Woman hit by Cyclist awarded a payout

On the face of it this cyclist appears a little hard done by.

Payout for woman hit by cyclist.pdf

This appeared on CUK forum a few days ago, the cyclist was deemed 50% liable as he failed to avoid hitting a Zombie with her face stuck in a her face. Yet he sent out enough warning signals, the law is an ass.

If it was a car that hit her nothing would have happened.

That's terrible. Do we now need to ride near the centre of the road to avoid pedestrians jumping in front of us for compensation? I wonder if the guy will counter-sue her for his own injuries and the trauma of his court case.

This appeared on CUK forum a few days ago, the cyclist was deemed 50% liable as he failed to avoid hitting a Zombie with her face stuck in her PHONE. Yet he sent out enough warning signals, the law is an ass.

If it was a car that hit her nothing would have happened.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

I suppose that it could also be argued that if you have enough time and forethought to sound your electronic horn, and shout a warning of your approach, then you could have equally enough time to stop. Or, at least slow down sufficiently enough to not knock the both of you clean out.

My guess is that it will get overturned on appeal.

 

Unfortunately, cyclists are subject to irrational prejudice.

 

It seems that this extends to the level of judges.

I think the crucial point is the judges comments "he did proceed when the road was not completely clear" & "cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways".

Does this set a precedent or are all road users expected to have the same level of care

I had a very similar situation when a sixth form girl student absorbed by her phone stepped out from the curb in front of me with the only difference being that my shout, brake and slight swerve, also to the left like the guy in the newspaper report meant I missed her, but only just, and as I and my ebike and panniers easily top 100kg the resulting collision would not bear thinking about.

 

I thought after that near miss that if I had hit her I may well have not been treated as the innocent party.

Fixed that for you.

 

I suppose that it could also be argued that if you have enough time and forethought to sound your electronic horn, and shout a warning of your approach, then you could have equally enough time to stop. Or, at least slow down sufficiently enough to not knock the both of you clean out.

Yes, that was the basis of the judge's decision I believe.

I think the crucial point is the judges comments "he did proceed when the road was not completely clear" & "cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways".

Does this set a precedent or are all road users expected to have the same level of care

Hardy a precedent, it's been true for a long time for car drivers. If you've driving a car and somebody steps out in front of you, be it an adult, a kid, a deaf person..., you'd be expected to make an emergency stop. You might blow your horn, if there was time, in the hope that they might jump out of the way to lessen the chance of hitting them.

It seems that this cyclist concentrated on blowing his horn rather than stopping or avoiding a collision.

It seems that this cyclist concentrated on blowing his horn rather than stopping or avoiding a collision.

 

Cyclists hate losing momentum and often try to swerve past anyone in the way, but that is a big mistake. Braking should always be the default action since pedestrian movements are unpredictable.

.

It doesn't matter what the cyclist did or did not do, it would have been wrong any way.

I was looking at the highway code to see if the judges comments were quotes but all I could find as guidance was

 

"Rules for pedestrians, including general guidance, crossing the road, crossings, and situations needing extra care.

Rule 18

At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

• always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross"
  

The only way I can make the judges comments make sense is if the pedestrian stepped out and the cyclist did not immediately slow down but yelled and reached for his horn - hence the judge is saying that the default action should be to stop in an emergency. This would be the case for a car in these circumstances but that is far wider - and has to swerve a lot more to miss someone - than a bike.

Unfortunately, unless you were in the court or saw a full transcript you can't tell the exact timeline and distances.

Either way - it does sound strange - and I do wonder about the pedestrian who had the cheek to sue someone after she walked into the road with her face in her phone when the lights were on green.

Fixed that for you.

 

I suppose that it could also be argued that if you have enough time and forethought to sound your electronic horn, and shout a warning of your approach, then you could have equally enough time to stop. Or, at least slow down sufficiently enough to not knock the both of you clean out.

That's not the full story. Like the guy that killed the woman, the cyclist had plenty of time to avoid her, so chose to steer behind her, but then, at the point of no return, she woke up, panicked and jumped back into his path.

 

This happens to me very often when I use my bell or shout. I therefore tend not to let them know I'm coming as long as I have plenty of room to get by.

 

One time, there was a man and a toddler walking in both lanes of a split cycle/footpath. I rang my bell as I approached in plenty of time. In a nice organised way, the man put the boy on the far edge of the footpath and them stepped over the cycle path onto the grass the other side. It was a steep downhill, so now I knew it was safe and I had the entire path to myself, I started accelerating again. At the last moment, the man dashed over to the other side, grabbed the boy and attempted to carry him back to the grass where the man had been standing before. He was in total panic. It made absolutely no sense to carry the boy back because both of them were quite safe on the footpath. Anyway, I have good brakes and I was able to do an emergency stop with a bit of a skid from both wheels. I think I have good redactions from half a million miles on a motorbike, and my brakes helped a lot, but I bet many cyclists would have hit that guy and the kid. They would have then been in the same situation as the cyclist in the OP.

Fortunately, I don't generally ride much on the road. But we've also had our moments and near misses.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U1J5BwcRXA

That's not the full story. Like the guy that killed the woman, the cyclist had plenty of time to avoid her, so chose to steer behind her, but then, at the point of no return, she woke up, panicked and jumped back into his path.

 

This happens to me very often when I use my bell or shout. I therefore tend not to let them know I'm coming as long as I have plenty of room to get by.

