Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

[robing]

I'm amazed at the amount of pedestrians that cross the road without even looking. I know on a bike they don't hear you, but many times they don't even look - and it's not all phone related.

[Vorpal]

I agree with Bez on this one. I think on the 'vulnerable' user rating scale, the cyclist had an obligation to watch out for pedestrians and should be liable, or mostly liable for the incident.

That said, I'm quite sure if he had been driving a motor veicle, no blame or liability would be apportioned to him. It would have been chaulked up to a 'tragic mistake' on the part of the inattentive pedestrian.

[softlips]

About to be discussed on lbc by nick ferrari (well known for being anti cyclist)

He’s supporting the cyclist.


A female colleague of mine ran over and killed someone on the road years ago and wasn’t prosecuted at all. Witnesses saw the man run out of a shop into my colleagues path.

[robing]

About to be discussed on lbc by nick ferrari (well known for being anti cyclist)

He’s supporting the cyclist.


A female colleague of mine ran over and killed someone on the road years ago and wasn’t prosecuted at all. Witnesses saw the man run out of a shop into my colleagues path.

He did support the cyclist!

I agree with the others though, rather than sounding a horn which would have wasted time and taken one hand off the bars plus alarmed the pedestrian - making them more likely to panic - he should have braked then swerved or vice versa.

[kwackers]

About to be discussed on lbc by nick ferrari (well known for being anti cyclist)

He’s supporting the cyclist.


A female colleague of mine ran over and killed someone on the road years ago and wasn’t prosecuted at all. Witnesses saw the man run out of a shop into my colleagues path.

If someone runs out in front of you then what can you do? At that point I don't think anyone can blame you for that.

What gets on my wick though is the assumption by folk in cars and (yes) on bikes that they can simply shout or beep at people already in the road whilst driving/cycling at them and expecting them to jump out of the way.
See it all the time, rule 170 for example is worthless these days because vehicles assume right of way. And the proviso that green means go "if your way is clear" is equally worthless.

In this case the superficial evidence is that she was already in the road and he could have stopped - or more likely simply slowed to let her pass but chose not to and behaved just like 90% of the other folk choose to do. And then when he left it to the last second when he was committed and she panicked and tried to head back then surprise surprise - it all went pear shaped for him.

Obviously if that's not the case then he has my sympathy but superficially it sounds like it might not be.

Sure pedestrians have to take some responsibility and in this case it seems as if the judge has taken that into account.
So far it's looking pretty fair to me.

[Mick F]

What a bizarre ruling!
On this basis,any vehicular traffic in towns should be proceeding at walking pace,just in case a pedestrian decides to cross.

What an excellent situation that would be!

Yes, that's the way it is.
"Steam gives way to sail" is a good saying.

It is incumbent of all road users to look after the vulnerable. If you are driving/cycling through an area where pedestrians are, you need to keep an eye out and alter your speed to suit.

30mph and 20mph in built-up areas are the maximum speeds, not targets.

Rule 205 and 206
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/pedestrians.html

[Oldjohnw]

Way back in the 1970s I was driving along an urban motorway earn a man leapt over the metal railings and straight out in front of me.

I was held partly responsible (even though pedestrians are absolutely banned) because 'there is always something more that could have been done to avoid the pedestrian'. I ended up paying his hospital and other costs. - and my own repairs. Pretty tough for a young man with only third party insurance as I was at that time. The insurance company were not interested.

[PH]

That said, I'm quite sure if he had been driving a motor veicle, no blame or liability would be apportioned to him. It would have been chaulked up to a 'tragic mistake' on the part of the inattentive pedestrian.

I don't know on what basis this and other similar comments is made. Apportioning liability and setting damages will be taking place in a civil court and only happening because the parties have not come to an agreement. If it had been a motor vehicle then it would be unlikely to get to that stage and have been negotiated between the parties or their representatives. Your comment may be entirely accurate, I'm asking how we know that.

[mattheus]

That said, I'm quite sure if he had been driving a motor veicle, no blame or liability would be apportioned to him. It would have been chaulked up to a 'tragic mistake' on the part of the inattentive pedestrian.

I don't know on what basis this and other similar comments is made. Apportioning liability and setting damages will be taking place in a civil court and only happening because the parties have not come to an agreement. If it had been a motor vehicle then it would be unlikely to get to that stage and have been negotiated between the parties or their representatives. Your comment may be entirely accurate, I'm asking how we know that.

Bear in mind that in most cases of car-vs-ped, one of the parties would be dead. That affects their approach to claiming for compensation.

[PH]

Bear in mind that in most cases of car-vs-ped, one of the parties would be dead. That affects their approach to claiming for compensation.

Not the case, firstly I doubt that's accurate and secondly damages would be awarded to any dependants or estate.

[mjr]

Bear in mind that in most cases of car-vs-ped, one of the parties would be dead. That affects their approach to claiming for compensation.

Not the case, firstly I doubt that's accurate and secondly damages would be awarded to any dependants or estate.

But that secondly would mean that only one actor in the collision can testify. Also, the police seem institutionally motorist and I fear they'd give a "nothing could reasonably be done to avoid it" testimony for the driver.

[Bonefishblues]

Bear in mind that in most cases of car-vs-ped, one of the parties would be dead. That affects their approach to claiming for compensation.

Not the case, firstly I doubt that's accurate and secondly damages would be awarded to any dependants or estate.

But that secondly would mean that only one actor in the collision can testify. Also, the police seem institutionally motorist and I fear they'd give a "nothing could reasonably be done to avoid it" testimony for the driver.

In civil cases there's a lower burden of proof, remember.

[PH]

Bear in mind that in most cases of car-vs-ped, one of the parties would be dead. That affects their approach to claiming for compensation.

Not the case, firstly I doubt that's accurate and secondly damages would be awarded to any dependants or estate.

But that secondly would mean that only one actor in the collision can testify. Also, the police seem institutionally motorist and I fear they'd give a "nothing could reasonably be done to avoid it" testimony for the driver.

We're getting further and further away from the case under discussion, but again this is a civil matter. Obviously a criminal conviction simplifies a compensation claim, but there are cases, even where a death has occurred, where no criminal case has been bought, but liability established in the civil system.

[PH]

In civil cases there's a lower burden of proof, remember.

Just that. If this had been a criminal case and both parties deemed equally to blame, there would have been no conviction.

[Vorpal]

And in a civil matter, a motorist has the legal team at an insurer to support them, while a vulnerable road user (or their family) is often left having to prove that the driver was in some way negligent.

Even wen they can do so, and a case reaches court, they may being considered to have contributed to it, and therefore recieve no, or substantially reduced compensation
http://insurance.dwf.law/news-updates/2 ... dent-case/
https://www.pedestrianlaw.co.uk/why-cho ... rray-2015/
https://www.pedestrianlaw.co.uk/why-cho ... n-v-wicks/