Woman hit by Cyclist awarded a payout

[Nealh]

Irwin Mitchell ?
I'd donate a tenner to the guy if there was giving page.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Think about this - if a kid ran out in front of a cyclist and the cyclist ran into him/her after hooting his horn and shouting rather than braking, what would your feelings be?

 

[UrbanPuma]

I think the ruling was right - 50/50. I have witnessed many cyclists refusing to stop or slow down just because they have the right of way or lights are green. Those irresponsible ones must be held accountable for their part to play as all road users must be aware of potential hazards (including clueless pedestrians who could step into the road). I think he was probably going too fast and was unable to stop safely in an emergency. There are responsible cyclists (myself included) and hats off to us, but I really have an issue with the ones who cycle blindly without any thought for others - shows a lack of awareness and undue care and attention on the roads.

 

[LeighPing]

There was a bit more in "The Times" today, and he comes across as a nice bloke that with hindsight made a few mistakes that have ending up potentially costing him a lot of money. The other side paid for quality legal representation from the off and he started by defending himself and making mistakes. If he had also quickly got himself similarly represented it would have in all probability ended greatly limiting his liability , probably to a max of £6,500 rather than the £100,000 that they are seeking from him at the moment that will in all probability bankrupt him. Tough lesson. From the facts of the case in the press it still seems very unfair and also sets a precedence for other cyclist who find themselves in a similar situation. Case law and all that. Modern litigation society sucks.

Yes, food for thought indeed. Not making a counter claim seems to have been his biggest mistake. That aside, I've always said that ebikes in general actually bring about many safety advantages due to their differing riding style when compared to regular bikes. That riding style is brought about through the motor support and weight which increases average speed while reducing peak speeds.

Often strong, fast, regular bike riding brings about an inevitable fatigue that decreases spatial awareness of the riders surroundings. After a time, lots of 'head down' or 'up off the seat' riding effort eventually brings about a tunnel vision effect. This is particularly the case when continually attempting to gain, or retain speed just before an oncoming uphill gradient. Or, when trying to keep your hard earned acquired speed through a blind bend.

With ebikes, gaining or losing speed is no longer an issue. Rider reaction is improved through not experiencing as much physical fatigue, or overly strenuous riding to gain that speed, or to achieve uphill range speed. No speed or gradient penalties are gained through stop, start braking and acceleration on an ebike. They change the need to rush to get ahead, and on a heavy ebike the brakes need to have good stopping power at all times. There's no getting away with that.

Fitness isn't an issue on an ebike. So reading the road further ahead becomes possible and, after a while, second nature. There's no comparable wobble effect brought about by slow uphill struggles, and therefore spatial awareness is enhanced. There's also no longer a need to take the most linear, easiest path of least resistance. You can take the harder path without risk.

All these positive ebiking attributes generally make ebiking a much safer experience all round.

And, if all else fails, there's always the walk mode.

 

[flecc]

Not making a counter claim seems to have been his biggest mistake.

Afraid not, a counter claim probably wouldn't get off the ground.

Once a pedestrian steps onto a road they automatically have the right of way. That is the way the law is generally interpreted, so I wasn't surprised by the judge's ruling.

For example, rule 170 of the Highway Code advises that if a pedestrian has already started to cross the side road into which you’re turning from a main road, you must give way to them.

Rule 8. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way.

Also Jaywalking, the American term for crossing a road at a point other than at a designated crossing, is perfectly legal in the United Kingdom.

And of course where there's no pavements, pedestrians legally walk on the roads and vehicled road users have to make allowance for them.
.

 

[LeighPing]

Afraid not, a counter claim probably wouldn't get off the ground.

Once a pedestrian steps onto a road they automatically have the right of way. That is the way the law is generally interpreted, so I wasn't surprised by the judge's ruling.

For example, rule 170 of the Highway Code advises that if a pedestrian has already started to cross the side road into which you’re turning from a main road, you must give way to them.

Rule 8. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way.

Also Jaywalking, the American term for crossing a road at a point other than at a designated crossing, is perfectly legal in the United Kingdom.

And of course where there's no pavements, pedestrians legally walk on the roads and vehicled road users have to make allowance for them.
.

Emma Farrell, head of the Personal Injury team, said: "If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the Claimant's legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690.


"If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally. He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order."

Cyclist To Pay Up To £100,000 After Hitting Woman Who Stepped Into Road On Her Phone

A GoFundMe page has been set up to help Robert Hazeldean pay for the compensation and court costs

www.ladbible.com

 

[flecc]

"If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally. He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order."

I think that may be personal law rather than any form of traffic law liability.

However it seems the amount of possible damages has been grossly exaggerated by the media, judging from the judges remarks about the minimal nature of her injury. We'll have to see what happens when the damages judgment is announced.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Lawyer claims that he'd have saved money by using a lawyer.

Well, there's a surprise!

 

[Nealh]

Her compo out of the 100k claim is about £4,160, the rest goes to the claim mob.
Money for old rope for them.

