Pedestrian on the phone

[ian]

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.

[Whitedown Man]

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?

[ian]

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.

[Jakob]

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.

[TimO]

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.

[LMT]

Go fund me page currently at £28k.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-cover-rob-hazeldean039s-legal-fees

[ian]

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.)

[Paul H]

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.

[caerau]

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.

[Ham]

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.

[hellymedic]

Pedestrian's barrister's blog is on https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/

[Jurek]

Pedestrian's barrister's blog is on 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.

[citoyen]

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.)

[caerau]

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).

[Cpt Sisko]

Pedestrian's barrister's blog is on 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.

[ian]

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.

[citoyen]

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).

[ian]

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.

[DuncanM]

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?

[grams]

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.

[ian]

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.

[fd3]

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)?

[grams]

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.

[ian]

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.

[Sergeant Pluck]

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.