Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Socks on 18 June, 2019, 05:45:07 pm
-
I wonder if this standard of care applies when I am driving a car and a pedestrian steps out in front of me while looking at their phone?
Woman knocked down while on phone wins payout from cyclist
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/18/woman-knocked-down-while-on-phone-wins-payout-from-cyclist?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
The judge’s ruling found that the parties shared responsibility, so while Brushett is guaranteed a payout, she will get only half of the full value of her claim.
I think the cyclist has erred by not putting in a counter claim.
-
TBH, I think that as the operator of the more dangerous vehicle, it's reasonable that the cyclist is responsible by default. The pedestrian stepping out without paying attention being a mitigating factor is also reasonable. *shrugs*
-
While it may be reasonable, it’s not the law.
-
Wonder if the decision will be appealed. Does this set a precedent?
-
My understanding is he sounded his air horn, shouted and then tried swerving - he would have been better off applying the brakes.
-
My understanding is he sounded his air horn, shouted and then tried swerving - he would have been better off applying the brakes.
I was thinking that, I'd be on my brakes but also shouting a warning. There's a law of physics that means pedestrians will move to the gap you are aiming for. Anyone who ever cycles on shared infrastructure will be aware of this law.
-
My understanding is he sounded his air horn, shouted and then tried swerving - he would have been better off applying the brakes.
I'm struggling to argue with any of that.
ETA: Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere - so tell me if I am wrong - but anyone riding a bike fitted with an airhorn has an attitude of the cuntish variety.
Am I wrong?
If there's an expectation of the sort of sound which emanates from a bicycle.
It is that of a bell.
-
I really don't understand people whose reaction to a developing hazard is to reach for the horn, rather than the brakes. By all means yell something incoherent while you're at it; on a bike they might even hear you.
Swerving round pedestrians - while sometimes necessary - is a recipe for doom, for the reason Phil W states. Slowing down and aiming for the gap being created behind them tends to fail for the same reason - they'll make eye contact and jump backwards.
-
What about socks’ question though?
I wonder if this standard of care applies when I am driving a car and a pedestrian steps out in front of me while looking at their phone?
-
Surely the expectation in London is that pedestrians will step out in front of you. Coming out of a busy London Bridge Station in a morning, you can guarantee a good half dozen will cross in front of me without even a glance.
No sense getting aggravated and honking, bell ringing, and yelling at them, I slow down as necessary. I'm minded that we should all give way to pedestrians, it's our default state. Give them a smile and wave them through, you'll both have a nicer day.
But yes, I'd hope a higher standard of care would be applied to drivers. I suspect, as ever though, that I'll be disappointed.
-
Surely the expectation in London is that pedestrians will step out in front of you. Coming out of a busy London Bridge Station in a morning, you can guarantee a good half dozen will cross in front of me without even a glance.
No sense getting aggravated and honking, bell ringing, and yelling at them, I slow down as necessary. I'm minded that we should all give way to pedestrians, it's our default state. Give them a smile and wave them through, you'll both have a nicer day.
But yes, I'd hope a higher standard of care would be applied to drivers. I suspect, as ever though, that I'll be disappointed.
Oh I'd love to see you commute through central Amsterdam at rush hour...
It's not so much the pedestrians, it's the Tourists...
J
-
Surely the expectation in London is that pedestrians will step out in front of you. Coming out of a busy London Bridge Station in a morning, you can guarantee a good half dozen will cross in front of me without even a glance.
No sense getting aggravated and honking, bell ringing, and yelling at them, I slow down as necessary. I'm minded that we should all give way to pedestrians, it's our default state. Give them a smile and wave them through, you'll both have a nicer day.
But yes, I'd hope a higher standard of care would be applied to drivers. I suspect, as ever though, that I'll be disappointed.
Oh I'd love to see you commute through central Amsterdam at rush hour...
It's not so much the pedestrians, it's the Tourists...
J
Are the Tourists on foot, and therefore pedestrians?
-
Are the Tourists on foot, and therefore pedestrians?
I thought pedestrian was reserved for humans...
They have an ambulatory quality similar to pedestrians, but their situational awareness, sense of direction, and general demeanour is unlike the human pedestrians that live here...
J
-
You move about somewhere where others carry out unexpected movements - always expect the unexpected.
(if it is the case) As for hooting the horn rather than controlling the bike and slowing down. Indicates a state of mind. HOOT I'M MORE IMPORTANT!!!
-
My experience of REAL hazards is that you are too busy trying to avoid - and/or braking to actually do anything else. If he had time to hoot, then he had time to brake.
But.... like others have said... this expectation of the judge is not really applied to many motorists much now is it. ::-)
Since it's a 50/50 decision of liability he should definitely counter-claim.
-
The mere fact he had and air horn in the first place suggests he was keen to use it on somebody
-
As far as I can tell, neither were seriously injured, so perhaps rather than lawyers, they'd both have benefited from learning a lesson rather than arguing who is to blame and by how much.
-
Surely the expectation in London is that pedestrians will step out in front of you. Coming out of a busy London Bridge Station in a morning, you can guarantee a good half dozen will cross in front of me without even a glance.
No sense getting aggravated and honking, bell ringing, and yelling at them, I slow down as necessary. I'm minded that we should all give way to pedestrians, it's our default state. Give them a smile and wave them through, you'll both have a nicer day.
But yes, I'd hope a higher standard of care would be applied to drivers. I suspect, as ever though, that I'll be disappointed.
As with so many of your Posts, I'm with you on this one Sir! I salute you!
-
I really don't understand people whose reaction to a developing hazard is to reach for the horn, rather than the brakes.
It's learned behaviour, learned from motorists. Sadly (as has been stated) it appears to be acceptable practice for motorists to do this and is considered "fair warning".
-
I really don't understand people whose reaction to a developing hazard is to reach for the horn, rather than the brakes.
It's learned behaviour, learned from motorists. Sadly (as has been stated) it appears to be acceptable practice for motorists to do this and is considered "fair warning".
