Well, of course they should, but if someone suddenly steps into the road totally oblivious to what's coming towards them, how is a cyclist meant to prepare for that?
Should he (or she) swerve into the middle of the road in case a pedestrian does something stupid? Should he scrutinise all pedestrians for possible reckless intentions? Should he ring his bell at two-second intervals to warn the local birdbrains?
That would be ridiculous. A cyclist has to assume pedestrians will stay on the pavement unless it's safe to cross the road. If they're not even looking at the road, how is the cyclist to blame?
I was involved in a similar accident in the early nineties. I was approaching a zebra crossing, didn't see anyone about to cross, but then as I drove over the crossing I knocked a woman down. I couldn't understand how she suddenly came to be on the zebra crossing.
Naturally I stopped, apologised profusely and asked if she was hurt. She was unable to answer and I could only assume she was too shocked to speak or was under the influence of alcohol or medication, and therefore too befuddled to notice the oncoming car. In any case there was no visible injury.
I didn't think I was in any way to blame, as I looked carefully at the zebra crossing while approaching it, and didn't see anyone about to cross. But this particular judge might have thought otherwise as "motorists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways."
Do you think the judge was right? Or wrong?
PS (later on Friday) The cyclist has been ordered to pay around £100,000 in compensation and costs, which he says will leave him bankrupt. The woman has been awarded £4,161.79 in damages. So in financial terms the cyclist is seen as around 25 times more guilty than the woman.
PPS (Saturday) A friend of the cyclist has set up a GoFundMe page to help him pay the legal bill. She has so far raised over £50,000. He may need less than first thought, as the £100,000 was the sum asked for by the pedestrian, while the judge indicated that £10,000 would be more appropriate (the exact sum will be decided at a final hearing later).
I think the judge was right. I have read most of the Guardian article and it seems Gemma was on a crossing. At any crossing, I believe that a driver, or cyclist should be acutely aware of what's going on. This was a very busy junction - all the more reason to be aware of what's going on. You can't just knock someone over just because the lights are in your favour. On occasion, I have noticed that cyclists seem to think they're allowed to behave however they like. I've seen them whiz through junctions - they don't seem to bother slowing down like cars do.
ReplyDeleteSorry, to read about your past accident, Nick, that must have been a heart in mouth moment.
Sx
P.S pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way.
ReplyDeleteI shall remember this for the next time a tractor tries to force me into a ditch when I am walking the lanes!!!
Sx
People on their damn cell phones drive me insane. I can't tell you how many times I'm driving through a parking lot and have to stop on a dime because some idiot is meandering through cars, looking down at his/her phone.
ReplyDeleteI'm with the cyclist!
While I can understand where you come from, I live in a country where whether you ride a bicycle or a motorcycle or an automobile, you have to be prepared all the time for the unexpected behaviour of not only pedestrians but, also other riders / drivers of vehicles on the road.
ReplyDeleteMy last visit to the UK was before the massive invasion of hand held devices and perhaps the judge too has not seen the impact of this development on the behaviour of pedestrians and often other riders/drivers also focussed on their devices while on the road.
I think that the judge was wrong but also right in a perverted sense.
"Naturally I stopped, apologised profusely and asked if she was hurt. She was unable to answer and I could only assume she was too shocked to speak or was under the influence of alcohol or medication, and therefore too befuddled to notice the oncoming car. In any case there was no visible injury."
ReplyDeleteRead what you wrote there. I particularly love the way you put responsibility for what happened onto her; your assumption "... under the influence of alcohol or medication..." And, wow, there was no "visible injury". Well, Sweetheart, all the more worrying. So what did you do, after you "apologized profusely"? Drive on? No need to worry since she seemed "too shocked to speak". And there was "no visible injury"? Sorry, Nick, I am incensed.
Still, kudos where it's due, Nick. At least you confessed on the www. Let me tell you what I did, not that long ago, when some asshole (I am the pedestrian, the driver the arsehole) drove the wrong way on a fast one way that I was just about to cross. Luckily, even though I knew it's a one way, I was brought up to always look both ways - regardless. It saved my life. A fraction of a second. Was I in shock? Sure as hell. Unlike your lady I staggered back against a stoned wall right behind me, doubled over and retched and retched and retched. I suppose it's what's called SHOCK. Not, of course, that that arsehole stopped. Still, someone, on the other side of the road, got the number plate. Then, some time later, when number plate had been followed up, WHO was "in shock"? Quivering? Luckily (for the arsehole) I am not the vindictive type. I dare say he'll pay a little more attention in future.
