Pedestrian looking at phone hit by cyclist gets compensation

[Origamist]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Burden of proof and all that.....

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Burden of proof and all that.....

Indeed. OJ Simpson can tell us all about it.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I before E, and all that.