To be fair, in a car, you can lean on the brakes and the horn at the same time.
On a bike tho, not as plausible, tho on some disc brakes, you do get a similar effect...
J
-
It can be dangerous for me to just jam on the brakes or indeed sharply alter course; there might be someone behind me who'll come crashing in to me. This has happened when a pedestrian wandered across in front of me from behind a big tree, on a segregated cycleway in the rain, I braked as safely as I could and someone behind me came plowing into me saying 'sorry sorry sorry' (I think their rim brakes weren't the best...).
There is no right answer to this shit except scanning the road ahead for possible sleepwalkers and whistling or ringing a bell.
-
Some sections of my commute include canal towpath with blind-corner-under-bridge features.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of (usually) male riders who will ring their bell into one of these blind corners without having reduced their speed In The Slightest.
If I'm 'Ding-dinging!' my way into one of these, my speed is such that were it any slower, my two options would be a) foot down or b) track stand (which I'm not capable of doing, anyway).
-
I really don't understand people whose reaction to a developing hazard is to reach for the horn, rather than the brakes.
It's learned behaviour, learned from motorists. Sadly (as has been stated) it appears to be acceptable practice for motorists to do this and is considered "fair warning".
MIL's husband drives like this. When he sees some hazard developing, he moves his hand to above the horn where I'd be grabbing the steering wheel with both hands and moving my foot to the brake pedal. It's just one of the reasons I don't like being in his car[1].
Still not sure where people learn that from. When I learned to drive, horn use was treated the same way as tyre inspection and knowing where to refill the screenwash: Something they'd check you knew how to do in case it came up on the test, but not relevant to the actual driving.
[1] He also rides a motorcycle. I fear.
-
It can be dangerous for me to just jam on the brakes or indeed sharply alter course; there might be someone behind me who'll come crashing in to me. This has happened when a pedestrian wandered across in front of me from behind a big tree, on a segregated cycleway in the rain, I braked as safely as I could and someone behind me came plowing into me saying 'sorry sorry sorry' (I think their rim brakes weren't the best...).
There is no right answer to this shit except scanning the road ahead for possible sleepwalkers and whistling or ringing a bell.
Occupational hazard of riding a recumbent, as you can out-brake any DF bike by default. It's something I have to be aware of when cycling in That London, as the lycra commuter types are prone to sit in my blind spot and then be surprised when I stop for traffic lights.
The solution as you say is anticipation - allow yourself time to be able to react smoothly. It mostly works. Given the choice, I'll take the risk of being hit from behind over not quite managing to stop for the lemming though - deal with the part of the situation that you control and all that.
-
Sadly, a significant minority of people seem to think people should be somehow 'punished' for breaking their perceived 'rules'. A good example is the punishment pass or blast of the horn that I'm sure every cyclist is familiar with. I'm quite sure none of us like it (even if we justified it by making a mistake). I'm not sure why some cyclists think pedestrians like being treated in the same way. Or simply being 'told' our journey is somehow more important and they shouldn't be in the way, delaying our very important day.
Of course, you have the play the risks. I make a reasonable pace through the tide of pedestrians that a morning emits from London Bridge Station. I don't ding them or give them aggro. Some cyclists will speed by, zipping between them, occasionally dinging and more rarely shouting. I figure 99.9% of the time they're not going to hit anyone, but equally do we like being passed closely by cars (so again, do you think pedestrians like it any the more?). All the same, it leaves less of a margin if someone does something unpredictable like stop to pick up a dropped phone.
The irony, of course, is that generally I'll arrive behind them a few seconds later at the lights (if they bother to stop, of course).
-
The irony, of course, is that generally I'll arrive behind them a few seconds later at the lights (if they bother to stop, of course).
Which reminds me, we haven't had a FNRttS for ages. The silly commuter race[1] at the end is always good for a giggle.
[1] Once past Ealing Broadway, watch for a red-light-jumping cyclist (it doesn't usually take long). Proceed to race them down the Uxbridge Road, while rigorously obeying all traffic laws.
-
Oh, and when they overtake you at each light and then studiously get in your way. Death by weasel for the lot of them.
(Also the ones that grind past you and then the moment they've done so, run out of energy and slow to a crawl right in front, meaning you have go around them, so they'll overtake and then exhaust themselves again. Just ride at a constant bloody speed.)
Hmm, I think I'll take CS7 home. If there's one good thing, it concentrates the mind on the sorts of suitable punishments that will await these individuals when I get a management level role in Hell.
-
Oh, and when they overtake you at each light and then studiously get in your way. Death by weasel for the lot of them.
(Also the ones that grind past you and then the moment they've done so, run out of energy and slow to a crawl right in front, meaning you have go around them, so they'll overtake and then exhaust themselves again. Just ride at a constant bloody speed.)
Hmm, I think I'll take CS7 home. If there's one good thing, it concentrates the mind on the sorts of suitable punishments that will await these individuals when I get a management level role in Hell.
My bold.
That's the same as a clarinet (as taught by Mrs.Badcrumble), according to Eddie Izzard, if I remember correctly.
Part of my commute is along the Thames Path through Canary Wharf, where I'm pretty sure The Highway Code doesn't apply as most (if not all) of CW is privately owned.
There are signs advising cyclists to ride on the right (closest to the river, when heading south).
On occasion I have been told off by a ped for not doing so.
It must be a very special day for them, because they've managed to tell off a person riding a bicycle who was not doing as the sign was telling them to do.
I sincerely hope that they give themselves a big hug when they get home, and congratulate themselves on having had the most fruitful of days.
-
Oh, and when they overtake you at each light and then studiously get in your way. Death by weasel for the lot of them.
(Also the ones that grind past you and then the moment they've done so, run out of energy and slow to a crawl right in front, meaning you have go around them, so they'll overtake and then exhaust themselves again. Just ride at a constant bloody speed.)
Hmm, I think I'll take CS7 home. If there's one good thing, it concentrates the mind on the sorts of suitable punishments that will await these individuals when I get a management level role in Hell.
