/ Pedestrians can endanger cyclists and get compo

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
balmybaldwin 18 Jun 2019

Seriously, what the $$%% is wrong with our court system that this outcome can occur?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/18/woman-knocked-down-while-on-phone-wins-payout-from-cyclist 

I suggest walking into the road without looking to get as much as much compo as you can.

Post edited at 17:09
8
Tommyfatlad 18 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

the worlds gone mad.... he sounded an air horn and braked after coming through a green light..... 

its truly worrying being on the bike in a busy city as it is with out having to worry about idiots jumping in front of you and then being able to take you to court for it....

I think this must have to go to appeal …..

2
bigbobbyking 18 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

The end of the article it states the judge finds shared responsibility and so her payout was reduced from what it would have been if the cyclist was 100% liable. So in that case not sure whether the cyclist can also claim damages from the pedestrian? How does that work in civil cases? Does it mean that the pedestrians damages case was stronger, or just that the cyclist didn't bring one? 

In any case, good idea to have 3rd party liability insurance if you cycle regularly.

Trevers 18 Jun 2019
In reply to bigbobbyking:

> The end of the article it states the judge finds shared responsibility and so her payout was reduced from what it would have been if the cyclist was 100% liable. So in that case not sure whether the cyclist can also claim damages from the pedestrian? How does that work in civil cases? Does it mean that the pedestrians damages case was stronger, or just that the cyclist didn't bring one? 

> In any case, good idea to have 3rd party liability insurance if you cycle regularly.

I hope he sues back her for double the amount. What an appalling sense of entitlement.

2
balmybaldwin 18 Jun 2019
In reply to bigbobbyking:

If you put one foot in front of the other, in any circumstances it should be wholly your responsibility to check for danger.

Given the fact the cyclist used an airhorn (over and above the legal requirement), shouted a warning, swerved to avoid, and the pedestrian walked back into his path and caused him significant injuries. I suspect the judge is a rabid hater of cyclists to apportion any significant blame.

I've asked Cycling UK whether they intend to contest it - this can't be allowed to stand as a precedent

3
elsewhere 18 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

If it established that road users have to anticipate and accept some responsibility for the unexpected it is a good legal judgement when applied uniformly.

It sounds like very busy pavements so people stepping out however stupidly is an obvious hazard to all but the moronic so the cyclist has responsibility to ride with extra caution for the conditions.

In this case the pedestrian did not step out and was "established" on the road.

Post edited at 19:24
9
DancingOnRock 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Tommyfatlad:

Nope. That’s the way the law works and always has. Cars and cyclists have a greater burden of responsibility. 

Make sure you are insured. Court cases like this cost money. 

3
Thunderbird7 18 Jun 2019
balmybaldwin 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Thunderbird7:

I notice one of the advertisers with this rag is The Foundry

Ridge 18 Jun 2019
FactorXXX 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Ridge:

> Jesus. What a tw*t.

Maybe it's because I'm not a cyclist, but I see that as an obvious piss take and not an actual attack on cyclists riding on pavements.

8
captain paranoia 19 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Maybe it's because I'm not a cyclist, but I see that as an obvious piss take and not an actual attack on cyclists riding on pavements.

Unfortunately, you're missing the context that people really are doing that sort of thing; not on pavements, maybe, but on off-road paths.

FactorXXX 19 Jun 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Unfortunately, you're missing the context that people really are doing that sort of thing; not on pavements, maybe, but on off-road paths.

I get the context, just don't see why cyclists cant accept it as a joke no matter how bad taste it is and I really don't see people reading the article and going out and setting booby troops, etc.
As for trying to essentially ruin the business and encourage people not to use advertisers such as The Foundry as a means of protest - really?

24
Hooo 19 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

That is shocking and has got me worried. I occasionally ride a Boris Bike in central London, and in my experience pedestrians are the no.1 hazard. It hadn't occurred to me that they could add injury to injury by sueing me after taking me out.

I think it's time I got some liability insurance. Is there a cycling equivalent of the BMC that I can join?

Marek 19 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Maybe it's because I'm not a cyclist, ...

Therein lies the problem. Perhaps if you had to go out on a bike and realised that there really are people who think it's fun to put a wire at neck height across a bike path, you'll think it's less of a joke. 

