[Closed] Commuters beware!

that's a bad judgement. Surely it is completely her fault. I guess she had access to top lawyers given her job.

That is nuts.

Is there a crowdfund to appeal?

"She did a really stupid thing... but it's half his fault anyway" Whaaaat????

In some ways I think it is reasonable. The pedestrian does have right of way although I would have been tempted to call it hard shit on the bad luck on the swerving side of things.
The problem is I cant help but think if it had been a car running over and probably killing someone it wouldnt have even been considered worthy of a court case.

That is nuts.

Is there a crowdfund to appeal?

I would donate, given the precedent it sets for me and thousands of others.

Does seem an odd judgement until you realise that pedestrians have right of way.

Not sure a 50-50 is fair, but you've got to look out for peds when you're going past loads of them waiting on a pavement. Maybe 80-20?

Had a lot of near miss SMIDSY moments with them stepping into the superhighway. Helps to have a loud voice, a loud shout of LOOK OUT is more effective than a bell...

Sounds like he tried to take reasonable avoiding action and travelling at 10 mph is hardly being irresponsible

I'd rather crowdfund an appeal TBH, this sets a terrible precedent...

can't get my head round this except that it'll be fine for pedestrians - and cyclists for that matter - to claim the same against motor vehicles, won't they?

I've had a similar incident in the dim and distant past in Edinburgh, as described, chap started to move off in a crowd - against pedestrian light - but I was at tail end of line of cars and just not obvious I suppose.. I swerved to avoid, tried to go around but he doubled back - collision, no one hurt other than both of us winded. He said "guess that's my fault" and hobbled off..

runs yoga retreats
You would have thouoght that her cat like flexibilty and reaction time would have saved her.
Could have been more..

Having re-read it, it sounds like he should be counter claiming. Should be a guaranteed 50-50, just make sure he's claiming more than she is!

****ing hell, that's insane.

Ridiculous

That's why insurance is needed. Been sued myself - I was knocked off my bike, bike bounced one way, me another, bike hit another cyclist. Driver pegged it, cyclist sued me. Thank goodness for insurance. MIB didn't want to know as police couldn't trace the car (didn't get reg - lost glasses and broken ribs in crash).

Ridiculous judgement.
He sounded a horn, shouted, was travelling at a relative slow speed and tried to take avoiding action.

If she had of walked into the path of a car travelling at 29mph, would the car driver being paying compensation? I can't understand the logic.

OK, so what if the person was blind, or death, or both. Or simply having a moment. But where there is a claim there is blame. Could have been a child, or cat etc and who rides at 10mph unless up steep hills with luggage. Not a good decision for common sense and I do not agree or support it at all.
Adults of sound mind should take responsibility for their behaviour, what if the cyclist had gone OTB and ended up under a van. While the ped scuttles off into the distance

Absolutely mad. If she'd stepped into the road against the lights, without looking, and got run over by a car/taxi/bus it wouldn't have gone anywhere near a court. The cyclist is being victimised in this case.

Hopefully the bloke is insured, either home insurance or CUK etc. (You would be mad to cycle on the roads regularly and not be IMO).

The cyclist is being victimised in this case.

Cyclists are victimised in EVERY case - they literally canot do right for trying.

In most of the cases where a cyclist has been involved in an accident / incident, where they are at fault or judged to be primarily at fault, the penalty is far higher than any car/driver equivalent.

In cases where they are not at fault, everything possible is done to ensure that they can appear to be at fault, even from the reporting (eg "the cyclist, [b]who was not wearing a helmet[/b], was thrown 30m when the speeding car driven by the drunk unlicenced driver ploughed into him"). It's blatently clear there what the problem is but the unncessary comment about helmets (or hi-viz or lights...) shifts some of the blame onto them anyway.

Where a person commits a crime and escapes by bike it's "the [b]cyclist[/b] mugged the old lady and rode off". Where a person commits a crime and escapes by car it's only "the youth mmugged the old lady and escaped by car, possibly a blue saloon". Subtly saying that cyclists are basically all criminal scum capable of muggings etc.

That court case sounds exactly the same. The judge has more or less made her mind up in advance that cyclists are all reckless, lawbreaking, RLJing accidents waiting to happen and in spite of every possible mitigation given has still said it's 50/50.

If I ever hit a pedestrian and I/the bike are still in working order after it, I'm out of there. No hanging around, no questions asked. Riding off. I'll be found guilty whatever happens.

On the other hand, if I ever hit a pedestrian or cyclist while I'm driving, I'll stay at the scene, pass the breath test, be nice and professional and courteous and ever so apologetic and by the way I need my car and I'll get a £35 fine, 3 points and off I go.

Of course we’re all prepared for unexepcted behaviour. From drivers, pedestrians and any other road users. We’re prepared for most moronic behaviour because we nearly always come off worse. But jesus, there’s no way we can be prepared for British law to be such an utter ****.
If that was me, they’d have to bang me up, cos there is no ****ing way I’d be paying up.

That is the most ludicrous statement and judgement I've heard for a while. Cycling in London means you pass literally hundreds of pedestrians at tens of crossings in just a few miles. I used to commute through the city and Peds step off the road without looking all the time. Sometimes you are unlucky and one does it so close that you can't stop. Luckily for me in all the incidents I had the pedestrian apologised for being an idiot, I said no worries we've all done it and we went on our way.

Unfortunately when you get an arsehole this happens.

Crazy legs is spot on though.

.. one day every week, all cyclists in London should go at 5mph or slower near junctions, "in case of unforeseen actions". see where that gets you...

Are you all saying that the judge has got the law wrong?

I would like to know the legal definition of "pedestrians who are established on the road".

Are you all saying that the judge has got the law wrong?

We’re saying the judge appears to be misinterpreting the law, not necessarily getting it wrong. IANAL

“When I stand back and ask: ‘How did the accident happen?’ it seems to me that Mr Hazeldean owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill,” she said.

“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.”

The judge actually appears to contradict themselves in that statement, I’d certainly be looking at an appeal, because that sets a dangerous precedent.

As a former claims manager, and having read the reports a bit now, I think the judge has it right- if you are in charge of any vehicle you have to be prepared to avoid an idiot, and it reads to me that the cyclist kept going even though there were still pedestrians starting to cross, so he was partly to blame.

This does mean that the pedestrian was also partly to blame and the cyclist can counterclaim for any loss or injury against the pedestrian.

if you are in charge of any vehicle you have to be prepared to avoid an idiot, and it reads to me that the cyclist kept going even though there were still pedestrians starting to cross, so he was partly to blame.

How do you work that out? The cyclist had a green light, the peds were attempting to cross while their crossing light was obviously red, the ped, sheep-like, just stepped out into oncoming traffic, which had a green light to proceed, the cyclist attempted to avoid an impact, the ped stepped back into his path, causing a collision.
I see nothing there that indicates the cyclist was in any way at fault.

People were still trying to cross, the cyclist hit them.

It sounds harsh on the cyclist, but if people look like they are trying to continue to cross you slow down and stop until they are not there to be hit.

I would like to know the legal definition of “pedestrians who are established on the road”.

Me too. That's what's bugging me about this. I get that peds have right of way 'established in the road' for example when in the act of crossing or when walking in a road without a footway but at what point does a ped become established - 1mm movement in the direction of the act? Less, more? If it's a deliberate act then it surely must come with full situational awareness on behalf of the actor (they chose to act) and if not, for example if someone trips then it's not deliberate and therefore not established.

People were still trying to cross, the cyclist hit them.

That's the judge's view. The cyclist is also able to claim against the pedestrian.

