Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

[Bonefishblues]

I can't feel too much joy in the courts objecting to that behaviour by a cyclist when we don't see motorists getting punished for it as harshly.

If a driver drove towards crossing pedestrians and sounded their horn, continuing to drive on and knocked a pedestrian unconscious I expect they would have been charged with a criminal offence. No criminal charges were brought here.

Because a driver, I further expect that a personal injury claim would have been settled by their insurers direct, as opposed to a civil action having to be brought.

[PH]

No criminal charges were brought here.

The police investigator thought it was 50/50

[Bonefishblues]

No criminal charges were brought here.

The police investigator thought it was 50/50

This is the relevant passage:

The police investigator who attended the scene and spoke to all of the witnesses concluded that both the Claimant and the Defendant were to blame.

[PH]

No criminal charges were brought here.

The police investigator thought it was 50/50

This is the relevant passage:

The police investigator who attended the scene and spoke to all of the witnesses concluded that both the Claimant and the Defendant were to blame.

Yes, hard to see how you think you'd get a criminal conviction from that.

[fastpedaller]

The comment "If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury." seems to miss the safety point entirely. A bit like saying "all cross the road talking on your mobiles with no concern for traffic, and ride it like you stole it" because if anything happens the insurance will cover you. A bit like the driving behaviour of some motorists I guess!

[Bonefishblues]

The police investigator thought it was 50/50

This is the relevant passage:

The police investigator who attended the scene and spoke to all of the witnesses concluded that both the Claimant and the Defendant were to blame.

Yes, hard to see how you think you'd get a criminal conviction from that.

Are you asking my personal opinion? If so, on what, exactly?

[Bonefishblues]

The comment "If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury." seems to miss the safety point entirely. A bit like saying "all cross the road talking on your mobiles with no concern for traffic, and ride it like you stole it" because if anything happens the insurance will cover you. A bit like the driving behaviour of some motorists I guess!

Or a momentary lapse of concentration, which can happen. I don't for a moment imagine that his intention was to encourage reckless riding.

[fastpedaller]

The comment "If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury." seems to miss the safety point entirely. A bit like saying "all cross the road talking on your mobiles with no concern for traffic, and ride it like you stole it" because if anything happens the insurance will cover you. A bit like the driving behaviour of some motorists I guess!

Or a momentary lapse of concentration, which can happen. I don't for a moment imagine that his intention was to encourage reckless riding.

I see your point.
I'm reminded of the few occasions when we've had Fire Service strike action, and the advice given "be careful not to cause fires to start "

[Bonefishblues]

The comment "If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury." seems to miss the safety point entirely. A bit like saying "all cross the road talking on your mobiles with no concern for traffic, and ride it like you stole it" because if anything happens the insurance will cover you. A bit like the driving behaviour of some motorists I guess!

Or a momentary lapse of concentration, which can happen. I don't for a moment imagine that his intention was to encourage reckless riding.

I see your point.
I'm reminded of the few occasions when we've had Fire Service strike action, and the advice given "be careful not to cause fires to start "

Yeah, all that fast and loose firestarting just has to be curbed whilst the lads with the poles were manning the braziers

[gaz]

Commentary of the judgement here: https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wor ... -judgment/

Further link at the foot of that blog.

[Vorpal]

Commentary of the judgement here: https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wor ... -judgment/

Further link at the foot of that blog.

tatanab posted that on the previous page.

[Bonefishblues]

Commentary of the judgement here: https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wor ... -judgment/

Further link at the foot of that blog.

tatanab posted that on the previous page.

That's the judgement. It wasn't in the earlier link as far as I could see, only the account of the Claimant's Barrister, which is also linked at foot of page.

[Vorpal]

OK. I read it earlier. Maybe I followed the link from one to the other, or something.

[Bonefishblues]

OK. I read it earlier. Maybe I followed the link from one to the other, or something.

Worth a read as it details a lot of the witness evidence.

[PH]

This is the relevant passage:

The police investigator who attended the scene and spoke to all of the witnesses concluded that both the Claimant and the Defendant were to blame.

Yes, hard to see how you think you'd get a criminal conviction from that.

Are you asking my personal opinion? If so, on what, exactly?

Not really, just idle chat. With all the speculation earlier in the thread being that a motorist would have been treated more leniently, I thought it odd you'd speculate the opposite.