Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 250
  1. #61
    Members
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    a galaxy far far away
    Posts
    1,020


    0 Not allowed!
    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?

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #62
      Sanity Clause vegster's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Posts
      19,854


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by JBizzle View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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?
      I had run 17 miles from Grayshades before the school leopard caught me.....

      " Wisdom comes from experience. Experience is often a result of lack of wisdom "
      Terry Pratchett 1948 – 2015
    • #63
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      41,291


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by brightn'ove View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #64
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      41,291


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Goldstone1976 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      “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.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #65
      Members
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Location
      Dangerously close to Surrey
      Posts
      2,538


      2 Not allowed!
      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?

      Am I watching Brighton or Barcelona?
    • #66
      Members GT49er's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Gloucester
      Posts
      24,634


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by hans kraay fan club View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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?
    • #67
      Members Worried Man Blues's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      NANTGAREDIG
      Posts
      2,836


      1 Not allowed!
      I presume the judge walks using her phone and doesn't cycle
      I haven't always followed the stripes. ||||
    • #68
      Members Herr Tubthumper's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      The Fatherland
      Posts
      46,662


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by GT49er View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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?
      "I will design a town in the image of your face. Round the wrinkles of your eyes my footsteps you can trace. We could promenade down infra-nasel depression. The streets of your hands will never feel a recession."
    • #69
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      41,291


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by golddene View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #70
      Members GT49er's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Gloucester
      Posts
      24,634


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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?
      Last edited by GT49er; 19-06-2019 at 11:56.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •