Live blog: Cyclists deserve same notice of roadworks as drivers, say campaigners; Brushett v Hazeldean: Plantiff’s brief gives his view; What the bear did in the woods on the Tour Divide; new Zwift Classics eRacing series + more

37 thoughts on “Live blog: Cyclists deserve same notice of roadworks as drivers, say campaigners; Brushett v Hazeldean: Plantiff’s brief gives his view; What the bear did in the woods on the Tour Divide; new Zwift Classics eRacing series + more”

1. Good of the claimant’s

   Good of the claimant’s barrister to post some more information on line.  I wonder if the time taken to do that will form part of the justification of the c. £100k? legal costs being claimed?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • danhopgood wrote:

     Good of the claimant’s barrister to post some more information on line.  I wonder if the time taken to do that will form part of the justification of the c. £100k? legal costs being claimed?

     — danhopgood

     It seems odd how witness Mr H’s statement seems on the face of it to be so different from the other witness statements and from the defendant’s statement.

     The defendant said he didn’t do a counter claim because he didn’t agree with the US-style litigation culture.  Given that the barrister’s main take-away from the case is “you need to get insurance in case something like this happens to you”, I suspect that that particular horse has already left the stable and is heading for open country 

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. From that account, it seems

   From that account, it seems that the cyclist didn’t attempt to slow down. I’d recommend always attempting to slow down to avoid accidents and then you shouldn’t need legal insurance (though probably wise to have just in case).

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. To be wee bit devil’s
   To be wee bit devil’s advocate here.

   If a car had overtaken another car which had already slowed for a signposted club run & the overtaking driver had then accelerated (by their own admission) towards them sounding their horn (‘hello I’m here’ or ‘you’d better make me a gap I’m coming through regardless’? ) and ploughed into one rider that was having a chat and not 100% in the zone, I don’t think the wider cycling community would be quite so quiet nor chipping into the drivers poor me fund.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. To be wee bit devil’s
   Double posted

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. “If any wider good has come

   “If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury.”

   So, ‘wider good’, in this instance, equates to people having to spend more money to protect themselves from inscrupulous ambulance-chasers just about to embark on a mass campaign of ‘have YOU been injured by a cyclist whilst stepping out into the road oblivious of your surroundings?’ phone calls and telly adverts?

   What a weapons-grade cunt

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Zebulebu wrote:

     “If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury.”

     So, ‘wider good’, in this instance, equates to people having to spend more money to protect themselves from inscrupulous ambulance-chasers just about to embark on a mass campaign of ‘have YOU been injured by a cyclist whilst stepping out into the road oblivious of your surroundings?’ phone calls and telly adverts?

     What a weapons-grade cunt

     — Zebulebu

     That is a poor view of an everyday situation and unwarranted abuse.

     Do you really believe that someone who causes personal injury and or damage to someone else’s property should just be able to shrug their shoulders, say “sorry mate” and walk away?

     Here in Germany, personal liability insurance is a policy everybody should have. You don’t have to have it, but then you are taking the risk of facing serious compensation claims. Health insurance is not “free” here but insurance based. If you were to injure someone (e.g. accidently knock someone over in the street) the injured persons health insurer could pass on their costs to you. The situation could easily be much worse. If the injured party was self employed and could not work for a while (weeks, maybe months) you would automatically be liable for their loss of earnings.

     I reckon it is the insurance company’s job to combat abuse. They will most likely not cover gross negligence i.e. if you rode through a red light and hit someone. They keep a close eye on attempts to inflate or make false claims.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. Why would anyone continue to

   Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
   What would we all do? We’d slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It’s not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • darrenleroy wrote:

     Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
     What would we all do? We’d slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It’s not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

     — darrenleroy

     Exactly. I’m glad I didn’t contribute to “his” crowdfunding which would just go to pay for the claimant’s legal team.

     Also, relying on an air horn presupposes that none of the pedestrians were deaf which you can’t guarantee.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • darrenleroy wrote:

     Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
     What would we all do? We’d slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It’s not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

     — darrenleroy

     It is interesting, because in the original coverage I’d read (or presumed, not sure…) that she’d followed the herd out into the road and was the last to cross.