Exactly my point ransos. No one is saying the cyclist is 100% liable

When I went on a police speed awareness course, we were given an example of a school pupil who ran out in front of a car without looking and was hospitalised. Even though the driver was UNDER the speed limit, it was still ruled to be his fault for not slowing down sufficiently near a school.

Is the ruling saying the cyclist should have anticipated the accident and avoided it?

If it was a Pelican crossing and people were crossing or had just finished, then the judgement sounds probably fair; he would have seen pedestrians and been should be expecting them to try and cross. If she just stepped of the side of the road in a random place right in front of the cyclist then completely unfair.

Given that smartphone zombies are a fairly new development among road users, the law needs an update to make them take more responsibility

I'm assuming that if he had time to sound an air horn, he also had time to stop. I'm sorry guys, but if you choose to keep on cycling towards someone when you have opportunity enough to not hit them, you are always going to be to blame. I also notice that damages are limited to 50% due to contributory negilgence by the ped.

driver was UNDER the speed limit

Not many people understand it's a maximum not a target. Kids do dumb things including using smartphones on their way home from school, which is why the roads around schools are usually littered with signage and flashing lights. Adults ought to know better which is why the law recognises various ages of responsibility.

If the person in the legal case was part of a herd, and the cyclist one of the righteous who proceeded solely on the green light then it sounds like majority the cyclists fault for pressing on. I'm sure there were witnesses to testify one way of the other.

The judge’s ruling found that the parties shared responsibility,

So I'm in no way legal but to me that sounds like an open invitation for the cyclist to counter claim. Ultimately both claims cancel each other out so the only ones that win are the law firms who make lots of money.

Devil's advocate:
It sounds like we don’t really know all the facts. What the narrative seems to be is that the ped walks into the road without looking. Looks up, then realises she's about to walk into trouble, then steps back. All of that must have taken a couple of seconds. The rider presumably saw her step into the road, and (I'm speculating, of course) decided to go behind her. To conserve speed? All very understandable. Obviously the two of them then collided as she again walked into his path by stepping backwards. So in all of that, maybe he could have slowed down more? Who knows? Perhaps he was riding aggressively?

It seems unfair at face value but maybe it's the correct outcome. If we (as people wot ride bikes) want vulnerable road users to be protected by the law, then this sort of thing might be OK.

Question to those who know such things: I understand that a pedestrian always has right of way over a bike/car. But does a cyclist legally have a right of way over a car? Or is a case of 'vehicles' vs non-vehicles?

Looks like the crash for cash brigade might have a new money making scheme.

Not really Dave, this is not as simple as a phone call to your insurer, and hella more expensive.

I do think the judge has it right. Many of us "get away" with swerving to avoid peds or similar all the time.

If the cyclist had slowed/stopped it would have been avoided (except being rear ended).

You'd think a higher contrib finding might have been appropriate, in our dreams. And of course drivers will no doubt continue to be held to lower standards.

it seems that there were a number of pedestrians still crossing the road when the lights went green, the cyclist saw a gap and carried on regardless, which the distracted pedestrian stepped into, whilst yelling and on the horn. If that's the case, appropriating some blame to the cyclist seems fair

So the most robust grounds for appeal could be: “on establishing their presence on the road, the pedestrian should have had all senses alert to other users already established on the route.”

This sets the case that pedestrians have a duty to reduce the likelihood of unexpected behaviour to occur at locations where there are typically higher incidents of accidents.

Should have hit her with a van, on the pavement.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437

Does seem that the only thing he did wrong was be on a bike.

Quite a reasonable judgement if you ask me; if cyclists want to be considered as equal to motorists in the road-using hierarchy they need to behave like motorists, which means watching out for hazards like dozy pedestrians. There's no difference.

Have to wonder about the mentality of someone who would cross a road, any road but particularly in London, without looking, without concentrating on the task... then sue someone for hitting them. People are ****ing idiots.
(That would be judge DezB's summing up anyway)

We were crossing a road at a junction in Richmond last month; a cyclist was approaching in the lane to turn right but suddenly swerved into the lane for turning left, which we were crossing, then carried out a punishment pass and swore at us. If he had hit one of my family I would definitely have sued the arrogant ****.

What's the "thinking distance" at say 10mph? If something suddenly presents itself in front of you within that distance your are going to hit it.

We were crossing a road at a junction in Richmond last month; a cyclist was approaching

Crazy-legs makes a good point..

As a former claims manager, and having read the reports a bit now, I think the judge has it right- if you are in charge of any vehicle you have to be prepared to avoid an idiot, and it reads to me that the cyclist kept going even though there were still pedestrians starting to cross, so he was partly to blame.

I was initially outraged, but less so now. The fact this happened at a busy junction where lots of pedestrians were either crossing or waiting is the key bit for me. Cyclist saw her step into the road, and had time to shout, reach for and blow an air horn and then made the decision to continue and weave past while the woman was still in the road.

If she'd stepped out from between two parked cars and been hit with no opportunity to react, I can't see it going her way in court.

As it was, it went 50-50, with her 50 percent reflecting her dozy mobile-glued-to-face activity, and his reflecting his choice not to stop (or at least attempt to) when some idiot steps in the road.

We were crossing a road at a junction in Richmond last month; a cyclist was approaching in the lane to turn right but suddenly swerved into the lane for turning left, which we were crossing, then carried out a punishment pass and swore at us. If he had hit one of my family I would definitely have sued the arrogant ****.

I assume you were crossing from left to right? The cyclist, in the right turn lane, sees you crossing, moving into his path so he takes the logical approach of moving to the left to pass behind you. (Which is also what sounds like happened in both this court case and the Charlie Alliston one). You've forced him to move over, of course you're going to get abuse and a close pass because I doubt he had much choice to avoid you by a much larger margin. You're in the road.
What zilog6128 said ^^.

I get the same when people pull out of a junction half way. You're like: are they pulling all the way out, are they going to stop half way and wait for me, have they seen me or not...?

And the whatever course of action you take ends up endangering you and others. Brake, and the traffic behind runs into you. Carry on and you risk the vehicle pulling out all the way. Swerve and you risk going into it (if it's waiting for you) or onto the pavement or into another car.

Don't step into the road in front of approaching vehicles, whether it's a bike or a truck. Not a difficult rule.

she ruled that Hazeldean was liable to pay damages, saying: “Cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”

Fair enough, where is the bar set when it comes to "unexpected" behaviour?
Based on this case, wandering in front of traffic without paying attention, distracted by a phone, and then reversing course when beeped still isn't "unexpected" enough...

Given that smartphone zombies are a fairly new development among road users, the law needs an update to make them take more responsibility

^^This^^

If it is an offence for people to operate vehicles on the road (including bicycles) while yapping on a mobile then at the very least a Ped who steps in front of traffic while distracted by their phone should forfeit any rights to blame other road users who might then collide with them, they're given up on their most basic duty to pay attention when crossing the road, we're all taught about that as children. How can others then be held responsible if a ped falls below the standard expected of a typical seven year old?

Quite a reasonable judgement if you ask me; if cyclists want to be considered as equal to motorists in the road-using hierarchy they need to behave like motorists, which means watching out for hazards like dozy pedestrians. There’s no difference.

There is no "hierarchy" there is "right of way", there is "duty of care" and there is "fault" and I think the problem with this judgement is that insufficient weighting was given to the peds use of a mobile when judging who was at fault, or appropriate understanding that even as a ped you still have a duty of care, 50/50 was a cop out...

The cyclist attempted to make her aware, attempted to take avoiding action and despite his efforts the half aware ped managed to engineer a collision... To even have the front to take it to court tells a story IMO...

@crazy-legs - absolutely on the dither pull out.
Also true in a car -- a friend of ours wrote off his car - might have been a SUV to be fair - trying to avoid someone who'd half pulled out - the sudden swerve and wobble threw the car off balance by a big margin and tumbled.

To avoid that scenario, when someone did that to me down in Northumberland, en route to visit Andy A, they froze half way out of a T junction on a small back road. Hit the brakes but kept car straight. Saab was drivable following inevitable impact - their Fiesta, less so :!

This story just featured at the end of Radio 4 World at One with one of the less outraged respondents on this thread.

Presumably 3rd party cover and legal cover from someone like british cycling would help in this scenario?

Lots of zombies on the road - walkers, kids, cyclists, cars

Hard to know if the journalists interpretation of what happening is really what happened

It sets a worrying precedent

I gather it's a county court decision and therefore it doesn't set any kind of precedent. http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/setting-a-precedent-what-does-it-actually-mean/

Think the Telegraph article is a bit better. But I personally still don't agree with the ruling.

Precedents relating to pedestrians and "traffic" go back to the days of horse and carts, there really is nothing new here. I'm assuming all you people saying it was 100% down to the pedestrian have never done the hazard perception test on the driving theory, and are also opposed to presumed liability, because if that comes in, it will apply to cyclist/pedestrian accidents as well

After my initial outrage the more I read the more it does seem the cyclist was well aware of the general pedestrian hazard in front (actually crossing the road) and chose to proceed, presumably without slowing much, heading for a gap only for the phone zombie to step into that gap. To be honest I would have done the same, peds stepping out into a red light for them, knowing its wrong but knowing you'll have to stop pisses me off (I'm not the most clear headed rider though, I wish I had more patience :p ). So it was likely avoidable so he does bear some responsibility, that said I don't think damages should have been awarded (unless he is able to counter-sue and also gets awarded the say compensation).

Think the Telegraph article is a bit better

She not only has a moronic way of crossing roads, but her sailing method leaves a lot to be desired too.

I assume you were crossing from left to right? The cyclist, in the right turn lane, sees you crossing, moving into his path so he takes the logical approach of moving to the left to pass behind you. (Which is also what sounds like happened in both this court case and the Charlie Alliston one). You’ve forced him to move over, of course you’re going to get abuse and a close pass because I doubt he had much choice to avoid you by a much larger margin. You’re in the road.

You assume wrongly. We were walking along the main road and we crossed a road joining from our left, which was one-way with left and right turning lanes and a central refuge for pedestrians. There were no traffic lights. We crossed safely to the refuge then looking left saw a cyclist approaching very fast in the right turning lane, which we had already crossed. We continued crossing the left turning lane but the cyclist changed his mind, swerved into the left lane, carried out a punishment pass and shouting arrogantly at us that we were idiots. Unnecessary rudeness like that is what gives the rest of us cyclists a bad name.

The cyclist attempted to make her aware, attempted to take avoiding action and despite his efforts the half aware ped managed to engineer a collision… To even have the front to take it to court tells a story IMO…

No. The cyclist failed in his duty as a road-user to anticipate pedestrian stupidity and his arrogant attempt to punish the pedestrian ended in disaster when he further failed to anticipate the pedestrian's panic reaction.

arrogant attempt to punish the pedestrian

Yep, thats obviously what happened.

More fuel to your dimwitted assessment:
[i]She "panicked" and tried to dodge back to a traffic island, but the cyclist, who had been travelling at between 10-15mph, swerved in the same direction and hit her

as well as shouting, swerving and braking in a bid to avoid the pedestrian

Three other pedestrian witnesses backed him, telling police that Ms Brushett was "not looking where she was going" and that "the cyclist was not at fault".[/i]
😆

and best of all - "she could not remember anything about the crash" but knew it wasn't her fault. Brilliant.

The cyclist attempted to make her aware, attempted to take avoiding action and despite his efforts the half aware ped managed to engineer a collision… To even have the front to take it to court tells a story IMO…

But, importantly, did not choose to attempt to stop. I'm not sure there would be any liability if he had no opportunity to stop prior to the collision (eg if she'd strolled out right into his path from between a couple of parked cars.)

It's right that she bears some, but not the entire responsibility for the incident, and we don't know why she chose to take it to court - it's possible that his insurance company had already come after her for 100% of the costs.

It constantly amazes me in this country that drivers assume that they have the right of way in all circumstances, and proceed accordingly, secure in the knowledge that pedestrians will cede the ROW in order to avoid being splattered. I've had many angry altercations with drivers turning into side-streets that I was crossing.

Maybe the cyclist was just pretending he was a motorist?

amazes me in this country that drivers assume that they have the right of way in all circumstances

Strange that, because on this mornings cycle in, there's 2 places where, if it's busy, I filter in and in both places drivers stopped to let me through even though they had right of way. Twas nice (But yes, unusual).

Maybe the cyclist was just pretending he was a motorist?

Well, he was "driving" according to the judge!

Maybe the cyclist was just pretending he was a motorist?
Well, he was “driving” according to the judge!

When I read the original report I wondered how the situation would have panned out if he had been in a car. Would he have tried pushing through the oblivious pedestrians who supposedly had no right to be in the road? I see drivers doing that much less often than I see cyclists doing the same. Dinging a bell doesn't automatically give you the right to be there - but I'm writing that while thinking about the knob I saw cycling around the marina last week, rather than this situation.

Or, to summarise, if he'd been in a car blasting his horn driving across the crossing and had hit her, who would be liable?

I have noticed more and more cars either beeping or actually pulling off when people are still crossing under a flashing crossing light.

At first reading the report i thought it over the top but then after more reading i can see why the judge has gone for a split fault though i would have gone a nit more for the ped as they were on there phone and not aware of the surroundings

I’m not sure you can expect the unexpected, the clue is in the name is it not.

I’m not sure you can expect the unexpected, the clue is in the name is it not.

He should have read the unwritten law 🙂

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3tlPtG1H2sM22eHNHtRYILuUdc1hdw4SvFna-sVqMxbKYol0gMLn4Br3M#Echobox=1561117650

Blimey!

Yeah. In-effing-sane.

Interestingly below that article there is a link to an old story:

Driver cleared over cyclist's death after crowdfunded case

“If failing to see an illuminated cyclist on a well-lit road is not careless driving, and no explanation for that failure is required, that reinforces the arguments Cycling UK has made through our road justice campaign for many years: namely, the definition and identification of bad driving offences needs urgent review.

I'd be going to jail rather than paying that. In fact, I couldn't pay that, not unless they'd be happy with instalments over the next 100 years!

The Guardian article seems to imply that he's liable for the whole of the legal costs. Surely if the responsibility is found to be 50-50, the legal costs should be split 50-50?

Also, dickhead-fixie-boy got an 18-month sentence for killing that woman riding like a dick, and will presumably be out in under a year, whereas this guy has a £100,000 debt and is facing bankruptcy, which is going to haunt him for years to come - which is worse?

Wow. If it's really anywhere near £100k and he doesn't have insurance I'll contribute to any crowd funding effort.

If he's self employed then personal bankruptcy could also impact his livelihood.

Crazy-legs - yeah I guess it would by instalments maybe in combination with an IVA.

North wind- I read the article as he is responsible. He made no claim against her, after all, so why should she have to pay any costs?

Less sensationalist sources say:
£4K injuries
£7k for his own legal fees
£10k for her fees suggested by judge (and contested by her legal team)

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-cover-rob-hazeldean039s-legal-fees

Press release from his solicitor re. counter claims and insurance-
https://levisolicitors.co.uk/news/our-client-robert-hazeldean/

twowheels beat me to it, gofunding up to £10k at the moment which is heartening.

Reading the above I'm less annoyed by the 50/50 split in fault, but still pretty depressed that somehow this guy ends up footing a massive bill, because he decided not to engage in the battle of the lawyers.