Don't ever go lanes-swimming for exercise. This sort of thing is almost de rigeur. :facepalm:
-
I really don't understand people whose reaction to a developing hazard is to reach for the horn, rather than the brakes.
Train drivers excepted...
-
I really don't understand people whose reaction to a developing hazard is to reach for the horn, rather than the brakes.
Train drivers excepted...
GPWM.
-
GPWM.
??
-
Good Point Well Made.
-
Good Point Well Made.
How the fsck did I not know that? Right, bed time. I'm clearly not with it.
J
-
Sorry, a person on the phone stepping out on the street and the cyclist is to blame?. Utter nonsense.
-
Sorry, a person on the phone stepping out on the street and the cyclist is to blame?. Utter nonsense.
The judge gave 50-50 liability - so equal blame. As has been commented- cyclist had time to blast their air-horn - so it’s not black and white this one - imnsho
-
I really don't understand people whose reaction to a developing hazard is to reach for the horn, rather than the brakes.
Train drivers excepted...
Well, once the train driver has pushed the brake lever to full emergency application they've nothing else to do until the train stops, so they may as well twiddle the horn lever in the hope that the person(s) in the way move in time.
(Obviously, if the obstruction is a big one (e.g. another train, like at Southall) the driver is better off heading for an area behind the crumple zone PDQ.)
-
Sorry, a person on the phone stepping out on the street and the cyclist is to blame?. Utter nonsense.
The judge gave 50-50 liability - so equal blame. As has been commented- cyclist had time to blast their air-horn - so it’s not black and white this one - imnsho
If the trigger to the airhorn is conveniently located, I'm quite sure that I would be able to both brake and activate the horn at the same time.
-
Sorry, a person on the phone stepping out on the street and the cyclist is to blame?. Utter nonsense.
Yeah, just like a car running over a kid playing football.
F'ing stupid kid. Should be corralled up in a play park so the cars can do what they like.
-
You ride down a road where there are pedestrians; pedestrians that need to get from one side of the road to another and you don't anticipate they'll do that? You are a runt beginning with a c.
-
Sorry, a person on the phone stepping out on the street and the cyclist is to blame?. Utter nonsense.
Yeah, just like a car running over a kid playing football.
Typically though the motorist would not be charged (but in the rare occasion that it's a cyclist...).
Agree that ideally people should drive/cycle to the conditions and pedestrians should not throw themselves blindly into the road. Not sure that's the world we live in though, or that it's a fair&consistent standard to hold people to.
-
Sorry, a person on the phone stepping out on the street and the cyclist is to blame?. Utter nonsense.
Yeah, just like a car running over a kid playing football.
F'ing stupid kid. Should be corralled up in a play park so the cars can do what they like.
Oh yeah, totally the same thing. :thumbsup:
-
My mum was the pedestrian when she was hit crossing the road 30+ years ago. No crossing at the time (there is now) and no mobile phone. Speed limit 40 at the time (30 now).
Lots of broken bones. She was told she had no claim and that she was lucky not to be claimed against.
Maybe things have improved for pedestrians, or maybe the law favours drivers over cyclists and pedestrians.
-
Two things going on here.
First there's the perceived injustice where cyclists are treated differently by the courts, both as accused and victims. But, unless you can show this particular judge is guilty of that, all you are left with is this case which shows no particular bias.
In fact all it has is common sense. Both are to blame but the cyclist, in the higher hierarchy of transport responsibility, has a duty of care they failed to exercise.
Anyone who commutes in London will immediately jump to the same conclusion about the cyclist, hearing that he has an air horn to deploy in his war against those pesky pedestrians.
To answer the OP question
I wonder if this standard of care applies when I am driving a car and a pedestrian steps out in front of me while looking at their phone?
Well, yes. Unquestionably.
If they step out without allowing reasonable (!!) time to react, then it isn't your fault. If they step out and you carry on driving without braking just sounding your horn, yes, that's your fault. And you know what? I'd truly expect any court verdict to reflect that.
I am glad you didn't ask about cyclist vs motorist interaction, as that court outcome is liable to be less satisfactory, but hey ho. See point 1.
-
Maybe things have improved for pedestrians, or maybe the law favours drivers over cyclists and pedestrians.
All judges and jurists drive a car. How many ride a bike? Scarcely few, and it shows in the court rulings.
-
Anyone who commutes in London will immediately jump to the same conclusion about the cyclist, hearing that he has an air horn to deploy in his war against those pesky pedestrians.
Quite. Though I think Jurek put it more succinctly.
-
Two things going on here.
First there's the perceived injustice where cyclists are treated differently by the courts, both as accused and victims. But, unless you can show this particular judge is guilty of that, all you are left with is this case which shows no particular bias.
In fact all it has is common sense. Both are to blame but the cyclist, in the higher hierarchy of transport responsibility, has a duty of care they failed to exercise.
Anyone who commutes in London will immediately jump to the same conclusion about the cyclist, hearing that he has an air horn to deploy in his war against those pesky pedestrians.
To answer the OP question
I wonder if this standard of care applies when I am driving a car and a pedestrian steps out in front of me while looking at their phone?
Well, yes. Unquestionably.
If they step out without allowing reasonable (!!) time to react, then it isn't your fault. If they step out and you carry on driving without braking just sounding your horn, yes, that's your fault. And you know what? I'd truly expect any court verdict to reflect that.
I am glad you didn't ask about cyclist vs motorist interaction, as that court outcome is liable to be less satisfactory, but hey ho. See point 1.
I think you're correct to say the judge might not be biased, in a situation like this there seem a duty of care inherent to the cyclist to the pedestrian, and a 50:50 split of blame seemed not unreasonable. He should have slowed down, she should have looked. Had either party done that, it would have been a non-event and they'd both have saved themselves a trip to A&E.
Sadly, I've not seen evidence that drivers are generally held up in the same way by courts (which is not the same to say as it doesn't exist) and I'm minded that drivers should carry a significantly higher duty-of-care, if not absolute, to other road users. They're operating tonnes of machinery (and quite often outside the bounds of the law).
That doesn't detract from the fact that too many cyclists in London ride like twunts. Too fast, and too aggressively. Very important people having very important days of course. I expect they're on their way to a Range Rover and high blood pressure. They have to start somewhere.
-
That doesn't detract from the fact that too many cyclists in London ride like twunts. Too fast, and too aggressively. Very important people having very important days of course. I expect they're on their way to a Range Rover and high blood pressure. They have to start somewhere.
I use CS3 along the Embankment most days. It's alarming how many cyclists coming the other way will come over to my side of the path to overtake slower cyclists, leading to some very near misses. Some people need to learn that the flip side of having all this lovely cycling infrastructure is that greater numbers of cyclists means accepting that sometimes you will be stuck in bike traffic - and understand that as with driving a car, you are part of that traffic.
Mind you, I've yet to observe an actual collision, and personally will always take evasive action rather than run into another cyclist to prove a stupid point.
-
That doesn't detract from the fact that too many cyclists in London ride like twunts. Too fast, and too aggressively. Very important people having very important days of course. I expect they're on their way to a Range Rover and high blood pressure. They have to start somewhere.
I use CS3 along the Embankment most days. It's alarming how many cyclists coming the other way will come over to my side of the path to overtake slower cyclists, leading to some very near misses. Some people need to learn that the flip side of having all this lovely cycling infrastructure is that greater numbers of cyclists means accepting that sometimes you will be stuck in bike traffic - and understand that as with driving a car, you are part of that traffic.
Mind you, I've yet to observe an actual collision, and personally will always take evasive action rather than run into another cyclist to prove a stupid point.
I've been near two pile ups, one resulting in hospitalisation, the worst stretch is west of Southwark Bridge IMO, although the variance in width around London Bridge can lead to fun, too.
Simple truth is that, much though we would prefer it otherwise, some bike riders are cunts as much as some drivers are, too. There are really two differences between cars and bikes. First, poor car behaviour is normalised and widely accepted. That can change, as it has done with drink driving but don't expect too much in the short term. Secondly, bad bike behaviour often happens in closer proximity to pedestrians. It's one thing for a car to shoot a red light, it's another for them to push through a pedestrian crossing inches away from a pedestrian (although it does happen)
Fortunately, the poor drivers and cyclists are in a minority, but the effect of their actions is disproportionate.
-
That doesn't detract from the fact that too many cyclists in London ride like twunts. Too fast, and too aggressively. Very important people having very important days of course. I expect they're on their way to a Range Rover and high blood pressure. They have to start somewhere.
I use CS3 along the Embankment most days. It's alarming how many cyclists coming the other way will come over to my side of the path to overtake slower cyclists, leading to some very near misses. Some people need to learn that the flip side of having all this lovely cycling infrastructure is that greater numbers of cyclists means accepting that sometimes you will be stuck in bike traffic - and understand that as with driving a car, you are part of that traffic.
Mind you, I've yet to observe an actual collision, and personally will always take evasive action rather than run into another cyclist to prove a stupid point.
I see quite a few wheel prangs on CS7, mostly minor, usually starting gate incidents (the usual suspects who like to the speed to the front at the lights and then do the s l o w start because they take an advanced period of entertainingly annoying wobbling before they finally achieve forward motion which is then slow because low gears are for girls). Close overtakes by the lycra boys are a guaranteed form of intimacy. I generally assume they just want to get me know better. I have nice buns.
I'm generally not annoyed*, it's just wry observation of the cycling clades of London, I rumble through the London suburbs like a cycling Desmond Morris. I think in part it's selective pressure, to be a cyclist in London still favours the young and brave, who view themselves as immortal and all-knowing (hey, I was young once, I get it). Plus they're mostly blokes and it's a thing about men, whether they know it or not, that they have to compete. I always put it down to a misplaced evolutionary imperative to impress potential mates. The irony, of course, is that there are usually more women at a Muslim Brotherhood meet than there are commuting down CS7 (in the spirit of the balance, there's probably more Muslims at a WI meeting; the entire London commute is less diverse than a KKK rally). As for potential mates who aren't on bikes, any appreciation is more likely to be delivered as a dopplered Waaaaaanker!
*well, the other day as I aborted an overtake of a cyclist in front of me because there was a big puddle, the chap who then decided to shimmy between us, nudging us both, and for bonus points then spraying us with Brixton's finest vintage road water. I might have been a tad annoyed then.
-
Oh, and when they overtake you at each light and then studiously get in your way. Death by weasel for the lot of them.
(Also the ones that grind past you and then the moment they've done so, run out of energy and slow to a crawl right in front, meaning you have go around them, so they'll overtake and then exhaust themselves again. Just ride at a constant bloody speed.)
Hmm, I think I'll take CS7 home. If there's one good thing, it concentrates the mind on the sorts of suitable punishments that will await these individuals when I get a management level role in Hell.
Don't ever go lanes-swimming for exercise. This sort of thing is almost de rigeur. :facepalm:
As per my post above, it reminds there was an article in the Guardian a few weeks back about precisely this – as it was a clickbait opinion piece she put it down to rampant sexism – really it's the same urge for blokes to compete over anything, and as such they'll push past anyone, including ambling Bromptoneers running a Desmond Morrisish commentary on their fellow cyclists through their heads.
(And yeah, I'm a regular lane swimmer.)
-
Does anyone else move a foot or two away from the curb when passing pedestrians even when the're not so close to the edge?
-
Does anyone else move a foot or two away from the curb when passing pedestrians even when the're not so close to the edge?
When circumstances permit, yes. Especially when my spidey-sense is tingling.
-
Does anyone else move a foot or two away from the curb when passing pedestrians even when the're not so close to the edge?
Definitely. I've yet to be in a bad scrape despite having worked in cycle delivery in London for nearly a year, because I am overly noided at how fucking stupid so many people seem to be.
-
Does anyone else move a foot or two away from the curb when passing pedestrians even when the're not so close to the edge?