     This story now leads me to believe that there were loads of pedestrians out in the road (all just not-hearing-a-car-coming-so-it-must-be-safe-to-cross, presumably?).

     In which case I change my answer, and perhaps trying to thread through the crowd might not have been the wisest decision…?

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • darrenleroy wrote:

     Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
     What would we all do? We’d slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It’s not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

     — darrenleroy

     There were 3 other witnesses who said the cyclist didn’t do that and the phone using pedestrian was entirely at fault, so we can’t say for sure this one witness is correct.
     50:50 probably the correct decision. Still doesn’t excuse the lawyers extortionate costs claim, abusing the cyclist’s failure to counter claim or have legal representation.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • CaribbeanQueen wrote:

       Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
       What would we all do? We’d slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It’s not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

       — CaribbeanQueen There were 3 other witnesses who said the cyclist didn’t do that and the phone using pedestrian was entirely at fault, so we can’t say for sure this one witness is correct. 50:50 probably the correct decision. Still doesn’t excuse the lawyers extortionate costs claim, abusing the cyclist’s failure to counter claim or have legal representation.— darrenleroy

       Yeah, it’s the 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • darrenleroy wrote:

       Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?

       — darrenleroy

       This was the account given by one witness, Mr H. The judge found this witness’s contemporaneous voice memo “sounded like it was self-serving, with something in mind”. The cyclist’s own evidence (as summarised by the judge) was: 

       “Coming down London Bridge, he was freewheeling to lights which were red.  He slowed, allowing them to turn to green…  He said he could see from the point that he approached lights on the London Bridge side of the junction that there were pedestrians crossing.  Therefore, he sounded his horn… The Defendant said he continued freewheeling into the junction. Pedestrians appeared to notice the horn. Once they cleared, he pedalled again and accelerated as it was uphill on the other side of the junction.  The Claimant was crossing the road on her mobile phone, and at some point when he was close to her, she looked up and was startled.” The judge found “it was evident [the cyclist] had thought of how pedestrians were not aware of traffic coming as there was no signal on the crossing.  He gave every impression of being a reasonable road user. This was difficult to square with the picture presented by Mr H. “

       I ride this junction every day and I still have a lot of sympathy with the cyclist – yes, you slow down and make allowances at this junction because it’s so busy with pedestrians, but if someone steps out on you 2-3 metres away (which is what he said in his statement to the police) your options are  very limited. 

        

          

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • quiff wrote:

         Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?

         — quiff

         This was the account given by one witness, Mr H. The judge found this witness’s contemporaneous voice memo “sounded like it was self-serving, with something in mind”. The cyclist’s own evidence (as summarised by the judge) was: 

         “Coming down London Bridge, he was freewheeling to lights which were red.  He slowed, allowing them to turn to green…  He said he could see from the point that he approached lights on the London Bridge side of the junction that there were pedestrians crossing.  Therefore, he sounded his horn… The Defendant said he continued freewheeling into the junction. Pedestrians appeared to notice the horn. Once they cleared, he pedalled again and accelerated as it was uphill on the other side of the junction.  The Claimant was crossing the road on her mobile phone, and at some point when he was close to her, she looked up and was startled.” The judge found “it was evident [the cyclist] had thought of how pedestrians were not aware of traffic coming as there was no signal on the crossing.  He gave every impression of being a reasonable road user. This was difficult to square with the picture presented by Mr H. “

         I ride this junction every day and I still have a lot of sympathy with the cyclist – yes, you slow down and make allowances at this junction because it’s so busy with pedestrians, but if someone steps out on you 2-3 metres away (which is what he said in his statement to the police) your options are  very limited. 

         — darrenleroy

         Reading this account, it feels sometimes like listening to a Boris Johnson interview, the facts change that often. 

         I too ride that junction every single day, and you only have to go through there once or twice, to know that it’s dangerous, for the reasons I cited earlier on today: there is no provision for pedestrians to cross safely, as there is no ‘red man’ or ‘green man’.  The only lights at the junction of London Bridge, Cannon Street and King William Street is for, let’s call them wheeled road users.   So you come off London Bridge and you get the green to go either left onto Cannon Street, or else straight on onto King William Street (the other traffic has a red at that point, taking you up Gracechurch Street). 

