[Closed] Commuters beware!

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.

And this is why it is wise to have liability insurance if you cycle (which might be covered by your household policy anyway, terms may vary etc etc)

Interesting, from his statement, he didn't engage lawyers at the start because "I do not advocate the claim culture." Others do (mtb instructor being sued is one example) and so we have to prepare for it.

Batsh1t fing crazy.

Have some £ mate - there but for the grace of God I say..

That Gofundme page is making good progress. It has increased by nearly £4K since I went on it when the link was posted.

And this is why it is wise to have liability insurance if you cycle (which might be covered by your household policy anyway, terms may vary etc etc)

However I guess if you DID have liability you’d just put your hands up and say Yup my fault, and the insurance would pay out

If you've got insurance, you just tell them what happened and they'll deal with it. Unlikely to ever have to go to court. Never accept liability for anything - it's the insurance company's job to argue it.

Reading the guys statement from the lawyers, it seems he's a been a little naive and the phone zombie woman has played herself a little blinder.

I have read that he didn't engage lawyers initially, which may explain his failure to counter sue, or lodge a tender (not sure what that is called in Englandshire).

That is basically an offer in court which would have given him some protection in terms of liability for some of the costs.

NW-hes liable for her costs as the decision has gone against him - it was justified legally for the claimant to sue. If he'd countersued then I suppose there would have been no liability.

Genuine question - has any cyclist successfully claimed off a pedestrian for stepping straight out in front of them ?

NW-hes liable for her costs as the decision has gone against him – it was justified legally for the claimant to sue.

I didnt think it was that simple. Fairly certain I have seen cases where when the verdict was both partially to blame each party had to handle their own costs.
Its a shame he didnt counter sue. Hopefully one of her yoga students will strain a muscle and sue her to hell and back.

I checked & my CUK insurance covers liability but NOT legal expenses

Is that the insurance that all CUK members get? While it doesn't cover your legal expenses, I think it's possible that expenses of a third party, which you're ordered to pay by a court, would be covered as a liability.

It's only the lawyers that win. She's getting £4k compensation, but might well be on a no-win no-fee deal with her lawyers so they may take a chunk of that (do they do that even if the court awards them costs?) while it's costing him £100k.