It's also a truism in society that the boundary of 'what is acceptable' can be shifted just by talking about it 'as though' it's OK. The media is full articles and comments which treat cyclists as deserving of such treatment and like it or not, that does influence how other people think and what they consider acceptable.

1
elsewhere 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

CTC aka cycling UK 

Bcf

DancingOnRock 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

Your house insurance should cover you.

Rigid Raider 19 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Seems entirely reasonable to me: if cyclists want to be treated as equal to motorists in the hierarchy of road users 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 rushing around with a warped sense of entitlement and breaking the laws who give the law-abiding majority of cyclists a bad name.

34
FactorXXX 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Marek:

> Therein lies the problem. Perhaps if you had to go out on a bike and realised that there really are people who think it's fun to put a wire at neck height across a bike path, you'll think it's less of a joke. 

Any real difference between this and the Jo Brand joke about acid milk shakes?
Both refer to real life events and both are obviously jokes referring to those events.
Why the hypocrisy? 
In particular, why are people calling for the paper to be boycotted in an attempt to ruin the owners business and livelihood?
I'm guessing that making jokes about acid attacks on the likes of Farage is OK, but not jokes about cyclists?
For the record, I think both are acceptable as they are both intended to be jokes and not incitements to violence, etc. 

3
TobyA 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

>  It's the minority of cyclists rushing around with a warped sense of entitlement and breaking the laws who give the law-abiding majority of cyclists a bad name.

It's odd though how that seems to happen so much more to people on bikes than it does to people driving cars and other vehicles.

thepodge 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

>  It's the minority of any subsection in society rushing around with a warped sense of entitlement and breaking the laws who give the law-abiding majority of the public a bad name.

Fixed that for you. 

I'd prefer to be treated as a vulnerable road user than have some arbitrary tag applied to me.

I spend far more time and cover far more miles both in my car and on foot but according to almost everyone I'm a cyclist, why is that?

Jon Greengrass 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Tommyfatlad:

How do you know he used an air horn?

DancingOnRock 19 Jun 2019
In reply to thepodge:

Depends on how you present yourself. 

I ride a bike. It’s an old mountain bike, close to 10 years old. I wear civilian clothes, no helmet and ride it to the pub or shops when I don’t need to take the car.

My friends wear helmets, dress in Lycra, go on rides with no purpose other than to ride together, they take part in races and triathlons. They rarely use their bikes to go to shops or the pub.

Which of the above would you say are considered cyclists?

thepodge 19 Jun 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I'm very much like you except for the helmet. 

My car is also more expensive than my bike... but apparently I'm still a cyclist. 

Rigid Raider 19 Jun 2019
In reply to thepodge:

> >  It's the minority of any subsection in society rushing around with a warped sense of entitlement and breaking the laws who give the law-abiding majority of the public a bad name.

> Fixed that for you. 

> I'd prefer to be treated as a vulnerable road user than have some arbitrary tag applied to me.

> I spend far more time and cover far more miles both in my car and on foot but according to almost everyone I'm a cyclist, why is that?

Well thanks, you improved my post. Come and drive through any northern mill town like Burnley. Backburn, Bradford, Rochdale or Oldham and you'll see plenty of drivers who don't think the rules don't apply to them and treat the highway like a massive real-life game of Grand Theft Auto.  The preferred vehicle is any German sports saloon. 

Post edited at 10:08
nufkin 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

>  they need to learn to use the road like motorists

But cyclists <i>aren't</i> motorists, and the roads* are for everybody to use. If you want to use a car on one, you have to get a license to show you can do that safely 

*Mostly. Motorways are excepted, of course - but it seems that one would have to be a pretty demented sort of cyclist to want to use one of those 

thepodge 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

I grew up just outside Burnley and Rochdale, in my experience its a national problem. 

Martin W 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

> How do you know he used an air horn?

I wondered that.  It's not mentioned in the Guardian article linked in the OP but it is in the Metro piece about the judgement:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/18/cyclist-ordered-pay-compensation-woman-stepped-front-looking-phone-9996411/

Anyone suggesting that deliberately provoking a collision with a cyclist is a way to get easy money is IMO an idiot.  The pedestrian was left unconscious (as was the cyclist): I really don't fancy risking concussion or more serious brain damage (or any other serious injury, for that matter) on the off-chance of a being able to retire on the compo.

Martin W 19 Jun 2019
jkarran 19 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I get the context, just don't see why cyclists cant accept it as a joke no matter how bad taste it is and I really don't see people reading the article and going out and setting booby troops, etc.

Except of course people already do exactly that without additional encouragement. Apart from that you're right, it's unimaginable, mostly because we're not psychopaths or dimwits.

jk

Post edited at 10:54
Jon Greengrass 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Martin W:

It is interesting that such a key fact was missing from the Guardian article which suggests bias in their reporting.  The metro article is much more balanced as was the judge's ruling.

If a more vulnerable road user stepped into the road in front of me I would be using both hands to apply both brakes to perform an emergency stop, not using one hand to blast an airhorn arrogantly asserting my "right" to carry on.

2
Dave B 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

Laka

Its free for 3rd party insurance if you sign up to a few ads a year.

Serioulsy. That's how worried they are about big payouts from cyclist. Compare that to cars where the majority of your insurance each year is for 3rd party claims.

James Malloch 19 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Mr Hazeldean [the cyclist] himself in the witness box said that as he approached the spot where people were crossing, there was a large patch of clear road, although some people were still on the extreme left hand side of the carriageway about to step onto the pavement.

Ms Brushett was one of these, but having looked up from her phone screen at the last minute upon hearing him shout she panicked and darted back towards the right and into his path.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7152963/Yoga-teacher-staring-phone-hit-cyclist-wins-compensation.html

I've not read through everything in here, but the above is an excerpt from the Daily Mail coverage of this incident:

It sounds like there were people on the road who had nearly crossed (though likely having started crossing when they shouldn't) and he went through and one of those were startled & ended up in a collision. It seemed to portray more that he was indeed partly responsible despite the lady initially being in the wrong and saying she stepped out in front of him could be misleading also?

I see this kind of thing all the time - people crossing too late but cyclists (& cars) setting off when the light goes green which causes people to run out of the way / dodge / swerve. Okay they shouldn't have crossed in the first place but the rules are pretty clear that you no longer have right of way in this circumstance. 

Unless I've interpreted it wrong...

1
The New NickB 19 Jun 2019
In reply to thepodge:

> I grew up just outside Burnley and Rochdale, in my experience its a national problem. 

As a Rochdale lad that has lived all over, my experience is that it is far worse in the South East.

jkarran 19 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

If he'd been on a motorcycle at the same speed, beeping his horn, slotting between pedestrians I guess this thread would have gone quite differently. It's a good bad story where the best outcome might have been a pair of apologies once the painkillers had done their magic but I'm not sure it's the clear cut attack on cyclists and cycling some are choosing to see.

jk

Post edited at 12:23
Dogwatch 19 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Any real difference between this and the Jo Brand joke about acid milk shakes?

Yes. She had the good grace and sense to apologise.

elsewhere 19 Jun 2019
In reply to James Malloch:

Highway Code - "Rule 170: Give way to pedestrians who have started to cross". No exception for pedestrian with red crossing lights*, cyclist with green traffic light or anything else so I don't think there are any circumstances where any vehicle (not even an ambulance on a 999 call) has legal priority over pedestrians. 

Normally you just adjust your speed when you see people crossing the road rather than DECIDE to rely on emergency braking (or use horn and aim for a gap in the pedestrians without slowing down as this cyclist did).  

Obviously there are many circumstances where the pedestrian would not survive asserting legal priority.

*Highway code is pretty much advisory ("should") for pedestrians, the only "MUST" bits (below) don't apply to traffic lights & pedestrian crossings (I suppose 18 does, but loitering isn't normal). 

Rule 6
Motorways. Pedestrians MUST NOT be on motorways or slip roads except in an emergency 
Rule 16
Moving vehicles. You MUST NOT get onto or hold onto a moving vehicle.
Rule 18
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
Rule 34
Railway level crossings. You MUST NOT cross or pass a stop line when the red lights show

Post edited at 14:09
Tommyfatlad 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

it was after I read another article in on the bbc webpage and was shocked about it that I came on to UKC to post something on the cycle forum - only I had been beaten to it. hence I said about the horn and green light etc

Trangia 19 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

“Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way. Mr Hazeldean 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.”

Isn't this the nub of the Judge's reasoning? We all should know that a throng of people on a road is likely to behave unpredictably. Whether you are a cyclist or a motorist it is madness to approach such a throng at 10 to 15 mph. He should have slowed to virtually nothing, even stopped, until the throng had sorted itself out.

MG 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Trangia:

I think the general rule is

cyclist hurt by car>murdering car driving bastard prison is too good.

Cylist hurts pedestrian > mad jay-walking liability had it coming 

2
wintertree 19 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

It makes you wonder who is at fault when a cyclist hits a cyclist...

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I know this judge; she’s excellent. Moreover she heard the evidence and you haven’t. 

Cyclists mowing down pedestrians are in the same legal position as cars doing it. I don’t see anything remotely surprising about this judgment. If anything a cyclist approaching a flock of pedestrians at enough speed to knock them unconscious while relying upon an air horn to clear the way strikes me as lucky to be judged only 50% responsible, but I didn’t hear the evidence either.

jcm

1
Timmd 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Seems entirely reasonable to me: if cyclists want to be treated as equal to motorists in the hierarchy of road users 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 rushing around with a warped sense of entitlement and breaking the laws who give the law-abiding majority of cyclists a bad name.

You wouldn't believe the number of people who simply walk out in front of me without using their necks first to look in either direction. I have taken to going more slowly to allow space for this to happen in,  but should somebody happen to step out in front of me so that I knock them down (and out), the last thing I want to do is to have to pay money for their own lack of attention (remember that serious head injuries can be sustained by simply falling over while walkig and striking one's head).  The tone of your post almost seems to overlook that cyclist have a vested interest in not cycling into people (in a way that car drivers don't), in that it would actually physically hurt the cyclist to hit anybody and then fall off as a result. 

Edit: Apart from that, have a nice day. ;-)

Post edited at 23:01
wintertree 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> but should somebody happen to step out in front of me so that I knock them down (and out), the last thing I want to do is to have to pay money for their own lack of attention.

No problem.  You’d be paying money out for your own lack of attention, not theirs. 

Pedestrians step out.  They have done since the days of the horse and cart.  If one can’t anticipate and accommodate that, one should not be allowed out on anything with wheels. 

A cyclist can have more than 100 times the kinetic energy of a walking pedestrian.  

Post edited at 23:04
5
In reply to Timmd:

Yeah, but that’s not what happened here, is it? She was already in the road when he approached. Sounds like instead of slowing down the guy yelled and startled her and she panicked into his path.

jcm

2
Timmd 19 Jun 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> > but should somebody happen to step out in front of me so that I knock them down (and out), the last thing I want to do is to have to pay money for their own lack of attention.

> No problem.  You’d be paying money out for your own lack of attention, not theirs. 

> Pedestrians step out.  They have done since the days of the horse and cart.  If one can’t anticipate and accommodate that, one should not be allowed out on anything with wheels. 

> A cyclist can have more than 100 times the kinetic energy of a walking pedestrian.  

I have never hit a pedestrian while cycling - through being alert, but I've nearly stepped out in front of cyclists while walking along. If I'd been hit, I'd have seen it as entirely my own fault. One should be aware and look around.

Edit: I generally call out 'beep beep' to people while cycling, to alert them to my presence.

Post edited at 23:15
Ian W 19 Jun 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

More than that; she was crossing "in a throng" at a junction, with traffic lights. Road users (drivers / motorcyclists / cyclists) therefore have to give way even at a green light, which doesn't mean "GO!!!!", but "proceed if it is safe to do so".

After riding into a junction at 10-15mph where there were clearly pedestrians in the road, IMHO the cyclist was lucky to get away with being deemed only 50% responsible.......

Post edited at 23:15
2
FactorXXX 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Edit: I generally call out 'beep beep' to people while cycling, to alert them to my presence.

If you're using 'beep beep' to clear a path through people, then I'm quite likely to think 'tw*t tw*t'.

2
DancingOnRock 19 Jun 2019
In reply to wintertree:

Every case is different. I assume you haven’t ever experienced someone unexpectedly stepping into the road right in front of you or a car pulling out. Until you do, you won’t have any concept of how quickly accidents happen and why they happen. People do unexpected things for unknown reasons. As an operator of a vehicle, all you can do is exercise the level of caution that would normally be expected from someone operating that vehicle and if an accident does occur then you know you have acted to the best of your abilities to avoid it. 

Faced with a crowd of people crossing the road, the normal action is to slow down and be prepared to stop, not maintain speed, shout and blow your air horn to clear them out of your way. 

Timmd 19 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> If you're using 'beep beep' to clear a path through people, then I'm quite likely to think 'tw*t tw*t'.

That'll be you, then. The people I do it to generally look and then smile or are friendly,, because I am already.

Post edited at 23:24
FactorXXX 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> That'll be you, then. The people I do it to generally look and then smile or are friendly,, because I am already.

I assume that you're riding at a nice slow speed then and not wazzing through the traffic as per the OP?

wintertree 20 Jun 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Every case is different. I assume you haven’t ever experienced someone unexpectedly stepping into the road right in front of you or a car pulling out.

Several pedestrians, a lamb hidden in grass and a dog.

> Until you do, you won’t have any concept of how quickly accidents happen and why they happen.

Having done an emergency stop from 70 mph I’ve got an idea.  

> People do unexpected things for unknown reasons. As an operator of a vehicle, all you can do is exercise the level of caution that would normally be expected from someone operating that vehicle

When it comes to pedestrians that level of caution should be sufficient to not hit them.  Expect the unexpected.  Something you learn a lot more viscerally on a motorbike.

Agree entirely with the second half of your post.

3
Hooo 20 Jun 2019
In reply to Dave B:

Just signed up. Thanks for the tip.

DancingOnRock 20 Jun 2019
In reply to wintertree:

>When it comes to pedestrians that level of caution should be sufficient to not hit them.  Expect the unexpected. 

‘Should’. It’s often not. Accidents happen when the situation changes quicker than you can react. 

captain paranoia 20 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I assume that you're riding at a nice slow speed then and not wazzing through the traffic as per the OP?

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

'but the cyclist, who had been travelling at 10-15mph'

Doesn't quite match your description.

wintertree 20 Jun 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> >When it comes to pedestrians that level of caution should be sufficient to not hit them.  Expect the unexpected. 

> ‘Should’. It’s often not. Accidents happen when the situation changes quicker than you can react. 

Which is why there are concepts like “reaction time” and “stopping distance” and why the weight of responsibility falls more heavily on the party with more mass, momentum and kinetic energy.

The New NickB 20 Jun 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It is clear from this ruling that cyclists need to ride a safe distance from the pavement in order to minimise the risk of hitting careless pedestrians. That means the middle of the carriageway, as it is obvious that travelling at a third of the speed limit, half the speed that people are restricted to around primary schools is not considered sufficient mitigation.

I am sure motorists will agree and never complain about being reduced to slow speeds, actually the cars need to go slower, as they will be close to the pavement than bikes.

3
Jon Greengrass 20 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> After riding into a junction at 10-15mph where there were clearly pedestrians in the road, IMHO the cyclist was lucky to get away with being deemed only 50% responsible.......

I'm no lawyer, but having been judged 50% responsible, has the cyclist not been given a green light to sue for damages?

Ian W 20 Jun 2019
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

It is a bit odd that having been deemed equally responsible, one party has been ordered to pay the other compensation......if 2 cars have a "50/50" then its go away and sort yourselves out. Although as has been already been said, the cyclist bears a greater "duty of care" whilst on the road......and whilst the pedestrian was being a bit dim, the cyclist was certainly not in accordance with the highway code, and not riding with the care the situation required. 

Post edited at 12:11
2
DancingOnRock 20 Jun 2019
In reply to wintertree:

I’m not sure what your point is now. 

Ride sensibly and you should avoid accidents. If you are involved in an unavoidable accident and you were riding sensibly there’s no problem, other than trying to prove you were cycling sensibly. In the absence of witnesses that’s probably hard to impossible. The onus is still on you not to run pedestrians over. 

Accidents happen no matter how carefully everyone behaves. Regardless of what any Health sand Safety person will tell you. 

DancingOnRock 20 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

I’m sure jcm will explain it better. The injury is to the pedestrian. The cyclist was to blame for the injuries. However the severity of the injuries could or would have been increased by the pedestrians actions. Therefore the payout is reduced in line with how much the court felt was appropriate. 

She wasn’t found half to blame. 

1
Martin W 20 Jun 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Highway Code - "Rule 170: Give way to pedestrians who have started to cross"

You have mis-quoted the Highway Code, and deleted the relevant context for that rule.  The full context and relevant text (omitting the stuff about long vehicles etc etc) is:

Rule 170

Take extra care at junctions. You should

  • watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
  • watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

That second bullet point is I think what you were intending to quote, but it doesn't say what you wrote.  In particular, the wording of the rule makes it clear that it specifically applies only to pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning.  I don't think there's any indication that that was the situation in the case being discussed.

That said, I don't disagree with the gist of your argument - I just don't think you can cite that rule as a definitive justification for pedestrians-who-have-started-to-cross-have-priority-in-all-circumstances (which is basically covered by Highway Code Rule 0: Don't be a d!ck).

IME as a pedestrian that second bullet of Rule 170 is actually one of the most widely abused rules in the Highway Code which isn't covered by statute (i.e. one that is not a MUST/MUST NOT rule).

I was in Berlin a few weeks back and was somewhat confused at first by their at traffic-light controlled crossroads,  When traffic on one road has a green light, so do pedestrians crossing the other road.  Drivers turning are required to give way to pedestrians crossing, and they do, religiously - even giving way to pedestrians just standing at the kerb.  It's a far cry from this country, where most crossroads have an all-pedestrian phase when all the traffic is stopped, presumably because UK drivers can't be trusted to behave like civilised human beings.

Ian W 20 Jun 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Ah! got it!

The cyclist was found to be at fault, award made, but award reduced because of pedestrians' lack of care etc

elsewhere 20 Jun 2019
In reply to Martin W:

You're right. Just as well I'm not a lawyer!

jkarran 20 Jun 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> The tone of your post almost seems to overlook that cyclist have a vested interest in not cycling into people (in a way that car drivers don't)

Rest assured car drivers also have a vested interest in not hurting others.

jk

captain paranoia 20 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Rest assured car drivers also have a vested interest in not hurting others.

It's not quite as visceral, though...

In a collision between a car and a pedestrian, the car driver is unlikely to suffer any physical injury.

In a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, the cyclist is likely to suffer at least the same level of injury as the pedestrian.

Jon Greengrass 21 Jun 2019
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

Pedestrian has been awarded £4,161.79 in damages, although she is not the winner as the Cyclist has been told to pay the legal costs estimated at £100,000. 

Shani 21 Jun 2019
In reply to bigbobbyking: 

> In any case, good idea to have 3rd party liability insurance if you cycle regularly.

True. And if you are a parent with young kids learning to scooter or cycle, or even a young person cycling around?

Post edited at 14:19
Shani 21 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Maybe it's because I'm not a cyclist, but I see that as an obvious piss take and not an actual attack on cyclists riding on pavements.

As with much of life...

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclist-decapitated-wire-tied-across-11616082

99ster 21 Jun 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> Just signed up. Thanks for the tip.

Ditto.  Thanks.

Ian W 21 Jun 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> In a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, the cyclist is likely to suffer at least the same level of injury as the pedestrian.


Simply not true.

Google it for list after list.

Post edited at 16:45
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I think actually he probably could have made a counterclaim.

The guy seems to have been rather foolish. If he’d apologised and written out a cheque at once, this really very ordinary RTA wouldn’t have affected anyone’s life much. Instead he’s embarked on some foolish crusade along the lines of a number of posters up thread, with the result he’s now bleating in the press about being bankrupt.

jcm

2
kevin stephens 21 Jun 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> .

> The guy seems to have been rather foolish. 

Either him or his solicitors?

In reply to kevin stephens:

He didn’t have any until too late, I gather.

jcm

The New NickB 21 Jun 2019
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

> Pedestrian has been awarded £4,161.79 in damages, although she is not the winner as the Cyclist has been told to pay the legal costs estimated at £100,000. 

How does a County Court claim for damages result in £100,00 of legal costs? 25 times the value of the damages awarded.

DancingOnRock 21 Jun 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Indeed. Two young girls ran out in front of my car many years ago. Put themselves in hospital and did hundreds of pounds worth of damage to the car, would be thousands now. 

Luckily I had a bus full of witnesses and the bus driver stopped them all getting off the bus. 

6 months later the police absolved me of all blame and advised me to forget the whole thing. 

2
Cheryl 22 Jun 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

apparently had he counter sued within 3 years he would have stood a chance of suing her back for the damages caused to himself and his bike from her wrong doing, but he didn't, so he has been shafted. This from a (pro) cycling lawyer I spoke to.  

Seems so wrong to me. The moral of the story - get 3rd party insurance.  If you don't have it then make sure to get legal advice within the 3 year period you have to claim. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.