- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgCyclist found partly liable for crash with pedestrian who was looking at her mobile phone as she stepped into road
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.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- NotNigel 2 sec ago
An article promoting cycling on Hull Live today....with a little survey thrown in....
- Hirsute 31 min 12 sec ago
In the cycle lane No idea if the wheel is knackered https://twitter.com/Only9built/status/1786319396727590977
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 42 min ago
Tram lines and bikes aren't a good mix and if tram lines are involved in fatal incidents, then there should absolutely by an investigation as to...
- brooksby 2 hours 39 min ago
Depends on the crime and depends on the skin colour and wealth of the perpetrator , I'd wager.
- Hirsute 3 hours 37 min ago
This is no any old bike stand, this is a M&S bike stand
- Hirsute 3 hours 54 min ago
Because of the floating taxi rank....
- jaymack 4 hours 25 min ago
A million years of evolutionary development is a better indicater of what you need to hydrate during/following exercise; water. If you turn the...
- Tony W. 4 hours 40 min ago
I think these are the best feeling tyres, best grip and excellent puncture resistance, and even when you get one they don't go flat, if you ride...
- Jazz 7 hours 1 min ago
Hi I can't access either. Need to be able to play from Stage 1 or what is the point.
- trenzalorian 12 hours 1 min ago
try deleting cookies and re-logging in. That worked for me (I also changed passwords so both site and fantasy passwords were still identical....
Add new comment
87 comments
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.
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...
"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-an...)
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.
Rather good digest of the legal position on compensation liability here https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/solicitors/news-main/what-happens-if-pedest...
Mostly about drivers/pedestrians, but some about cyclists.
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?
No, it means you'll be hit and injured (possibly severely), but it won't be your fault.
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.
Another reason not to stop if you are in collision with a ped. Morally wrong, but the only sensible thing to do.
That didn't work so well for Conor Coltman.
Coltman had previous so was already known to the police.
they were both knocked unconscious
In China they go back and run over your head to avoid paying medical bills. He should have done the same.
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-intentional...
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".
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).
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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
You missed the bit, where he said he was also braking!
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.
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...)...
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.
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!
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
)
vlcsnap-2019-06-20-23h33m32s749.jpg
Well, what do you expect cycling on the wrong side of the road ! Have to get cycling Mikey to sort you out !
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.
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.
Pages