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

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. The same choice was made decades earlier with motorcars. But bicycles, while reasonably popular in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, never quite reached that point. So, yes, we're going to held liable, because we choose to use a piece of technology that requires too much effort for a critical mass of people to adopt it in order to rewrite the accepted public behaviour. And that's what informs judges' decisions in cases like this, not logic.

Interesting point, though I don't think you can quite compare peds-with-phones to drivers.   The latter technology adds mass and momentum as well as causing a loss of awareness of the surroundings (due to reduced visibility and hearing, plus insulation from concequences), that would not otherwise be present.

  The former brings only the loss of awareness part, but doesn't in itself make the user more lethal.

It does occur to me, on reflection, though, that perhaps this case is as much about how the legal system depends on how much money you have as it is about modes-of-transport.  Surely if both were responsible, and both were injured, there should be a parity of outcome?  But becuase one party appers to be quite wealthy (city worker?) they were in a position to employ expensive lawyers to get a payout from the other.

Generally it seems to me that an awful lot of what passes for moral judgments are just about relative power.  Across a lot of issue,  things get judged as moral or not depending on the degree of power of the parties involved (so tempted to start going on about Boris Johnson at this point).

KarlM77 wrote:

Like a game of Asteroids, Do we all not treat everything as vectors, many objects moving at different speeds, in different directions & we're all safely calculating a way through?

Walking or running through a crowd, cycling or driving through traffic. Everyone is fine if everyone keeps doing what they're doing ... Its when this changes, someone stops (or jumps back in this case) when accidents happen.

This made me think of an incident last week. A man started crossing the road from the opposite side to me. He was a good distance in front of me, but crossing slowly. I judged that on our respective vectors, he wouldn't complete the crossing before I got to him, and we were probably on a collision course. So, there being  no traffic beside / behind me, I pulled further towards the centre of my lane while holding my (moderate) speed in order to arc safely behind him while he finished crossing. At this point, he stops in the middle of the road, dances back and forth in front of me as if playing chicken, and motions as if to throw his cigarette at me, complaining that I was riding too fast and nearly hit him. While telling me this, I am stationary, 6 feet in front of him, having been able to stop in plenty of time in the face of this madness. I think he was pissed.    

*EDIT - stationary (oh, the shame)*     

SurreyHiller wrote:

If I see someone making a move toward stepping in the road, or even already in the road I shout "stay still" to them.    Hopefully they hear and don't move so I am able to anticipate them not moving and take the best course of action (in front of behind of them).   Shouting "don't move" means they may only hear the move and jump in one direction or another.   Same as you don't say "don't panic" and use "keep calm"...

Also, it may help my defence if I have shouted a command and they have not listened - plus by shouting other people look so there are witnesses.

I prefer to shout "Oi!!" as it's easy to get a lot of volume and its aggressiveness makes people suddenly look up.

hawkinspeter wrote:

SurreyHiller wrote:

If I see someone making a move toward stepping in the road, or even already in the road I shout "stay still" to them.    Hopefully they hear and don't move so I am able to anticipate them not moving and take the best course of action (in front of behind of them).   Shouting "don't move" means they may only hear the move and jump in one direction or another.   Same as you don't say "don't panic" and use "keep calm"...

Also, it may help my defence if I have shouted a command and they have not listened - plus by shouting other people look so there are witnesses.

I prefer to shout "Oi!!" as it's easy to get a lot of volume and its aggressiveness makes people suddenly look up.

"Wait!" is another clear one.  I tend to favour verbal warnings now over a bell. No warning noise is foolproof though - often I find people look up to work out where it's coming from, but still continue on their path.  However, at least it means I have both hands covering the brakes just in case.  

Rick_Rude wrote:

Would have been easier for the cyclist if he'd killed her.

Tell that to Charlie Alliston 

PurpleDog wrote:

I'd be interested to know, if someone steps out in front of a car without looking, does the law blame the driver?
I am staggered that the judge in this case decided the blame was shared... stepping into traffic without looking is no more blameworthy than sounding an alarm, slowing down and attempting to avoid a collision. It does suggest an attempt (by that judge at least, if not the 'authorities', to discourage perfectly legal cycling on the roads by way of frightening cyclists off them.

It also disgusts me that the law in this country penalises moderation (i.e. not instantly suing everyone you meet) and rewards legal aggression. Doesn't surprise me of course, but it does disgust me.

The information isnt clear about what amount of time was available, but the judge ruling reads that the cyclist chose to go around the pedestrian rather than just stop.  Because he chose to sound his horn and continue around the innatentive unpredicatable pedestrian he has been ruled partially liable.

Was it has fault? No.

Could he have done more to prevent the stupid pedestrian being hurt?  sadly, yes (based on how the ruling reads)

Does this make it open season on cyclists? No.

Does this make it open season on people who just continue with dangerous acts because they hope you will continue in a certain direction and thus leave you space?  Probably not but it should, its the same as a car cutting you close without leaving 1.5m+ room for you to avoid potholes or objects in the road and saying 'but you had enough space'.

