r-hitting-pedestrian-who-was-looking-at-phone*


----------



## raleighnut (24 Feb 2020)

numbnuts said:


> *Cyclist settles case for £30,000 after hitting pedestrian who was looking at phone
> https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...r-hitting-pedestrian-who-was-looking-at-phone*


 He should have put in a counterclaim, if someone walked in front of me whilst looking at their phone instead of looking where they were going I'd be really miffed.


----------



## Ian H (24 Feb 2020)

Although apparently, instead of braking, he sounded his airhorn, which panicked her (unsurprisingly). Imagine if a driver had continued driving & sounding the horn; you'd probably condemn that as aggressive.


----------



## HMS_Dave (24 Feb 2020)

Im surprised the DM isn't making this top headline news so the pitchfork brigade can bang on about the old classics of road tax, insurance and red light runners. I suppose Coronavirus is still taking the lead. Although it also highlights the rarity of such cases having happened almost 5 years ago... I hope all parties can move on now with lessons learned on both sides now...


----------



## classic33 (24 Feb 2020)

She can carry on her yoga classes/retreats now.


----------



## sleuthey (24 Feb 2020)

Ian H said:


> instead of braking, he sounded his airhorn


All iv read is this thread and the linked article but it wouldn't surprise me if that's why the judge held the cyclist partly to blame and awarded 50/50. Anyone else seen any other articles on the judges reasoning?


----------



## classic33 (24 Feb 2020)

Cycleops said:


> The poor guy is facing bankruptcy now;
> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...g-at-her-phone-faces-bankruptcy-a4172661.html





tom73 said:


> It got even worse she want's cost's too about 100K. Look's like he guy is on his way to bankruptcy just go's to show you really do need insurance.
> What ever the right's or wrong's in this case or another maybe how ever you got cover just get covered.
> https://road.cc/content/news/262582...h-pedestrian-facing-bankruptcy-after-claimant


----------



## sleuthey (24 Feb 2020)

This has me worried now😕
Here is the schedule for my policy with cycleplan. Is public liability the same as third party? IE. If I hit a car am I covered for its repair costs and if I hit a human does it cover compensation?


----------



## vickster (24 Feb 2020)

sleuthey said:


> This has me worried now😕
> Here is the schedule for my policy with cycleplan. Is public liability the same as third party? IE. If I hit a car am I covered for its repair costs and if I hit a human does it cover compensation?
> View attachment 505905


Should be but check provider Ts & Cs.
£1m sounds on the low side (British Cycling offers £15m), if you consider what injuries a ped could sustain (a child left paraplegic as a worst case scenario for example)


----------



## Beebo (24 Feb 2020)

sleuthey said:


> This has me worried now😕
> Here is the schedule for my policy with cycleplan. Is public liability the same as third party? IE. If I hit a car am I covered for its repair costs and if I hit a human does it cover compensation?
> View attachment 505905


Yes. The public liability cover is for any damages and costs incurred to others. 
£1 million isn’t a huge amount once you factor in the general award plus loss of earnings legal costs etc.


----------



## steveindenmark (25 Feb 2020)

It does sound strange that he could find time to operate his air horn. But not have time to operate his brakes. 

I certainly would have made a counter claim. I have no idea what his legal advisors were thinking. But it does show that it pays to have cycling insurance. I think everyone who rides a bike should have it.


----------



## mjr (25 Feb 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> I certainly would have made a counter claim. I have no idea what his legal advisors were thinking.


As I understand it, he did not take legal advice or submit a claim for assistance to his own home insurers until relatively late in the process because he rejects the compensation culture - but sadly, ignoring the leopard does not mean it will ignore you.



> But it does show that it pays to have cycling insurance. I think everyone who rides a bike should have it.


Do you feel general public liability insurance (as in most household insurances) is not enough, then?


----------



## flake99please (25 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> Do you feel general public liability insurance (as in most household insurances) is not enough, then?



My home insurance covers (from a public liability perspective) undertakings within the property, or damages sustained by the property (loose roof tile failing onto person/property for example). I would say in my case, my insurance is not adequate.


----------



## kingrollo (25 Feb 2020)

Come on BC getting you're marketing campaign into action


----------



## classic33 (25 Feb 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> It does sound strange that he could find time to operate his air horn. But not have time to operate his brakes.
> 
> *I certainly would have made a counter claim. I have no idea what his legal advisors were thinking.* But it does show that it pays to have cycling insurance. I think everyone who rides a bike should have it.


He represented himself at the start, as he couldn't afford legal representation.


----------



## Beebo (25 Feb 2020)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...brushett-london-phone-court-a8972326.html?amp

A bit a background here. 