Definitely. I've yet to be in a bad scrape despite having worked in cycle delivery in London for nearly a year, because I am overly noided at how fucking stupid so many people seem to be.
"noided" ??
-
Does anyone else move a foot or two away from the curb when passing pedestrians even when the're not so close to the edge?
Absolutely.
-
Does anyone else move a foot or two away from the curb when passing pedestrians even when the're not so close to the edge?
Definitely. I've yet to be in a bad scrape despite having worked in cycle delivery in London for nearly a year, because I am overly noided at how fucking stupid so many people seem to be.
"noided" ??
Paranoid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sticXkHxZC4
-
Does anyone else move a foot or two away from the curb when passing pedestrians even when the're not so close to the edge?
Yes, I generally try to ensure I've got enough space to go around anyone who steps or falls off the pavement.
In some places, like Wild West Croydon, it's best just to ride in the middle of the road while praying fervently to whatever deities you may feel are inclined to offer you protection.
-
First there's the perceived injustice where cyclists are treated differently by the courts, both as accused and victims. But, unless you can show this particular judge is guilty of that, all you are left with is this case which shows no particular bias.
I (a) agree and (b) disagree.
(a) The discussion is about the perceived (or real) injustice of cyclists being held to a higher standard than motorists, which would be clearly wrong.
(b) It is not a case of this judge, but of the judicial system as a whole. The law needs to be applied consistently by all judges, not just one judge sticking to his interpretation (the parallel would be exam marking not rugby union refs: all GCSE Maths exams must be marked the same way, the law must be applied the same way to everyone, it should not matter who the judge/examiner is).
It is very hard to prove (a) either way as the stats are so low for cyclists injuring pedestrians, however the injustice perceived is based on the absolute (vs %) comparison of #cyclists convicted vs #motorists let off.
-
I ha had pedestrian walk in front of me as i passed parked bus a few weeks ago. As I am slow and awake he just got reminded to look before he crossed. A slightly faster cyclist would have had no chance of avoiding him. However careful you ride there is always the chance you could hit a lemming :-\
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9hQvVoXoAAKbDq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
The Personal Injury team is acting for Mr Robert Hazeldean in defending a claim brought against him by Gemma Brushett.
Unfortunately, Mr Hazeldean had not felt able to instruct solicitors at the outset due to costs. He therefore tried to deal with the case as a litigant in person. The Claimant took advantage of this and has now sought almost £100,000 in costs.
https://levisolicitors.co.uk/news/our-client-robert-hazeldean/
-
However careful you ride there is always the chance you could hit a lemming :-\
And yet the only time I have ever done so was 32 years ago, when I was a reckless 14 year old.
I must be incredibly lucky, right?
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9hQvVoXoAAKbDq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
The Personal Injury team is acting for Mr Robert Hazeldean in defending a claim brought against him by Gemma Brushett.
Unfortunately, Mr Hazeldean had not felt able to instruct solicitors at the outset due to costs. He therefore tried to deal with the case as a litigant in person. The Claimant took advantage of this and has now sought almost £100,000 in costs.
https://levisolicitors.co.uk/news/our-client-robert-hazeldean/
This is why I don't get the reaction here. This could happen to anyone here. A fairly wealthy person decides to sue the shit out of you and there's nothing you can do, unless you have similar level of resources.
Instead it's "Oh, he had an airhorn, he must be a bad person"...and "I'm such a good and considerate cyclist, that it would never happen to me".
It's friggin' common sense to look for traffic when stepping onto the road...to then do so, whilst busy with your phone and then claiming the other party is at fault, is complete nonsense. Why does it always have to be someone elses fault? It's one of the worst traits of the UK."We must blame someone!! (And ideally someone else)".
-
Well, it's a separate point that rich people have access to legal tools that the rest of us don't and can indeed use the law as a weapon.
I don't think he is a bad person. Actually, having read the response, he seems anything but reasonable.
Like I say, they could have both learned a lesson here and moved on with their lives. Neither was seriously injured. It seems he was willing to, and that she wasn't. I think the only people who will be enriched by this will be the lawyers. I hope she feels better for having bankrupted someone over what was ultimately an accident.
-
Instead it's "Oh, he had an airhorn, he must be a bad person"...and "I'm such a good and considerate cyclist, that it would never happen to me".
The claimant is a vile excuse for a human being, but the cyclist’s hubris is what got him into this mess, which mitigates my sympathy somewhat.
It's friggin' common sense to look for traffic when stepping onto the road...to then do so, whilst busy with your phone and then claiming the other party is at fault, is complete nonsense. Why does it always have to be someone elses fault? It's one of the worst traits of the UK."We must blame someone!! (And ideally someone else)".
This is more about liability than fault, isn’t it?
Accidents happen, we all know that. Most of them are avoidable but we’re all human so we make some allowances. But when they do happen, there may be costs involved in putting right the damage, and those costs need to be met by someone.
What’s really outrageous in this case is not that the cyclist has been found liable but that the costs are entirely disproportionate and unfair, not to mention unnecessary.
Lesson: don’t run into someone who can afford more expensive lawyers than you.
-
I think the sad lesson of the British legal system is don't do anything to people who can afford better lawyers than you.
-
TBH that's why I went straight to the British Cycling website for the £33.50 deal.
-
I ha had pedestrian walk in front of me as i passed parked bus a few weeks ago. As I am slow and awake he just got reminded to look before he crossed. A slightly faster cyclist would have had no chance of avoiding him. However careful you ride there is always the chance you could hit a lemming :-\
I always assume someone is going to appear behind every stopped large vehicle, and ride accordingly.
That said, the guy does seem to have been completely screwed by the legal system.
-
That's it - from this point if I am in an accident with a pedestrian I am going to think twice before I stop. Being a decent human being will get you dragged through the courts and taken to the cleaners. What a joke.
-
TBH that's why I went straight to the British Cycling website for the £33.50 deal.
For a London commuter cyclist, that’s a far more sensible use of your money than an air horn.
