[Travel] Teacher who was staring at her phone and hit by a cyclist win compensation.

[Thunder Bolt]

Time our cyclists were compelled to take out insurance against such eventualalities now, especially following this verdict, whereby road users are responsible for others actions regardless of who is deemed at fault. A major lesson to be learnt here.

By that same token, so should pedestrians.

 

[TSB]

She sounds like an absolute ****.

In other news, she isn't a teacher.

 

[Palacefinder General]

Cycling (slowly) through Lewes a few months back a schoolgirl walked straight off the pavement into my path, head in her phone. With no time to take evasive action my left bar end took the phone clean out of her hands and I heard it smash onto the road as I simply rode on. It was a beautiful moment...then a mile further on I got the first puncture I'd had in over a year, possibly karma. Mobile phone zombies are a menace to all.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Surprised people are struggling with this. Just because a pedestrian does something, does not absolve someone in a car or on a bike of blame. Otherwise next time someone crosses the road causing me to slow down to change direction I might as well just keep going and plough through them. After all it is their fault right?

My husband killed a pedestrian in 1995, who stepped out from behind a bus. At the inquest, the medical report said he had a cataract in his right eye, and was deaf, so couldn't look or hear before he crossed.
My husband was on a motorbike in a 40 zone. The police did all the calculations, and a couple of witnesses gave evidence, that there was nothing he could do to avoid the old gentleman. The verdict was accidental death & no charges.
The impact threw him to the other side of the road, but fortunately there was no oncoming traffic, and his padded leathers saved him from very serious injuries.
The way he was treated by medical staff, and the initial policeman was disgusting. You'd have believed he'd deliberately murdered the old guy.
He was exonerated almost immediately the next day when evidence was gathered but suffered nightmares & flashbacks for months.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Teacher versus cyclist.

 

[banjo]

Expect the unexpected there’s lots of zombies walking out there.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Can anyone tell me why cyclists SHOULDN’T have insurance?

Can you tell me why they should? And as a corollary to your expected answer, why shouldn’t pedestrians also have insurance?

 

[Chicken Run]

So let’s take tens of thousands of cyclists off the roads because a bit of paintwork got scratched.

I would hardly call £650 a bit of a scratch, not really a viable response that ffs.

 

[Springal]

Can you tell me why they should? And as a corollary to your expected answer, why shouldn’t pedestrians also have insurance?

Why do we need car insurance? Or a motorbike? All are vehicles, but walking is not. And actually a pedestrian probably has with legal cover through home insurance etc..

 

[The Clamp]

Cyclists must be prepared' says judge.

The tide it turning. Cyclists to be given some responsibility.


A yoga teacher who stepped out in the road while looking at her phone before being wiped out by a cyclist has won compensation expected to reach thousands of pounds.

Gemma Brushett, 28, has successfully sued Robert Hazeldean after she was knocked down in central London during rush hour in July 2015.

The yoga expert was staring at her mobile as she suddenly walked out from the crowded pavement into the road, the Central London County Court heard.

Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his bike, as well as shouting, swerving and braking in a bid to avoid the pedestrian - but ploughed into her at up to 15mph.

But in a significant ruling judge Shanti Mauger said Mr Hazeldean was liable to pay her compensation because 'cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.'

He said: 'Mr Hazeldean did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.'


The yoga teacher was looking at her phone when she stepped into the central London road - but the cyclist should have been better prepared to avoid her, the court heart

The garden designer was cycling home from work when he collided with Miss Brushett as she crossed a junction near Cannon Street station in the City.

Both parties were knocked out after the crash with the cyclist, from Archway, suffering cuts to his body and the pedestrian, from Kent, being left with a minor head injury.

But Miss Brushett then launched a bid for compensation, blaming Mr Hazeldean, who now lives in southern France, for the accident and she has won her case three years on.

Judge Mauger said the cyclist was 'a calm and reasonable road user' and that Ms Brushett 'was looking at her phone' when she walked into the road in front of him.


But she went on to rule that Mr Hazeldean was liable to pay damages.

The court heard that Ms Brushett, who works for a finance firm in the City as well as running yoga retreats, was one of a 'throng' of people trying to cross the road at the start of rush hour when the accident occurred.

She was looking at her mobile phone when crossing the road from east to west, and only noticed Mr Hazeldean approaching at the last moment.

She 'panicked' and tried to dodge back to a traffic island, but the cyclist, who had been travelling at between 10-15mph, swerved in the same direction and hit her.

Ms Brushett's lawyers told the judge that she could not remember anything about the crash due to 'post traumatic amnesia'.

Miss Brushett, who works in the City but also runs yoga retreats across Europe, pictured, often combined with long runs, is expected to receive thousands in compensation +4

The Government is looking at a range of options to make the roads safer for pedestrians after a record number of pedestrians are being killed or seriously injured in crashes with cyclists.

In total, some 130 people were seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists last year, and four were killed.

More than ten pedestrians suffered life threatening injuries every month when they are hit by people on bicycles.

The issue of pedestrian and pedal cycle safety was highlighted when cyclist Charlie Alliston, 20, was jailed for 18 months in 2017 for knocking over and killing a woman as he sped through east London.

