UKH

Cyclist settles case for £30,000 after hitting pedestrian who was looking at phone

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/24/cyclist-settles-for-30000-pound...

"A cyclist who knocked over a woman who was looking at her mobile phone while crossing a road and was then threatened with financially ruinous legal costs has settled the case.

Both the cyclist, Robert Hazeldean, a garden designer, and the pedestrian, Gemma Brushett, who works in finance and also ran yoga retreats, were left unconscious after the rush-hour collision in July 2015.

Last year a judge ruled that both were equally to blame for the accident on a busy junction near London Bridge, but only Brushett was entitled to a payout because she had put in a claim and Hazeldean had not."

The article mentions "qualified one-way cost shifting", which apparently means that you can't recover your costs unless you make a claim against the other party.

"The case exposed how vulnerable uninsured cyclists are to expensive civil claims if they are involved in accidents.

Brushett’s lawyers had claimed costs of £112,000 – a sum that would have left Hazeldean facing bankruptcy since he was uninsured."

Scary. I'm thinking its time to get some insurance.

Just join British Cycling, job done.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/legalandinsurance

Pretty much everything about that case was ridiculous.

British cycling or CTC / cycling UK will both cover you for insurance and help you about if you're in a crash.

Yes, I'm thinking CTC. I used to be a member a decade or so ago.

I find it rather depressing that this is what our society thinks is a fair outcome.

That rather depends.  If you use mechanical transport you are responsible for using it at a speed anticipating people being stupid because you're using the thing that's more dangerous.  If the pedestrian stepped out such that evasive action would be difficult or impossible at a reasonable speed, I would expect them to be wholly liable.  If, however, the cyclist was going too fast for the conditions or had plenty of notice to get on the brakes but chose not to on the assumption that the pedestrian would notice and move out of the way (or had a bike with legally inadequate brakes e.g. a fixie with no front brake) I would expect the blame to go to both.

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, though, so I speak generally.

If anyone is reading this and about to go on the defensive of cyclists, try this entirely hypothetical version and see if your opinion is the same:

That rather depends.  If you use mechanical transport you are responsible for using it at a speed anticipating people being stupid because you're using the thing that's more dangerous.  If the cyclist pulled out in front such that evasive action would be difficult or impossible at a reasonable speed, I would expect them to be wholly liable.  If, however, the car was going too fast for the conditions or had plenty of notice to get on the brakes but chose not to on the assumption that the cyclist would notice and move out of the way (or had a car with legally inadequate brakes e.g. heavily worn pads) I would expect the blame to go to both.

Sadly it’s typically the cyclist who comes off worse in these collisions 🙁

cheers

Toby

All the more reason to cycle defensively.

Well no it doesn’t. The judge ruled equal liability therefore for only one party to be facing bankruptcy is unfair.

i understand your broader point but don’t fully accept that either. Just can’t be arsed to argue the case.

Sounds like his solicitor missed a trick with regard to that legal technicality...

This says to me that the cyclist probably thought they did the 'right thing'. Both parties were at fault, both injured, so no point claiming, chalk it up to experience etc. He did the right thing, taking responsibility for his actions and not being a d*ck about it. He expected the other person to do the same. This left him vulnerable to the other party who was happy to be a d*ck about it.

Sadly, there is a lesson here. Don't expect others to take responsibility for their actions, however stupid, especially if there is the remotest chance of them getting some money. <sigh>

I wonder if he can now commence a claim against her?

My guess is, he’d have been advised correctly to claim by his lawyers but just tried to not to be a dickhead, under some misapprehension that karma is an actual thing. Silly boy.

Ha, you got there before me!

Unfortunately the legal system doesn't work like that.  I wish it did...

He should have just claimed the sun was in his eyes.

More seriously part of why I have cycling uk membership.

Except all that is bullsh*t. The reason it ended up that way was because the cyclist didn't make a claim. Itstates this clearly in the OP.

The text you quoted referred to it being 50:50 and why that was the right thing for it to be and is not bullsh*t in that regard.

He did indeed seriously err in not making a counterclaim, which is a quirk of the legal system on which his solicitor should have advised him (and assuming he did the advice should have been taken).  A court can't award something that wasn't claimed.

We’ve discussed this case before. The reason this gentleman is having difficulties is that he’s a ****ing idiot. He was cycling like a ****ing idiot, he defended the case brought against him like a self-righteous ****ing idiot, and he did so without taking legal advice because he’s a towering ****ing idiot with his head up his own arse. In general, people who cause unnecessary litigation by doing all of the above while uninsured are likely to suffer unpleasant consequences. There’s a good deal to be said about our litigation system, little of it good, but this case is not a good peg to hang it on.

jcm

I think you are confusing cases here and are thinking of Charlie Alliston.

Nothing in this case matches your claims whereas for Charlie Alliston they do.