 

[gray198]

recently in my car driving through local town. Approaching pedestrian crossing with lights on green and 4 or 5 people stood waiting. Almost on the crossing when a woman walked straight out in front of me. Fortunately, being of a certain age I was not travelling fast and able to stop. She just looked at me as if I was in the wrong. (looked drunk). Point is if it hasd been someone travelling a bit faster she could well have been killed, whose fault would it have been. To follow Flecc's point about pedestrians having the right of way the driver would have been to blame. I am sure many of us have had similar experiences, so I think all you can do is drive or ride according to the conditions and expect the unexpected.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I am sure many of us have had similar experiences, so I think all you can do is drive or ride according to the conditions and expect the unexpected.

Yes indeed and this is true for all road users be they drivers, cyclists, motor cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders etc etc....
Some road users seem to think that they should be the exception to the rule though.

 

[Nealh]

As a car driver you would likely not be blamed as we live in a car fuelled society, though undoubtedly police investigation would only add to your nerves/feelings above that you would have felt if the pedestrian was harmed.
For a car drivers part the law is likely to side with them if no wrong doing was found plus the benefit of legal aid with most insurances.
The main difference is the cyclist was in a heavy pedestrianised area by all accounts like most he isn't a bad person and was unlucky.

 

[flecc]

recently in my car driving through local town. Approaching pedestrian crossing with lights on green and 4 or 5 people stood waiting. Almost on the crossing when a woman walked straight out in front of me. Fortunately, being of a certain age I was not travelling fast and able to stop. She just looked at me as if I was in the wrong. (looked drunk). Point is if it hasd been someone travelling a bit faster she could well have been killed, whose fault would it have been. To follow Flecc's point about pedestrians having the right of way the driver would have been to blame. I am sure many of us have had similar experiences, so I think all you can do is drive or ride according to the conditions and expect the unexpected.

Fortunately pedestrians don't have things entirely their own way. Something that apparently over 80% of people don't know from surveys is that drivers/riders do not have to stop for people waiting at a zebra crossing. Stopping is by courtesy only. They only have to stop if someone puts a foot onto the crossing.

There's also law against pedestrians crossing within a certain distance of an official crossing, but I'm not sure which act that comes under.
.

 

[Nealh]

Problem I see it with the law is that tech Zombies have lost any common sense they possess and are not wholly accountable for their actions, instead that accountability is transferred to the other road users where blame if possible is attributed.

 

[Michael Price]

Yes - the woman who sued him should be ashamed of herself - she made a mistake - but so (maybe) did he - both came off getting a bit hurt (no mention of broken bones etc etc)

So - 50:50 - but no - she gets a good expensive lawyer and goes after a payday

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Yes - the woman who sued him should be ashamed of herself - she made a mistake - but so (maybe) did he - both came off getting a bit hurt (no mention of broken bones etc etc)

So - 50:50 - but no - she gets a good expensive lawyer and goes after a payday

The judge agrees, 50:50 culpability: "Ms Brushett and Mr Hazeldean were equally culpable in this accident and Mr Hazeldean, for whatever reason, hasn't made a claim and so only Ms Brushett is getting a payout."

 

[trevor brooker]

I have managed to find the trial judges notes, which provide background details.
https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-note-of-judgment/

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I have managed to find the trial judges notes, which provide background details.
https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-note-of-judgment/

Interesting notes from the judge:

1. He says that he saw the Defendant approach pedestrians. There were a large number. He described ‘a throng’ trying to cross King William Street and he felt that he had no reasonable choice other than to stop for the road to clear. He felt that the Defendant had chosen to sound the horn and shout. He doesn’t recall what said or if more than one thing was said. He felt a sense of inevitability that the Defendant would cycle into someone, and he then saw the Defendant cycle into the Claimant.

1. Mr H said that the Defendant had accelerated and used his horn rather than braking and stopping. He said that the Defendant had made a mistake in so doing. He went further and said that the Defendant was aggressive and that he had gone and challenged the Defendant by asking him what he was trying to prove.

 

[georgehenry]

Witness H has done him no favours and in my opinion is less convincing than the other witnesses and the cyclist himself. The truth is out there somewhere. The judge does however appear to be trying to be fair. If he had counter claimed it would appear to have reduced his liability although there would be two lawyers fees still needing to be paid and split between the plaintiffs. Perhaps this is a London centric/big city rush hour commute accident with lessons about the personal injury culture for all cyclists to be aware of but hopefully unlikely to pose risks for the majority of us who ride in less busy areas. Common sense might still be a good rule to follow and when it is very busy and there are lots of people crossing the road whoever has the right of way, slow right down.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Read that as well, that another cyclist witness it and wasn't too impressed with how defendant approached the hazard, and expected a collision. Instead of braking the defendant sounded his horn and assumed the crowd would clear. If he had time to do that, he had time to slow and brake.

Easy to judge these things from newspaper headlines, but we have qualified judges for a good reason, and they see ALL the evidence and can make better judgements than someone reading the Daily Mail headlines.

Having said that, I am looking at getting some insurance now...