Woman knocked down while on phone wins payout from cyclist
Judge rules man liable because cyclists must be prepared for unexpected behaviour.
Can't get my head around this at all. How can you prepare for the unexpected, just by definition?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Woman knocked down while on phone wins payout from cyclist
(55 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
He saved her life by choosing to cycle.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Cyclist should have lodged a larger counterclaim against the errant pedestrian - they appear to have had equivalent injuries and the bike must surely have been damaged. Albeit only the lawyers would come out ahead.
A very illogical decision - check your liability cover, people.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Legally would have been a similar result if the guy on the bike had been in a car, pedestrian has right of way once they're on the road. Its the car/bike/vans problem not to hit them.
Obviously consequences of mass and speed mean outcome would be different.
Consider a child running out on the road in front of a car, would we really be blaming the child?
Posted 4 years ago # -
A car does stop in a shorter distance so may be would have stopped, if a new car would be built to absorb the impact the force may also be transferred in to pushing person on to bonnet not a certainly the injury would be worse, some cars also have an auto stop that stops the car if someone walks out, sometimes.
I dont have cycle insurance I looked for liability insurance before but could only find bike theft insurance.
Its difficult to know who was at fault with no video. If was lots of people crossing and cyclist did not slow down may be, if was no one crossing and was cyclist was travelling at a reasonable speed then may be the person crossing at fault. If a lot of people crossing would be meant to slow to speed could stop in possibly.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The fact the cyclists first reaction was to hit a loud air horn suggests to me that he could have done more to avoid a collision. It's similar to drivers hitting the accelerator and horn instead of the brake... not a behaviour I think anyone here would think acceptable.
I agree though if the injuries and blame are 50/50 then surely there needn't be any transfer of money except possibly out of insurance policies.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The judge’s ruling found that the parties shared responsibility, so while Brushett is guaranteed a payout, she will get only half of the full value of her claim.
Are we reading all of the article?Posted 4 years ago # -
@stiltskin
I think so - so ignoring lawyer costs (still to be decided), the pedestrian ends up with 50% of whatever they claimed, to be paid by the cyclist (or their insurer). Both parties involved ended up unconscious, with whatever additional damage to clothing and property, so one party paying damages to the other on top doesn't sound like a 50:50 outcome to me.
Posted 4 years ago # -
An emergency stop on a bike is not the same as an emergency stop in a car. I've gone over the handlebars trying to stop suddenly
Posted 4 years ago # -
For the first time, I see why some countries make jaywalking illegal. Rule2wits, like the pedestrian in this case, should not be protected by the law.
If the pedestrian was a cyclist and the cyclist was a car driver, this would never have reached court.Posted 4 years ago # -
The cyclist was a self entitled brat, he had ample time to slow rather than sound his horn but he decided that he should crash through and all should scatter before him. Sound familiar.
People can be [Rule2] however they chose to get around.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Judge shanti Mauser said the cyclist was a calm and reasonable road user
A throng was crossing the road though there was a green light for traffic but Ms Brushett panicked and stepped back into his path
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Charliethepar: Judge rules man liable because cyclists must be prepared for unexpected behaviour.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams a bit: The advice to “expect the unexpected” is annoying in that it is (a) glib, and (b) a contradiction in terms.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Observe much erratic behaviour on WoL Path mostly with dog walkers.
Lot of erratic behaviour with pedestrians wearing headphones on the canal who cannot hear bell et cetera.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“Robert Hazeldean, a garden designer, who was also knocked out by the collision, will pay thousands in damages and court fees to Gemma Brushett, who works for a finance firm in the City of London and runs yoga retreats.”
Well at least the reporter is being clear to prompt our sympathies!
Posted 4 years ago # -
If you have stepped on to the road reading your mobile phone does this mean you are established on the road?
According to info Steveo presented the cyclist then sounded an air horn instead of slowing and picking his way through as I do every night at top of st Marys street when I have the light but the Peds just keep crossing.
Both knocked unconscious? Really? Ped sustained minor head injury, no mention of a broken phone? Cyclist no injuries?
Looks like they will be sharing costs? So I imagine any net payout will end up being minimal?
Pity thus didn't go to mediation.
Posted 4 years ago # -
As I read the article, the plaintiff was the woman, suing the man on the bicycle, the defendant, for damages. So unless her case was ruled to be frivolous and wasting the court's time, it's unlikely this case would have resulted the defendant being awarded any money beyond costs if her case was thrown out. He could of course countersue her for damages. That would be interesting too.
Not knowing either party it's hard to say who was the entitled brat and who was momentarily distracted.
I do think anybody in any kind of vehicle on the road has a duty of care to anyone on foot in the road.
There are cases when a pedestrian can be invisible until they are on the carriageway or run out unexpectedly, but if the cyclist was aware of a scrum of pedestrians ahead and he proceeded at speed, even with the lights in his favour, then he is morally at fault here. He should have slowed down to a minimum viable speed or even stopped until he was certain he could get by.
I rest my case.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@gembo: According to info Steveo presented the cyclist then sounded an air horn
I've seen this stated on another forum as well, but I can't find any mention of it in the Guardian article linked here. Anyone know where this information comes from? It does sound rather less favourable towards the cyclist if his first reaction was to sound his horn rather than slow down and prepare to stop if necessary to avoid a collision. As acsimpson said, if it had been a motor vehicle I doubt anyone would have been impressed if the driver's first reaction had been to get on the horn, and then think about actually not hitting anyone who didn't react in the way expected by their entitled mindset.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Anyone know where this information comes from?
I made it up init... Actually from a metro article so might as well have made it up.
The truth is probably somewhere between the extremes of both articles.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Thanks for that. I agree that without understanding the details more precisely one can't really stand in judgement.
I note the judge's statement that: "‘Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way". Anyone know where this comes from? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I just wonder whether it is laid down in statute somewhere, or has been established by case law. On the face of it, it seems to leave the question undecided - if both parties have right of way (which is what the quote seems to say) then where does that leave us - other than perhaps having to discard right of way as being relevant to this case (in which case why did the judge say it?)
Posted 4 years ago # -
I don't think "right of way" has a clear meaning (and definitely not the popular meaning!).
Instead of "right of way", I think we have "priority" - and one gives way to the flow that has priority. I know that's subtle, but it's an important mindset distinction.
Right of way I think refers to the ability to use the highway (cf access law that gives a "right to roam") - pedestrians, livestock, etc can use the public highway by right, but drivers need to be licensed.
Anyway, even if you have priority, one can't proceed if the way ahead isn't clear, hence the cyclist would normally have had priority, but pedestrians established in the road superseded that.
I know the judge is reported to speak in terms of "right of way", but that could either have been just casual speech or casual reporting...
Robert
Posted 4 years ago # -
Gallows humour perhaps, but it reminded me of this:
"Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day
Who died Preserving His Right of Way.He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."Posted 4 years ago # -
The airhorn was clearly a mistake on at least two levels:-
- it made the cyclist appear reckless, confimed that he had seen the pedestrians and was determined to proceed whatever;
- it caused the pedestrian to panic and change direction into the path of the cyclist.
There may be a lesson in that, but I'm not sure I like it.
Posted 4 years ago # -
- it caused the pedestrian to panic and change direction into the path of the cyclist.
I've seen that very same reaction to the mildest of bike bell ting-a-rings. The only lesson to learn I can see is that instinctive reactions are unpredictable so it's better to slow your speed rather than risk hurting folk.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Indeed - that's why I only make a sound if I don't think I can safely pass otherwise, and I tend to say "Excuse me" rather than using my bell.
Of course I still sometimes get people saying "Where's yer bell?" in an annoyed voice...
Posted 4 years ago # -
Haymarket seems to be a Mecca for unpredictable pedestrian behaviour with folk crossing the roads at unusual locations when the lights are red for traffic on Clifton Terrace.
There are long wait times on some of the crossings which seems to lead to frustration for some people. Yesterday I was called a rule2-hole by a pedestrian for cycling through the green traffic light a few of meters behind a car. He seemed like a particularly unpredictable person though.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his Specialized roadbike, as well as shouting, swerving and braking in a bid to avoid the pedestrian."
From the Torygraph I believe. I think it is reason why he has been held liable. It is easy to react as if it is always the cyclist getting the blame, but I think you need to have a better idea of the detail involved in the case.Posted 4 years ago # -
The version of the story I read (not the Guardian) had none of this detail.
Posted 4 years ago # -
https://levisolicitors.co.uk/news/our-client-robert-hazeldean/
"The Personal Injury team is acting for Mr Robert Hazeldean in defending a claim brought against him by Gemma Brushett.
Unfortunately, Mr Hazeldean had not felt able to instruct solicitors at the outset due to costs. He therefore tried to deal with the case as a litigant in person. The Claimant took advantage of this and has now sought almost £100,000 in costs. We are strongly resisting this as a total abuse of process, and are pleased to report that the court has listed this matter for a third occasion. The court has ordered that the Claimant pays our client’s costs of this third hearing.
Emma Farrell, head of the Personal Injury team, said; “If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the Claimant’s legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690. If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order.”
Sadly, this is not the only uninsured defendant case that we are running. We believe that the law in this area urgently needs reforming.
Our client is reeling and taking some time to reflect on his options. He asks for privacy at this time. Any press enquiries should be sent to rjago@levisolicitors.co.uk
Mr Hazeldean has, however, asked us to share his own thoughts on the matter.
Statement of Robert Hazeldean
Today finally brings to a close four years that have taken a great toll on my mental health. I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome, reeling from the impact it will have on my life, and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.I am more grateful than I can say for the support of my wonderful girlfriend and my friends and family. I would not have got through this without them. I have also been extremely touched by the messages of support from strangers who have read about the case in the press.
I’d like to thank my lawyers for helping me understand and navigate the complexities of the legal system, and can only regret not having engaged them sooner, delayed as I was by my lack of legal knowledge and concern about the costs. I feel that most cyclists would not have appreciated the consequences of not taking the opportunity to put forward a counterclaim which meant that I was unable to rely on the legislation in the same way that the Claimant has to protect myself against a destructive costs award. This was not because I was not injured, but because I do not advocate the claim culture. Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.
I would urge other cyclists to take out insurance through British Cycling to help protect them from experiencing what I’ve gone through.
The case has cast a shadow over our new life in France and left our future uncertain. Covering the costs and the compensation is going to exceed £20,000 and will leave me bankrupt. I can only hope that the focus on this case highlights the vulnerability of cyclists, both physically and against the courts, and that it might help reform a legal system that appears to leave certain road users disproportionately exposed.
– Robert Hazeldean"
Posted 4 years ago # -
Jeeze, thats grim reading.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
