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.