[Travel] Teacher who was staring at her phone and hit by a cyclist win compensation.

blue-shifted · Jun 19, 2019

Questions

So what would have happened in legal terms if the cyclist had been a car driver? (in practical terms of course, the pedestrian may have been killed) Would the same level of duty have been applied?

The payout was 50/50 for the in terms of fault, so what would have been the case if the cyclist had been injured by the incident? Presumably, he could then have counter sued?

vegster · Jun 19, 2019

JBizzle said:
Not a great precedent to be set here... I get it, she teaches yoga. Why mention it 5 times?

Surely she should have been flexible enough to sway out of the way?

Triggaaar · Jun 19, 2019

brightn'ove said:
That is awful precedent. It was 100% the fault of the pedestrian.

Did you watch the trial? Because the judge has clearly ruled that it was not 100% the fault of the pedestrian.

Triggaaar · Jun 19, 2019

Goldstone1976 said:
“The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50.'

The article says she’ll get half her claim from the cyclist. If he counter claims, presumably he’ll get half his claim too?

That would make sense. He got knocked unconscious too, right?

Having started crossing a road without looking, and staring into her phone, I'm amazed she sued him in the first place. If the cyclist sounded warnings, but didn't bother slowing down, it is somewhat understandable that the judge ruled that liability was 50/50. Common sense is that they settle for zero, but this lady appears to have no common sense at all.

Cyclists do have a duty of care. But surely pedestrians do too? Walking onto a busy road without looking can cause injury to others. Either a cyclist, who might crash, or other pedestrians if a car is forced to swerve.

A1X · Jun 19, 2019

I don't like to criticise court rulings because you never hear the full story the court does unless you were there.

However...whatever happened to personal responsibility?

GT49er · Jun 19, 2019

hans kraay fan club said:
This for me. If he was travelling at a suitable speed for the circumstances, then if he had time to move his hand to the horn, he equally had time to brake.

His defence is that there was 'clear carriageway, although there were pedestrians about to step (from the carriageway) onto the pavement'. If this were genuinely true - that some pedestrians (the lady in question included) had all but crossed the road, leaving the way clear for him to speed through - then WHY was he sounding his horn at all? To 'hurry them along'?

Sounding the horn to warn other toad users (who might not have noticed your presence) is correct use of the horn. If that is not the correct time and place to use it, when is?

Worried Man Blues · Jun 19, 2019

I presume the judge walks using her phone and doesn't cycle :shrug:

Herr Tubthumper · Jun 19, 2019

GT49er said:
Sounding the horn to warn other toad users (who might not have noticed your presence) is correct use of the horn. If that is not the correct time and place to use it, when is?

Letting your friends know you’ve arrived outside their house to pick them up?

Triggaaar · Jun 19, 2019

golddene said:
YOUR responsibility if YOU are "turning in" the Highway Code does state that pedestrians should be given right of way by motorists if crossing junctions whilst the motorist is making left or right turns at road junctions, a rule that a lot of drivers tend to ignore and I say this as a driver who gets quite pi**ed off with other drivers when I am crossing at junctions as a pedestrian.

You'll be in the 1% of people who has any ****ing idea what the Highway Code says.

GT49er · Jun 19, 2019

Triggaaar said:
That would make sense. He got knocked unconscious too, right?

Having started crossing a road without looking, and staring into her phone, I'm amazed she sued him in the first place. If the cyclist sounded warnings, but didn't bother slowing down, it is somewhat understandable that the judge ruled that liability was 50/50. Common sense is that they settle for zero, but this lady appears to have no common sense at all.

And neither it appears to me does the judge! What a travesty of justice - a cyclist witness says he might have been riding a bit aggressively, but three pedestrian witnesses state categorically that it was the woman's fault for not paying attention or looking where she was going - yet the judge effectively ignores their evidence!
If the cyclist had been riding on the pavement, it would have been his fault, but he was on the road, where he had every right to be.

I'm drawn to the conclusion must be at one with the cycle-haters that sometimes post on here; is she in fact one of them? Any cycle hating posters want to tell us anything?

Herr Tubthumper · Jun 19, 2019

blue-shifted said:
Questions

So what would have happened in legal terms if the cyclist had been a car driver?

I think it’s 200 points for a teacher with 40 bonus points if it’s during their school holiday.

rippleman · Jun 19, 2019

Very odd decision. The cyclist was on the road ffs and the pedestrian wasn't looking. I've seen so many close shaves when pedestrians (and in most cases they are women) are so obsessed with their mobiles that they pay no attention to the dangers of the road.

Having said that, it is remarkable that as "The Government is looking at a range of options to make the roads safer for pedestrians after a record number of pedestrians are being killed or seriously injured in crashes with cyclists." that the OB continue to refuse to address the ever increasing number of cyclists who think they have the right to cycle on the pavement. Waiting for some young 'un or frail senior to be killed before awakening from their slumbers no doubt

CheeseRolls · Jun 19, 2019

I had a year of cycling in London from London Bridge to Charlotte Street for work and then down to Victoria in the evening. Three things made me give up;

1 My regular route along Cheapside was closed for roadworks forcing me along Cannon St, where this incident occurred. This route was considerably more hazardous.
2 My folding bike folded on me one day, when i hit a pothole along the Mall. I could of course have avoided it and swerved into the path of an impatient taxi overtaking me.
3 The clincher my office moved into the adjacent building and the showers were in the first building. I don't know why, but this was the thing that eventually put me off.