         It’s also worth pointing out that as you arrive at the lights at the northern side of London Bridge…. here … 

         https://goo.gl/maps/oDXrQKN9JGoMq57g8

         .. there’s an upward slope.  This doesn’t necessarily mean he’s telling porkies about ‘freewheeling’, but when I cross the bridge, I can coast to a halt there, and only use my brakes at the last second, to bring myself to a complete halt. 

         Bottom line: peds are soft and squishy, and we should really do all we can to avoid hurting them.  I don’t think this guy did so.  

         Log In or Register to post comments

7. Ah.  It’s *that* junction. 

   Ah.  It’s *that* junction.  Mea culpa, I should have checked that when I read the original reports.  I know that junction well.  There is a set of traffic lights but no red or green man to help pedestrians cross.   So you essentially have to wait until there’s a gap in traffic and dart across, hoping that you’ll make it alive.   This is usually done, accompanied by the beeeeep!!!  dring-dring!!! Fucking MOVE! as buses, taxis, cars, scooters and cyclists come off London Bridge and head into King William Street.  The Corporation needs to install a pedestrian crossing there, but I suppose until someone’s killed, it’s ‘not a priority’. 

   My sympathy for the cyclist just evaporated.

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. Anyone who rides with an

   Anyone who rides with an AIRHORN! (got type in an airhorn style) is probably a bellend. A lot of you will have probably seen Youtube with some cyclist that goes around blasting peds with his? Some deserve it but most of time it’s just twattery.

   Seems like this bloke thinks he is airhorn Moses and the seas will part.

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. If he did admit to
   If he did admit to accelerating towards a group of pedestrians while sounding his airhorn then he is the only weapons grade in this scenario.

   Lawyers are expensive. If you don’t want to pay legal fees don’t accelerate towards vulnerable road users.

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. We don’t know the whole story

    We don’t know the whole story yet some of us are jumping sides based on the disclosure of a lawyer (trying to make themselves look 1% less w*nker).

     

    Not sure about anyone else but if i see a pedestrian in the road I don’t assume that I’ll come off better in a collision. Why would you accelerate or not try and reduce speed in an incident when you’re likely to collide?

     

    I still call bullshit. Another case where they’re essentially calling for license plates, insurance, hi viz et al for cyclists rather than looking at shit infrastructure and inept morons crossing the road!

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. Couldn’t see where the 20mph
    Couldn’t see where the 20mph claim came from. Although there is a table of speed and distance, didn’t seem to be used in connection with people’s positions.

    I think 3rd party insurance is essential not just as a cyclist, but has an individual and homeowner. The likelihood of an event happening is very small, but the payout can be very large. The premium is so low, that it’s worth the peace of mind.

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. Not sure of the relevance of
    Not sure of the relevance of a barrister giving a one sided view of a case after the judge has already said his client was 50% at fault. I’d rather have heard how he justifies the £100k cost claim!

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Griff500 wrote:

      Not sure of the relevance of a barrister giving a one sided view of a case after the judge has already said his client was 50% at fault. I’d rather have heard how he justifies the £100k cost claim!

      — Griff500

      I think his intent is to give some more context to the 50:50 apportionment of liability, and explain why the cyclist gets nothing. While he doesn’t deal with the costs directly, he does reveal that the cyclist refused / ignored two Part 36 offers to settle. Unfortunately this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial.  

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • quiff wrote:

        Not sure of the relevance of a barrister giving a one sided view of a case after the judge has already said his client was 50% at fault. I’d rather have heard how he justifies the £100k cost claim!

        — quiff

        I think his intent is to give some more context to the 50:50 apportionment of liability, and explain why the cyclist gets nothing. While he doesn’t deal with the costs directly, he does reveal that the cyclist refused / ignored two Part 36 offers to settle. Unfortunately this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial.  — Griff500

         

        How much of the £100k goes  to ‘the court’ and how much goes to this barrister?

         

        Log In or Register to post comments

13. Not sure of the relevance of
    .

    Log In or Register to post comments

14. Not sure of the relevance of
    .

    Log In or Register to post comments

15. I imagine the £100k claimed

    I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors’ fees and barristers’ fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • quiff wrote:

      I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors’ fees and barristers’ fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

      — quiff

       

      Not meaning to pick an argument, but my point is that when you said “this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial” that seems to imply “the court” and its “expectations” are what decides the level of costs.  But from this it seems it is in fact the barristers fees that determine the costs – which presumably are down to the barrister and his firm?  Or maybe down to the plaintiff’s choice of which barristers to use?

       

      All seems a bit odd that the pedestrian knocked over engages lawyers who rack up these massive  costs, for what seems in the end to benefit nobody but those lawywers.   Either counter-sue or quit immediately, I suppose is the lesson?

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

        I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors’ fees and barristers’ fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

        — FluffyKittenofTindalos

         

        Not meaning to pick an argument, but my point is that when you said “this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial” that seems to imply “the court” and its “expectations” are what decides the level of costs.  But from this it seems it is in fact the barristers fees that determine the costs – which presumably are down to the barrister and his firm?  Or maybe down to the plaintiff’s choice of which barristers to use?

         

        All seems a bit odd that the pedestrian knocked over engages lawyers who rack up these massive  costs, for what seems in the end to benefit nobody but those lawywers.   Either counter-sue or quit immediately, I suppose is the lesson?

        — quiff

        Or settle, it makes sure the lawyers don’t win 😉

        Here’s a guide to Part 36 for anyone who’s interested. It was designed to put pressure on people to settle but, yes, it can be a bit of a roulette wheel.

        https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/quickguides—part-36/

        Essentially, if you fail to “beat” a Part 36 offer you’re in a world of pain. There is little doubt the Court will reduce the level of costs to a lower level. But the existence of the Part 36 offers makes reducing it by a substantial amount way way harder.

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

        I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors’ fees and barristers’ fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

        — FluffyKittenofTindalos

         

        Not meaning to pick an argument, but my point is that when you said “this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial” that seems to imply “the court” and its “expectations” are what decides the level of costs.  But from this it seems it is in fact the barristers fees that determine the costs – which presumably are down to the barrister and his firm?  Or maybe down to the plaintiff’s choice of which barristers to use?

        — quiff

        Sorry, I didn’t catch your drift before. Bendertherobot has explained, but basically the £100k costs are the claimant’s lawyers’ fees, but the court decides how much of those costs the defendant has to pay. It will very rarely be all of them, and the claimant (or her insurers) will have to pay the rest. But in a nutshell, if the defendant has ignored a sensible Part 36 offer to settle then the chances are the court will order him to pay a higher proportion of the claimant’s costs. Of course he wasn’t legally represented until late 2018, so may have been unaware of these consequences.     

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • quiff wrote:

          I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors’ fees and barristers’ fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

          — quiff

           

          Not meaning to pick an argument, but my point is that when you said “this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial” that seems to imply “the court” and its “expectations” are what decides the level of costs.  But from this it seems it is in fact the barristers fees that determine the costs – which presumably are down to the barrister and his firm?  Or maybe down to the plaintiff’s choice of which barristers to use?

          — FluffyKittenofTindalos

          Sorry, I didn’t catch your drift before. Bendertherobot has explained, but basically the £100k costs are the claimant’s lawyers’ fees, but the court decides how much of those costs the defendant has to pay. It will very rarely be all of them, and the claimant (or her insurers) will have to pay the rest. But in a nutshell, if the defendant has ignored a sensible Part 36 offer to settle then the chances are the court will order him to pay a higher proportion of the claimant’s costs. Of course he wasn’t legally represented until late 2018, so may have been unaware of these consequences.     

          — quiff

           

          OK, that explains it.

           

            Though it leads to another thought – if the person suing you is someone of limited means, and not insured (as pedestrians presumably are not) they won’t want to risk being lumbered with any of the fees of a high-end lawyer, so they’ll either not bother suing or they’ll pick Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons, who will ony run up a small bill.

           

            Ergo, how much you end up getting clobbered for is going to be proportional to how wealthy is the person you collided with, no?  If they have a high-end taste in lawyers and deep pockets themselves the bills will be higher if you eventually lose.

           

            Or does the court take into account how extravagent the plaintiff’s legal spending was when deciding the share of damages?

           

          Is another lesson “only crash into people without much money”?

           

          (Along with ‘get the right household insurance’ and ‘counter-sue or settle immediately’)

          Log In or Register to post comments

16. Off topic I know, but the HGV

    Off topic I know, but the HGV driver, was it reported to the police?

    Log In or Register to post comments

17. FluffyKittenofTindalos –

    FluffyKittenofTindalos – claimants are in principle able to get “after the event” legal expenses insurance to fund their claim – this will pay their legal fees if they win, and their opponent’s legal fees if they lose. But insurers won’t insure every claim, they require a claim with good prospects of success. They usually also require that the claimant’s lawyers act on a “no win no fee” arrangement so they have skin in the game. So it’s not necessarily down to how deep the claimant’s own pockets are, as often they won’t be paying anything as the claim progresses, except an insurance premium. The court will assess whether the claimant’s fees are reasonable, but that is separate from the decision on damages. So you can spend as much as you like on your lawyers in order to win, but the court won’t necessarily allow you to recoup those costs from your opponent. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

18. You can get a legal fees add
    You can get a legal fees add-on under home insurance, car insurance and union membership. You don’t have to be rich to have legal cover.

    Log In or Register to post comments

19. Not just in Cambridgeshire.

    Not just in Cambridgeshire. Highways England closed the cycle path between Pill and Portishead and gave pretty much no notice: a sign appeared on like the Friday saying that from the following Tuesday the path was going to be closed for six weeks. Well, its only a cycle path, innit…?

    Log In or Register to post comments

20. Reading closed bits of the

    Reading closed bits of the NCN 5 whilst building the flash new pedestrian (and cyclist) bridge over the Thames, with no notice or detour signs.  With changes every or so often.

    Log In or Register to post comments

21. re the celeste green footy

    re the celeste green footy shirt (inferring Bianchi I suppose) I had my rugby league clubs colours done in a cycling jersey (for a trip to the 100th anniversary commemoration of my home city’s troops getting whalloped in WWI, the clubs winger got a VC for his actions at the location).  had 24 made and distributed across the country to 13 other fans with 4 for myself. Cost £32 each using a Scottish manufacturer.

    Log In or Register to post comments

22. The predicted size of the

    The predicted size of the claim was intended to serve only one purpose, create publicity for this incident and a swell of public opinion to demand all cyclists have insurance. Insurance companies want this, the ‘free’ insurance from being a member of British Cycling etc. will eventually be replaced by annual cost much larger. 

    My take on the incident is that some pedestrians about to cross saw that it was only 2 cyclists coming towards them and decided ignorantly that the cyclists would have to stop because they risked personal injury if they collided. A gamble that usually pays off because most sensible cyclists would stop. If it had been a bus, car or truck the pedestrians probably wouldn’t have crossed. They have contempt for cyclists but are not so stupid with vehicles.

    One cyclist had enough. Armed with airhorns he usually manages to intimidate (or warn) pedestrians that he is not stopping. The pedestrians are in the wrong, he has right of way. Unfortunately one pedestrian was following the crowd, and assumed safety in numbers. Once the cyclist realised pedestrians were ignoring him, he should have capitulated and braked hard. Then swore loudly at the idiots, like the majority of cyclists would.

    Because both were ignorant, it is 50/50 blame. If it had been a car that blew the horn and carried on, it may have got a verdict of a tragic accident.

    If there had been a pedestrian crossing, and the UK had laws like other EU countries that fines pedestrians for jay-walking then this case would have been thrown out. The local council needs to take some responsibility, if this ‘crossing’ is always a potential accident for pedestrians. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Muddy Ford wrote:

      If it had been a bus, car or truck the pedestrians probably wouldn’t have crossed. They have contempt for cyclists but are not so stupid with vehicles.

      — Muddy Ford

      So true. I get this all the time with dog walkers on country lanes. If I’m driving the dog gets pulled into the hedge as soon as they hear the engine. If I’m cycling, ringing the bell or even having a coughing fit often has zero effect. I end up coming to a complete standstill and saying “excuse me” politely, before they clear some space for me to pass.

      Log In or Register to post comments