A woman who was looking at her mobile phone while crossing the street will receive compensation from a cyclist who collided with her after a judge ruled that bike riders “must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”
Pedestrian Gemma Brushett and cyclist Robert Hazeldean were both knocked unconscious following the collision at a junction near Cannon Street railway station in the City of London in July 2015, reports Mail Online.
Ms Brushett, who also sustained a minor head injury and what her lawyer described as “post-traumatic amnesia,” sued Mr Hazeldean, with Judge Shanti Mauger, sitting at Central London County Court, finding them both jointly liable for the crash.
The court heard that Mr Hazeldean, who suffered cuts in the incident, had ridden through a green traffic light and was travelling at a speed of between 10 and 15mph.
Spotting Ms Brushett crossing the road while looking at her phone, he sounded his airhorn and shouted a warning as well as swerving and braking.
When the pedestrian became aware of him approaching, she reportedly “panicked” and tried to step back to a pedestrian island but Mr Hazeldean had already altered his course to try and avoid her and the pair collided.
The judge described Mr Hazeldean as “courteous and mild-mannered” and said that he “gave every impression of being a calm and reasonable road user” but added that he “did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.”
There were conflicting witness accounts of the incident. One cyclist, whose testimony was used to support Ms Brushett’s claim, was said to have confronted Mr Hazeldean afterwards and made a voice recording in which he accused him of “aggressive riding” and being “arrogant and reckless.”
The judge rejected that evidence, however, with three pedestrian witnesses who gave statements to the police saying that Ms Brushett was “not looking where she was going” and “the cyclist was not at fault.”
Giving judgment, Judge Mauger said: “The other witnesses feel that the accident was Ms Brushett’s fault.
“Mr Hazeldean is clear that she was looking at her phone as she was crossing the road.
“Three other witnesses said she stepped out or that the cyclist could not avoid her.
“I find that she was looking at her phone and I accept the account of Mr Hazeldean that she turned and went back towards the central reservation.”
However, the judge found both parties equally liable for the collision.
She said: “When I stand back and ask ‘how did the accident happen?’ it seems to me that Mr Hazeldean owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill.
“Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way.
“Ms Brushett must clearly have equal responsibility if she is crossing the road without looking – and if she is looking at her phone, even more so.
“But cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.
“The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50,” she added, meaning that Ms Brushett will only receive half the amount she claimed.
Costs and damages will be set at a later hearing.
Commenting on the case Roger Geffen, policy director at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “The UK’s civil courts have a reasonable record for upholding cyclists’ damages claims, even though criminal courts have a far worse record of convicting drivers or dismissing their driving as merely ‘careless’.
“Still, from media reports, it seems odd that the judge attributed responsibility on a 50/50 basis given the judge’s own reported comments on the case. However this case highlights why Cycling UK recommends regular cyclists have third party insurance cover to protect them from this sort of situation.
“It’s worth remembering that serious injuries to pedestrians from collisions involving cyclists are rare, and that the cyclist can also be seriously injured when they happen too.”





















87 thoughts on “Cyclist found partly liable for crash with pedestrian who was looking at her mobile phone as she stepped into road”
“But cyclists must be
“But cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”
Thanks for the oxymoron.
Perhaps I should be prepared for someone to run out of a shop straight into the road.
There’s a list somewhere of various pedestrians killed when on the pavement
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
sticks out the most.
Did he also sue her? Seems
Did he also sue her? Seems ridiculous!
So, a pedestrian glued to
So, a pedestrian glued to their phone, walks into a road without making sure it was clear and as a direct consequence, it hit by a bike. Had a car been coming, she would have been hit at much greater speed, with a much larger object and probably would have been killed.
But it’s a cyclists who shouts a warning, then has to decide on a course of action. Was she: a) going to freeze, b) not hear and continue crossing, or c) move backwards towards where she had come from (which I was always told from a very early age not to do when crossing a road). She also had the same decision, but as ill luck would have it, the course of action he thought she wouldn’t take, she took. Then she has the audacity of sueing him?
A number of cyclists are knocked off bikes, seriously injured and in some cases, killed by pedestrians walking off safe pavements without looking, normally glued to phones but none of this ever gets mentioned or reported.
If I happen to be knocked off my bike by a pedestrian, remind me to sue the pants off them!
I hope he sued her for more.
I hope he sued her for more.