I wasn't really enjoying work at this time, so the adrenalin and the exercise, were welcome. Some of the near misses less so.
Packed pavements full of unpredictable pedestrians, who will push their luck and take risks at every opportunity. Inpatient car,lorry and taxi drivers and trains of cyclists.

As a cyclist, you have to sort of fall in line with the general pace of things. There are people who will overtake at every opportunity, but otherwise cyclists fall into a medium fast pace, often following each other in single file. This is not like cycling anywhere else where I have been. Slam the brakes on unpredictably and you risk a major pile up.

Ultimately the law will have to change for pedestrians and I predict that it will be the advance of driverless cars that will force the issue. Pedestrian crossings in busy cities are advisory only, you are free to risk crossing unless there are barriers to prevent you doing so. Stepping out in front of a vehicle, the pedestrian has to make a judgement call as to whether the driver has seen them and will stop and having stopped, will not jump out the car and lamp them. The dynamics are different for a driverless car, which morally has to stop. This completely changes the dynamics and will be a recipe for chaos in city centres.

Sussex Nomad · Jun 19, 2019

Triggaaar said:
That would make sense. He got knocked unconscious too, right?

Having started crossing a road without looking, and staring into her phone, I'm amazed she sued him in the first place. If the cyclist sounded warnings, but didn't bother slowing down, it is somewhat understandable that the judge ruled that liability was 50/50. Common sense is that they settle for zero, but this lady appears to have no common sense at all.

Cyclists do have a duty of care. But surely pedestrians do too? Walking onto a busy road without looking can cause injury to others. Either a cyclist, who might crash, or other pedestrians if a car is forced to swerve.

Difficult one really. Pedestrians nose deep in their smart phones with absolutely zero understanding of their surroundings, not just on busy roads but pavements to, are an absolute nightmare. Conversely, especially in London, cyclists with no thought of anyone but themselves are also a danger to everyone and themselves. You also see many cyclists wearing earphones and listening to their phones and having no idea of their surroundings. I think they are both culpable.

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Jun 19, 2019

brightn'ove said:
So let’s take tens of thousands of cyclists off the roads because a bit of paintwork got scratched.

Now your talking. That's a great idea.

The Clamp · Jun 19, 2019

It’s probably just me but I find it incredibly rude when cyclist ring their bells because they wish to get past pedestrians. How is that any different to someone who is walking faster then the person in front, getting behind then and yelling “OUT OF MY WAY”! ?

Surely a polite “excuse me” or waiting for a gap to pass through is more appropriate. I’ll always move aside if I know a cyclist is approaching from behind, there’s no need to ring your ****ing Bell at me.

Sussex Nomad · Jun 19, 2019

CheeseRolls said:
As a cyclist, you have to sort of fall in line with the general pace of things. There are people who will overtake at every opportunity, but otherwise cyclists fall into a medium fast pace, often following each other in single file. This is not like cycling anywhere else where I have been. Slam the brakes on unpredictably and you risk a major pile up.

If Hammersmith and Kensington, around Olympia, are to go by at rush hour, that is hugely debatable.

The Clamp · Jun 19, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
Difficult one really. Pedestrians nose deep in their smart phones with absolutely zero understanding of their surroundings, not just on busy roads but pavements to, are an absolute nightmare. Conversely, especially in London, cyclists with no thought of anyone but themselves are also a danger to everyone and themselves. You also see many cyclists wearing earphones and listening to their phones and having no idea of their surroundings. I think they are both culpable.

I am out and about in the small hours for work and I continuously see lone females and teenagers walking down dark streets, head down and focussed on their phones utterly unaware of anything going on around them.
Of course it would be solely the fault of the criminal if anything happened to them but come on! They’re handing it to them on a plate. It’s just common sense to be aware of your surroundings.

GT49er · Jun 19, 2019

rippleman said:
Having said that, it is remarkable that as "The Government is looking at a range of options to make the roads safer for pedestrians after a record number of pedestrians are being killed or seriously injured in crashes with cyclists." that the OB continue to refuse to address the ever increasing number of cyclists who think they have the right to cycle on the pavement. Waiting for some young 'un or frail senior to be killed before awakening from their slumbers no doubt

How many of those pedestrians killed or wounded were actually on the pavement, not on the road at all, I wonder.

Sussex Nomad · Jun 19, 2019

The Clamp said:
I am out and about in the small hours for work and I continuously see lone females and teenagers walking down dark streets, head down and focussed on their phones utterly unaware of anything going on around them.
Of course it would be solely the fault of the criminal if anything happened to them but come on! They’re handing it to them on a plate. It’s just common sense to be aware of your surroundings.

Being a typical bloke I can't walk and text/read texts at the same time, multi tasking isn't in my remit.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Travel] Teacher who was staring at her phone and hit by a cyclist win compensation.

Banned

Sanity Clause

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page