Pedestrian looking at phone hit by cyclist gets compensation

[bigjim]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Would he be able to counter sue though

Not now, he's out of time.

 

[fossyant]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.