Cyclist found jointly liable for hitting pedestrian in road reading mobile

Status
Not open for further replies.
Curlyteeth said:
I don't really understand how the cyclist is at all responsible here. I'm teaching my kids to look left and right as they cross the road because roads are dangerous This fool hasn't looked at all for the danger and yet has blamed the cyclist. If it had been a car she'd be dead. Would a car travelling under the speed limit be blamed? People need to take responsibility for their actions
Click to expand...
Yes
 


The 'joint liability' comment in the article and thread title is misleading. It's impossible to be in part liable for injury to yourself.

If they meant to say that there was a reduction for contributory negligence, I hope she appeals and a higher court finds the bicyclist 100% liable. The judge was absolutely right: cyclists must plan for this.

GK said:
Its time to ban cycling, until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on
Click to expand...
It should be banned in central London
 
I'm fine with this, you have a duty while cycling to anticipate these things happening which involves slowing down and riding further away from the kerb.

Can we now start taking it more seriously when motor vehicle drivers fuck up with less of the excuses please. Applying the judges logic here to other cases like this for example would make the streets safer for everyone.
 
pillars of hercules said:
The judge called it about right. Both at fault.
Click to expand...
The cyclist seem to try and take evasive action. How was it hid fault? What could he have on differently?

duff_man said:
Reading the judges comments is very confusing.

Judge says the cyclists did everything he could to avoid the collision and three independent witnesses back that up along with the fact the ‘victim’ was on her phone and when she realised the bike was coming towards her actually turned and stepped into its path.

I would like to think British Cycling and other groups would join forces and appeal this as it could cost them millions down the line in ridiculous claims.
Click to expand...
100% this.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see some CCTV of this one. Time to sound an air horn suggests he had time not to break with both hands. Doing 10-15 mph a bike can stop pretty quickly. Was she 20 yards away so he had time to shout and break sharper or was she 2 yards away and blissfully unaware?

On the other hand, the judge said he did everything he could to avoid the collision so now that is an established fact I would love to see the ruling challenged. If it is not, as well as affecting other cyclists, what about other road users? A car pulls out of a T junction right in front of your car doing under the speed limit. Physics say you can't stop. Why would you not be jointly liable for the same reason?
 
janiep said:
The 'joint liability' comment in the article and thread title is misleading. It's impossible to be in part liable for injury to yourself.

If they meant to say that there was a reduction for contributory negligence, I hope she appeals and a higher court finds the bicyclist 100% liable. The judge was absolutely right: cyclists must plan for this.


It should be banned in central London
Click to expand...

Ban bikes from everywhere, they are clearly a danger to zombies.

If that article is correct, he had gone through a green light at 10-15mph, ie typical cycling speed, and couldn’t avoid her despite trying to according to 3 witnesses. I struggle to see why he is liable at all.

..a serious question @janiep - as the judge has found it 50/50 liability, and ordered him to pay half the compensation, and he was also knocked out in the incident, does this mean he could now sue her for his injuries?
 
DaveH said:
I'd love to see some CCTV of this one. Time to sound an air horn suggests he had time not to break with both hands. Doing 10-15 mph a bike can stop pretty quickly. Was she 20 yards away so he had time to shout and break sharper or was she 2 yards away and blissfully unaware?

On the other hand, the judge said he did everything he could to avoid the collision so now that is an established fact I would love to see the ruling challenged. If it is not, as well as affecting other cyclists, what about other road users? A car pulls out of a T junction right in front of your car doing under the speed limit. Physics say you can't stop. Why would you not be jointly liable for the same reason?
Click to expand...

Short of cash this month? Stand at the side of the pavement and jump in front of a car at the last minute, what used to be called utter f***ing stupidity is now referred to as 50/50 shared liability.

janiep said:
The 'joint liability' comment in the article and thread title is misleading. It's impossible to be in part liable for injury to yourself.

If they meant to say that there was a reduction for contributory negligence, I hope she appeals and a higher court finds the bicyclist 100% liable. The judge was absolutely right: cyclists must plan for this.


It should be banned in central London
Click to expand...

Ban pedestrians in central London
 
The court heard that Mr Hazeldean, who suffered cuts in the incident, had ridden through a green traffic light and was travelling at a speed of between 10 and 15mph.
Click to expand...
Surely he meant red!
 
Urban Silverback said:
If they're both equally liable, he should just sue her back for the same amount.
Click to expand...

I presume that's because he wasn't injured. I'm not reading the story because I don't want my assumptions to be ruined by a requirement to consider facts and context.
 
I typically can’t stand cyclists but this is ridiculous. The woman should be giving the cyclist compo, not the other way around.
 
Curlyteeth said:
I don't really understand how the cyclist is at all responsible here. I'm teaching my kids to look left and right as they cross the road because roads are dangerous This fool hasn't looked at all for the danger and yet has blamed the cyclist. If it had been a car she'd be dead. Would a car travelling under the speed limit be blamed? People need to take responsibility for their actions
Click to expand...

He was probably going too fast
 
I think the nuance here is that it seems it was a crossing that had just turned to green when she stepped out. Stupid thing to do but happens regularly, to the extent that we all factor this in when driving - when the lights go green you keep an eye out for the dickhead who still tries to cross.

The judge seems to be suggesting the cyclist didn’t anticipate this and, although the light was now green, there was someone on the road. He reactively tried to stop, but he should really have proactively anticipated the situation and been better prepared to stop.

Just what I’ve inferred like.
 
It happens to me on a regular basis where people walk out into the road without looking with or without a phone. A couple of years ago I was indicating right and just about to turn right when a cyclist appeared from behind my car and moving onto the wrong side of the road to overtake me. Had I not taken one last look in the mirror he would have been injured, who would have been to blame? I think that we must all be prepared to stop at any time, many people live in a conscious coma, it’s a fact of life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top