Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 100 total)
  • Commuters beware!
  • trumpton
    Free Member

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

    zippykona
    Full Member

    That is nuts.

    Is there a crowdfund to appeal?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    thenorthwind
    Full Member

    “She did a really stupid thing… but it’s half his fault anyway” Whaaaat????

    dissonance
    Full Member

    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.

    thenorthwind
    Full Member

    That is nuts.

    Is there a crowdfund to appeal?

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

    bikebouy
    Free Member

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

    jimdubleyou
    Full Member

    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…

    Philby
    Full Member

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

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    I’d rather crowdfund an appeal TBH, this sets a terrible precedent…

    kcal
    Full Member

    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..

    fasthaggis
    Full Member

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

    jimdubleyou
    Full Member

    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!

    njee20
    Free Member

    **** hell, that’s insane.

    slowoldman
    Full Member

    Ridiculous

    fossy
    Full Member

    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).

    w00dster
    Full Member

    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.

    singletrackmind
    Full Member

    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

    zilog6128
    Full Member

    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).

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    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, who was not wearing a helmet, 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 cyclist 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.

    DezB
    Free Member

    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 **** way I’d be paying up.

    winston
    Free Member

    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.

    kcal
    Full Member

    .. 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…

    ransos
    Free Member

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

    slowoldman
    Full Member

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

    CountZero
    Full Member

    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.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    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.

    CountZero
    Full Member

    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.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    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.

    scuttler
    Full Member

    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.

    ransos
    Free Member

    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.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

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

    trustysteed
    Full Member

    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?

    footflaps
    Full Member

    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.

    vickypea
    Free Member

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

    imnotverygood
    Full Member

    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.

    scuttler
    Full Member

    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.

    jeffl
    Full Member

    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.

    Superficial
    Free Member

    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.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 100 total)

The topic ‘Commuters beware!’ is closed to new replies.