-
TBH that's why I went straight to the British Cycling website for the £33.50 deal.
Is that the £37 deal now - or is there another they're not making obvious?
:D
-
TBH that's why I went straight to the British Cycling website for the £33.50 deal.
Is that the £37 deal now - or is there another they're not making obvious?
:D
That’s the deal with the free airhorn...
-
It says £33.50 if you pay by direct debit.
-
They're on thin ice with Direct Debit being cheaper, you can claim the excess you paid for not doing that from your energy supplier these days.
Back to the main point. I hope a pro-bono lawyer reads that and helps him out. The judge finding it 50-50 liability I don't have a problem with per se - but.... getting screwed over by someone rich because they *can* in court - not at all. :(
[edit] - ah, having now come back and seen that this does indeed at least appear to be a pro-bono law firm that has stepped in... that's great. Good luck Mr Hazeldean.
-
Well, once cycling becomes an activity with effectively mandatory insurance, it's likely game over other than for a small niche of dedicated daily cyclists.
-
More of a devil’s advocate question than a challenge (esp. as I fundamentally disagree with the idea of mandatory cycling insurance) but if mandatory motor insurance doesn’t mean that the driving game is over other than for a small niche of daily dedicated drivers, then why would an acceptably cheap [key point, I know] insurance charge mean that the cycling game is over other than for a small niche of daily dedicated cyclists?
-
Because the attraction of cycling is that you can just get on and go. Once you weigh it down with specialised equipment and make it an activity that requires insurance and other mandates, it's no longer get on and go. Outside of London, cycling is already a deeply unattractive proposition for most people. Insurance would make it even less attractive. It becomes a niche for cyclists and not people on bikes.
This all said, if cyclists need insurance, then so do pedestrians. This claim was split 50:50, after all, there's nothing to stop a cyclist instigating a claim on the same basis against a pedestrian.
But like I say, the only people who win are the lawyers and insurance companies.
-
There's nothing to stop a cyclist instigating a claim on the same basis against a pedestrian.
Erh, there is. If you don't have the money to retain a lawyer.
-
I presume the British Cycling cover discussed here, is much the same as provided by the
CTC Cycling UK and LCC? As I recall, they both provide Third Party Liability insurance, and Legal Advice (quite possibly provided by the same organisations). I'm not in British Cycling, but I am a member of the other two.
I do wonder exactly how much security that does provide, although it's clearly far better than nothing, and certainly it appears that in this case, he could clearly have used some advice at the very start of the process.
As regards the specifics of this case, for all that things do appear to have produced an unfair result, the whole horn thing is very odd, and suggestive of him really not being as careful as he should, and hence presumably some justification for the judges decision not being entirely against the pedestrian.
I think I'll rely on my brakes mostly, camera just in case, and bell as a warning, when passing the "not entirely asleep" class of pedestrian.
-
Go fund me page currently at £28k.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-cover-rob-hazeldean039s-legal-fees
-
There's nothing to stop a cyclist instigating a claim on the same basis against a pedestrian.
Erh, there is. If you don't have the money to retain a lawyer.
Well, that's what I said earlier – access to justice is limited by your ability to fund it. But if you're a rich cyclist, then you could take the same vindictive litigation approach against a pedestrian. I'm not saying it's desirable or right.
Anyway, I'll bung him a couple of quid on the grounds she may find this ultimately costs her a lot more than what it was worth.
(I'm not sure, as I've never looked, whether the standard legal insurance in home policies covers this kind of thing.)
-
I do wonder exactly how much security that does provide, although it's clearly far better than nothing, and certainly it appears that in this case, he could clearly have used some advice at the very start of the process.
It provides all the security you need, just like a third party motor policy except there's no excess to pay and they can't put your premiums up.
As soon as the claim was made it'd be the insurers rather than CUK/BC/LCC dealing with it and their interests in not paying out coincide with your own. I've also read that if insurers had been involved the legal fees would have been capped at below £7,000 for each side, which increases the incentive to settle before the expense of going to court.
-
Legal protection on my home insurance is limited to £50,000 - having just renewed mine I took the liberty of taking a look - I think it just might actually - interesting. Though I'm payed up with Cycling UK, it's still interesting to know.
-
Legal protection is to pay lawyer's bills, you probably also have 3rd party liability of £500k or more which would pay any damages. The nature of the policy will determine whether it is just related to building (eg wall falls on someone) or is extended to you outside the home.
-
Pedestrian's barrister's blog is on https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/ (https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/)
-
Pedestrian's barrister's blog is on https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/ (https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/)
Interesting to note the following:
None of the statements given to the police on the day of the accident, including the Defendant’s, mention that the Claimant was using her mobile phone.
-
The final line basically says what several of us have already said in this thread:
"If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury."
If Mr H's version of events is to be believed, the cyclist is a bloody idiot. I suspect Mr H is one of those prigs who never jumps red lights but he's entitled to take the moral high ground on this one since he's not the one who knocked over a pedestrian.
(Also: makes a mental note to hire Aneurin Moloney if I ever end up as defendant or claimant on a criminal negligence case.)
-
50-50 (as I personally said before) liability - still sounds fair enough to me - though one can never be 100% sure of course since one wasn't there.
If she was not in fact on her phone - she still walked out when lots of others had stopped (if you were paying attention, you might notice that huh?) - you don't have to be looking at a phone to be in Daydreamsville, Cloud cuckoo land. Walking out into a road without looking or paying attention is a bad move.
Doesn't sound like (it never did) that he made much effort to slow down either though - that's hardly sociable
£100,000 costs is still a fairly unwarranted penalty - though it's now 50% paid for crowd sourced last I looked. I agree with him that I don't particularly like blame-culture* ... but if they start to sue - then countersuing is frankly only sensible.
As others have said though - it should never have even gone to court. Win-win for the lawyers.
*though I've sued for damages myself using my CTC/cycling UK membership since there was no other way of getting the guilty motorist punished in any way - slap of the wrists is all he got in court for sure (though I was not invited, I know what he was charged with).
-
Pedestrian's barrister's blog is on https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/ (https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/)
As I read it, the cyclist had plenty of opportunity to read the situation up ahead, slow down or even stop as necessary. Instead he chose to accelerate in to a conflict area, sound his horn and went in get out of my way mode. This doesn't excuse the pedestrian's action of stepping into the road with looking properly, but it wasn't as one sided as we've all been led to believe.
-
I'm not sure of the value of hindsightery, outcomes coalesce around brief moments and judgements, and I think we've all made errors. I'd no idea of the personalities involved. I still think they both should have treated it as a learning experience, neither was seriously injured, and it seemed the cyclists was willing to treat it as so. These things seem a waste of time and effort, bankrupting something isn't a veryefficient reward.
A pedestrian walked out in front of me this morning, like a rocket across the lights with Borough High Street. I could have slammed my brakes on, but hey, Brompton and wet road, plus a taxi driver behind intent on a close up of my rear end. So I had to opt for a swerve behind her. Not my preference, had she returned to reality and noticed the taxi she might have opted to jump back. It's the sort of momentary judgement call. I could have tried skidding to a halt, I could have gone ahead of her, I could have frantically rung my bell like a very motivated campanologist, I could have yelled. Grabbing her attention at that point would have, I suspect, led to panic and unpredictability. But who knows how it would have been judged months later in a court if I had hit her. It's easy to pick apart these things afterwards, but in the reality you have often less than a second to make a decision.
-
I'm not sure of the value of hindsightery, outcomes coalesce around brief moments and judgements, and I think we've all made errors.
Mr H apparently didn't require hindsight to avoid that particular error.
It's easy to pick apart these things afterwards, but in the reality you have often less than a second to make a decision.
2-4 seconds in this case, depending on how fast the cyclist was actually moving. Plenty enough time for him to make the decision to sound his horn (I find that in most genuine emergency situations in the car, I don't have time to sound the horn, and that it wouldn't make any difference anyway).
-
True enough. I've not really argued with the 50-50, other than the fact they should have perhaps dealt with their mistakes outside of the legal system, and I'm not sure why the damages are so high. But anyway, I'm no fan of creeping litigation (or lawyers in soft-soled shoes), I've lived in the US where it's a sport and no one other the lawyers and insurers really benefit.
I don't really approve of dinging, beeping, or yelling at pedestrians, even if they're at fault. Give way is my policy, though this morning was a moment when I had to make a call. I suppose it could be argued why didn't I stop – I wasn't going superfast, it might have been OK. But I mostly focused on the taxi behind, they're typically target fixated, if I brake, there's no guarantee he'll be looking for what's ahead of me.
-
It seems that he sounded his horn form a fair distance away, as a way to communicate to a big group of pedestrians that he (and other traffic) was approaching. That seems reasonable, if unnecessary. The accelerate/decelerate thing seems to be the key.
Is there any information about whether they were stopped a t the light prior to going through the junction? I can see how a person with a max speed of 12 mph cruising through the junction might find someone accelerating to 20mph as excessive. From the other perspective, if you ride at 20mph as a matter of course, and you want to ensure you reach the junction ahead of any traffic that you anticipate approaching from behind, accelerating up to that speed across the junction is perfectly normal, and in normal circumstances the pedestrians will all just give way after they have noticed that traffic is approaching. It's interesting that pedestrian witnesses thought that the pedestrian was in the wrong, and the only cycling witness thought that the cyclist was in the wrong.
The injuries sound significant enough to have a material impact on the pedestrians life - concussion, head injuries, facial scarring, dental problems. If a driver had inflicted that on a cyclist through a left hook or other "inattentive" manoeuvre, might we be saying "all that and only £4k"? However, if that were the sum total of the award against the cyclist, there would be much less of a problem - it's the costs that are the issue. Why is it that if a claim is 50:50, costs are awarded?
-
I think the "20 mph" is bollocks... people are incredibly bad judges of speed and achieving that requires serious effort. And my recollection is King William Street is a slight uphill.
I think it's boggling that such flimsy witness statements are enough to lay blame on any party.
-
From the claimant's barrister's article
The trial of the quantum of damages was heard the following week. It was found that the Claimant suffered a head injury involving concussion, dental injuries including a change to her bite, and facial scarring. The Claimant was awarded £4,000 in general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, and £161.79 in special damages (reduced from a total award of £8,323.57 for contributory negligence).
Costs, I assume were awarded because the defendant didn't make a counterclaim and someone has to buy the barrister's lunch. It's somewhat astounding that for such a small award the costs are so high, but welcome to our legal system.
I've gone back to having not a lot of sympathy after reading that, I've no reason not to believe that witness evidence that the cyclist relied upon his airhorn to clear the junction and continued to accelerate towards them, which is a bit of a double-dick move. The junction is a pedestrian-rich environment, any sensible London cyclist would assume they're not going to spritely step out of the way.
-
Can anyone shed more light on the £100k award? I'm puzzled as to how this is justified considering the damages incurred. Also, if this is 50-50, doesn't that mean that the cyclist is liable for 50%, e.g. were the costs actually £200k?
Could the cyclist appeal (specifically against paying the costs)?
-
From the Gofundme page:
£4,300 for the compensation, payable in 14 days.
£10,000 to cover the pedestrian's legal fees, payable in 21 days (this may increase when the final cost award is declared as they are seeking around £100,000 in costs - but £10,000 was the amount indicated by the judge).
£7,000 to cover Robert's own legal fees.
I think the compensation is 50% of what it "should" be and the costs are 100%, but that's a total guess on my part.
-
See the quote above – the award to her was £8,323.87 and halved through the contributory negligence calculation. No one was awarded £100k, those were, I assume, the costs for bringing the action (I can't find a reference to the actual amount).
Someone with a finer legal mind than mine would need to explain what would have happened if he had counterclaimed, it would seem on naive judgement, they'd both be out-of-pocket unless insured to cover the full costs.