This ruling has effectively green lit zombie walking with no consequence.
Sounds like he made reasonable efforts and she actually countered his efforts by her actions. Bullshit.
Rick_Rude wrote:
This ruling has effectively green lit zombie walking with no consequence.
Sounds like he made reasonable efforts and she actually countered his efforts by her actions. Bullshit.— Rick_Rude
Cough! Cough – Alliston! – Cough! Cough!
Quote:
Someone really needs to tell the motorists this!
Quote:
I call BS here.
The pedestrian had not established herself on the road, and did not have right of way. She walked into his path without looking, giving him little time to react, that is not establishing herself on the road.
brooksby wrote:
Someone really needs to tell the motorists this!
A thought I have every day when pedestrianising Came up at least twice today, when crossing side-roads and having to scurry/jump out the way because of drivers just turning into them at speed when they could see I was already part-way across.
Not massively disturbed by this case, except for the huge and obvious double-standard with respect to motorists.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Indeed in countries with presumed liability, ie most of Europe, it would be up to the cyclist as the least vulnerable road user to prove the negligence of the pedestrian to avoid paying compensation.
A small price to pay for the benefits to cyclists involved in collisions with motor vehicles.
Everyone needs to be more alert and courteous on the roads.
CaribbeanQueen wrote:
Not massively disturbed by this case, except for the huge and obvious double-standard with respect to motorists.
— CaribbeanQueen Indeed in countries with presumed liability, ie most of Europe, it would be up to the cyclist as the least vulnerable road user to prove the negligence of the pedestrian to avoid paying compensation. A small price to pay for the benefits to cyclists involved in collisions with motor vehicles. Everyone needs to be more alert and courteous on the roads.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
the irony being 3 witness saying it wasn’t the cyclist fault and the ped being on the phone would have probably been enough to satisfy any Europen judge that they weren’t at fault.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Pedestrians have priority when crossing side roads.
Highway Code: 170
Take extra care at junctions. You should:
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
burtthebike wrote:
Yeah, Burt, but when do motorists actually obey that one? Its a “should” rule, not a “must” rule, so its treated as a “safely ignore” rule
Sounding an air horn,
Sounding an air horn, shouting a warning and swerving out of the way…but stopping was not an option?
I utterly disagree with the judgement and award of damages, but not the principle of responsibility towards other road users regardless of how fuckwitted they are.
Mungecrundle wrote:
So, he basically behaved as if he was driving a car?
I call bullsh#t….this is
I call bullsh#t….this is another reason why cycling numbers are dropping and another reason why my bike is staying safely on my turbo. This is Bullsh#t
“Even where a motorist or
“Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way.”
Surely the point of right of way is that one party only has it and it is clear which one. This makes no sense to me.
Telling pedestrians that it is in any way safe to cross a road without looking is madness.
Traffic travelling at 30mph has a total stopping distance of 23m. The article doesn’t say but I would bet that the distance between the pedestrian stepping off the kerb and the cyclist was less than this.
Making it the law that the cyclists or motorists break the laws of physics just won’t work.
ooldbaker wrote:
You’re confusing right of way with priority.
ooldbaker wrote:
They don’t have the” right of way” to step off the kurb, without looking, into traffic that has right of way. This judge needs to be sacked!
Pedestrians have priority, if they’re crossing a side road that motorist wants to turn in to, from the main carriageway, it’s even in the highway code.
This is worrying in so many
This is worrying in so many ways. Yes, the spot where the accident happened is very busy with pedestrians, who are often trying to cross on green lights. However, his speed of 10-15mph is pretty cautious (I can tell you that vehichles go through that same spot much faster). What I don’t understand is the “Established on the road..” comment. If she stepped out maybe 10m away from him then I’d agree, but not if she did it a couple of metres from him. If the former I’d have less sympathy with him, although if he’d just come round the bend from London Bridge he’d have not seen her step out.
In the City of London people do walk out everywhere, so you need to be cautious at all times, but you can’t do anything if someone steps out when you are a metre or two away from them.
In the region of 100m from that spot I recently saw a woman on her phone doing the same thing with a bus. Luckily she responded to his horn and jumped back when he was less than a metre from her. I honestly thought she was about to be squashed. Would a judge also be holding the bus driver liable?
All I can say is that if you are riding in a city as busy as London it is a good idea to have a camera mounted to you or your bike for your own protection.
The only positive in this is
The only positive in this is that the Daily Mail reader comments are almost 100% backing the cyclist! Who’d have thunk it!
JohnnyRemo wrote:
Bigotry bingo though is its a woman / yoga teacher / mobile phone user verses a white man who was riding a bike.
Article doesnt even mention his age despite it mentioning hers with that she teachers yoga, despite working for a finance firm.
JohnnyRemo wrote:
Probably dimly aware that it’s a short step to holding motorists to the same standards…
Jesus wept, renounced
Jesus wept, renounced religion, joined a death cult and nuked the entire planet.
Why is the judge talking
Why is the judge talking about “right of way” and not about “priority”? Seems a very sloppy use of language and inaccurate.
Anyhow, the cyclist should have hit the brakes or at least said that he was slowing down but didn’t have enough time before the ped endangered him – that might have changed the 50/50 result.
hawkinspeter wrote:
— hawkinspeterFrom the article:
“Spotting Ms Brushett crossing the road while looking at her phone, he sounded his airhorn and shouted a warning as well as swerving and braking.”
He may well have thought that sounding a horn and avoiding action were sufficient but, as with the Alliston incident, the zombie pedestrian clearly reacted by stepping into his path.
As he rode through a green light does this mean she ignored the red man on a ped crossing?
Moral of the tale: if you see a ped crossing into your path you MUST anticipate that they are very likely to make the ‘wrong’ move. Regardless of fault, you will cop at least 50% of the blame.
It’s not unlike how you have to treat the dumbest creatures on the planet – sheep and pheasants – on country lanes. They can be on the opposite side of the road but, on sighting the cyclist, will often do a U-turn and cross back in front of you.
“sustained a minor head injury and what her lawyer described as “post-traumatic amnesia,””
This just means that she couldn’t recall the incident. This is extremely common (and not surprising as she wasn’t paying attention) but the lawyer couldn’t pass up the chance to add some melodrama.
The responsibility for this
The responsibility for this collision may be shared, but the primary blame lies with the pedestrian for stepping into the road without looking. I’m pretty sure a driver wouldn’t have been found 50% liable if she had stepped out in front of them.
Isn’t it time we had a law about walking/phoning, and another for pedestrian helmets.
Even if we ignore the fact
Even if we ignore the fact that she wasn’t looking where she was going, she still 100% caused the collision by suddenly running into his path, how the hell has the judge gone 50:50 and what on earth is she even claiming for? There doesn’t seem to be anything said about him not doing enough to avoid a collision. He should be able to claim for the broken skin, I would recommend a counter-suit in this case.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
He doesn’t need to counter sue, the pedestrians is now also liable for 50% of his damages too. If he turns up to the costs hearing with a medical report that says his injuries are worse than hers she’ll end up owning him money, which would be lolz
Not sure why people are
Not sure why people are saying he didn’t brake, article says he did. Cycling at 10-15mph, braking, swerving and sounding a horn are surely all that he can possibly do. I suppose your best bet is to get out of the gutter and well into the lane so that you have time to see pedestrians before they reach your path.
Outrageous decision.
Outrageous decision.
It is getting to the point where I won’t go out without a camera and Strava – the camera for what happened and Strava for how fast/how much braking!
It’s getting expensive on camera mounts!
LastBoyScout wrote:
I know what you mean…. Even with lights in daytime, good clearly visible coloured tops, correct road positioning, travelling at a speed below, but not too far below, that of the rest of the traffic people still step or pull out in front of us. .. like this muppet coming come from work earlier this week (assuming the image posts 😉 )
StuInNorway wrote:
Well, what do you expect cycling on the wrong side of the road ! Have to get cycling Mikey to sort you out !
The pedestrian may have had
If the cyclist had time to
If the cyclist had time to shout a warning, blast an airhorn and also swerve … then he definitely also had the time to stop. He was supposedly riding at 10-15mph so should have been able to stop within a very few yards. He just didn’t want to.
Shouting and blasting an airhorn simply means “Get out of my way ‘cos I ain’t stopping”.
Joeinpoole wrote:
But a bike is like 70cm wide, and neither the bike nor the pedestrian side by side would take up a whole traffic lane so it seems reasonable to me to try and avoid her rather than come to a complete stop and let her Mr Magoo her way across the road.
(If he’d been driving a car then yes he would have been taking up a whole traffic lane and it would have seemed reasonable to expect him to stop).
Joeinpoole wrote:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that a cyclist would have concerns about just stopping. They could have had a bus a few inches behind them, it’s not unreasonable for this to be a consideration in the circumstances and it would be a split second decision that they need to make. I think cyclists are being judged very harshly because judge have zero reference as to what is or isn’t reasonable for a cyclist to do.
Also a 50/50 outcome for the injured party is a dreadful outcome it’s very rare that an injured party is considered so culpable.
Housecathst wrote:
Stopping suddenly is certainly not without it’s risks – especially if the cyclist is turning at the time (I’ve no idea if this was the case). However, ringing a bell, or sounding a horn or shouting, when someone is in the middle of doing something stupid is a bad idea. All it does is increase make the situation less predictable – will they freeze, will the dart forward, will they dart backwards, will they flail their arms in panic, will they completely ignore you or most unexpectedly (and therefore perhaps most dangerously) will they hear, look, see and then make a sensible considered decision about the action they take.
I’ve no idea how much time he had to react or what his options were. In general I would say, if you can swerve completely wide of any possible danger (including someone lurching back), without putting yourself in more danger, that is generally the best option. Failing that, slowing to a speed that allows you to stop and stopping if necessary is the next best course of action.
I’m surprised that the judge thinks that a pedestrian looking her phone and walking into the road is unexpected – in London of all places. If I am on a shared path and I am approaching someone who I can see is looking at their phone, I will ring my bell and attempt to get their attention – well in advance of when I need to take avoiding action, if I fail to get their attention then I slow and prepare to stop – they need to hear my bell (which might not be easy if I am ringing it at an appropriate distance, for the speed I am travelling at, then see then, then think about what action they are going to take and I need to see what action they are taking). Also be especially wary of people traveling in groups, and don’t go through the middle of them except at a dead slow pace. The sort of thing that often happens with a group of (say) four, is the left hand 3 will decide to move to the left of the path and the fourth will move to the right, but then as you get closer and line up to pass through the gap, the fourth will suddenly decide to move left, and/or the third will move right. Couples holding hands are the most predictable, but that only makes it all the more unpredictable when they do something unexpected. In short pedestrians are not predictable, if you are on shared paths give them as wide a berth as possible – if you are on the road or cycle route expect them to step into the road or cycle route, and to do so suddenly without warning and without looking, and cycle accordingly – this chap was lucky that he was not more seriously injured or killed.
If anyone is still reading this… The thing that I find truly amazing thing about this all of this, is that the vast majority of comments and up-votes on the Daily Mail article (when I saw it this morning), have come down in favour of the cyclist. Perhaps the judiciary are even less liked than cyclists.
jh27 wrote:
But if he hadn’t sounded his horn, he would have been lynched over that too – “How dare this cyclist not make a sound to warn this poor defenceless woman who wasn’t looking where she was going as she walked out into a major London thoroughfare!”
Joeinpoole wrote:
The Highway code states you should sound your horn to let other road users know you are there, he braked, beyond that you don’t know how far in front the pedestrian stepped out. You don’t know how much time it takes for the brain to deal with and react to multiple actions of which there were multiple.
So your ‘he should have been able to stop’ statement is guesswork by you and very, very likely just not physically possible, not from a mechanical braking POV but from a brain function POV. Go bother to ask crash specialists how lng it can take for the brain to react and compute in high stress/unexpected action situations before making statements you have no idea about.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
We should probably ask the Met. Didn’t they scientifically prove in the Alliston case that any cyclist can stop twenty-four metres and two minutes before any such pedestrian even thinks about stepping out? And that anything less than that is criminal negligence? Or something
Joeinpoole wrote:
You missed the bit, where he said he was also braking!
Joeinpoole wrote:
I suggest actually reading the article and what was said in court : “Spotting Ms Brushett crossing the road while looking at her phone, he sounded his airhorn and shouted a warning as well as swerving and braking.”
He WAS braking, but there is insufficient information to determin if he had time or it was safe to come to a complete halt, also the only reason for the impact was she suddenly reversed direction.
Also remember that in that split second he has to decide what to do, he also has to determine how hard it’s safe to brake while making a turn to try to avoid the person.
No less than 3 witnesses all said that he didn’t rrally stand much chance of avoiding her at all.
Joeinpoole wrote:
I’d suggest that shouting and blasting an airhorn can also mean, “Look up from your phone you silly person!”
