Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Effin hell (cyclist/pedestrian legal case in the UK)

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    Yeah, l meant the poster I quoted. Commenting on her attractiveness in the circumstances was not ‘creepy’. Anyone who thinks it was is messed up and actively looking to take offence where none exists.


    I think by describing me as "messed up" perhaps you are looking to cause offence.


  • Options
    #33
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I think I meant "paternalistic" rather than "patrician" though.


  • Options
    #34
    RobbieMD
    Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭RobbieMD


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    he was a judge, not a PC.
    but yes, not a sane or sensible man by the sound of it.

    Was the judge not female?


  • Options
    #35
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,017 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    Was the judge not female?

    NINTCHDBPICT000498532346.jpg?w=620


  • Options
    #36
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    Was the judge not female?
    Yeah, actually, that does seem to be the case.

    Ok, count me messed up!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,017 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    This case is apparently headed for the perverse outcome that two people who are supposedly equally responsible for something happening, and who suffered more or less the same physical injuries from an accident, have completely unequal outcomes imposed upon them by a court.

    Why didn't the judge just make each party pay their own costs? Was that amongst her options?


  • Options
    #38
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I thought I'd see what Martin Porter says.

    In this thread he says that home contents insurance would cover the liability, probably.

    And that the £100k on costs is excessive and will be assessed downwards by a costs judge:
    https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/1142172009281011712


  • Options
    #39
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Also, even if he has home insurance, it's too late to involve them.
    https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/1142333036975013888


  • Options
    #40
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    tomasrojo wrote: »
    The comment about the plaintiff's "very attractive appearance" is patrician as hell, and really quite creepy.

    PC gone mad.
    It's actually the complete opposite of pc


  • Options
    #41
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Yeah, actually, that does seem to be the case.

    Ok, count me messed up!

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    It's actually the complete opposite of pc

    I was wrong. The judge was a woman.


  • Options
    #43
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    It's actually the complete opposite of pc

    Not really


  • Options
    #44
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    obriendj wrote: »
    Very disheartening to read this.

    How is blame 50/50. We don't have all details of course but walking across the road reading your phone while the light is red should occur 80% blame at least.

    And if blame is 50/50 then why a payout....


    Read this earlier,. If I recall correctly ts 50/50 because she was looking at her mobile whilst crossing and he broke the red light.

    Correction. Just read it again, she broke the red light but the judge stated that 'he had a duty of care'.


  • Options
    #45
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Read this earlier,. If I recall correctly ts 50/50 because she was looking at her mobile whilst crossing and he broke the red light.

    He didn't break a red light. I think the judge's argument was that he should have anticipated her walking out, because cyclists should anticipate all sorts.


  • Options
    #46
    RustyNut
    Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Read this earlier,. If I recall correctly ts 50/50 because she was looking at her mobile whilst crossing and he broke the red light.

    I got the opposite impression, I took it from the article that he had the green.
    The court heard Brushett was one of a “throng” of people trying to cross the road at the start of the evening rush hour. She was looking at her mobile phone when crossing the road while the lights were green for traffic, and only noticed Hazeldean approaching at the last moment.


  • Options
    #47
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    He didn't break a red light.

    Yep. I corrected above.


  • Options
    #48
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I find the 50/50 bit a little hard to understand. The bit the judge said, as quoted, doesn't seem to imply any fault on his part, except that he should have expected the unexpected, but there doesn't seem to be a recognition of an equivalent duty on the pedestrian not to do the unexpected.


  • Options
    #49
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,519 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    he was a judge, not a PC.
    but yes, not a sane or sensible man by the sound of it.

    Was the judge not female?
    It was a joke.


  • Options
    #50
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    This is part of the vulnerability hierarchy. A motorist has a responsibility to ensure the safety of those more vulnerable (cyclists, pedestrians) and a cyclist has the same responsibility towards pedestrians.

    Everyone is also responsible for their own actions obviously.


  • Options
    #51
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Hoist with own petard, I assumed a judge was a man. Let that be a lesson to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    This is part of the vulnerability hierarchy. A motorist has a responsibility to ensure the safety of those more vulnerable (cyclists, pedestrians) and a cyclist has the same responsibility is equally responsible towards pedestrians.

    Everyone is also responsible for their own actions obviously.

    So it's sort of the pedestrian is more at fault (in this case, for breaking a light), except that the cyclist has more responsibility to anticipate, so it balances out?


  • Options
    #53
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,017 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    I'm slightly surprised that someone who uses an air horn on a bicycle would be a "a calm and reasonable road user", because it must be quite a challenge to use air horn calmly and reasonably.

    Perhaps the judge should have ordered him to swap it for a bell and a go on a yoga retreat to elevate his calmness to the next level.


  • Options
    #54
    Odyssey 2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭Odyssey 2005


    Did he not have a helmet cam ?


  • Options
    #55
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    So it's sort of the pedestrian is more at fault (in this case, for breaking a light), except that the cyclist has more responsibility to anticipate, so it balances out?

    Correct. The same way a cyclist goes through a red light and is hit by a car but the driver is held partially responsible for not anticipating the cyclists action. So 50 / 50 or 60 / 40 in favour of the motorist.

    There was a case years ago where a cyclist speeding on a regular footpath cycled into a car reversing out of a driveway or the driver hit him, can’t remember which. Cyclist clearly breaking the law cycling on a regular footpath but the driver shouldn’t have been reversing out. Can’t remember the result but the cyclist got compensation I think.


  • Options
    #56
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Odyssey 2005 wrote: »
    Did he not have a helmet cam ?

    Helmet would have interfered with his SS haircut.


  • Options
    #57
    Odyssey 2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭Odyssey 2005


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    Helmet would have interfered with his SS haircut.

    :):)
    It'll be a while before he can afford a haircut now.


  • Options
    #58
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Fian


    Thargor wrote: »
    Is there anything preventing him putting a claim in now?

    probably the statute of limitations assuming it happened > 3 years ago. Anyway would only run up another set of legal costs since he has very little injury to claim. She would make an offer of €2k or so, then he would be liable for costs unless he beat that.


  • Options
    #59
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    92k for 2 days? What's the reason for such an absurd amount? Was Messi the lawyer? Scumbags in wigs.


  • Options
    #60
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Read this earlier,. If I recall correctly ts 50/50 because she was looking at her mobile whilst crossing and he broke the red light.

    Correction. Just read it again, she broke the red light but the judge stated that 'he had a duty of care'.

    It might be hard for people to swallow this, but he did have a duty of care.

    If a motorist hit her after she broke the red light the judge would order a pay out by the motorist as well.

    The women crossing is considered a less vulnerable road user.
    tomasrojo wrote: »
    He didn't break a red light. I think the judge's argument was that he should have anticipated her walking out, because cyclists should anticipate all sorts.

    Which is the same thing the judge would say for motorists


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Cabaal wrote: »
    The women crossing is considered a less vulnerable road user.

    Guessing you mean more vulnerable. Considerably more vulnerable than a motorist but only slightly more vulnerable than a cyclist.


Advertisement