Pedestrian looking at phone hit by cyclist gets compensation

[DaveReading]

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No, that's been replaced by "swipe left, swipe right, swipe left again" (after stepping off the kerb).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

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:

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:

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]

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]

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

 

[classic33]

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]

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]

.......................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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.