According to all the articles I’ve read, he did brake, and he did swerve, he made a judgement call that she’d continue on her way when instead she leapt backwards – directly into his path (which sounds suspiciously similar to what happened in the Briggs/Alliston case). They were both knocked unconscious. However, it didn’t become a criminal matter, he didn’t think he wanted to take part in a US-style blame game in court, and she very much did (apparently she did get a 8mm cut on her face too, so clearly someone needs to pay, y’know…)…
Another reason not to stop if
Another reason not to stop if you are in collision with a ped. Morally wrong, but the only sensible thing to do.
srchar wrote:
That didn’t work so well for Conor Coltman.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Coltman had previous so was already known to the police.
srchar wrote:
they were both knocked unconscious
srchar wrote:
In China they go back and run over your head to avoid paying medical bills. He should have done the same.
Rick_Rude wrote:
How was he going to that when he was
a) Riding a bike not driving a car like the shocking Chinese cases you’re alluding to
b) Unconscious
Also I really hope we never get the same moral bankruptcy on the roads regarding vulnerable road users that exists in China. https://www.theepochtimes.com/heres-why-many-chinese-drivers-intentionally-kill-pedestrians-they-accidentally-hit_2760066.html
Can’t get my head round this.
Can’t get my head round this. A few years ago my brother was hit and injured by a coach in London; he couldn’t claim any damages until the driver had proven to be at fault (in Civil court); which he was. I’d have assumed that if the driver had been proven to not been at fault my brother wouldn’t have been able to claim. Unless 50/50 means that compensation will be quite low.
does this ruling mean that as
does this ruling mean that as a pedestrian i can cross the road whenever and wherever i want and any oncoming traffic has to stop for me?
japes wrote:
No, it means you’ll be hit and injured (possibly severely), but it won’t be your fault.
Rather good digest of the
Rather good digest of the legal position on compensation liability here https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/solicitors/news-main/what-happens-if-pedestrians-are-partly-to-blame-for-the-road-accident
Mostly about drivers/pedestrians, but some about cyclists.
The pedestrian may have had
The pedestrian may have had “right of way” to cross the road but she did not have priority. She failed to observe the traffic and reacted unpredictably. Meanwhile the cyclist appears to have done everything he could to avoid a collision but is held liable for not doing so. Drivers simply jam on the brakes in a situation like this and drivers like the judge expect cyclists to do the same. However in a cyclist’s case it is a lot more complicated as jamming on the brakes is likely to result in being thrown over the bars or losing control of steering, thus making a collision more likely. That is why cyclists tend to shout out automatically and veer in the appropriate direction which is not a sensible option for the motorist. As in the Charlie Alliston case these judgements are being made by people without any experience of cycling in this situation and cyclists are held to unrealistic standards.
“General rules, techniques
“General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders” – “The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.” (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158)
Not quite what the judge said?
However – there is a plus … I look forward to hearing about all the motorists who get held to the same standard? Oh sh!t, I fear I may be holding my breath for a VERY long time.
What frightens me is that the
What frightens me is that the Judge clearly stated that he was disregarding the 3 witnesses who backed up the cyclist. The plaintiff must have been very attractive.
Gus T wrote:
And fragrant. And possibly posh. Judges love those sorts. Fortunate she wasn’t called Lavinia.
kil0ran wrote:
She looks exactly what you’d expect a 28 year old yoga teacher to look like.
Although the judge was female so I don’t know how much her appearance would’ve swayed the decision.
Cookiebun wrote:
And fragrant. And possibly posh. Judges love those sorts. Fortunate she wasn’t called Lavinia.
— kil0ran She looks exactly what you’d expect a 28 year old yoga teacher to look like. Although the judge was female so I don’t know how much her appearance would’ve swayed the decision.— Gus T
Yes, I noticed that certain parts of the media had used it as an excuse to find all her “yoga pose” photos even though she actually works in the City in finance and the yoga is just a sideline…
What frightens me is that the
Whoops double post
Reading between the lines I’d
Reading between the lines I’d be very surprised if the cyclist doesn’t have some kind of liability insurance, perhaps the £2 million you get on your home contents policy which nobody seams to know about.
This was far from a slam dunk for the peds solicitor and they will have wanted to know they were going to have a chance of getting there costs back and not at £1 a week for 3000 years. The injured party got a really poor outcome from their perspective. A judge finding 50/50 in an injury case is fairly rare. When I say poor she wouldn’t have got anything in the same circumstance if she been hit by a motorist every solicitor would have laughed her out of there office and she would have been paying for the damage to the car.