But your answer was in response to a comment that was specific to this case and therefore irrelevant at best. The guy said he was sad that our justice system should give the result it did. Which since it was a result of one of two equally injured parties not suing the other seems fair and nothing to do with cycling liabilities. If the positions were reversed it would be equally unfair.

You are mistaken, so much so that I can’t tell if you’re a complete fool or making some joke which is going over my head - always my favourite type of post.

Apart from anything else, Charlie Alliston was a criminal and not a civil case.

jcm

Didn't you mean to reply to Andy Johnson not Mondite?

I don’t think so.

To be fair, one absolutely appalling provision of the CPR which this case does highlight is the fact that the claimant’s costs would have capped had the defendant been an insurer, but because he was an individual were not. This was part of some ludicrous reforms brought in by Lord Justice Jackson, a lickspittle of the insurance industry, at the prompting of the Cameron government.

jcm

In reply to mondite:

Not really. I explained it before, it’s obvious if you read the judgment (which is readily available on line), and frankly you aren’t worth it until you’ve made a basic effort to understand the facts of this case before being rude to someone who has made that effort and knows a lot more about the litigation system than you do.

I will observe though that contrary to what you seem to imagine the judge did find he was cycling like an idiot. That’s why she found he’d been negligent.

jcm

Johncoxmysteriously said, "He was cycling like a ****ing idiot".

Judge Shanti Mauger, at Central London county court, said the cyclist was “a calm and reasonable road user”.

Who are we to believe...?
 

Perhaps you aught to understand the facts or the case before being "rude to someone" by calling them a ####ing idiot.

Anyone got a link to the ruling? My Google has failed.

https://road.cc/content/news/262396-cyclist-found-partly-liable-crash-pedes...

The judge described Mr Hazeldean as “courteous and mild-mannered” and said that he “gave every impression of being a calm and reasonable road user” but added that he “did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.

There were conflicting witness accounts of the incident. One cyclist, whose testimony was used to support Ms Brushett’s claim, was said to have confronted Mr Hazeldean afterwards and made a voice recording in which he accused him of “aggressive riding” and being “arrogant and reckless.”

The judge rejected that evidence, however, with three pedestrian witnesses who gave statements to the police saying that Ms Brushett was “not looking where she was going” and “the cyclist was not at fault.”

Giving judgment, Judge Mauger said: “The other witnesses feel that the accident was Ms Brushett's fault.

“Mr Hazeldean is clear that she was looking at her phone as she was crossing the road.

“Three other witnesses said she stepped out or that the cyclist could not avoid her.

“I find that she was looking at her phone and I accept the account of Mr Hazeldean that she turned and went back towards the central reservation.

https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-haz...

https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-haz...

Are you having a bad day? They weren't rude in the slightest- they simply asked if you might be mistake as you very strong response was at odds with how the reports read. You then got shout and aggressive. 

Missed this link

https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-haz...

I'm not sure there is a written judgment. The link posted by caver at 16:25 states that the judgement was extempore - which as far as I can understand means it was delivered at the time and "off the cuff". Caver's link points to notes taken by a barrister who was present and are presumably reasonably accurate.

... but johncoxmysteriously said .... 

But I was struggling to find it, so am a failure at 'basic effort'.

Well, yes, frankly, you are - if you put the names of the parties into google caver’s link is the second hit.

I’ve listened to a lot more judgments than most. Let me help some of you people with translations from judgespeak.

’X is a calm and sensible road user.’ means ‘Sorry about this, X, but I’m afraid I’m about to find against you.’.

’I find that X did fall below the standard to be expected of a reasonable are careful cyclist.’ means, in language which we can all understand, ‘X was cycling like a ****ing idiot.’.

jcm

Can you please post a link to the judgement, not transcript by a third party?

I found that found that one posted by Caver first go, but assumed from your post there was an 'official' version - wanted to make sure I got my 'basic effort' done properly.

Oh, I see. I don’t believe there is one, then. The judgment will have been recorded but not transcribed unless someone wants to pay for it.

On his own account of events, this guy saw a group of pedestrians crossing at a light which had now turned green in his favour. He accelerated towards them, relying on his air horn to clear the way and swerving to avoid the last of the pedestrians. She then panicked and jumped backwards into his path, and he was riding sufficiently fast to knock her unconscious.

Had he been a motorist, and had the pedestrian been killed, then on those facts he would be in prison today, and I’ve no doubt the posters on this thread would all have approved.

The standard of care for a cyclist is no different from that a motorist.

Had the victim knocked her head and been killed as Alliston’s victim was, the only thing that might have kept him out of prison would have been the same thing that almost saved Alliston - that causing death by dangerous cycling isn’t a specific offence.

