Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

slowster
Posts: 721
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby slowster » 22 Jun 2019, 2:59pm

PH wrote:I know some will think it a small point, but he’s been found liable not negligent. Whatever people think of as fault or blame, that isn’t what the court considered, you could be liable for something and blameless.

This is completely wrong. There are some special cases where there can be a strict liability in law regardless of whether of not there is negligence, but this is not one of them. The liability in this case arises solely from the cyclist's negligence.

Bonefishblues wrote:
robing wrote:Obviously the penalty is ridiculously overinflated and if he had been a member of Cycling UK then the liability would have been covered and I'm sure the lawyers would have been able to fight it.

Just checking in to ask whether that's the case, no matter that an individual has been found to be negligent?

The liability insurance provided by a specialist policy like Cycling UK's or the general cover under a household contents insurance policy will cover both the court award, the legal costs of defending the claim, and the claimant's legal costs. As this case illustrates bad decisions taken by someone unfamiliar with the law can be very expensive, and this is why insurers want to be notified as soon as possible of a claim. Dealing with it yourself initially, and only later asking your liability insurer to take it over, is a recipe for disaster. The possibility that you would have made mistakes and increased the eventual amount of the costs, is likely to entitle the insurer to refuse to take over dealing with the claim and leave you to it (in the jargon, you will have prejudiced your case).

francovendee
Posts: 838
Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby francovendee » 23 Jun 2019, 8:31am

What a terrible outcome for this chap. I read he could have counter sued but didn't. The lady in question was the major factor that caused the accident and received under £5000 for damages. The bulk of the cost was from legal charges and it would have been fairer, in my view, to have made them jointly liable for this.
I'm sure we'll hear sometime how many deaths are caused by smart phones.

soapbox
Posts: 34
Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 12:20am

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby soapbox » 23 Jun 2019, 3:07pm

I've just trawled through the comments and I'm still not clear how much the cyclist would have ended up having to pay if he'd been a CyclingUK member.
If he'd been a member, would this incident have cost him anything other than a few phone calls and travel costs to court?

mattheus
Posts: 441
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby mattheus » 23 Jun 2019, 5:05pm

soapbox wrote:I've just trawled through the comments and I'm still not clear how much the cyclist would have ended up having to pay if he'd been a CyclingUK member.
If he'd been a member, would this incident have cost him anything other than a few phone calls and travel costs to court?

Good question, if only for clarification. The answer is:

Not a penny. They could quite possibly have avoided attending court, too. (depending on whether CTC's lawyers reached an "agreement" with Yoga Teacher's lawyers).

So yeah, cost of a few phone calls!

soapbox
Posts: 34
Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 12:20am

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby soapbox » 23 Jun 2019, 5:21pm

mattheus wrote:
soapbox wrote:I've just trawled through the comments and I'm still not clear how much the cyclist would have ended up having to pay if he'd been a CyclingUK member.
If he'd been a member, would this incident have cost him anything other than a few phone calls and travel costs to court?

Good question, if only for clarification. The answer is:

Not a penny. They could quite possibly have avoided attending court, too. (depending on whether CTC's lawyers reached an "agreement" with Yoga Teacher's lawyers).

So yeah, cost of a few phone calls!


Thanks, mattheus.

pga
Posts: 253
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 9:40pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby pga » 23 Jun 2019, 10:02pm

Another example of the legal system failing to protect cyclists, Sure he did not have Cycling UK or BC membership but why should he? We are always hearing of motorists getting off lightly even when they have driven deliberately at cyclists. In mainland Europe motorists are automatically held responsible for collisions unless they can prove the other party negligent. Here of course that does not apply.

You always have to admire these judges,like many of our politicians, being able to confidently comment on subjects they know nothing about with a degree of confidence that is astounding.

No wonder we have to have a Cyclists' Defence Fund.

kwackers
Posts: 13037
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby kwackers » 23 Jun 2019, 10:06pm

pga wrote:Another example of the legal system failing to protect cyclists, Sure he did not have Cycling UK or BC membership but why should he? We are always hearing of motorists getting off lightly even when they have driven deliberately at cyclists. In mainland Europe motorists are automatically held responsible for collisions unless they can prove the other party negligent. Here of course that does not apply.

You always have to admire these judges,like many of our politicians, being able to confidently comment on subjects they know nothing about with a degree of confidence that is astounding.

No wonder we have to have a Cyclists' Defence Fund.

Errr, in Europe he'd have automatically been responsible for hitting a pedestrian so I'm not sure how you think the system has failed him.