Maybe he should have hit the
Maybe he should have hit the brakes, slid in sideways and taken her legs out with the chainwheel.
Dingaling wrote:
Better yet with a disc brake, we know the damage they can do!
So maybe the teachings of
So maybe the teachings of Green Cross Man and Cresta Bear are going to unravel? I believe that with the best of intentions these safety campaigns have served to make the car king of the road – step out without looking, expect trouble.
I remember “It’s frothey, man
I remember “It’s frothey, man” but what did the bear have to say on road safety?
This seems very strange
This seems very strange
The only sensible reason I can see for the judge to have come to this conclusion would be if the cyclist saw the pedestrain and yelled/blew his horn – but didn’t slow down. THEN tried to swerve and slow down too late. Hence she was ‘established on the road’ by the time he tried to avoid the collision.
But there is nothing in the article that supports or rejects that idea – in order to know whether the judge is being reasonable or not you would need to have listened to the whole case including all the witnesses and when they first noticed the cyclist – and the timeline of who noticed who and when.
I also wonder why the judge rejected the evidence of the other cyclist who said the cyclist in the collision was reckless – was he behind and saw the whole thing???
I dunno – but a pedestrian wandering across a road looking at her phone seems to to responsible for her own actions to me
Clearly I am not au fait with
Clearly I am not au fait with teh law in this regard, but a finding of 50/50 … doesn’ that mean that the judge considers the cyclist and pedestrian equally culpable for the collision?
That being the case, why is one party expected to compensate the other?
Jetmans Dad wrote:
AFAIK it wasn’t in a criminal case. She had sued the cyclist in a civil case. She was seeking damages. The judge ruled 50/50 which means (I think) that any damages awared are reduced by 50%; I don’t know what happens about the costs etc.
brooksby wrote:
Yeah the ped will get 50% of the damages as assessed by the court with the help of a medical report. She is also responsible for 50% of the cyclists damages too. I understand he hasn’t submitted a injury claim, which is a bad over sight on his part and is now out of time. However if she’s written off his pinarello dogma in the incident she could end up owning him money, which would be lolz.
The solicitors will get there full costs in these circumstances. Incidentally I’d be very surprised if the cyclist doesn’t have some liability cover. This was far from a slam dunk case for the peds solicitors and they would have want to know they had a good chance of getting paid if they win the case, and not a £1 a week for the 300 years.
I’m going to call myself out
I’m going to call myself out as a bit of a hypocrit following something that happened on the way to work this morning. 3 school girls, all walking in the road towards me, all staring at their mobile phone screens. I wasn’t going fast but more than walking pace, I saw them in plenty of time. I could of just stopped, but there was plenty of room to go round them, so I did so and scared them by calling out (NOT shouting aggressively) “Pay attention!” as I passed.
No harm done, not even a close call collision wise, but potentially any one of them could have been startled, maybe moving into my path, maybe tripping over. Repeat that scenario enough times and eventually the random elements will string together until something bad, unexpected but in retrospect entirely foreseable happens.
Personally I don’t ever want to be in the situation where I have a good excuse for blaming the victim in an incident in which I was involved. I should have just stopped.
Fwiw, I this is really down
Fwiw, I this is really down to the consequences of weak legal representation in an adversarial justice system.
Our system is based on what’s presented by adversarial parties as evidence in the proceedings in a bid to win the case. It is not about uncovering the truth, per se. Consequently, relying on something being self-evident or common sense, just because in the “outside world” it is is a serious error. Unless it is convincingly surfaced by a skilled legal team in court, it arguably should not be, or is at least liable, not to be considered in any subsequent judgement.
I don’t know who represented the cyclist (I’m guessing it was himself since I can find no mention of anyone else), but they were evidently made mincemeat of by the opposition (unsurprisingly if it was him). For all our sakes, I hope someone from British Cycling, Cycling UK etc., takes on this case and engages a better legal team to get this nonsense reversed. In the meantime, cameras and legal cover insurance now sound like musts to me (if they were not already). As does if being caught in similar unfortunate circumstances, never trying to defend it myself even if it seems like an unnecessary cost at the time.
