Don’t look crossing the road for compo....

[Blackrod]

Watch the claims come. Lady wins compo for being hit by cyclist after crossing the road whilst looking at her phone.I know many younger people can’t walk more than 5 yards without looking at their phone nowadays but surely they can look up to cross the road.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Watch the claims come. Lady wins compo for being hit by cyclist after crossing the road whilst looking at her phone.I know many younger people can’t walk more than 5 yards without looking at their phone nowadays but surely they can look up to cross the road.

LInk? I've had several near misses where the cyclist didn't seem to think that the red light applied to them

[Darthlaw]

Watch the claims come. Lady wins compo for being hit by cyclist after crossing the road whilst looking at her phone.I know many younger people can’t walk more than 5 yards without looking at their phone nowadays but surely they can look up to cross the road.

Judge says 50/50 blame, so cyclist will be following up with a counter claim for compensation from her.

All a bit silly, really.

[Lancasterclaret]

I've got to admit being very surprised by this as a cyclist (but one who is super careful around pedestrians)

Every eye witness backed the cyclist, and she's on her phone, and clearly not concentrating.

Its a strange one

[Foulthrow]

I’ve just got knocked over reading this thread. All of you who posted on this thread before me can expect to hear from my lawyer.

[Hipper]

Highway Code Rule 170: 'watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way'

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The judge says the pedestrian was 'established' on the road, which means she had a right of way, and the incident occurred at a junction. However it doesn't say anything about the cyclist turning. Presumably he was.

According to the above rule therefore, if she had been crossing the road and he was riding straight along (i.e. not turning) she would not have a right of way.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/18/cyclist- ... e-9996411/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnMac]

Looks like she pre-empted a win and blew it on a tropical holiday

[Tricky Trevor]

This reminded me of Magnus Pyke. He got slaughtered by the media after suggesting that old folk should cross the road reading a book and every driver would be aware of them.

[Dazzler]

I've got to admit being very surprised by this as a cyclist (but one who is super careful around pedestrians)

Every eye witness backed the cyclist..

Not exactly..

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/y ... spartanntp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

..she relied on the evidence of another cyclist who had witnessed the crash and confronted Mr Hazeldean immediately afterwards.

That witness had made a voice recording at the time, accusing Mr Hazeldean of 'aggressive riding' and calling him 'arrogant and reckless'.

[aggi]

So far as I'm aware the cyclist wasn't turning but even then a pedestrian has priority in that vehicles should be aware that someone may step into the road and be going at a speed to enable them to avoid the collision (although realistically this isn't the case). The fact that the cyclist had time to blow a horn and opted to go round the back of her (and then she stepped backwards into him) means that in theory he had time to brake.

Whether the same judgement would be given against a car driver I'm not sure.

However, a 50:50 liability split is pretty poor in this kind of case and the damages have not yet been decided on so it could end up being low.

[dsr]

I think what the judge is saying is that if you there is a halfwit on the road (with or without its carer) - presumably it doesn't matter whether there is a traffic light or not, because this light was green - then driving past is not an option. You have to take account of the possibility that the halfwit will turn back and jump in front of you.

50-50 liability? Absurd. If that's the rule, then no accident can ever be the pedestrian's fault; halfwitted or no. (I sometimes get the impression the college students at the pelican crossing have had an eye on this judgement for years. If ever a crossing needed a lollipop lady, this is it. I think many of them have never been allowed to cross the road on their own before.)

[rob63]

I think what the judge is saying is that if you there is a halfwit on the road (with or without its carer) - presumably it doesn't matter whether there is a traffic light or not, because this light was green - then driving past is not an option. You have to take account of the possibility that the halfwit will turn back and jump in front of you.

50-50 liability? Absurd. If that's the rule, then no accident can ever be the pedestrian's fault; halfwitted or no. (I sometimes get the impression the college students at the pelican crossing have had an eye on this judgement for years. If ever a crossing needed a lollipop lady, this is it. I think many of them have never been allowed to cross the road on their own before.)

The students push it outside the college, the Highways dept have even installed a countdown to the lights changing for them but they still cross one 1 second.
There used to be an offence known as jaywalking, this would cover crossing the road while looking at your phone but it probably doesn't exist anymore as pedestrian stupidity is always the driver's fault. It's the age of no personal responsibility I'm afraid.

[dsr]

I'm not sure the judge has ever driven or ridden on London Bridge. But if it's a fault to carry on riding when the road is not completely clear, then the cyclists might as well get off and push. London Bridge roadway is seldom completely clear.