STATO wrote:

The information isnt clear about what amount of time was available, but the judge ruling reads that the cyclist chose to go around the pedestrian rather than just stop.  Because he chose to sound his horn and continue around the innatentive unpredicatable pedestrian he has been ruled partially liable.

Stopping was an option because there was no one behind him?

Quote:

Does this make it open season on people who just continue with dangerous acts because they hope you will continue in a certain direction and thus leave you space?  Probably not but it should, its the same as a car cutting you close without leaving 1.5m+ room for you to avoid potholes or objects in the road and saying 'but you had enough space'.

Dangerous acts? Yes, in the case of the pedestrian.
How are any of those examples equivalent to a pedestrian ignoring red lights and staring at their phone instead?

STATO wrote:

PurpleDog wrote:

I'd be interested to know, if someone steps out in front of a car without looking, does the law blame the driver?
I am staggered that the judge in this case decided the blame was shared... stepping into traffic without looking is no more blameworthy than sounding an alarm, slowing down and attempting to avoid a collision. It does suggest an attempt (by that judge at least, if not the 'authorities', to discourage perfectly legal cycling on the roads by way of frightening cyclists off them.

It also disgusts me that the law in this country penalises moderation (i.e. not instantly suing everyone you meet) and rewards legal aggression. Doesn't surprise me of course, but it does disgust me.

 

The information isnt clear about what amount of time was available, but the judge ruling reads that the cyclist chose to go around the pedestrian rather than just stop.  Because he chose to sound his horn and continue around the innatentive unpredicatable pedestrian he has been ruled partially liable.

Was it has fault? No.

Could he have done more to prevent the stupid pedestrian being hurt?  sadly, yes (based on how the ruling reads)

 

Does this make it open season on cyclists? No.

Does this make it open season on people who just continue with dangerous acts because they hope you will continue in a certain direction and thus leave you space?  Probably not but it should, its the same as a car cutting you close without leaving 1.5m+ room for you to avoid potholes or objects in the road and saying 'but you had enough space'.

"Probably not but it should, its the same as a car cutting you close without leaving 1.5m+ room for you to avoid potholes or objects in the road and saying 'but you had enough space'."

No it's not the same - please refer to the laws of physics and if that's too much for you perhaps just the fact cars kill nearly 2,000 people in the UK each year and bicycles struggle to make it to 1 every year.  

The potential for harm from a car is magnitudes more - the fact you can't see that clearly shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
 

PurpleDog wrote:

I'd be interested to know, if someone steps out in front of a car without looking, does the law blame the driver?

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

How come costs were not 50:50 as well?

I believe that it's because he was defending a claim aganst him, without making a counter claim himself.

When he was found to be 50% responsible, that's enough to have failed in his defense and be liable for the other sides costs.

As the pedestrain was 50% to blame, if he had made a claim, she would also have lost her defense and could be responsible for his costs. In reality, under those circumstances the judge would probably rule that instead of paying 50% of each others cost you just pay your own.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

I'm absolutely baffled by this. Can the case be appealed? The 50:50 verdict just seems entirely incorrect and at odds with what the judge said. Seems like open-season on cyclists.
The idiot walked out into the road without looking while distracted by her phone, then darted back in front of the cyclist trying to avoid her, they were both injured and she was blatantly entirely at fault and the cause for the collision, but he's the one who has been sued and has to pay out?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria

Both the judgement and the sentancing here seem, not just suspect, but as biased as can be.

In no universe where adults are responsible for their own actions could anyone reasonably think it was even 50% the cyclist's fault, maybe 10-20% max!

But even if we do assume that it's equal blame, that doesn't explain why this poor guy is being forced to pay £1000's even up to £100,000 if they were equally to blame?

This is a scary precident, but I'm not sure what we can do, maybe write to your MP?

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Seems like open-season on cyclists.

No, really?  Regrettably, the way forward seems simple enough: be insured and always sue. 

john1967 wrote:

I'm still at a loss to what the cyclist did wrong except be on a bike on the road.

As far as I can see: he braked and sounded his horn and then went to go behind her; in the meantime, she looked up, saw him, and leapt backwards toward the traffic island she'd stepped off without looking.  They were both knocked unconscious, but she lawyered up first. 

Basically - he has been penalised for not being accurately able to see all possible futures in the multiverse like the bloke in Men in Black 3...

I think 

brooksby wrote:

Basically - he has been penalised for not being accurately able to see all possible futures in the multiverse like the bloke in Men in Black 3...

I think 

That's the best reply I've heard to the people who say he should have predicted what she was going to do, calling it "roadcraft", as though you can predict everything and in time to react...

john1967 wrote:

I'm still at a loss to what the cyclist did wrong except be on a bike on the road.

He should have avoided a collision though that might be a lot easier to say than to do. Also, he should have counter-sued, though I think the woman was a piece of shit for suing when in my opinion (and most reasonable people) she was 100% at fault.