Other than that, totally underwrite Ms Scarlet's comment.
U
Ms Scarlet: As you say, cyclists ignore the rules of the road and the highway code all the time. But I've never knocked a cyclist down, precisely because I anticipate the unexpected. If the woman the cyclist knocked down had not been on the phone and had been looking at the road, she would have seen the cyclist and stayed on the pavement. I never step onto a zebra crossing until motorists/cyclists etc are visibly slowing down. It seems to me she's at least 75% to blame, if not 100%.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: Thank you for that wholehearted support! People glued to their phones and unaware of anything going on around them are a big menace.
ReplyDeleteThey were both left unconscious...she made a claim, he did not, so her claim was the only one to be taken into consideration. He was jolly lucky that her scar was not held to have impaired her appearance.
ReplyDeleteI too loathe people glued to their mobile 'phones, oblivious to everything around them. There are frequent accidents here in the capital, where the train tracks run through the streets, involving joggers tuned into their music rather than the warning siren of the train.
As the accident involved two categories of people on my blacklist, yoga practitioners and cyclists, I tend to say a plague on the pair of them.
The article says it was 50/50 blame, which I think is fair, hence why I agreed with the judge. Unless I read it wrong?
ReplyDeleteSx
The judge’s ruling found that the parties shared responsibility, so while Brushett is guaranteed a payout, she will get only half of the full value of her claim.
ReplyDeleteSx
Helen: The cyclist was foolish not to put in a counter-claim and get some proper legal representation. He said the reason he didn't was that he disliked the "claims culture". But his stubbornness has been disastrous. If he had got a lawyer, at least the legal costs would have been split two ways because they were both deemed to be guilty.
ReplyDeleteMs Scarlet: The reports don't say what was the full value of the claim. If she was awarded £4,000 odd, does that mean the full claim was £8,000? Surely she would have claimed a lot more than that?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I thought this was about responsibility, and they were both found to be responsible. Fair enough. I haven't got a clue about the claim.
ReplyDeleteSx
Tricky one indeed. Last week, I was driving down the road from my home, a fairly quiet road and a guy walking with a stroller was on my side of the road (no sidewalk) facing away. I slowed, I tend to do that when I see loose dogs, children, people walking, but for some reason I slowed more. He had a cell phone to his ear and suddenly he swerved himself and the baby stroller right into my path. I braked so hard and veered left and missed him by a coat of paint. I was shaking.
ReplyDeleteGuess what he did? Walked in front of my car with his baby and gave me the finger.
And I know I would have been responsible if the end result had been far, far, worse.
Total vigilance is needed obviously and treating the other sharers of the roads as demented eejits.
XO
WWW
I am sick and tired of CELL PHONES. although in fairness they are often used to record a crime with the camera which might otherwise go undetected.
ReplyDeletewhat in the world did the world do without that appliance stuck to its ear?
restaurants. streets. movie theaters (even when the ad says please put them away) and even during plays on Broadway! top stars have been known there to stop the production until the offending Caller has left with his/her phone.
sorry. in my mind it's just disgusting. only the lawyers are getting rich.
but then they usually do anyway. it all comes down to personal responsibility.
it's dangerous enough to watch out for each other walking/driving without the added idiotic distraction of a cell phone. most every driver where I live has it to his or her ear or is talking into it through some device.
I have to admit that I live somewhere where it's not common to see people with mobile phones attached to their heads. I never have mine out when I'm walking - it would defeat the object of the walk, and would be dangerous!!! Farmers, and rural workers need to be hands free to look after livestock. I'm feeling smug that I quit the City!
ReplyDeleteSx
I think the system is wrong for sticking him with all of the court costs --- that's the part that will ruin him financially. Here in the US pedestrians don't have the right of way if they're crossing against a light, even if they are in a crosswalk.