[Imploding Turtle]

Watch the claims come. Lady wins compo for being hit by cyclist after crossing the road whilst looking at her phone.I know many younger people can’t walk more than 5 yards without looking at their phone nowadays but surely they can look up to cross the road.

Even more ridiculous is that the cyclist actually was paying attention, swerved to avoid her, but because she dodged in the same direction he still hit her. But somehow this was still the cyclists fault.

[Hipper]

It's a fact that some cyclists ride aggressively. I read a cycling book years ago (Richard's Bicycle Book) that suggested doing this would help with self preservation, although he was referring to dealing vehicles and not pedestrians. He had a point too.

[Corky]

Unless you have worked in Central London you really have no idea how bad, what seems like a majority, of cyclists can be. I got knocked over by some idiot who cycled through a red light at the Jct of Farringdon Rd and Roseberry Ave. When I got up and dusted myself off and asked him what he thought he was doing going through on red he did not apologise once. When I asked for his details as I wanted to report the incident to the Police, he ran off. He couldn't cycle as there was something wrong with his bike.

A significant number of cyclists in London really don't seem to care about the rules of the road.

[thomaspaine]

Unless you have worked in Central London you really have no idea how bad, what seems like a majority, of cyclists can be. I got knocked over by some idiot who cycled through a red light at the Jct of Farringdon Rd and Roseberry Ave. When I got up and dusted myself off and asked him what he thought he was doing going through on red he did not apologise once. When I asked for his details as I wanted to report the incident to the Police, he ran off. He couldn't cycle as there was something wrong with his bike.

A significant number of cyclists in London really don't seem to care about the rules of the road.

Probably true to say that a significantly larger number of vehicle drivers and pedestrians don't care about the rules of the road.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Cyclists on the pavements are the best ones, seem to think you should have to almost stand in the road to let them past

[TheFamilyCat]

Bit of a headscratcher this one - even after reading the report, which is always advisable when it's one of Blackrod's threads.

I don't understand how the judge can can decide that fault was 50:50 but still judge in one person's favour. Initially I just thought it was a pervy old judge thinking with his dick but it seems the judge was female.

[Hipper]

Bit of a headscratcher this one - even after reading the report, which is always advisable when it's one of Blackrod's threads.

I don't understand how the judge can can decide that fault was 50:50 but still judge in one person's favour. Initially I just thought it was a pervy old judge thinking with his dick but it seems the judge was female.

Being 'female' these days isn't what it used to be.

[TheFamilyCat]

Being 'female' these days isn't what it used to be.

Careful now or you really will get Blackrod going.

[MrMeeseeks]

Bit of a headscratcher this one - even after reading the report, which is always advisable when it's one of Blackrod's threads.

I don't understand how the judge can can decide that fault was 50:50 but still judge in one person's favour. Initially I just thought it was a pervy old judge thinking with his dick but it seems the judge was female.

From my pretty limited knowledge of litigation, I think that ‘50-50 liability’ means that she would get half of the what the claim would be worth if it was entirely the cyclists fault.

You have to give up some of your potential compensation if you’re found to be partly responsible

[TheFamilyCat]

Does that then mean, as someone above stated, that the cyclist could claim compensation from her? And as a judge has already ruled, feel that he'd be guaranteed to get it?

[aggi]

Does that then mean, as someone above stated, that the cyclist could claim compensation from her? And as a judge has already ruled, feel that he'd be guaranteed to get it?

It would have been possible but as it happened more than three years ago it is too late to do that now.

[aggi]

There used to be an offence known as jaywalking

There's never been a jaywalking offence in the UK which is a good thing.

It only came about in the US due to the motor lobby, an interesting read on it here https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/j ... ng-history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[South West Claret.]

Judge says 50/50 blame, so cyclist will be following up with a counter claim for compensation from her.

All a bit silly, really.

"All a bit silly, really."

Not for the legal professions it won't be as there are quite a lot of them in the executive of political parties as we know...so no self interest there then.

[Sutton-Claret]

I drive in the centre of York a lot where cyclists are everywhere. I regularly see one bloke who rides no handed whilst looking at his phone - he's obviously a very highly skilled rider. Wonder who would be at fault if he hit a pedestrian??

[Corky]

Probably true to say that a significantly larger number of vehicle drivers and pedestrians don't care about the rules of the road.

What a particularly strange remark to make. You don't happen to live in a remote village in the north of Scotland do you Thomas.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

A crowdfunding page has raised nearly £50k to help clear the legal fees he will have to pay after the court case.

Faith in humanity has been restored a little now.