There were lots of people crossing the road. The cyclist was aware his route was blocked, so shouted and sounded an air horn. But should have been riding more carefully. 

You only have to stand on Tooley street to see this interaction 10 times an hour.


----------



## mjr (25 Feb 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Come on BC getting you're marketing campaign into action


If you're going to join an organisation to get insurance, better CUK or LCC than that bunch of rule book zealots IMO.


----------



## classic33 (25 Feb 2020)

Even on here
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/p...hone-hit-by-cyclist-gets-compensation.250372/


----------



## vickster (25 Feb 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Come on BC getting you're marketing campaign into action


What does that mean?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (25 Feb 2020)

Mod Note: already discussed here:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/p...hone-hit-by-cyclist-gets-compensation.250372/
so I'm merging the threads.


----------



## Drago (25 Feb 2020)

Ian H said:


> Although apparently, instead of braking, he sounded his airhorn, which panicked her (unsurprisingly). Imagine if a driver had continued driving & sounding the horn; you'd probably condemn that as aggressive.


I'm not sure a "I say, do you mind awfully..." is liable to do the trick in the circumstances.


----------



## Ian H (25 Feb 2020)

Drago said:


> I'm not sure a "I say, do you mind awfully..." is liable to do the trick in the circumstances.


Possibly not, but what he actually did certainly didn't work.


----------



## steveindenmark (26 Feb 2020)

Reading all the blurb I can find. The cyclist turned out to be a bigger prat than the pedestrian.

I am not saying he got what he deserved, he didnt. They should both walked away with a reprimand and no cash.

It does highlight the need to be adequately insured if you ride a bike and thats the only positive thing I can find. Hopefully both cyclist and pedestrian have learnt something.

As an add on. Air horns such as Airzound are not fitted to warn people of your presence. They are there to frighten the crap out of people. I had one on my ICE trike to warn cars of my prescence as I was low down sharing the road with them. I would not use one on a bike amongst pedestrians though. It is total overkill.


----------



## Drago (26 Feb 2020)

Ian H said:


> Possibly not, but what he actually did certainly didn't work.


But it was certainly worth attempting a warning. That is why motor vehicles are fitted with warning devices so the efficacy of their utility is beyond dispute.


----------



## classic33 (26 Feb 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> Reading all the blurb I can find. The cyclist turned out to be a bigger prat than the pedestrian.
> 
> I am not saying he got what he deserved, he didnt. They should both walked away with a reprimand and no cash.
> 
> ...


Possibly at the time of the collision, afterwards I'd say she was the bigger idiot. 

In the process of starting up a company, whilst delivering trail yoga classes at £300+ per person in her spare time. Then getting all traces of the spare time activity removed from anywhere it appeared, even the site on which it was offered.


----------



## Levo-Lon (27 Feb 2020)

Smudge said:


> Its a complete travesty that the cyclist can be found 50% responsible and have to pay compo, makes me wonder if the judge had a prejudice against cyclists.
> Its also put out a great message to zombies..... Carry on in your self absorbed little world, the rest of us will just have to be responsible for your safety.




As a fellow biker, we've been doing that for decades..
Maybe a long spike bolted to the yoke will be a fair modification


----------



## gbb (27 Feb 2020)

Ian H said:


> By not causing panic with aggressive use of an airhorn; by riding sensibly in a congested area with pedestrians, who are predictably unpredictable (like a lot of cyclists).


When I look back at near misses I've had personally, near misses I've complained about in this forum feeling the avgrieved and been taken to task for because another persons eyes on the situation will see things differently...I've often changed my mind and accepted I was partly to blame, I failed to modify my course, failed to expect the unexpected etc etc...I concede its hard to look at yourself and criticise yourself but it sometimes needs doing, it makes you a safer,better cyclist.
TBF I feel for the cyclist, it's a no win situation but sounding an airhorn is more likely to cause an accident by distraction than simply slowing down (to a stop if neccessary) to allow the zombie pedestrian to go about their zombie way. That's what he should have done. 15 mph is still a fair lick considering he was approaching people still on the road, whether they had right of way or not. 
Itd be interesting to see any footage of the actual incident, which of course we never will so we can only imagine the scenario. 50/50, I'd accept my part, then try to counterclaim.


----------



## classic33 (27 Feb 2020)

When the claim for £100,000 went in, she was in the process of setting a company up. As well as running the "trail yoga camps".

How far would that £100,000 have helped in setting her new company up?

We don't know if the cyclist could have safely slowed down, how close was following traffic? Would a motorist have had a similar claim for damages filed against them, in similar circumstances.


----------

