popeye

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-from-cyclist

“Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way. Mr Hazeldean did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.”

seau grateau

Well that wasn't surprising at all.

Homebrew01

Moved from Road

Daniel4

Those who have a valid drivers license should remember that pedestrians do have the right of way and that drivers have the responsibility to expect the unexpected. You learned this in driving school.

If you don't agree, consult with a driving instructor.

Why should the responsibilities of cyclists be any less?

Shimagnolo

I've lost count of how many times I've read about ridiculous decisions made by English courts.
Most often it is punishing victims who had the audacity to defend themselves when physically attacked.

On one occasion, an idiot on a motorcycle was doing about 4 X the speed limit, and a motorist made a turn in front of him. Somehow the court expected the motorist making the turn to know the oncoming fool was doing >100mph in a zone where he should have been doing ~30mph. The biker was instantly killed, the car & bike totaled, and the motorist was fined, and had his license revoked.

holytrousers

There are basic things civilzed people forget : we are by default equal, and we all have an equal right to roam the earth freely. Then appear people with tools to enable them faster movement. They should respect those who don't operate such tools and give them the right of way. Then come humans who operate big and dangerous tools that can kill everybody else, polluting the air and making a lot of noise. Those should be strictly monitored and sanctioned for making our streets unsafe.
Still, i don't see why a cyclist should be paying money for what happened there.

Rollfast

Dudes and any dudas...

Just because people fall into fountains and open manholes while buried in their screens doesn't mean we aren't supposed to look out for them and avoid them.

It's never us vs. them, it's us OR them.

This is why the legal system drives you crazy.

Daniel4

If driver re-education ever gets implemented, I can imagine how many experienced drivers would be arguing with their instructors.

This thread just reminded me to lookup one of the responsibilities of sailing: the responsibility to avoid collisions is shared by everyone.

It doesn't seem to be shared by drivers although the rules are written in the local traffic legislation and acts.

That's probably why charges of a lessor offence are usually given to offending motorist when their dead victims aten't in cars.

noimagination

Personally, from the information given in the post and the attached article, I'm not prepared to determine that the judge is an idiot. I wasn't there, I almost certainly don't have all of the information that the judge did.

If we speculate that the judge determined that the cyclist did not slow sufficiently for the conditions (density of pedestrian traffic), then perhaps the verdict is reasonable. Even if a pedestrian (or another cyclist, or a motorist, or anyone else) fails to yield the right-of-way when required, and that results in them entering my path of travel, I'm still obligated to use "reasonable care and skill" to avoid colliding with them. It seems that the judge found that the pedestrian shared 50% of the blame for the collision (failing to yield the right-of-way) and the cyclist shared 50% of the blame (failing to ride with "reasonable care and skill"). I emphasize that this is pure speculation, intended as a reasonable extrapolation from the information given that could show that the judge is not an idiot.

If the pedestrian had stepped out immediately in front of the cyclist, giving him no time to react, then the judgement would be nonsensical (idiotic). However, according to the attached article, that isn't what happened.

From the article: 'Brushett was one of a “throng” of people trying to cross the road at the start of rush-hour. She was looking at her mobile phone when crossing the road, and only noticed Hazeldean approaching at the last moment, despite the traffic lights showing green. The court was told she panicked and tried to step back, but the cyclist, who had been travelling at 10-15mph, swerved in the same direction and hit her.'

To speculate further, here is a possible scenario: the cyclist is approaching the pedestrian crossing with the light. He sees the "throng" of people waiting to cross his path. Rather than anticipate that one of the pedestrians might try to cross in front of him, he maintains his speed (or, equally as likely, he slows to the stated 10-15 mph, but that just isn't slow enough for the conditions). The pedestrian steps out in front of him. Before colliding with the pedestrian, the cyclist swerves to avoid her. The pedestrian steps in the same direction that he's swerving and they collide. The judge determines that he did not slow sufficiently for the conditions.

