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

tomasrojo · 22-06-2019 10:33am

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?

Lumen · 22-06-2019 10:38am

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.

Odyssey 2005 · 22-06-2019 10:39am

Did he not have a helmet cam ?

Sonny noggs · 22-06-2019 12:12pm

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.

Sonny noggs · 22-06-2019 12:13pm

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Did he not have a helmet cam ?

Helmet would have interfered with his SS haircut.

Odyssey 2005 · 22-06-2019 12:23pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Helmet would have interfered with his SS haircut.

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

Fian · 22-06-2019 12:35pm

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.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 22-06-2019 1:10pm

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

Cabaal · 22-06-2019 1:14pm

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

smacl · 22-06-2019 1:56pm

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.

tomasrojo · 22-06-2019 3:16pm

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 · 22-06-2019 3:58pm

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 · 22-06-2019 4:29pm

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 · 22-06-2019 4:38pm

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 · 22-06-2019 4:42pm

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 · 22-06-2019 4:43pm

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

meeeeh · 22-06-2019 5:14pm

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 · 22-06-2019 5:37pm

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 · 22-06-2019 5:41pm

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 · 22-06-2019 5:46pm

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 · 22-06-2019 5:52pm

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 · 22-06-2019 5:52pm

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 · 22-06-2019 5:55pm

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 · 22-06-2019 6:24pm

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 · 22-06-2019 7:20pm

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 · 22-06-2019 8:20pm

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 · 22-06-2019 8:29pm

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 · 22-06-2019 9:00pm

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 · 22-06-2019 9:05pm

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 · 22-06-2019 9:19pm

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 · 22-06-2019 10:00pm

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 · 23-06-2019 6:50am

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 · 23-06-2019 7:22am

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 · 23-06-2019 9:02am

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 · 23-06-2019 9:21am

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 · 23-06-2019 9:40am

says in the GoFund Me opening paragraph

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

Daroxtar · 23-06-2019 10:30am

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 · 23-06-2019 11:08am

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 · 23-06-2019 8:10pm

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 · 24-06-2019 7:17am

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.

tomasrojo · 24-06-2019 9:45am

The Alliston case in London, as far as I remember, resulted from the cyclist swerving to avoid the pedestrian, and her stepping back to avoid him, unfortunately putting herself back into his trajectory.

CramCycle · 24-06-2019 7:28pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Alliston case in London, as far as I remember, resulted from the cyclist swerving to avoid the pedestrian, and her stepping back to avoid him, unfortunately putting herself back into his trajectory.

If I recall correctly, his complete lack of remorse was more than a factor in the finding of the judge, with his only concern being whether he would face jail or not, never for the woman who died. The only real thing of note, outside of the tragedy involved, is that for such a rare occurrence to happen, it received unprecedented coverage, some claim because of Allistons attitude, but it doesn't change the fact that even a celebrity in a car would have gotten less coverage. It even prompted response at PM questions or at least in a report from cabinet that they planned to legislate more thoroughly.

It really shows the sorry state of democracy in the UK, but with such a mentality getting such strong press coverage, it is no wonder other poor choices override common sense so often over there. Not that we are much better.

tomasrojo · 24-06-2019 7:30pm

That's my recollection too. He didn't help his case by being an apparent sociopath, but the UK media and political classes leapt on it in the most disproportionate way.

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

Comments