Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

[Bonefishblues]

Do you think I'm wrong in my thought process though? One of the principles we should hold close is that the more powerful should always be more careful around the more vulnerable. If we all adhered to that maxim we'd all get along, if not famously, at least as more peaceful cohabitants.

[PH]

Do you think I'm wrong in my thought process though? One of the principles we should hold close is that the more powerful should always be more careful around the more vulnerable. If we all adhered to that maxim we'd all get along, if not famously, at least as more peaceful cohabitants.

No, I'd agree with that entirely.
I came into this thread saying based on the media reports I had no reason to think the judge got it wrong, my opinion hasn't changed.
Everything else is just chatter, the vilifying of the cyclist by some and the pedestrian by others isn't backed up by the evidence we have.

I think there's other stories beyond the accident and the court ruling - how and why it was't sorted out before it got to court, the claimed costs, the defendant's errors in the process, the purpose and usefulness of insurance...

[Oldjohnw]

Do you think I'm wrong in my thought process though? One of the principles we should hold close is that the more powerful should always be more careful around the more vulnerable. If we all adhered to that maxim we'd all get along, if not famously, at least as more peaceful cohabitants.

No, I'd agree with that entirely.
I came into this thread saying based on the media reports I had no reason to think the judge got it wrong, my opinion hasn't changed.
Everything else is just chatter, the vilifying of the cyclist by some and the pedestrian by others isn't backed up by the evidence we have.

I think there's other stories beyond the accident and the court ruling - how and why it was't sorted out before it got to court, the claimed costs, the defendant's errors in the process, the purpose and usefulness of insurance...

Agree and agree. I started out thinking that the cyclist had made a number of errors of judgement both at the time of the accident and subsequently. He is paying a dreadful price but I just don't recognise the idea that the judge is biased or that a car driver would get off lightly compared.

[Tiberius]

Reading through this thread got me thinking as to what I would do if I suddenly found myself in Robert Hazeldean's position. I'm not a member of 'Cycling UK' or any other cycling clubs and I don't have any cycling specific insurance.

I rang my house and contents insurer (RIAS) who informed me that I was definitely covered (up to two million quid) if I should find myself in said position.

It's nice to hear that but I can't help thinking that it wouldn't be that simple. Let's hope that I never find out eh ??...

[kwackers]

He is paying a dreadful price

Perhaps not, he's not going to prison, don't think he got any points on a license and it looks as though his legal fees are more than covered by the kickstarter with a nice little side pot for charity to boot!

Lets hope he (and others) have learnt a valuable lesson.
The ruling and costs are also handy as a stick for us to use to poke at the sorts of motorists who claim cyclists should have insurance because they get away trashing cars sort of nonsense.

[mattheus]

Agree and agree. I started out thinking that the cyclist had made a number of errors of judgement both at the time of the accident and subsequently. He is paying a dreadful price but I just don't recognise the idea that the judge is biased or that a car driver would get off lightly compared.

The first version of events that I heard was:
ped-on-phone walked out in front of cyclist => collision and some injuries. Pedestrian claims thousands of pounds in compo.

Based on that, it did seem that the cyclist was harshly treated compared to similar-sounding cases involving cars.

HOWEVER there is now a lot more detail available about the incident (and I've read a lot of it), much of which shows poor judgement by the rider, so I'm happier to agree that the judge reached a pretty reasonable conclusion.

[robing]

Agree and agree. I started out thinking that the cyclist had made a number of errors of judgement both at the time of the accident and subsequently. He is paying a dreadful price but I just don't recognise the idea that the judge is biased or that a car driver would get off lightly compared.

The first version of events that I heard was:
ped-on-phone walked out in front of cyclist => collision and some injuries. Pedestrian claims thousands of pounds in compo.

Based on that, it did seem that the cyclist was harshly treated compared to similar-sounding cases involving cars.

HOWEVER there is now a lot more detail available about the incident (and I've read a lot of it), much of which shows poor judgement by the rider, so I'm happier to agree that the judge reached a pretty reasonable conclusion.

That was my take on it too. Imo the most reliable witness was the other cyclist whom the defendant passed. He said there were still pedestrians on the crossing, the defendant did not slow down and sounded his air horn. He thought the defendant was fully to blame and I'm inclined to agree with him.

[Oldjohnw]

He is paying a dreadful price

Perhaps not, he's not going to prison, don't think he got any points on a license and it looks as though his legal fees are more than covered by the kickstarter with a nice little side pot for charity to boot!

Lets hope he (and others) have learnt a valuable lesson.
The ruling and costs are also handy as a stick for us to use to poke at the sorts of motorists who claim cyclists should have insurance because they get away trashing cars sort of nonsense.

Not only do I have insurance through CUK but my house insurance includes legal fees and public liability cover. That was a deliberate choice: I have heard of situations where people have been hit by claims but we're not insured. Whether to insure if not is a judgement call but IMV not to insure is an error.

I had an uncle who refused to get car breakdown cover because he knew all about cars. Perhaps he did, once. It was a different story when his modern car packed with electronics broke down on a motorway. It cost him hundreds in recovery plus thousands in holiday loss.

[StephenW]

I think it is worth considering the environment* in which this happened. I'd like to consider two aspects.

Firstly, as I understand it, this is a junction in central London which is busy with pedestrians and motor vehicles, yet no green man is provided. This is pretty useless IMO! I think it is likely that the incident would not have happened, had there been a proper pedestrian crossing.

Secondly, the whole environment in London is not very conducive to a relaxed and considerate style of cycling. On the occasions when I cycle in London, I find myself doing things which I would not normally do.

--------
* - I certainly don't believe that all crime or misdemeanour is purely "environmental" in origin. There are also moral failings, which demand moral answers. Nevertheless, I see no contradiction in tackling a problem using more than one approach at once.

[Oldjohnw]

From an email sent to me today by CUK:

Cycling UK insurance

As a Cycling UK member you are covered by our third party liability insurance. Our insurance also covers claims made against you from other Cycling UK members.

Our third party liability insurance covers you if someone else is injured by your actions, e.g. someone steps in front of you while cycling.
You are covered in the event of causing damage, or are alleged to have caused damage, to somebody else's property such as their bike or car.
Cycling UK third party liability insurance covers sportives, charity rides, audaxes, time trials and other rides as long as they're not competitive in nature. It also covers using cycles for business use, although doesn't cover those specifically employed as a cyclist e.g. a courier. Don't forget our cover applies anywhere in the world except the US and Canada.

As full Cycling UK members you have access to cycling related legal assistance via a direct helpline to our solicitors Slater + Gordon. They have the highest reputation for handling injury compensation cases.

If you have an individual affiliate membership, you won't have access to the legal advice line. If you would like to upgrade your insurance to a full membership to take advantage of this you can do that today by calling our Membership Team on 01483 238 300.

[RickH]

From an email sent to me today by CUK:

Cycling UK insurance

As a Cycling UK member you are covered by our third party liability insurance. Our insurance also covers claims made against you from other Cycling UK members.

That appears to be the main difference between Cycling UK's insurance and British Cycling’s - BC excludes claims from other BC members so you don't have 3rd party cover if you damage property that belongs to another BC member or injure them.

[LollyKat]

The BC's exclusion seems to apply only to racing and sportives, not commuting or touring.

What is not covered?

Important exclusions include:

Business use (e.g. cycle courier) but commuting is covered.
Deliberate acts.
The following member to member liability claims (claims made against one British Cycling member by another(2)):
One member against another in a cycling competition, race, time trial or timed event(3).
Any liability directly or indirectly caused to a member’s immediate family.
Claims against members who are not resident in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands(4).
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability

Could be significant for some.

[Vorpal]

The BC's exclusion seems to apply only to racing and sportives, not commuting or touring.

What is not covered?

Important exclusions include:

Business use (e.g. cycle courier) but commuting is covered.
Deliberate acts.
The following member to member liability claims (claims made against one British Cycling member by another(2)):
One member against another in a cycling competition, race, time trial or timed event(3).
Any liability directly or indirectly caused to a member’s immediate family.
Claims against members who are not resident in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands(4).
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability

Could be significant for some.

Racing and sportives are covered under event insurance. Claims should normally be made against the organiser. However, Race Gold membership with BC also includes personal accident insurance, which covers the member for hospitalisation and some other things, including during competition. Race Gold membership explicitly includes coverage for professional cyclists, coaches & instructors but excludes others who use their bikes professionally (presumeably couriers and delivery cyclists)

[RickH]

The BC's exclusion seems to apply only to racing and sportives, not commuting or touring.

What is not covered?

Important exclusions include:

Business use (e.g. cycle courier) but commuting is covered.
Deliberate acts.
The following member to member liability claims (claims made against one British Cycling member by another(2)):
One member against another in a cycling competition, race, time trial or timed event(3).
Any liability directly or indirectly caused to a member’s immediate family.
Claims against members who are not resident in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands(4).
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability

Could be significant for some.

Thanks. That seems clearer than I recall from what I had read (or possibly mis-read) previously.

[PH]

Another difference
CUK

It also covers using cycles for business use, although doesn't cover those specifically employed as a cyclist e.g. a courier.

BC

Important exclusions include
Business use (e.g. cycle courier) but commuting is covered.