It's possible that the judge does not understand cycling and that the cyclist did everything he could to avoid the collision. It's also possible that the cyclist could have avoided the collision if he had acted with proper care (slowed to a slower speed) and skill (braking? turning in the other direction? no clarification from the judge on their thinking regarding the "skill" part of her ruling). In my opinion it is not possible to determine which of these is true given the available information.

-----------

mr_bill

More details at the Mirror (including gratuitous picture.)

There are two intersections with a pedestrian refuge and an east/west pedestrian crossing at the junction. This and this.

Since they don't mention pedestrian signals, it might be the first.

Note that one CYCLIST contemporaneously accused Hazelton of "aggressive riding," but three pedestrians put the blame on Brushett for not looking where she was going.



Anyhow, people do sometimes step into roads without looking. And when they startle they can squirrel and back up towards the nearest curb.

Please don't hit people.


Rules for drivers in the UK are here.

In Massachusetts, for what it's worth, even if the pedestrian is "wrong" and failed to yield the right of way, "notwithstanding the provisions of 720 CMR 9.00 every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon the roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precautions which may become necessary for safe operation."

-mr. bill

Moe Zhoost

The judge ruled that both cyclist and pedestrian shared responsibility. Sounds reasonable to me. Having almost hit a pedestrian who started to cross against the light, I take it as prudent to assume that anyone waiting alongside the street may step out unexpectedly.

Presumably, when the court settles on the damages, the cyclist could argue for an offset for damages to him. Isn't that the way shared responsibility works.

Rollfast

Possibly a lot of crying over shared ilk.

I-Like-To-Bike

What the heck is "driver re-education"?

Which drivers are to be reeducated, under what circumstances, how often and by whom and at whose expense, if "driver re-education ever gets implemented" ?

Rollfast

I supposed there is a camp for that and you stay there until they think you are done or you disappear or whatever. I think John Wayne was in that one.

livedarklions

What, you don't see the obvious appeal of a rhetorical Cultural Revolution callback? The reeducation camps could be run by the Red Crossing Guards.

Paul Barnard

I guess the cyclist should sue the pedestrian now. They were both knocked out, so it would seem the damages would be similar. Since the judge noted they were 50/50 responsible then the cyclist can get his money back once his suit is complete.

I-Like-To-Bike

I suspect the desire is for the driver reeducation camps to be run by anti-motorist/anti-motoring New Age Snowflakes of the A&S/LCF persuasion. That will learn those evil doers!

livedarklions

Way to take the funny out of a joke, man.
Jeez, you should have been able to go to town on Red Crossing Guards and instead went to the trite and lame New Age Snowflakes.

livedarklions

You would think it should work that way, but it most likely doesn't. Liability to others for their damage is based on the defendant violating their duty of care. A pedestrian's duty of care to others may be considerably lower than the operator of a vehicle's duty. I'm not super-familiar with British tort law on the issue of comparative negligence, but I think this is a reasonable guess.

The rule used to be "contributory negligence". Under that rule, if the plaintiff's negligence contributed at all to the harm, then the plaintiff could get nothing, even if the defendant was 99% at fault.

I-Like-To-Bike

What is lame and trite is your frequent and gratuitous personal backbiting and snipping at me , but critiquing other posters' "correctness" is your shtick, ain't it?

livedarklions

This from the guy who jumped into a thread to criticize me for saying I found twist tops on water bottles awkward while riding!

you aspire to petty.

Kedosto

The judge declared both parties shared responsibility but because only one party filed for claim she gets it. The only tragedy here is that the guy didn’t exercise his legal rights and as a result he lost. He tried to stake out some moral high ground against “claim culture” and now he’s gonna have to pay for his principles.

Disagree with a legal system all you want, but if you find yourself caught up in it you better come prepared to win.


-Kedosto

Rollfast

Kedosto goes home with the living room set, Mohawk carpeting and a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Nicely played!

Moe Zhoost

I think the preferred A&S strategy is more for driver-redaction than re-education.

Rollfast

We're getting better...I may have to hire a few of you guys, I'm running out of barbed ire.