His victim Kim Briggs, 44, was crossing the street when she was struck by Alliston's bike, which it later emerged had no front brakes.

Mrs Briggs' widower, Matthew, from Lewisham, south London, has called for a 'radical change' in cycling culture and the introduction of new laws, including the offence of causing death by dangerous cycling.

In August last year Sakine Cihan, 56, was killed after being struck by an electrically-assisted bike in Dalston, London. A 30-year-old man was later arrested by police in connection with the crash.

Following the jailing last year of Alliston for the death of Mrs Briggs, the Department for Transport announced an urgent review examining whether new laws should be brought in to cover dangerous cycling.

The Victorian legislation, originally drafted to deal with reckless handling of horses, was used because there was no cycling equivalent to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

However she relied on the evidence of another cyclist who had witnessed the crash and confronted Mr Hazeldean immediately afterwards.

That witness had made a voice recording at the time, accusing Mr Hazeldean of 'aggressive riding' and calling him 'arrogant and reckless'.

Three other pedestrian witnesses however backed Mr Hazeldean, telling police that Ms Brushett was 'not looking where she was going' and that 'the cyclist was not at fault'.

Mr Hazeldean himself in the witness box said that as he approached the spot where people were crossing, there was a large patch of clear road, although some people were still on the extreme left hand side of the carriageway about to step onto the pavement.

Ms Brushett was one of these, but having looked up from her phone screen at the last minute upon hearing him shout she panicked and darted back towards the right and into his path.

Judge Mauger said Mr Hazeldean was 'courteous and mild-mannered' and 'gave every impression of being a calm and reasonable road user'.

She rejected the account of the crash by the other cyclist, adding: 'The other witnesses feel that the accident was Ms Brushett's fault.'

'Mr Hazeldean is clear that she was looking at her phone as she was crossing the road,' she continued.

'Three other witnesses said she stepped out or that the cyclist could not avoid her.

'I find that she was looking at her phone and I accept the account of Mr Hazeldean that she turned and went back towards the central reservation.'

But she went on to find that Ms Brushett deserves a payout.

'When I stand back and ask 'how did the accident happen?' it seems to me that Mr Hazeldean owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill,' she said.

'Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way.

But she added that Ms Brushett's conduct as a pedestrian must have contributed to the accident.

'Ms Brushett must clearly have equal responsibility if she is crossing the road without looking - and if she is looking at her phone, even more so,' she said.

'But cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.

'The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50.'

The result of the judge's ruling is that Ms Brushett is now guaranteed a payout, but will only get half of the full value of her claim.

The case will return to court at a later date for costs and damages figures to be fixed.

Pair of twerps. Nobody should be financially up on this.

 

[Palacefinder General]

Cyclists, bloody carbuncle for other road users.

While you lot pollute the air and get no exercise. Getting rid of a car 5 years ago is the best move I ever made, ethically, financially and free exercise into the bargain.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Teacher versus cyclist.

Hard to know which one you wanted to lose more, huh?

 

[Washie]

Can you tell me why they should? And as a corollary to your expected answer, why shouldn’t pedestrians also have insurance?

If you damage a car while walking on the street, you are either arrested or made to pay for the damage. Same if you are in a car, so why should cyclists get away with it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why do we need car insurance? Or a motorbike? All are vehicles, but walking is not. And actually a pedestrian probably has with legal cover through home insurance etc..

Unless you insure everyone from newborns to the elderly along with everything else, a sensible, practical and workable line has to be drawn somewhere. On balance I think things are fine as they are.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If you damage a car while walking on the street, you are either arrested or made to pay for the damage. Same if you are in a car, so why should cyclists get away with it.

Bizarre premise.

If you are walking down a street and damage a car through your deliberate actions, then yes, if caught, you'd be culpable.

Are you suggesting that EXACTLY the same isn't true of a cyclist?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If you damage a car while walking on the street, you are either arrested or made to pay for the damage. Same if you are in a car, so why should cyclists get away with it.

Really? So if I accidentally tripped and fell onto a car, I’d be arrested? What for? How would I be made to pay for it?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Bizarre premise.

If you are walking down a street and damage a car through your deliberate actions, then yes, if caught, you'd be culpable.

Are you suggesting that EXACTLY the same isn't true of a cyclist?

Quite.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Hard to know which one you wanted to lose more, huh?

The only piece of belligerence missing from this thread is Why Isn't There a Straight Pride?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Really? So if I accidentally tripped and fell onto a car, I’d be arrested? What for? How would I be made to pay for it?

Your household insurance has public liability.

My husband suffered time off work resulting in loss of wages, and hundreds of pounds of damage to his motorbike (from my previous post). His insurance advised him to claim from the old gentleman's household insurance. He was very reluctant to do that because of his family, but the insurance company said it was the legal thing to do. He went ahead with it.
He was very nervous at the inquest, not because of the verdict, but if the family said anything to him. In fact, they were lovely and told him they didn't apportion any blame to him.

 

[Two Professors]

I presume neither of them was Vegan.