Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by mattheus »

Bonefishblues wrote:Who should act as the arbiter of good taste to ensure content is sufficiently highbrow, I wonder?

I've no idea. Who mentioned good taste?

I'm just talking about inciting violence and stoking up general ill-feeling that is already far too prevalent. Do you think that's a good thing?
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11009
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by Bonefishblues »

mattheus wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:Who should act as the arbiter of good taste to ensure content is sufficiently highbrow, I wonder?

I've no idea. Who mentioned good taste?

I'm just talking about inciting violence and stoking up general ill-feeling that is already far too prevalent. Do you think that's a good thing?

That's what I took from your post. Incitement to violence is a crime, surely?

'Stoking up general ill-feeling? I'd certainly disapprove. I might tut, too, but that's some way short of meriting enforced moderation.
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by mattheus »

Bonefishblues wrote:
mattheus wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:...
Incitement to violence is a crime, surely?

'Stoking up general ill-feeling? I'd certainly disapprove. I might tut, too, but that's some way short of meriting enforced moderation.


You MIGHT tut?

Gosh, that's quite a reaction. Let us know when you actually tut at something - I can't wait to see what gets you that riled up.

MEANWHILE - I hadn't realised we were discussing this same programme on 2 threads! here is the extensive discussion already in full swing:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=131143&start=75#p1372647
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11009
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by Bonefishblues »

mattheus wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
mattheus wrote:


You MIGHT tut?

Gosh, that's quite a reaction. Let us know when you actually tut at something - I can't wait to see what gets you that riled up.

MEANWHILE - I hadn't realised we were discussing this same programme on 2 threads! here is the extensive discussion already in full swing:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=131143&start=75#p1372647

I try not to peak too early. "General ill-feeling" is not top of my list to have a coronary over tbh.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by PH »

fastpedaller wrote:Have you read the Guardian article? From what the journalist says, he's fearful of going out on his bike after the programme is aired?

That journalist is Peter Walker with plenty of cycling experience and author of the excellent "Bike Nation" I don't need to watch the program to trust his conclusions.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by 661-Pete »

I note that a settlement has now been reached, for £30,000. This is still grossly unfair on the cyclist, in my opinion, he appears to have done nothing wrong, simply been a bit naive. Who on this forum could afford to pay a £30,000 fine?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/fe ... g-at-phone

And the next question is, should using a mobile phone while crossing a road be made a criminal offence? I think there's a strong case for it.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5832
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by RickH »

661-Pete wrote:... Who on this forum could afford to pay a £30,000 fine?

It isn't a fine it is a civil settlement - in this case an agreed one rather than imposed by the claims court. Anyone who is a member of Cycling UK, British Cycling or a similar organisation that offers 3rd party insurance would be covered. Many people with house insurance have similar cover bundled in (or at least optionally available). Members of trade unions will probably have cover too.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by 661-Pete »

RickH wrote:
661-Pete wrote:... Who on this forum could afford to pay a £30,000 fine?

It isn't a fine it is a civil settlement
That is not my point, and there is no need to be pedantic. From the point of view of the cyclist, the payout has the same effect on his bank balance as a fine would. It's money paid, involuntarily, with no benefit to the payer.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by PH »

661-Pete wrote:
RickH wrote:
661-Pete wrote:... Who on this forum could afford to pay a £30,000 fine?

It isn't a fine it is a civil settlement
That is not my point, and there is no need to be pedantic. From the point of view of the cyclist, the payout has the same effect on his bank balance as a fine would. It's money paid, involuntarily, with no benefit to the payer.

It isn't going to have a massive effect on his bank balance, there was a crowdfunder that raised enough money to pay this settlement, the damages and most of his own £25,000 costs. As you feel so strongly about it I hope you chipped a few quid in.
Doesn't make any difference weather you think he did anything wrong or not, the judge did. Seemed a pretty reasonable judgment to me, the pedestrian was established in the road and the cyclist didn't make enough effort to avoid her. That damages were reduced by 50% because that was deemed to have been the contributory negligence of the pedestrian. But if people are in the wrong it doesn't remove the responsibility of other road users to do what they can to avoid hitting them.
The costs do seem ridiculous, though thankfully a huge reduction from the £120,000 originally claimed. People keep claiming that insurance would have covered this, I'm not so sure. If the matter had been handed over to the insurers they would have insisted the cyclist followed legal advice, there would have been a counter claim and legal costs would have been limited to less than £7,000 - This is what the insurance would cover. I suspect if the insurers had been involved it would have been settled a lot cheaper before getting to court.
fullupandslowingdown
Posts: 614
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 5:47pm
Location: missing Snottingham, the home of Raleigh and Boots
Contact:

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by fullupandslowingdown »

s/he who can avoid an accident should do so even if it is an inconvenience. He saw she was zombied out of, his own sense of self preservation should have told him to make more effort to avoid her, he messed up. He saw the potential for an accident, the woman didn't, she was oblivious to it. Change the actors. a deaf 2 year old toddles out in front of a HGV which sounds it's horn, flashes it's lights, but doesn't start to brake because he's late to deliver his gravel load.

It's a harsh lesson for both of them, surely anyone with a brain knows that walking into a road in London is suicide at the best of times, people do drive through red lights too. I still suspect that he had the bit between his teeth and was more concerned about making progress than anything else. The only ones that again have profited from this sorry tale, are the lawyers.
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 4963
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by Cowsham »

661-Pete wrote:I note that a settlement has now been reached, for £30,000. This is still grossly unfair on the cyclist, in my opinion, he appears to have done nothing wrong, simply been a bit naive. Who on this forum could afford to pay a £30,000 fine?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/fe ... g-at-phone

And the next question is, should using a mobile phone while crossing a road be made a criminal offence? I think there's a strong case for it.


Bang on Pete -- if I was on the mobile while driving in my car I'd get a conviction. If she's using the road while on her phone she should also get a conviction -- the roadway is a conduit for travel so the same rules should apply to all who use it whether on foot, cycle or motorized vehicle.
I am here. Where are you?
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by mattheus »

Cowsham wrote:
661-Pete wrote:And the next question is, should using a mobile phone while crossing a road be made a criminal offence? I think there's a strong case for it.


Bang on Pete -- if I was on the mobile while driving in my car I'd get a conviction.



v v unlikely. enforcement is quite close to nil.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by reohn2 »

Cowsham wrote:
661-Pete wrote:I note that a settlement has now been reached, for £30,000. This is still grossly unfair on the cyclist, in my opinion, he appears to have done nothing wrong, simply been a bit naive. Who on this forum could afford to pay a £30,000 fine?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/fe ... g-at-phone

And the next question is, should using a mobile phone while crossing a road be made a criminal offence? I think there's a strong case for it.


Bang on Pete -- if I was on the mobile while driving in my car I'd get a conviction. If she's using the road while on her phone she should also get a conviction -- the roadway is a conduit for travel so the same rules should apply to all who use it whether on foot, cycle or motorized vehicle.

Pedestrians in this country can be under age,deaf,blind,drunk,drugged,in cloud cuckoo land,using a mobile phone or away with the fairies in any number of ways,the onus of duty of care is on the person in control of the 'carriage'.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 4963
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by Cowsham »

reohn2 wrote:
Cowsham wrote:
661-Pete wrote:I note that a settlement has now been reached, for £30,000. This is still grossly unfair on the cyclist, in my opinion, he appears to have done nothing wrong, simply been a bit naive. Who on this forum could afford to pay a £30,000 fine?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/fe ... g-at-phone

And the next question is, should using a mobile phone while crossing a road be made a criminal offence? I think there's a strong case for it.


Bang on Pete -- if I was on the mobile while driving in my car I'd get a conviction. If she's using the road while on her phone she should also get a conviction -- the roadway is a conduit for travel so the same rules should apply to all who use it whether on foot, cycle or motorized vehicle.

Pedestrians in this country can be under age,deaf,blind,drunk,drugged,in cloud cuckoo land,using a mobile phone or away with the fairies in any number of ways,the onus of duty of care is on the person in control of the 'carriage'.


That's why the word ' should ' is in there.
I am here. Where are you?
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Post by reohn2 »

Cowsham wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
Cowsham wrote:
Bang on Pete -- if I was on the mobile while driving in my car I'd get a conviction. If she's using the road while on her phone she should also get a conviction -- the roadway is a conduit for travel so the same rules should apply to all who use it whether on foot, cycle or motorized vehicle.

Pedestrians in this country can be under age,deaf,blind,drunk,drugged,in cloud cuckoo land,using a mobile phone or away with the fairies in any number of ways,the onus of duty of care is on the person in control of the 'carriage'.


That's why the word ' should ' is in there.

Pedestrians don't have any 'shoulds' written into law,that's because anyone can walk on the street or on the road,and because the road was there before the wheel they 'should' have priority.
Unfortunately UK traffic/road law has been turned on it's head!
Last edited by reohn2 on 29 Feb 2020, 10:05am, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Post Reply