-
Someone with a finer legal mind than mine would need to explain what would have happened if he had counterclaimed, it would seem on naive judgement, they'd both be out-of-pocket unless insured to cover the full costs.
I read somewhere that if he had counterclaimed, the legal costs would have been capped to £7k per side.
Correction: if he had been insured, costs would have been capped to £7000:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cyclist-faces-bankruptcy-over-100k-costs-bill-for-injured-pedestrian/5070701.article
As it is, her lawyers have been able to take the piss.
-
I read yesterday that £110,000 was the amount he'd been required to pay in costs - and yes it's the costs of bringing the case - not the amount of compensation. It's because he didn't countersue and was uninsured, as said - his team are indeed appealing this - it's this appeal that is being crowdfunded.
I'll see if I can re-track it down, though I think it just cropped up on my phone's newsfeed.
-
Cyclingweekly is quoting a much smaller legal cost. I am still confused as to whether he has to pay all the legal or half (as its 50-50 liability). I would have assumed half based on the ruling.
-
It seems mildly insane that a small case could cost £100k. I think there's a bit of bluffery. According to what I've read, costs have yet to be awarded and presumably, as far as I understand*, will be split.
*which I probably don't.
-
I *believe* that costs are being talked about as *up to* £100k, but that the judge in the case was muttering about £10k, and presumably has the power to decide what will actually be awarded, so it's reasonable to assume that
hisher award will be in line with hisher mutterings.
-
so it's reasonable to assume that his award will be in line with his mutterings.
Or, in this case, hers.
-
so it's reasonable to assume that his award will be in line with his mutterings.
Or, in this case, hers.
Indeed - apologies, and corrected.
(Lazy, lazy language on my part.)
-
So it looks like the £100k tag is just there to sell papers?
-
I think it's shock value.
But anyway, even at £10k, for £8k damages award cut by half, that's not exactly good value unless an insurance company is paying the bill.
I still they've have been better both learning from the experience and getting on with their lives (and I speak as someone who's experienced extensive legal dealings over an accident).
-
The barrister for the claimant reports the costs in this twitter thread with Martin Porter:-
https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143233029776842752
Martin Porter: "Thanks Nye. Are press reports of seeking £100k costs accurate? Thx."
Aneurin Moloney: "Something like £95k I think. A bit more to it here too; case had been run for 4 years, D was LiP for 3 years and living in France, 3 expert witnesses (and D submitted we should have used more), 2 day trial....."
...
Aneurin Moloney: "For completeness, I think that D’s own legal costs were in the region of £18,000. He had representation from October 2018 (i.e. 8 to 9 months) after the Defence had already been served."
(C = claimant, D = defendant)
-
Blimey, £95k and four years (!) effort for a 2-day trial and £8k damage award (cut by half).
The legal world is weirder than I thought.
-
100k still seems crazy. If you hired someone on 25k for 4 years to do nothing but this case. Surely the ~10 people involved in this don't get paid 10k each for the number of full days they actually spent on this case.
-
To be fair, while it seems crazy to the layperson, it is at least cheaper and more effective than management consulting.
-
Yeahbut management consultants get paid by big money companies.
-
I think this is a tragic case all round.
But a litigant in person is an idiot. I suspect most of the costs were from his delays and misunderstandings. 3 expert witnesses will have added a lot to the costs. There will have been at least a neurologist, a plastic surgeon and a a dental surgeon. Each of those would have charged £1k for their initial report plus costs for any other letters, conferences, etc. Then each of them would have been on £2.5k for each day in court. At a 2 day hearing you already have £20k in expert costs.
If he had used his household insurance this would have never reached court and been settled by in house lawyers for about £3k.
The claimant had offered to settle for less than she was finally awarded. That is why she got costs If she had been awarded less than her part 36 offer she would have had to pay her solicitors costs.
-
Just in case people are not aware, this very busy crossing, on the northern side of Cannon Street at the juction of King William Street, hasn't got lights for pedestrians.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.51110/-0.08700
this vid shows the crossing with the camera facing west:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ywiHP8iyQ
-
https://road.cc/content/news/271489-london-cyclist-found-jointly-liable-crash-pedestrian-gets-ps60k-plus-bill
Mr Hazeldean announced on a Twitter thread this morning: "It's not the result I was hoping for, but I do at least feel free of it now." The crowdfunder raised £59,643, and after everything was paid on both sides this swallowed up all of that money plus an extra £2,979 Hazeldean had to cover himself. Hazeldean's costs came to £25,122, Brushett's costs were settled for £30,000, the GoFundMe crowdfunder fees came to £2,766, and the damages were £4,300 with £434 interest.
Initially Brushett's lawyers wanted £112,000 costs, but settled at £30,000.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616
Not the result I was expecting.
Despite speeding and riding an illegal vehicle, the jury decided looking before crossing a road was more important.
It's nothing worth celebrating, but at least there is some sense left and people aren't prosecuted simply for riding bicycles as it would seem in other cases.
-
The victim in that incident didn't just not look - it looked to me like a suicide attempt (sadly successful). Some people do just use their ears to cross the road rather than their eyes I've noticed. If it was a suicide attempt then choosing a bike to run under is not the option of choice.
The guy on the bike didn't do himself any favours though. He's very lucky to get away with the rest of it.
Sad case as these always are. :(
-
Some people do just use their ears to cross the road rather than their eyes I've noticed.
I think this is on the ha-ha-only-serious list of "weird hearing people habits", like talking to people from the next room and looking away mid conversation.
-
Some people do just use their ears to cross the road rather than their eyes I've noticed.
Round these parts Darwin tends to cull those people...
J
-
Some people do just use their ears to cross the road rather than their eyes I've noticed.
I think this is on the ha-ha-only-serious list of "weird hearing people habits", like talking to people from the next room and looking away mid conversation.
My pet hate, people trying to have a conversation with me from another room or whilst walking away from me into another room. I've got bolshie about it and pretend not to hear (which can also be partly true, especially if I'm not listening).