Cyclist ordered to pay Compo
Discussion
Typical DM reporting of her winning the case. It was ruled 50/50, and without having all the evidence it's hard to give an opinion.
I work a stones throw from Cannon street and the road at rush hour is not like a usual road where if someone steps out into traffic it is very much their own fault, it's a circus of people all wanting to get across the road into the City. A cyclist coming through anywhere near 15 mph is taking risks and I assume that this was why it was ruled 50/50.
Pedestrians walking looking down at their phone is one of my major p**s boilers though.
I work a stones throw from Cannon street and the road at rush hour is not like a usual road where if someone steps out into traffic it is very much their own fault, it's a circus of people all wanting to get across the road into the City. A cyclist coming through anywhere near 15 mph is taking risks and I assume that this was why it was ruled 50/50.
Pedestrians walking looking down at their phone is one of my major p**s boilers though.
This is being discussed on GG as well, I bet the responses are somewhat different.
It's s
t that people can now walk out into the road without looking and have no responsibility. But if the road is busy and the cyclist was nipping on, then he should have slowed down, as you'd do in a car.
It's s
t that people can now walk out into the road without looking and have no responsibility. But if the road is busy and the cyclist was nipping on, then he should have slowed down, as you'd do in a car. mikecassie said:
This is being discussed on GG as well, I bet the responses are somewhat different.
It's st that people can now walk out into the road without looking and have no responsibility. But if the road is busy and the cyclist was nipping on, then he should have slowed down, as you'd do in a car.
The judge said both parties shared responsibilty. It's s
t that people can now walk out into the road without looking and have no responsibility. But if the road is busy and the cyclist was nipping on, then he should have slowed down, as you'd do in a car. GOATever said:
I didn’t hear the full story, just the daily mail’s take on it. I’d be surprised if a judge found in favour of a ped, stepping into the road, whilst on her phone, without some sort of extenuating circumstance.
You'd hope so.If it happened (her blindly walking out) 6 or 7 meters in front of the cyclist (doing 15mph) then he might stand a chance of stopping in time... but if it was less than his emergency braking / reaction distance then how is he supposed to have avoided her?!
The most vulnerable will most always be the most protected in Law; we know this! It shouldn't come as a surprise in this case that the Judge sided with the pedestrian given that the cyclist proceeded at speed knowing pedestrians were ahead and could, rightly or wrongly step into his path. Signalling intent is still not good enough - despite his apparent right of way.
I have to negotiate pedestrians in holiday mode all the time - in Amsterdam and here at my home in the Algarve. For example: my local town has a street running through it that is always full of tourists during the peak times, walking on it in numbers as if it wasn't a road for vehicles. Many don't even move out of the way for cyclists or motorcyclists and act as if they have right of way - they do not. However, as a cyclist, I give way, move around them, try to predict their next moves.
Similarly on the hiking / mtb trails, I either avoid them or wait for them and do all I can to prevent any possibility of collision - just as I would driving a car and watching for erratic motorcycling, cyclists or pedestrians.
It is true that in some cases, it would be virtually impossible to avoid a collision - such as someone walking into your path unseen immediately before due to a large obstacle blocking the view. In this case, the pedestrian would have to take full responsibility but in any situation where it can be deemed that a user of a vehicle of any kind could prevent a collision by being more cautious or travelling slow enough to be able to brake successfully, then they are the responsible party.
In Amsterdam, cyclists will collide with you in similar circumstances - it happens often there. I'm a keen cyclist, circa 400km MTB every week, but hate the attitude of many Amsterdam locals who, not only deliberately flout all road laws but, if they ring their little bells, feel they can continue at speed regardless of risk. I've been forcibly pushed as a cyclist, let alone as a pedestrian by impatient commuters there. Unlike Copenhagen where the average cyclist is far more civilised. So in some ways, I am not unhappy that this cyclist was censored since I believe he was overly aggressive in his stance on 'right of way' and didn't take precautions that he could have taken to avoid the collision.
I have to negotiate pedestrians in holiday mode all the time - in Amsterdam and here at my home in the Algarve. For example: my local town has a street running through it that is always full of tourists during the peak times, walking on it in numbers as if it wasn't a road for vehicles. Many don't even move out of the way for cyclists or motorcyclists and act as if they have right of way - they do not. However, as a cyclist, I give way, move around them, try to predict their next moves.
Similarly on the hiking / mtb trails, I either avoid them or wait for them and do all I can to prevent any possibility of collision - just as I would driving a car and watching for erratic motorcycling, cyclists or pedestrians.
It is true that in some cases, it would be virtually impossible to avoid a collision - such as someone walking into your path unseen immediately before due to a large obstacle blocking the view. In this case, the pedestrian would have to take full responsibility but in any situation where it can be deemed that a user of a vehicle of any kind could prevent a collision by being more cautious or travelling slow enough to be able to brake successfully, then they are the responsible party.
In Amsterdam, cyclists will collide with you in similar circumstances - it happens often there. I'm a keen cyclist, circa 400km MTB every week, but hate the attitude of many Amsterdam locals who, not only deliberately flout all road laws but, if they ring their little bells, feel they can continue at speed regardless of risk. I've been forcibly pushed as a cyclist, let alone as a pedestrian by impatient commuters there. Unlike Copenhagen where the average cyclist is far more civilised. So in some ways, I am not unhappy that this cyclist was censored since I believe he was overly aggressive in his stance on 'right of way' and didn't take precautions that he could have taken to avoid the collision.
He's in the hole for £100k. It's going to bankrupt him. The judge ruled that because he didn't counter-sue her immediately, he's not liable to compensation and therefore has to cover all her costs.
This is a terrifying precedent, I just hope it encourages more people to join British Cycling, whose PLI I think covers this sort of nonsense.
This is a terrifying precedent, I just hope it encourages more people to join British Cycling, whose PLI I think covers this sort of nonsense.
Usget said:
He's in the hole for £100k. It's going to bankrupt him. The judge ruled that because he didn't counter-sue her immediately, he's not liable to compensation and therefore has to cover all her costs.
This is a terrifying precedent, I just hope it encourages more people to join British Cycling, whose PLI I think covers this sort of nonsense.
His fighting fund was at £40 over the weekend.This is a terrifying precedent, I just hope it encourages more people to join British Cycling, whose PLI I think covers this sort of nonsense.
His Counsel, who he appointed way too late, are fighting the claim as a clear abuse of process.
Motto: when faced with legal action of any kind, get advice.
Bonefish Blues said:
Usget said:
He's in the hole for £100k. It's going to bankrupt him. The judge ruled that because he didn't counter-sue her immediately, he's not liable to compensation and therefore has to cover all her costs.
This is a terrifying precedent, I just hope it encourages more people to join British Cycling, whose PLI I think covers this sort of nonsense.
His fighting fund was at £40 over the weekend.This is a terrifying precedent, I just hope it encourages more people to join British Cycling, whose PLI I think covers this sort of nonsense.
His Counsel, who he appointed way too late, are fighting the claim as a clear abuse of process.
Motto: when faced with legal action of any kind, get advice.
She, an insta influencer (yes, I am going to be a bigot and make assumptions about her morals and character based on that) has no such scruples.
She was awarded £5k odd, it’s inflated legal costs that have taken it over £100k.
I don’t really agree that it’s 50/50, but can understand and accept that that’s what the law says. From what I understand if he had chosen to counter sue, she’d also have been liable for his costs & damages for exactly the same reason. Presumably it would not have got to where it ended up.
Until I read this, I would have been the same as I agree with him about claims culture. It’s an unpleasant warning to accept legal advice even if it’s not palatable.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff