Pedestrian looking at phone hit by cyclist gets compensation

[rugby bloke]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.