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with him for not filing a counterclaim, but here if he had the case would probably have settled out of court.
www: That's a hair-raising story. The guy obviously thought he had no responsibility for his own safety and just expected motorists to avoid him. Then when you fortunately just missed him, his reaction is to be abusive. What an arsehole. And as you say, you would probably be seen as the guilty party.
ReplyDeleteTammy: Sounds like the addiction to mobile phones is especially bad where you are. Phone users are so often oblivious to everyone else. They bump into pedestrians, cross the road without looking, take calls in the middle of a cinema, shout rather than talking etc. About time they had some elementary consideration for others.
ReplyDeleteMs Scarlet: Seems like an idyllic phone-free environment where you are! Indeed, using a mobile phone when you're out walking defeats the whole purpose of walking - a bit of peace and quiet for a while away from other people.
ReplyDeleteJean: I'm surprised there was no out-of-court settlement, it would have greatly reduced the legal fees. I get the impression the woman wanted her day in court and was looking for the highest possible damages. But £4,000 wasn't much of a haul!
This certainly stirred up a lot of comment and intelligent input. I did not read about the incident, but on the face of it, oh, the poor cyclist. I hope the award is changed, or that he has insurance.
ReplyDeleteJoanne: Good point, does he have insurance? I've no idea, but it was certainly not mentioned. He did say this would bankrupt him, so presumably he's not insured. I doubt if many cyclists have insurance.
ReplyDeleteWhat a warning for bicyclists to get insurance! Apparently here you can get a rider on your home owner's or renter's insurance to cover your liability in an accident. That would be more simple than looking for other insurance. The big advantage is then the insurance company would have their lawyers deal with it, no doubt filing a countersuit.
ReplyDeleteYears ago we got sued by the federal government for trespassing on water rights. We looked at the map and could show that our well (approved by the state) wasn't in the watershed they were talking about. We talked to a lawyer who wouldn't have dealt with us if we hadn't convinced him we shouldn't have been included. Water rights cases go on for years and individuals can't afford the legal fees, we would have to join together with other defendants before anyone would touch us. But we were right so for a couple hundred dollars he phoned the feds and said we wouldn't counter sue if they dropped us from the list. The interesting thing is our umbrella policy wouldn't have protected us because it was a criminal, not a civil, matter. And our insurance company dropped us.
It was a real eye opener.
Jean: I don't know if you can get a rider on your home insurance here in the UK. That certainly looks like the ideal arrangement.
ReplyDeleteThat water case sounds complicated. A clever idea to short circuit the whole process by coming to a quick informal agreement with the authorities.
I found the newspaper report pretty shocking. The cyclist AND the woman were left unconscious, but the reason the cyclist did not get a payout was that he did not put in a claim. Which I suppose is fair enough but if he had a solicitor who did not advise him to claim then that was surely negligent of the lawyer. the real shocker is that he was ordered to pay the costs. In a proper system he would be allowed to appeal this but I am sure he can't afford it. I am very sorry for him - I do think the woman was wrong to be looking at her phone while crossing, but I do not blame her for claiming. The problem lies in the award of costs. As far as knocking poeple down on a zebra crossing is concerned, I am afraid I do think the driver needs to be very very very careful, always. I met someone just the other day who had been knocked down on a zebra crossing at the age of 21 and it had affected her entire life - she is now approaching 70 and was unable to carry out the career she had just finished her training for. Of course it is tragically easy to make a mistake, and I am very sorry for you Nick also as I am sure you did not intend to do anything wrong, almost anything can distract a person when they are driving and sometimes it is pure luck one does not end up accidentally doing something like this.
ReplyDeleteJenny: That's a sad story about the woman whose accident at the age of 21 disrupted her entire life. I hope that wasn't the case with the woman I ran into. I'm surprised more people don't get knocked down at zebra crossings, people so often start to cross without looking properly, or not giving motorists time to slow down and stop. Pedestrian crossings with traffic lights are a lot safer.
ReplyDeletePeople wandering around not paying attention to anything but their phones really irritate me. Look up sometimes! But the cyclists here are AWFUL, so it's hard for me to side with them. Maybe it's different there, but here they basically demand all of the considerations and parks given to cars and to pedestrians and obey none of the rules.
ReplyDeletePerks, not parks.
ReplyDelete