- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Heart rate monitor (CC licensed image by frankshapiro:Flickr)Cyclist's crash damages reduced because of 'contributory negligence': looking down at heart rate monitor
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.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 3 sec ago
A sitting duck is only under threat if somebody decides to shoot at it. The residents have unintentionally exemplified exactly the problem with...
- nickba 30 min 9 sec ago
It'd be nice to have included some technical information such as weight stiffness and compliance compared to a conventional frame. Is this just...
- TheUntypicals 1 hour 34 min ago
Far more carrot and stick is needed...
- Barraob1 7 hours 24 min ago
"The cyber truck of brifters" so a vanity project designed by an idiot for sycophants
- Smoggysteve 9 hours 55 min ago
If a chain comes off and gets stuck. That has absolutely zero to do with the frame. ...
- Richbeck 10 hours 44 min ago
Take a look at spa cycles - plenty of choice and options.
- brooksby 12 hours 43 min ago
Asking the Bristol Post to do actual journalism? Ha! That's a good one!
- mdavidford 17 hours 18 min ago
They were handed the victory on a Platea?
- chrisonabike 17 hours 57 min ago
I think the former is a fair summary. What's available guides buyers' choices BUT the common choices are reflected by the market here **....
Add new comment
46 comments
"Mr Justice Stephens found more credible Mr McAllister’s claim that Mr Campbell had just pulled in in front of him"
So the driver was lying. He'll be getting done for perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice then will he?
Sensible outcome - always ride within your stopping distance (which, if you're not looking where you're going, is about 0mph!) and expect those around you to be idiots!
It should be noted, however, that this is anouther case of a driver lying to the Judge...and this being (seemingly) acceptable
I suppose this would depend on how long he was looking at the HRM for but i can't disagree that you should look where you're going, particularly if a car has just passed you. Regardless of what car or other drivers get away with (sun in my eyes, didn't expect a cycle etc)
I went into the back of car after the driver thought it neccessary to slam his brakes on and pull over after seeing an approaching ambulance on the other side of the road, this was shortly after over taking me.
I stood no chance of taking the guy to court even though he left me no chance of stopping. Was left with broken hand and a bill for new rear light cluster of the driver.
“If he had been he could have braked or taken evasive action.”
Clearly the judge doesn't ride or he'd know how much more time/space you need and how much worse bike brakes are than a cars from around 20mph to 0mph.
Drivers don't exactly look where they are going all the time either, so using this as an excuse to reduce payout to cyclist is a bit lame if you ask me.
If all drivers concentrated on where they were going 100% of the time no-one would pass their driving test ... as you have to look in your mirrors, which by definition means you're looking other than the direction of travel. Same when you look at your speedo, or your satnav etc.
So the driver of the car has lied through his teeth, in court, and the judge still sets out to defend his actions and place blame on the cyclist.
Nice.
Does this raise an issue for the use of any sort of cycle computer?
Well yes it does. I think the finding is about right. You do need to look where you are going. The other road user may actually be negligent and at fault (this is the finding here hence the compensation) but if you aren't paying attention then you are at least partially to blame.
Let's put that in another context. Let's say a cyclist waiting to turn right into a main road from a junction saw a car approching and pulled out in front of the because they thought the driver of the oncoming car would have enough time to slow down a bit. But the driver was playing with their radio or sat nav and not looking up at the road and didn't slow or stop.
In this case the cyclist is at fault for the collision but the driver contributed by not paying attention or looking where they were going.
Fairs fair, we expect drivers to concentrate on the road 100% so they do not cause us any harm.
The same should be expected from cyclists.
There are only two reasons you need to check your HRM.
1, You are a Team Sky member and you are getting ready to attack
2, You are an old dude with a heart problem...
Leave it to Strava to show all your details
Or you're training and you want to stay in a set HR zone?
Because it is quite sensible to go out training on a dual carriageway with 70mph traffic flying past you?
Hey, I didn't say anything about what this guy was up to and nor did I condone where he was cycling, I'm saying it is generally a reasonable reason to look at an HRM...
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.
well quite, but apprently it's also sensible for drivers to pull over and stop to pick someone up on such roads?
[[[[[ Or a young dude with a heart problem....let's not be ageist here!
P.R.
Pages