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

tomasrojo

I don't think cyclists are much less "vulnerable" than a pedestrian; they're not protected much more
from harm imposed by others. They are more capable of causing harm though, mostly because of the higher
velocity.

Is that the basic thinking behind the hierarchy?

(This is probably semantic quibbling; I've no objection to pedestrians being given greater consideration.)

OleRodrigo

2 years ago, I was cycling past the four courts in the bike lane - about 25 kmph. Some ped with headphones filtered across the road through stationary traffic, looking at his phone, straight out in front of me. I braked hard with the front brake to avoid hitting him, and went straight over the bars to hit the pavement. Disk brake fans take note - you can't beat a well maintained Veloce brake caliper.

I was so successful at not hitting him he didn't even notice what happened and went on to the path and on his way.

I picked myself up, grazed hands, knees etc..and went after him. When I caught up, I told him what had happened and he looked at me like I was crazy...he had no idea he nearly got a good creaming.

That's where duty of care got me

StinkyMunkey

Girl walks out in front of cyclist with her head in her phone while he has green light, he sounds bell and tries to swerve - judge decides it's his fault, Am I missing something.......?!

I don't understand, are there mitigating circumstances? Does this mean that no matter how retarded a pedestrian is, it's always another road users fault?

is_that_so

OleRodrigo wrote: »

2 years ago, I was cycling past the four courts in the bike lane - about 25 kmph. Some ped with headphones filtered across the road through stationary traffic, looking at his phone, straight out in front of me. I braked hard with the front brake to avoid hitting him, and went straight over the bars to hit the pavement. Disk brake fans take note - you can't beat a well maintained Veloce brake caliper.

I was so successful at not hitting him he didn't even notice what happened and went on to the path and on his way.

I picked myself up, grazed hands, knees etc..and went after him. When I caught up, I told him what had happened and he looked at me like I was crazy...he had no idea he nearly got a good creaming.

That's where duty of care got me

Yeah, pedestrians are inattentive idiots but stationary traffic does mean they will cross and you really need to anticipate it. When driving in the city I always keep half an eye on footpath to look out for the most likely to suddenly cross their road and get ready for them.

is_that_so

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Girl walks out in front of cyclist with her head in her phone while he has green light, he sounds bell and tries to swerve - judge decides it's his fault, Am I missing something.......?!

I don't understand, are there mitigating circumstances? Does this mean that no matter how retarded a pedestrian is, it's always another road users fault?

Put the word motorist in there and you wouldn't be puzzled! Even with a green light you have to be absolutely mindful of pedestrians. I think the outcome of the case i.e. both to blame is right, but not the bill he's been landed with.

Weepsie

Maybe it's an argument for jaywalking laws, not that they'd be enforced or anything.

meeeeh

They are in some countries. But it's easier to do it where id's are mandatory.

I had three donkeys pushing two prams jumping in front of me on the road. It was easy enough to stop because I was going slowly but they did it 50 meters away from zebra crossing. Not to mention that their children in the pram would be the first hit if someone wasn't paying attention.

What actually worries me that people will start thinking I can't cycle without insurance. And once you have insurance there will be claim for every minor accident. It will become even more risky to cycle without insurance and teens who will be deciding between drinking money and insurance will decide to stop cycling.

StinkyMunkey

is_that_so wrote: »

Put the word motorist in there and you wouldn't be puzzled! Even with a green light you have to be absolutely mindful of pedestrians. I think the outcome of the case i.e. both to blame is right, but not the bill he's been landed with.

I cycle, drive cars and motorcycles, in most instances you can anticipate what others will do, but there are instances where no matter how attentive you are, you can never react in time to some retard with a death wish.

He was paying attention and tried to warn her and swerve around her, but no matter what he did she was totally oblivious to the world around her. I'm actually surprised she has survived this long.

I fail to see why he is being punished for her totally incompetence, he is being held accountable for an accident she caused through her actions.

It seems he wasn't speeding, he had green light, he tried to warn her and tried to swerve around her - she crossed on a red, had head in phone, was oblivious to the warning sounds and blames him?!

is_that_so

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I cycle, drive cars and motorcycles, in most instances you can anticipate what others will do, but there are instances where no matter how attentive you are, you can never react in time to some retard with a death wish.

He was paying attention and tried to warn her and swerve around her, but no matter what he did she was totally oblivious to the world around her. I'm actually surprised she has survived this long.

I fail to see why he is being punished for her totally incompetence, he is being held accountable for an accident she caused through her actions.