I’m surprised he had the time
I’m surprised he had the time or ability to use an airhorn. When I have to do an emergency stop both hands are full of brake lever. Then shout if your brain can process it all in time.
No doubt this bloke will be
No doubt this bloke will be told, ‘Motorcyclists must be prepared’, eh?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48685340
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
He should be an advanced driver/rider, so even worse, nowt will come of it.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
As he was at work at the time, surely it’s his employers who should pay out? I think they aren’t short of a few bob.
“At Central London County
“At Central London County Court today, Judge Mauger awarded her £4,161.79 in damages after saying the 8mm scar she suffered to her lip did not wreck her “very attractive” appearance.
The judge also ordered Mr Hazeldean to pay her legal bills, thought to be in the region of £100k, because he was not insured at the time of the crash.
[Lawyers acting on his behalf revealed that because he was uninsured, Ms Brushett has sought almost £100,000 in costs.]
The landscape designer, who has since moved to Côte d’Azur in France to start a new life, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the decision and could be left “bankrupt”.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9343692/cyclist-pay-compensation-yoga-teacher-phone/
brooksby wrote:
Ouch
Amazed that he didn’t have cover through home insurance or similar. Double-checking mine, not that I encounter peds that often.
brooksby wrote:
Sounds like he should just go for bankruptcy now and avoid having to pay anything to her.
Where has the Sun got these
Where has the Sun got these figures from?
UP to 130 people were seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists last year and four were killed on Britain’s roads.
And more than ten pedestrians suffer life threatening injuries every month when they are hit by people on bicycles.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
You missed the next section of that:
“As a result, the government is looking at ways to make the roads safer for pedestrians and are urgently reviewing whether new laws should be brought in to cover dangerous cycling.”
So, the Sun thinks that whole road safety review was to do with making pedestrians safer from Evil Cyclists and nothing to do with making cyclists safer from motorists…? Thanks a lot, Mr Briggs
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-accidents
dataset ras10012
But is does not determine fault and you have to check the definitions
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/743853/reported-road-casualties-gb-notes-definitions.pdf
Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injuredby the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally
The data is for 2017
I thought there was a death in a road race when an elderly woman ignored marshalls and crossed any way but I can’t remember enough details to find it.
The table also tells you that 406 were killed by “vehicles” and 5145 seriously injured but it is important to punish all cyclists.
hirsute wrote:
Where has the Sun got these figures from?
UP to 130 people were seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists last year and four were killed on Britain’s roads.
And more than ten pedestrians suffer life threatening injuries every month when they are hit by people on bicycles.
— hirsute https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-accidents dataset ras10012 But is does not determine fault and you have to check the definitions https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/743853/reported-road-casualties-gb-notes-definitions.pdf Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injuredby the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally The data is for 2017 I thought there was a death in a road race when an elderly woman ignored marshalls and crossed any way but I can’t remember enough details to find it. The table also tells you that 406 were killed by “vehicles” and 5145 seriously injured but it is important to punish all cyclists.— AlsoSomniloquism
The pedestrian death was in Ride London on New King’s Road. However, she died more than 30 days after the collision so might not feature in the statistics as a death, only a serious injury.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212147
kil0ran wrote:
Thanks for that.
Road cc reported on the coroner’s court
https://road.cc/content/news/238075-pedestrian-who-died-after-ridelondon-collision-had-been-warned-marshal-not-cross
UP to 130 people were
UP to 130 people were seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists last year and four were killed on Britain’s roads.
The definition may include cyclists killed as well as pedestrians. There have been a couple of cyclists killed recently including one killed in a collision at traffic lights between a cyclist and a drunk pedestrian and one woman killed hitting another woman on a mixed use cycle/foot path.
I am sure we would be familiar with the cases if cyclists were blamed so I wold assume these were not the cyclist’s fault.
I wonder if Mr Briggs has
I wonder if Mr Briggs has waded into this one?
Meanwhile;
Meanwhile;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48718618
Driving at 120mph with a 7yo in the car trying to evade police, assaulted police when arrested
Usual No MOT/Tax/Insurance/Driving whilst DQ add-ons
Jailed for two and a half years, banned for a further three years (not that that will stop him of course)
Only a matter of time before he kills someone yet they let him get his license back. Mind boggles.
kil0ran wrote:
As you mentioned, it won’t stop him whether he had a license or not. But they should start bringing in permanent bans after a certain amount of crimes or GPS tags that alert when going more then 30mph.