Cyclist found partly liable for crash with pedestrian facing bankruptcy after claimant seeks almost £100,000 in costs

kingleo wrote:

Perhaps the Judge would like to give us a demonstration showing us what the cyclist should have done to avoid hitting the pedestrian, eg - riding at 3mph expecting a pedestrian to walk out into the road or stopping dead from about 15 mph.

Isn't it obvious? The cyclists should have got off, bowed to all the pedestrians and then carefully walked his bike through to the other side. He should repeat this every time he encounters a vehicle (stop, dismount, move bike to side of the road, bow to the motorist and apologise for any inconvenience) or pedestrian or any sort of obstacle.

Where a bike lane is blocked by road works, he should stop and wait for the roadworks to be finished before re-commencing his journey.

Also, he should employ a person with a white flag is to walk in front of the bicycle and a person with a red flag behind. They are there partly for warning other road users but mostly to physically restrain the cyclist should he attempt to ride faster than 4mph. Oh and he needs a number plate as well. Obviously.

kingleo wrote:

Perhaps the Judge would like to give us a demonstration showing us what the cyclist should have done to avoid hitting the pedestrian, eg - riding at 3mph expecting a pedestrian to walk out into the road or stopping dead from about 15 mph.

Ultimately, the problem with this case is the same as it ever was: we all know damn well that if he'd been driving a car and she'd followed the crowd out into the road while glued to her phone, there is no way in this reality that it would have gone to court in this way, nor that she would have won like this.

It is the fundamental unfairness of this which ... I don't know: "grinds my gears" (?)

brooksby wrote:

kingleo wrote:

Perhaps the Judge would like to give us a demonstration showing us what the cyclist should have done to avoid hitting the pedestrian, eg - riding at 3mph expecting a pedestrian to walk out into the road or stopping dead from about 15 mph.

Ultimately, the problem with this case is the same as it ever was: we all know damn well that if he'd been driving a car and she'd followed the crowd out into the road while glued to her phone, there is no way in this reality that it would have gone to court in this way, nor that she would have won like this.

It is the fundamental unfairness of this which ... I don't know: "grinds my gears" (?)

Yup.  Though I wonder if it's possible it could have turned out like this with a driver hitting a pedestrian, _if_ the pedestrian had been an affluent City worker type and the driver wasn't legally clued-up?

Either way it's an example of how little the workings of the legal system have to do with justice.  Much of it is a power game.

rliu wrote:

Illustrates the dangers of those who think self representing when they have no legal knowledge is a good idea. The costs will be because as the losing party he has to cover legal representation and court costs, whereas with a counterclaim, based on the 50/50 decision he would have been awarded some damages from the pedestrian side and therefore cannot be held for full legal costs for both sides.

albeit he didnt self represent, as theres a quote from a Levi solictor firm that only suggests he didnt engage them early enough to issue a counter claim that would have limited legal costs, and someone with legal background needs to explain how that works, though Im still not sure if the 100k is the claim of costs from the claimant, or the courts actual agreed payout.

Awavey wrote:

rliu wrote:

Illustrates the dangers of those who think self representing when they have no legal knowledge is a good idea. The costs will be because as the losing party he has to cover legal representation and court costs, whereas with a counterclaim, based on the 50/50 decision he would have been awarded some damages from the pedestrian side and therefore cannot be held for full legal costs for both sides.

albeit he didnt self represent, as theres a quote from a Levi solictor firm that only suggests he didnt engage them early enough to issue a counter claim that would have limited legal costs, and someone with legal background needs to explain how that works, though Im still not sure if the 100k is the claim of costs from the claimant, or the courts actual agreed payout.

I'm sure in one of his interviews he said he specifically didn't want to get into US style litigation - even though he'd been knocked out and injured too - but that the pedestrian had no such qualms (works in finance, probably knows a lot of lawyers). Only later did he find out that NOT issuing a counter claim meant he'd be liable for all the costs if he lost.

Does this actually set a legal precedent? If a cyclist actually hits a pedestrian, no matter what the circumstances, from now on, then they were demonstrably not a good and careful cyclist (judges words IIRC) and therefore liable?

brooksby wrote:

[...]

Does this actually set a legal precedent? If a cyclist actually hits a pedestrian, no matter what the circumstances, from now on, then they were demonstrably not a good and careful cyclist (judges words IIRC) and therefore liable?

it seems to me that this falls under the same general advice as given often to motorists - drive to the conditions, and if you can't stop in the distance you can see is clear, you're going too fast.

