Keep your eyes on the road. That’s the message from the High Court in Northern Ireland, which has reduced the damages awarded to a cyclist involved in a collision with a car because the judge found that looking at his heart rate monitor amounted to contributory negligence.
The court awarded Conor McAllister over £50,000 in damages after finding that driver John Campbell was responsible for the injuries Mr McAllister sustained when he hit Mr Campbell’s car in November 2009.
But the damages would have been £70,000 if Mr McAllister had been looking where he was going.
According to a report in the News Letter, the car and rider were on the dual carriageway outside Ballymena when the incident happened. Mr McAllister was heading out toward Broughshane at the beginning of a ride.
Mr Campbell said he had pulled over to give his sister-in-law a lift. He said he had been stationary for 30 seconds when Mr McAllister rode straight into the back of his car.
But Mr Justice Stephens found more credible Mr McAllister’s claim that Mr Campbell had just pulled in in front of him.
He held that the length of scrape marks on the car was inconsistent with it having been stopped and the handbrake applied.
There were inconsistencies in Mr Campbell’s story, the judge said, but he did not believe the driver had acted with malicious intent.
“Without any ulterior motive he has rationalised after the event how it occurred,” Mr Justice Stephens said.
“The defendant was flustered by seeing his sister-in-law and there was a period of indecision.”
In his confusion the driver had either forgotten about the rider he had passed, or else disregarded his presence.
“This failure was negligent,” the judge said.
But Mr McAllister had contributed to the crash by looking down at his heart rate monitor, the judge found, reducing the damages by 25 percent from £70,000 to £52,500.
Mr Justice Stephens said: “He was looking down at a heart rate monitor. He should have been looking at where he was going.
“If he had been he could have braked or taken evasive action.”
Add new comment
46 comments
Ok, again good advice but a little late now. Does this now mean I'm too late to make a claim on the driver? I can still report this formally to the police right? You lot got me worried now...
Ok, again good advice but a little late now. Does this now mean I'm too late to make a claim on the driver? I can still report this formally to the police right? You lot got me worried now...
almost certainly the cyclist's own admission and probably in answer to the very simple question as to why he hit a stationary vehicle.
Something like this.
Officer - So, did you notice the vehicle go past you?
Cyclist - yes.
Officer - the driver says he passed you a way back. Is that right?
Cyclist - yes
Officer - So when you saw the stationary vehicle why didn't you stop or go around it?
Cyclist - I was looking at my HRM?
I
More bullshit.
Don't worry, I did exactly the same when I got knocked off and only found out that fact afterwards. Like you I was bruised but not broken, the driver had stopped and was forthcoming with details so figured I didn't need to get anyone else involved.
Took 18 months but I did get a decent payout for it.
It could have been worse, at least the judge didn't mention helmet and hi-vis
If it's the dual I'm thinking of it runs out of the town and is in a built up area and is a 50. It has a turning for the motorway but this involves a proper 90 degree turn off so no chance of motorists pushing up their speed. It then narrows to a single carriageway.
And yes the cyclists should have been watching out.
If someone can pull over and stop quickly enough that a cyclist (that they must have just passed) travelling at 30+kph didn't have time to stop, would an HGV? Cyclist cannot avoid A-roads. No excusing poor driving.
Went to court to watch the CPS try and get a Care-less driving charge against a driver who took out my GF with a right hook as she filtered down the outside. He blantidly lied in court but the witness's didn't want to attend so he got dismissed with insufficient evidence even though he admitted guilt at the scene to the officer.
I wonder if cyclists are more inclined to be truthful?
Still trying with his insurance company through lawyers.
I regularly ride on dual carriageways, although the traffic speed MAY be greater, there tend not to be T-junctions (unsafe in low-light conditions) & if you are not on them at the busiest times, plenty of room for other traffic to give you more than the 0.5 metres of room that many drivers allow you on a single carriageway road.
You should still be looking at what you are doing.
As the board says at the HQ of any Time Trial "Head down racing (riding) is Dangerous. Heads up & have a good ride".
The only really scary bit about dual carriageways are the shallow left hand turnoffs, where I get people diving left across my front wheel. Many swearwords. Some new ones. Get more high speed close passes on suburban and urban roads though.
^this
But I'd add "rural" to the list.
Yes. Yes it would, by both us and the courts.
This is precisely the sort of complaint about cyclists that is legitimate - expecting to be treated like victims at every point. You have a duty to look where you're going and deeming a failure to perform that duty contributory negligence is entirely fair.
So he glanced at his heart rate monitor. Ive set upper and lower levels on mine so it keeps me in the threshold. Now how about the driver was he not glancing at a person on the pavement if he had been paying attention to the road and it's surroundings he could of probably prevented this from happening hummm !!!! So the judge took the award from the cyclist how about putting it back as the driver was looking at his sis in law?
well quite, but apprently it's also sensible for drivers to pull over and stop to pick someone up on such roads?
does a shoulder check also count as contributory negligence too!?
Pages