 

One time, there was a man and a toddler walking in both lanes of a split cycle/footpath. I rang my bell as I approached in plenty of time. In a nice organised way, the man put the boy on the far edge of the footpath and them stepped over the cycle path onto the grass the other side. It was a steep downhill, so now I knew it was safe and I had the entire path to myself, I started accelerating again. At the last moment, the man dashed over to the other side, grabbed the boy and attempted to carry him back to the grass where the man had been standing before. He was in total panic. It made absolutely no sense to carry the boy back because both of them were quite safe on the footpath. Anyway, I have good brakes and I was able to do an emergency stop with a bit of a skid from both wheels. I think I have good redactions from half a million miles on a motorbike, and my brakes helped a lot, but I bet many cyclists would have hit that guy and the kid. They would have then been in the same situation as the cyclist in the OP.

Yes, emergency stops are necessary for all sorts of reasons.

Whatever the merits of the case I think the Cyclist was hard done by and have contributed a Tenner to the Go Fund Me started by a Friend of his . We Cyclists should stick together .

There was a bit more in "The Times" today, and he comes across as a nice bloke that with hindsight made a few mistakes that have ending up potentially costing him a lot of money. The other side paid for quality legal representation from the off and he started by defending himself and making mistakes. If he had also quickly got himself similarly represented it would have in all probability ended greatly limiting his liability , probably to a max of £6,500 rather than the £100,000 that they are seeking from him at the moment that will in all probability bankrupt him. Tough lesson. From the facts of the case in the press it still seems very unfair and also sets a precedence for other cyclist who find themselves in a similar situation. Case law and all that. Modern litigation society sucks.

The woman that sued him and the lawyers must be absolutely evil. I hope they get sorted out on judgement day.

Irwin Mitchell ?

I'd donate a tenner to the guy if there was giving page.

Think about this - if a kid ran out in front of a cyclist and the cyclist ran into him/her after hooting his horn and shouting rather than braking, what would your feelings be?

I think the ruling was right - 50/50. I have witnessed many cyclists refusing to stop or slow down just because they have the right of way or lights are green. Those irresponsible ones must be held accountable for their part to play as all road users must be aware of potential hazards (including clueless pedestrians who could step into the road). I think he was probably going too fast and was unable to stop safely in an emergency. There are responsible cyclists (myself included) and hats off to us, but I really have an issue with the ones who cycle blindly without any thought for others - shows a lack of awareness and undue care and attention on the roads.

Edited June 23, 20196 yr by UrbanPuma

There was a bit more in "The Times" today, and he comes across as a nice bloke that with hindsight made a few mistakes that have ending up potentially costing him a lot of money. The other side paid for quality legal representation from the off and he started by defending himself and making mistakes. If he had also quickly got himself similarly represented it would have in all probability ended greatly limiting his liability , probably to a max of £6,500 rather than the £100,000 that they are seeking from him at the moment that will in all probability bankrupt him. Tough lesson. From the facts of the case in the press it still seems very unfair and also sets a precedence for other cyclist who find themselves in a similar situation. Case law and all that. Modern litigation society sucks.

 

Yes, food for thought indeed. Not making a counter claim seems to have been his biggest mistake. That aside, I've always said that ebikes in general actually bring about many safety advantages due to their differing riding style when compared to regular bikes. That riding style is brought about through the motor support and weight which increases average speed while reducing peak speeds.

 

Often strong, fast, regular bike riding brings about an inevitable fatigue that decreases spatial awareness of the riders surroundings. After a time, lots of 'head down' or 'up off the seat' riding effort eventually brings about a tunnel vision effect. This is particularly the case when continually attempting to gain, or retain speed just before an oncoming uphill gradient. Or, when trying to keep your hard earned acquired speed through a blind bend.

 

With ebikes, gaining or losing speed is no longer an issue. Rider reaction is improved through not experiencing as much physical fatigue, or overly strenuous riding to gain that speed, or to achieve uphill range speed. No speed or gradient penalties are gained through stop, start braking and acceleration on an ebike. They change the need to rush to get ahead, and on a heavy ebike the brakes need to have good stopping power at all times. There's no getting away with that.

 

Fitness isn't an issue on an ebike. So reading the road further ahead becomes possible and, after a while, second nature. There's no comparable wobble effect brought about by slow uphill struggles, and therefore spatial awareness is enhanced. There's also no longer a need to take the most linear, easiest path of least resistance. You can take the harder path without risk.

 

All these positive ebiking attributes generally make ebiking a much safer experience all round.

 

And, if all else fails, there's always the walk mode.

Edited June 24, 20196 yr by LeighPing

Not making a counter claim seems to have been his biggest mistake.

 

Afraid not, a counter claim probably wouldn't get off the ground.

 

Once a pedestrian steps onto a road they automatically have the right of way. That is the way the law is generally interpreted, so I wasn't surprised by the judge's ruling.

 

For example, rule 170 of the Highway Code advises that if a pedestrian has already started to cross the side road into which you’re turning from a main road, you must give way to them.

 

Rule 8. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way.

 

Also Jaywalking, the American term for crossing a road at a point other than at a designated crossing, is perfectly legal in the United Kingdom.

 

And of course where there's no pavements, pedestrians legally walk on the roads and vehicled road users have to make allowance for them.

.

Edited June 24, 20196 yr by flecc