It seems he wasn't speeding, he had green light, he tried to warn her and tried to swerve around her - she crossed on a red, had head in phone, was oblivious to the warning sounds and blames him?!

But he didn't fully swerve and actually hit her. A motorist would have to be looking at a complete stop, even with the horn in use. In short, you can't hit people no matter how much right of way you have nor how much warning you provide. I think a fine for both would have been more than adequate here.

funnyname

is_that_so wrote: »

But he didn't fully swerve and actually hit her. A motorist would have to be looking at a complete stop, even with the horn in use. In short, you can't hit people no matter how much right of way you have nor how much warning you provide. I think a fine for both would have been more than adequate here.

He swerved as did she, however they both swerved into each other, sets a dangerous precedent and I'm guessing the judge had a liquid lunch before coming to their conclusion.

StinkyMunkey

is_that_so wrote: »

But he didn't fully swerve and actually hit her. A motorist would have to be looking at a complete stop, even with the horn in use. In short, you can't hit people no matter how much right of way you have nor how much warning you provide. I think a fine for both would have been more than adequate here.

Of course you can't hit people, is anyone trying to say you can?!?

Your assuming he could stop in time, I'm not. If he could have stopped in time, then he has to accept some of the blame. And then I agree, fin them both.

Btw, none of the info I've seen stated he could or could not have stopped in time.

is_that_so

funnyname wrote: »

He swerved as did she, however they both swerved into each other, sets a dangerous precedent and I'm guessing the judge had a liquid lunch before coming to their conclusion.

Well, he hit her, there's the offence, and she sued. Her stupidity is not a crime!
I think the precedent here is don't come in contact with pedestrians but he's been very hard done by with the financial cost. Not actually surprised the legal system has got to bikes v pedestrians - it's the final frontier!

is_that_so

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Of course you can't hit people, is anyone trying to say you can?!?

Your assuming he could stop in time, I'm not. If he could have stopped in time, then he has to accept some of the blame. And then I agree, fin them both.

Btw, none of the info I've seen stated he could or could not have stopped in time.

He clearly had enough reaction time to hit the bell so there's a chance he could have stopped. Then again that's the driver in me being programmed to react and respond.

kirving

I guess we don't know the full circumstances, but the article I read said it was a large group of pedestrians crossing.

I'm guessing here, but perhaps he anticipated his green light coming and slowed on the red. Once it went green, he was already moving, and caught the end of a big group of pedestrians?

If he had time to shout, and then take his hand off the bars to hit an air horn, he probably could have braked more heavily and earlier.

That didn't help his case at all, nor did defending himself initially.

Absolutely no way on earth legal fees should amount to that figure though. Completely off the wall.

MyDarkArts

As one of my old secondary school teachers used to say "anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client".

Probably a naive fool, as in this case he said he didn't want to contribute to claim culture. I'm guessing he foolishly assumed that a judge might exercise some common sense and the whole thing would be done in an afternoon, with her being told she was as much to blame as he was and not to be wasting everyone's time.

Alas that's not how the system works, either here or in the UK, with m'learned friends wracking up those hefty fees for best being able to game the system for their client's benefit (and indeed their own).

Lumen

Leslie Clever Barnyard wrote: »

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

I'm not saying that amount is reasonable, and others have posted that it's not, and will not be awarded, but it's not just 2 days in court. That money also pays for preparing the case, by both solicitors and barristers.

Large bottle small glass

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not saying that amount is reasonable, and others have posted that it's not, and will not be awarded, but it's not just 2 days in court. That money also pays for preparing the case, by both solicitors and barristers.

She had a scar on her head, it's not as if she lost a leg, couldn't work, had to get her house redesigned etc etc

The work would have involved sending her for a medical or two.

Couple of hours work and s few trees worth of paper

meeeeh

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not saying that amount is reasonable, and others have posted that it's not, and will not be awarded, but it's not just 2 days in court. That money also pays for preparing the case, by both solicitors and barristers.

His legal cost are around 6k or 7k, 92k is just from her legal team.

Lumen

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The work would have involved sending her for a medical or two.

Couple of hours work and s few trees worth of paper

meeeeh wrote: »

His legal cost are around 6k or 7k, 92k is just from her legal team.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the legal system.

meeeeh

Lumen wrote: »

I bow to your superior knowledge of the legal system.

I have no knowledge of legal system, The Times article has the information. And appologies it is 96k not 92k.

His crowdfunding page states that his immediate bill is £4,300 for compensation, payable in 14 days, and £7,000 for his own legal fees. Although Ms Brushett’s lawyers are seeking £96,000 in costs, Mr Hazeldean hopes that they will be limited by the judge to £10,000 in a future hearing.

Time

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Girl walks out in front of cyclist with her head in her phone while he has green light, he sounds bell and tries to swerve - judge decides it's his fault, Am I missing something.......?!

I don't understand, are there mitigating circumstances? Does this mean that no matter how retarded a pedestrian is, it's always another road users fault?

Pretty much, there was a case (can't for the life of me remember the name though) where a cyclist was knocked down, was assessed at about 80% liability but still received a hefty payout with the rationale being that the injured party should not be at a loss, if the pedestrian here walked out in front of a car it'd be the exact same, and theres countless cases like that.

Daroxtar

Last time I checked, the crowdfunding page had well over 30k raised. So theoretically, if the judge caps the claimants legal fees at 10k, his own are 6k and the damages are 4.5k he should end up with a week or 10 days in the Alps on his brand new 10k superbike.

Lumen

meeeeh wrote: »

I have no knowledge of legal system, The Times article has the information. And appologies it is 96k not 92k.

Yeah sorry that was in response to LBSG, I'm not sure why I included your post.

is_that_so

Daroxtar wrote: »

Last time I checked, the crowdfunding page had well over 30k raised. So theoretically, if the judge caps the claimants legal fees at 10k, his own are 6k and the damages are 4.5k he should end up with a week or 10 days in the Alps on his brand new 10k superbike.

And hopefully a lesson learnt!

CramCycle

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Girl walks out in front of cyclist with her head in her phone while he has green light, he sounds bell and tries to swerve - judge decides it's his fault, Am I missing something.......?!

I don't understand, are there mitigating circumstances? Does this mean that no matter how retarded a pedestrian is, it's always another road users fault?

is_that_so wrote: »

He clearly had enough reaction time to hit the bell so there's a chance he could have stopped. Then again that's the driver in me being programmed to react and respond.

I have to agree here, I am surprised the judge said it was 50 50, Peds on the road already, he had enough time to slow or stop but he ploughed on because, much like many angry motorists, he felt his right of way trumped her safety because she made a mistake.

Happens all the time to me, you slow or stop, if it's particularly stupid on their part I'd give a shout to wake them up but ploughing on regardless is a dick move. Most of us probably already doing it without realising as that's what normal people do.

josip

says in the GoFund Me opening paragraph


"and anything over the final amount will be donated to Action Aid."

Daroxtar

josip wrote: »

says in the GoFund Me opening paragraph


"and anything over the final amount will be donated to Action Aid."

Ah, OK. My morals aren't that high. I'd be pricing Bora Ultras for the new Wilier

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I have to agree here, I am surprised the judge said it was 50 50, Peds on the road already, he had enough time to slow or stop but he ploughed on because, much like many angry motorists, he felt his right of way trumped her safety because she made a mistake.

Happens all the time to me, you slow or stop, if it's particularly stupid on their part I'd give a shout to wake them up but ploughing on regardless is a dick move. Most of us probably already doing it without realising as that's what normal people do.

I hadn't understood that he kept going. I got the impression she'd stepped out in front of him at close to the last second. If she was just at the tail end of a crowd of pedestrians, I'd change course and slow down. It's not at all an unusual occurrence for a crowd of pedestrians to wander over without having a green if a bike is coming.

I guess the one news report I read wasn't all that clear on the details.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I hadn't understood that he kept going. I got the impression she'd stepped out in front of him at close to the last second. If she was just at the tail end of a crowd of pedestrians, I'd change course and slow down. It's not at all an unusual occurrence for a crowd of pedestrians to wander over without having a green if a bike is coming.

I guess the one news report I read wasn't all that clear on the details.

I've read a few reports, the ones that skimp on the details seem to favour the cyclist, the ones that go into the witness details, the light change and the other pedestrians alot less so. She was still in the wrong but in no way did that make him right for what occurred. It certainly wasn't last second either way, not far off it maybe but there was time to shout, sound the airhorn and also continue. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would have realised that if a pedestrian is not paying attention before you sound something like an airhorn, they are unlikely to move in anything close to an expected fashion. Sounding it was fair enough but he should have been hauling on his front brake once e thought it might happen, not sounding an airhorn and hoping for predictability.

hesker

Haven’t read the detailed reports but is it possible he was sounding the air horn not so much at her but in warning to all the other pedestrians who might stream across. And that there was time for her to continue and him to avoid her without braking. But sounding the air horn caused her to double back bringing them into unavoidable collision.