I checked tonight at a crossing a few hundred yards from where this accident took place. At least fifty percent of the throng of pedestrians were on their phones. The duty of care the law imposes on road users is to deal with the road as it is, not as they think it ought to be.

jcm

You’re right, mondite or whatever his name is wasn’t particularly rude to me, just idiotic. What I thought was contemptible was his reference to the victim as ‘a stupid bint who stepped out into the road’, which I found objectionable for many reasons. I should have referred to that, not any supposed rudeness to me.

jcm

In general, what vexes me about this case is what annoys most professionals whenever they read any newspaper report about anything they know something about - i.e., journalists post clickbait containing barely a word of truth, and the lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on. As in this case. Reading the ignorant victim-blaming of the likes of mondile gets my goat.

jcm

Isnt it  "readily available on line" as you proclaimed earlier?

Why was this poor victim found equally to blame?

As for rude. You have been, from the outset arrogant, rude and abusive.

It’s because he got his cases mixed up but doesn’t want to admit it!

That was a longwinded way of saying 'I was wrong, I've been a tw*t. Sorry'. 

It’s a note taken by a barrister who went there specifically for the purpose of taking a note, FFS. Lawyers use those all the time.

Because she was a stupid bint, presumably. Isn’t that how you think?

Judge: ‘You are offensive, Mr Smith.’

FE Smith: ‘As a matter of fact we both are, my Lord. The difference is that I’m trying to be, and you can’t help it.

jcm

Yep, and bizarrely started swearing about it. Or rather didn't swear and instead redacted the swearing by using a lot of Xs. We're clearly dealing with a super intelligence here, one that is still "street" enough to pretend to use bad words on an Internet forum.

Does the ruling now mean that trains must approach level crossings with the presumption a car may ignore the flashing lights and cross anyway? The train driver now being 50% responsible for any accident that may occur at a level crossing...

About 10 seconds of logical though should suffice to realise this is a daft analogy.

Go on then, explain the fundamental difference for the benefit of the hard of thinking.

The ruling doesn’t mean anything. It just applies extremely well established law.

I don’t know why it’s so important to some people to continue misrepresenting the facts of this case. On his own evidence, the defendant saw the claimant in the road at a point when he had ample time to slow down. He instead chose to accelerate and swerve round her, using the air horn he had equipped himself with in order to mark his feelings in some way. If you do that and the result is an accident, of course you’re going to be found liable. If you don’t want to acknowledge that simple truth, at least say why.

The procedural aspects of the tale are more interesting, really. Obviously the thing should have been settled by him handing over a few grand and moving on. Part of the reason that didn’t happen is the fellow’s pigheaded arrogance - ‘I had right of way, how can it be my fault?’ - along the lines we’ve seen in this thread, but only a small part. The major problem is the lack of sensible access to justice, and the government.’s solution - make it harder still and the problem will go away - is not necessarily the right one.

jcm

Trains don’t swerve? The fact that the cyclist had ample time to brake and chose not to?

jcm

Another way in which the media, and the cycling lobby in particular, misrepresent this case is the significance of a finding of contributory negligence. This means that the victim didn’t take enough care of themselves, not that they breached any duty they owed the other party. In order to have succeeded on any counterclaim, the cyclist would have needed to show that the pedestrian’s inattention caused his loss. Since on his own account he already knew she wasn’t paying attention when he chose to accelerate towards her, it’s far from clear that he would have been able to do that.

jcm 

I accept that a cyclist armed with an airhorn does smell of knob.

Trains drive to signal, they don't need to be able to stop within their line of sight. Road users and trams should be able to stop within their line of sight. If you'd said tram then it would be a slightly better analogy, but they do actually end up stopping a lot for people stepping in front of them.

In addition to JC' and Stevevans reply;

Trains drive to signals because of stopping distances. Average stopping distance of a commuter train at 50mph on full emergency braking is in the region of 400 metres.  Trains cannot approach every crossing at 0.1mph in anticipation.

Beyond inconvenience, there is no technical reason why a train couldn't approach a level crossing very slowly, stop, have two chaps get off, ensure the level crossing is clear of pedestrians and broken down vehicles, before waving the train through.

To me, at a fundamental level, it seems rather contradictory to allow trains to barrel through crossings at 100mph with fingers crossed it’s clear, while simultaneously branding a cyclist travelling at the frightening speed of 15mph as some sort of maniac.

We need more men with red flags to run in front of things like trains, cars and safety bicycles to prevent this sort of thing.

Trains are held at red lights on most crossings until the crossing is clear. They’re held about 2 miles away which is why you don’t realise it. 
 

JCM is correct. We did this here over several weeks. You can probably find it on a search. 
 

The cyclist decided not to take legal advice and defended himself. The judge ruled 50:50. The cyclist didn’t understand about counterclaim and here we are.

Looks like he probably had some kind insurance (but may not have realised at the time?) who have now stepped in and made some kind of claim.

If you’re about to go bankrupt and lose your house you’d probably check your house insurance...

Why you couldn't put it this way in the first place instead of calling people idiots I'm not sure but I feel better informed now.