Jdsk wrote: ↑7 Aug 2022, 3:27pmBonefishblues is correct.
You don't read what I wrote. He's only "correct" if you think right of way means an absolute right to carry on a highway. Most of us just think it means the same as the legal use of the "priority".
Referring to the '
Brushett v Hazeldean' case, another bad case setting a bad precendent, District Judge Mauger found both parties equally to blame for the incident saying that,
Ergo, if a judge can use it relating to the law, so can I.
It's an interesting case to read up on, with many implications for cyclists.
Mr Hazeldean initially defended the case as a litigant in person and decided not to bring a counterclaim as he quite admirably did not approve of “claim culture”. Unfortunately, he is now responsible for the entirety of Ms Brushett’s legal costs and estimates the case could cost him nearly £100,000 and lead to his bankruptcy.
So, someone walks into the road where cyclist has clear right of way, without waiting for the lights to be in their favour and while reading her phone, gets hit and is award £4,000 in damages (half of what they wanted); then cyclist is landed with £104,000 bill PRECISELY AND ONLY BECAUSE they were too ethical not to call some other ambulance chaser to countersue the pedestrian.
Put me on the list for those dissastified with legal system in general. My bet would be the pedestrian had legal cover in their house insurance and their appointed lawyers were the ones who ran up the bill. The cyclist's punishment was, in essence, a punishment from the legal system for not paying over the top for their services, i.e. you pay us or else you pay 14 times more (if they'd counterclaimed, the costs would have been limited to circa £7,000).
Note Ms Brushett’s key witness was another cyclist, while 3 other witnesses, all pedestrians, stated it was her fault.