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)

after a post on the new (closed) thread I checked & my CUK insurance covers liability but NOT legal expenses (which is the bulk of the cost in this poor guy’s case). 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 – there’d be no need to go to court therefore legal expense insurance isn’t necessary? If the insurance company decided to fight it in court that would be down to them, nothing to do with you?

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.

It does seem harsh.

It’s consistently applied though.

Years ago, my friend had been boozing all day and was off his face. It was late at night and he was wandering home.

For no reason, he just sprinted out into the road from between two parked cars and into the path of an oncoming car.

Driver was going fairly slowly, but still hit him, despite slamming on the brakes, and sent him up onto the bonnet and windscreen.

He damaged his shoulder and was in hospital with cuts and bruises for a week or so.

The driver was devastated.

Police did prosecute, but at a very low level and my mate received compensation from the driver’s insurer, albeit reduced for the contributory negligence of being shitfaced.

Having been there that night, pretty sure natural justice wasn’t done. There was absolutely nothing that the driver could have done to avoid the collision.

At least the driver had insurance to settle the claim.

dissonance I don’t doubt it can be different/more complex in other situations.

I do wonder what she initially sued for.

Notes on the trial tweeted by the pedestrian’s lawyer: https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143253185840189441?s=19

The final witness was Mr H. He had been cycling over London Bridge and had waited at the lights before it turned to green. He told the police that he was overtaken by the Defendant after the traffic lights. He said that the Defendant sounded his airhorn at that point and“cycled towards a large number of pedestrians who were still crossing the road……..The cyclist did not slow down and I heard him shout something towards the pedestrians. I then saw the cyclist’s bike strike a lady on the left side knocking her to the ground…….”

Could be seen as riding like a dick then also.

Interesting that ^^ the fact that the guy rides (sorry, rode – he lives in France now) in London blasting his airhorn to get peds to move, does make him sound like a bit of a dick. But also a product of the environment he rode in – trying to make progress while loads of people cross the road without looking must be pretty frustrating… but then again, to be expected in London at rush hour.

Could be seen as riding like a dick then also.

Was my impression from the first news report. I compared it to driving a car into a crowd of people. Even given a green light and beeping a horn you’d be unlikely to do it and would be liable if you injured someone.

(I’ve a feeling that I might have got impatient if I couldn’t ride through on a green, and start riding through gaps, but be very prepared to stop, with a loud huff and eye roll!)

Brushett v Hazeldean – The Facts

The Claimant relied on Mr H as her only witness on the issue of liability. Mr H attended trial and was cross examined by the Defendant’s barrister.

Mr H’s evidence included a voice memo that he had recorded on his mobile phone minutes after the accident in order to provide a more detailed account than that recorded by the police. His witness statement expanded upon his police statement. He described in Court that there was a ‘throng’ of pedestrians 5 or 6 deep crossing the road, and estimated that there were 50 people in this group. He described that he slowed his bicycle because he felt that it was unsafe to proceed with people still crossing.

Mr H said that he was overtaken by the Defendant, who was travelling at around 20mph and had sounded his airhorn. Mr H considered that the Defendant accelerated as he approached the crossing. He saw the Defendant collide with the Claimant who was crossing the road. He remained of the view that the Defendant was to blame.

Tooting your horn before going full chat into a big group of pedestrians doesn’t sound like riding with due care and attention to me, even if it is normal behaviour for London.

Have to say, the defendant must have had a good witness on his own side to have avoided going down for 100% liability based on that description.

Quite glad I didn’t rush to donate to his crowdfunding cause after the initial headlines!

Never do I donate to things like these however I am feeling more inclined to do so by the day.

Sad day…

even if it is normal behaviour for London.

It isn’t.

the defendant must have had a good witness on his own side to have avoided going down for 100% liability based on that description.

He had three saying “there was nothing he could do”