So if he was going fast enough that the collision knocked them both unconscious, that seems to me rather fast for conditions where pedestrians are ambling around with their faces stuck in their phones, and I suspect this is the thinking behind the judge's comments.

ConcordeCX wrote:

brooksby wrote:

[...]

Does this actually set a legal precedent? If a cyclist actually hits a pedestrian, no matter what the circumstances, from now on, then they were demonstrably not a good and careful cyclist (judges words IIRC) and therefore liable?

it seems to me that this falls under the same general advice as given often to motorists - drive to the conditions, and if you can't stop in the distance you can see is clear, you're going too fast.

So if he was going fast enough that the collision knocked them both unconscious, that seems to me rather fast for conditions where pedestrians are ambling around with their faces stuck in their phones, and I suspect this is the thinking behind the judge's comments.

 

That doesn't really work though. If we all used the roads so we could stop in the distance we can see is clear, we would only be going 5-10 mph just in case someone pulls out of s side road or runs into the road between parked cars.

You are going to have to come up with some medical evidence to substantiate your claim about being unconscious and speeds.

hirsute wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

brooksby wrote:

[...]

Does this actually set a legal precedent? If a cyclist actually hits a pedestrian, no matter what the circumstances, from now on, then they were demonstrably not a good and careful cyclist (judges words IIRC) and therefore liable?

it seems to me that this falls under the same general advice as given often to motorists - drive to the conditions, and if you can't stop in the distance you can see is clear, you're going too fast.

So if he was going fast enough that the collision knocked them both unconscious, that seems to me rather fast for conditions where pedestrians are ambling around with their faces stuck in their phones, and I suspect this is the thinking behind the judge's comments.

 

That doesn't really work though. If we all used the roads so we could stop in the distance we can see is clear, we would only be going 5-10 mph just in case someone pulls out of s side road or runs into the road between parked cars. You are going to have to come up with some medical evidence to substantiate your claim about being unconscious and speeds.

if 5-10 mph is the appropriate speed for the conditions then that's what it is. Tough shit.

According to the reports both people were knocked unconscious. Therefore he was going fast enough to knock them unconscious - why are you wibbling about medical evidence?

ConcordeCX wrote:

if 5-10 mph is the appropriate speed for the conditions then that's what it is. Tough shit.

According to the reports both people were knocked unconscious. Therefore he was going fast enough to knock them unconscious - why are you wibbling about medical evidence?

I suspect he is stating what medical evidence do you have that the unconsciousness was down to speed. There are lots of reasons for people to go "unconscious" and for varying amounts of time. In this case it might well have been the bodies going rigid after sudden trauma (see fainting goat syndrome), it might have been hit heads causing grogginess, it might have been anything but speed is definitely not the deciding factor. 

Anecdotally, I went "unconscious" when my wife pinched me behind the knee once. I was sitting on a chair, she was on the floor, she pinched the leg to get me back for something I said and I woke up 2 seconds later on the floor. Never knew exactly why and has never happened again. Nothing to do with speed at all.

ConcordeCX wrote:

if 5-10 mph is the appropriate speed for the conditions then that's what it is. Tough shit.

According to the reports both people were knocked unconscious. Therefore he was going fast enough to knock them unconscious - why are you wibbling about medical evidence?

I'm arguing the stop in the distance you can see is about what traffic is ahead of you on the same road at the same time. Hence if the user in front stops, you should be able to stop, if you go round a bend, you shoudl eb able to stop and not hit something.

I don't agree that you shoud be abel to stop for an yuse coming from the side or where they are supposed to giveway, otherwise we would all be going through a traffic light junction at 10 in case someone jumped red.

You also claimed that he must have been going too fast as thye were both unconscious. I'm askingfor medical evidence of such a connection. Perhaps they were unconscious because they head hit the kerb or their heads clashed. I have seen pelnty of high speed crashed in the TdF but yet to see someone be unconscious as a result.

See also AlsoSomniloquism comments.

hirsute wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

brooksby wrote:

[...]

Does this actually set a legal precedent? If a cyclist actually hits a pedestrian, no matter what the circumstances, from now on, then they were demonstrably not a good and careful cyclist (judges words IIRC) and therefore liable?

it seems to me that this falls under the same general advice as given often to motorists - drive to the conditions, and if you can't stop in the distance you can see is clear, you're going too fast.

So if he was going fast enough that the collision knocked them both unconscious, that seems to me rather fast for conditions where pedestrians are ambling around with their faces stuck in their phones, and I suspect this is the thinking behind the judge's comments.

 

That doesn't really work though. If we all used the roads so we could stop in the distance we can see is clear, we would only be going 5-10 mph just in case someone pulls out of s side road or runs into the road between parked cars. You are going to have to come up with some medical evidence to substantiate your claim about being unconscious and speeds.

So when are we introducing a blanket 15mph speed limit for urban roads?

brooksby wrote:

So when are we introducing a blanket 15mph speed limit for urban roads?

Wales is moving to a 20mph default.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-48188233

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

That doesn't really work though. If we all used the roads so we could stop in the distance we can see is clear, we would only be going 5-10 mph just in case someone pulls out of s side road or runs into the road between parked cars. You are going to have to come up with some medical evidence to substantiate your claim about being unconscious and speeds.

So when are we introducing a blanket 15mph speed limit for urban roads?

I'd hope people don't travel much more than that around residential estates.

As to 30 to 20 on normal roads - I don't know. There is a small amount of evidence that this has caused more injuries, although I'd eb interested to know the actual speeds any vehicle was travelling at, as anecdotal evidence is that 20 is ignored.

hirsute wrote:

I'd hope people don't travel much more than that around residential estates.

As to 30 to 20 on normal roads - I don't know. There is a small amount of evidence that this has caused more injuries, although I'd eb interested to know the actual speeds any vehicle was travelling at, as anecdotal evidence is that 20 is ignored.

Not just anecdotal

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6363507/Government-stud...

Quote:

86 per cent of journeys through 20mph zones - which are predominantly outside schools - were clocked over the designated limit.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Not just anecdotal

 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6363507/Government-stud...

Thanks for thatt.

Here'a link to the slight evidence

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/20mph-zones-introduced-to-make-roads-...

But 'Reductions in fatalities and injuries were seen in the lower speed limit zones in central Bath, but the worrying increase was seen in rural areas and smaller towns.'

How fast were those vehicles going ?

hirsute wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Not just anecdotal

 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6363507/Government-stud...

Thanks for thatt.

Here'a link to the slight evidence

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/20mph-zones-introduced-to-make-roads-...

But 'Reductions in fatalities and injuries were seen in the lower speed limit zones in central Bath, but the worrying increase was seen in rural areas and smaller towns.'

How fast were those vehicles going ?

Good question.

It is also a microcosm of one of the Helmet debates. People assume they are safer so take more risks, in this case crossing the road without determining the speed of the approaching vehicle properly and as it is labelled 20, that is the speed they must be doing. Sounds a bit victim blaming though but as it is a Tory councilor...... 

hirsute wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Not just anecdotal

 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6363507/Government-stud...

Thanks for thatt.

Here'a link to the slight evidence

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/20mph-zones-introduced-to-make-roads-...

But 'Reductions in fatalities and injuries were seen in the lower speed limit zones in central Bath, but the worrying increase was seen in rural areas and smaller towns.'

How fast were those vehicles going ?

The first comment on the thread on that article casts some doubt on the claims in the article itself.  I guess in general one can never really trust newspaper reports of anything involving statistics.  Probably shouldn't entirely believe anything of that nature till either Ben Goldacre or R4's "More Or Less" has taken a look  at it.

Edit - have to say the article (of unknown 'provenance') linked to in that comment seems to make a solid argument that the data doesn't really show a change of any significance, either way.

brooksby wrote:

Does this actually set a legal precedent? If a cyclist actually hits a pedestrian, no matter what the circumstances, from now on, then they were demonstrably not a good and careful cyclist (judges words IIRC) and therefore liable?

It would have to be in the High or Appeals court to set a precedent. Decisions in lower courts can't.

handlebarcam wrote:

Sometime in the last couple of decades we've made a choice, as a society, that mobile phones provide so much convenience (and generate such incredible profits) that users shouldn't have to take full responsibilty for their negative aspects. You can see it even in totally pedestrian environments like shopping malls—smartphone zombies walking along, completely relying on everyone else around them to take care to avoid them. And the thing is, everyone does. It's the new norm. Crowds part like the seas before Moses, just so that a teenage twit can tweet to their twittering friends without stopping, or a bewildered middle-aged person can suddenly halt and peer at their device for 30 seconds before heading off in a different direction, all without any attempt to assess their surroundings. 

It's a good point - and there are pedestrian on pedestrian injuries as a result of headless mobile use. Does that mean pedestrians need to have personal liability insurance in case they walk into someone and cause a minor injury? It's not beyond the realms of possibility that a pedestrian could be killed in such a scenario - knocked into the road, or fall and suffer a head injury.