From the evidence reported the pedestrian was already in the road which gives her right of way, he chose to ignore that and paid the price. In Europe exactly the same would have happened.

If there's a lesson it's that if you don't like using your brakes get insurance.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6334
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 23 Jun 2019, 10:52pm

pga wrote:Another example of the legal system failing to protect cyclists, Sure he did not have Cycling UK or BC membership but why should he? We are always hearing of motorists getting off lightly even when they have driven deliberately at cyclists. In mainland Europe motorists are automatically held responsible for collisions unless they can prove the other party negligent. Here of course that does not apply.

You always have to admire these judges,like many of our politicians, being able to confidently comment on subjects they know nothing about with a degree of confidence that is astounding.

No wonder we have to have a Cyclists' Defence Fund.

My irony meter just went critical :wink:

soapbox
Posts: 34
Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 12:20am

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby soapbox » 24 Jun 2019, 1:31pm

The judge's comment that his riding "fell below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist" is subjective and unhelpful. What exactly is a 'reasonably competent cyclist' when there's no formal road test for cyclists?

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6334
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 24 Jun 2019, 1:43pm

soapbox wrote:The judge's comment that his riding "fell below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist" is subjective and unhelpful. What exactly is a 'reasonably competent cyclist' when there's no formal road test for cyclists?

The reasonably competent cyclist would have anticipated that in that part of London with large numbers of people on pathways crossing roads someone might do something just like this and avoid the collision. IIRC he was still doing c15mph whilst braking, swerving, and sounding a loud horn when he hit her, she having jumped back into his path, by all accounts, having been startled by the horn. The Judge makes a judgement, based on the circumstances, and what the reasonable person would consider to be a competent standard.

She should have been more aware and careful, that too is accepted, btw.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 1232
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Oldjohnw » 24 Jun 2019, 2:22pm

soapbox wrote:The judge's comment that his riding "fell below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist" is subjective and unhelpful. What exactly is a 'reasonably competent cyclist' when there's no formal road test for cyclists?



We now have legal precedent for what is not reasonably competent: failing to avoid pedestrians, no matter how foolish.
John

Cycling and recycling

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6334
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 24 Jun 2019, 2:25pm

Oldjohnw wrote:
soapbox wrote:The judge's comment that his riding "fell below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist" is subjective and unhelpful. What exactly is a 'reasonably competent cyclist' when there's no formal road test for cyclists?



We now have legal precedent for what is not reasonably competent: failing to avoid pedestrians, no matter how foolish.

No we don't.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16812
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Vorpal » 24 Jun 2019, 2:50pm

soapbox wrote:The judge's comment that his riding "fell below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist" is subjective and unhelpful. What exactly is a 'reasonably competent cyclist' when there's no formal road test for cyclists?


I don't think that a formal road test has anything to do with it. What matters is that the cyclist had a duty of care which was breached by his actions.

Similar incidents could happen with people riding a push scooter, or a segway, or jogging. Do they need formal road tests?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

mattheus
Posts: 441
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby mattheus » 24 Jun 2019, 2:57pm

Vorpal wrote:
soapbox wrote:The judge's comment that his riding "fell below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist" is subjective and unhelpful. What exactly is a 'reasonably competent cyclist' when there's no formal road test for cyclists?


I don't think that a formal road test has anything to do with it. What matters is that the cyclist had a duty of care which was breached by his actions.

Similar incidents could happen with people riding a push scooter, or a segway, or jogging. Do they need formal road tests?


Sounds about right. Also, with drivers, many collisions are in circumstances not covered by the Driving Test - hence the need for the completely subjective phrase;
below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent
... which is common in traffic law.

The judge is doing all he can (or at least is reaching the level to be expected ... :P )

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6334
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 24 Jun 2019, 3:02pm

mattheus wrote:
Vorpal wrote:
soapbox wrote:The judge's comment that his riding "fell below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist" is subjective and unhelpful. What exactly is a 'reasonably competent cyclist' when there's no formal road test for cyclists?


I don't think that a formal road test has anything to do with it. What matters is that the cyclist had a duty of care which was breached by his actions.

Similar incidents could happen with people riding a push scooter, or a segway, or jogging. Do they need formal road tests?


Sounds about right. Also, with drivers, many collisions are in circumstances not covered by the Driving Test - hence the need for the completely subjective phrase;
below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent
... which is common in traffic law.

The judge is doing all he can (or at least is reaching the level to be expected ... :P )

They even have lady Judges these days :wink: