Woman hit by Cyclist awarded a payout

[Andy McNish]

Yes - I'm not surprised by the outcome to be honest.

I cycle home through Manchester City centre, down Cross Street past the Arndale. Apart from that road , which only trams and cyclists use, the area is pedestrianised and smack bang in the middle of Manchester. so it's teeming and people are stepping off the kerb without looking all the time.

If I was flogging along at 30kph 2 feet from the kerb I'd be knocking them over like skittles every day. And half of them wear headphones of course.

So I go slower, wider and am always prepared to slam on the hydraulic disk brakes. Because whilst I can't predict which one will step off the kerb without looking, I'm well aware that one or more of them is very likely to in the course of of those 200 yards...

If you instead don't slow down, blast your air horn and try to steer around - you take the risk that the panicked pedestrian jumps into your path. It's just bad cycling - like all idiots that shoot red lights.

Also you should have insurance for this sort of thing and, even if you don't, not try to take on a big ambulance chasing law firm and run a case all the way to trial without knowing what you are doing.

 

[Michael Price]

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...

I agree - this seems to give a timeline that was missing before. At a junction where there were still pedestrians crossing, the cyclist was being unreasonable in continuing assuming they would not be there when he got there. Any adult cyclist should know that pedestrians are unpredictable and should be given a wide berth.
Right of way is all well and good - but we know how that works when a car hits a cyclist who 'has right of way' - the words goose and gander come to mind


Right more reasonably - not totally his fault - what sort of idiot pedestrian wander into the road without looking??? - is she 6 or what??
So - partly her fault - his right of way and all that - but due care and attention come into into it - so his fault as well.

SO 50:50 seems OK

BUT - if I found any child of mine was claiming damages for being hit by a cyclist after wandering across a road without looking left and right and right again - then I would be confiscating her ipad, phone and grounding her for several months. And if she was married and living 200 miles away I would be having a good talk with her husband about him doing the same.
I mean - for $deity's sake - take some responsibility

and then - she hired lawyers who think is it OK to claim £100,000 (ish - not sure if this includes the damages) as costs - when if he had had insurance the limit would have been less than £7000 - anyway - how does that get to be OK.

err - OK - 2 point
1 )sorry if that was a rant

2) better look at insurance 'cos everyone makes mistakes

 

[trevor brooker]

" when if he had had insurance the limit would have been less than £7000 - anyway - how does that get to be OK."

that's the bit I did not know, how is that right that if you have insurance the insurance company has a maximum liability of say £7k but if you were say a pedestrian with no insurance then you have an unlimited liabilty.
That sounds like a sweet deal the insurance company agreed with its tame MPs to limit its liabilities.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

" when if he had had insurance the limit would have been less than £7000 - anyway - how does that get to be OK."

that's the bit I did not know, how is that right that if you have insurance the insurance company has a maximum liability of say £7k but if you were say a pedestrian with no insurance then you have an unlimited liabilty.
That sounds like a sweet deal the insurance company agreed with its tame MPs to limit its liabilities.

Yes, it doesn't sound right to me either, what's to stop people taking out an cycle insurance policy costing say £10 a year that provides a maximum liability of say just £100? If I caused a £10K car to be written off as a result of an accident I'd caused would the maximum payout be £100 with no further liability on me????
I wonder how this works out with car insurance......

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I'm taking out liability insurance, those with dongled or otherwise unrestricted ebikes don't have the option and perhaps they should be building up a £100K contingency fund.

 

[Andy McNish]

If you have any sort of bike insurance, personal liability will usually be included.

I think what he means is that insurance companies tend to have knock for knock agreements or agree to split liability as a matter of course in cases like this - where both parties are arguably at fault to some extent.

They realise that the costs will be insane compared to the payout if taken to a full trial. So if the woman had 10k 'worth' of injuries and the cyclist £5k worth, the difference is 5k, the cyclist's insurer agree to pay £2500 of that, each bear nominal costs and the file is closed.

Here the cyclist didn't know to claim for his injuries and no doubt refused to settle the case and kept denying any liability.

So basically he suffered from bad cycling, no insurance and not getting any legal advice.

Any one of the three and he'd have been fine.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

If you have any sort of bike insurance, personal liability will usually be included.

Maybe not if bikes are insured under a household policy.
Many people choose not to take out separate bike insurance but might want to have personal liability insurance while cycling. The Cycling UK "Full adult individual" membership at £3.88 per month provides this, for the over 65's it's just £2.46 per month, and includes legal assistance, a magazine plus discounts.

 

[Nealh]

Generally as with much with these incident's a lot of hype/knee jerk reaction to an event, but more understanding of the case shows the rider was not compromising in any way to giving way, slowing down or stopping. His perception/anticipation of what laid ahead looks to be that he had right of way and others need to get out of the way.
He in the end could have avoided the whole scenario by being more aware of his surroundings and the situation.

 

[gray198]

Generally as with much with these incident's a lot of hype/knee jerk reaction to an event, but more understanding of the case shows the rider was not compromising in any way to giving way, slowing down or stopping. His perception/anticipation of what laid ahead looks to be that he had right of way and others need to get out of the way.
He in the end could have avoided the whole scenario by being more aware of his surroundings and the situation.

the first reaction should always be to apply brakes and slow down, not blow the hooter and expect the way to be cleared. A lot of pedestrians may be wearing headphones anyway so ringing the bell may not be effective. Car drivers do the same thing if someone makes a mistake. Rather than slowing down they blow the horn and risk a collision. It seems to me that in this case the pedestrian was at fault but the rider compounded it by not applying brakes, or common sense

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Generally as with much with these incident's a lot of hype/knee jerk reaction to an event, but more understanding of the case shows the rider was not compromising in any way to giving way, slowing down or stopping. His perception/anticipation of what laid ahead looks to be that he had right of way and others need to get out of the way.
He in the end could have avoided the whole scenario by being more aware of his surroundings and the situation.

It doesn't matter what the cyclist did or did not do, it would have been wrong any way.

 

[Nealh]

They are contradictory statements but since the first one new light/evidence has come afore

 

[UrbanPuma]

Maybe not if bikes are insured under a household policy.
Many people choose not to take out separate bike insurance but might want to have personal liability insurance while cycling. The Cycling UK "Full adult individual" membership at £3.88 per month provides this, for the over 65's it's just £2.46 per month, and includes legal assistance, a magazine plus discounts.

What about the London Cycling Campaign? Are e-bikes covered with them?

 

[Deleted member 25121]

What about the London Cycling Campaign? Are e-bikes covered with them?

The LCC claims to offer "Free liability insurance incl. sportive cover " but I couldn't find any mention of the limit on the insurance cover on their web site. Cycling UK provide £10m of insurance cover but this might just as well be £10 from what I can make out from the judge's ruling (see my previous postings).
Good point about ebike coverage, I've assumed it is with Cycling UK but I need to check this....

 

[Deleted member 25121]

They are contradictory statements but since the first one new light/evidence has come afore

So cyclists aren't always judged to be in the wrong?

 

[Chris M]

There is no need for insurance. There is a need when in control of any vehicle to be aware of others and always act to avoid an accident no matter how stupid or ignorant the other road users may be.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

There is no need for insurance. There is a need when in control of any vehicle to be aware of others and always act to avoid an accident no matter how stupid or ignorant the other road users may be.

No matter how perfect you are if the other party does something crazy then sometimes accidents can't be avoided eg a kid running out from behind a parked car, then it's down to a magistrate, judge or jury to determine liability. Are you confident that they will always be in your favour?
Then there are cases of mechanical failures resulting in you causing an accident eg brake failure, you hit a pothole and lose control, a dog runs out and you lose control etc etc etc
I take out the very minimum of insurance, just cars and house, I don't bother with health, pet, breakdown insurance etc because I prefer to take the risk and payout when necessary. But public liability insurance is different and I don't want to risk having to pay out £100K, as in this well publicised case, for the sake of taking out cover for £40 a year.
By the way, be aware that legal cover included with some policies possibly pays for your legal fees, depending on the strength of your case, and doesn't cover your liabilities.

 

[georgehenry]

I may be wrong but in this particular case I think because both parties got injured and both parties were at fault he would have greatly improved his financial out come by counter claiming through a personal injury lawyer. He did not need cycle insurance to do that.

That does not mean that having some kind of specific cycle insurance is not a good idea, just that in this case to quickly make a counter claim by engaging a personal injury lawyer would have been all he really needed to do to massively reduce his financial culpability.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I may be wrong but in this particular case I think because both parties got injured and both parties were at fault he would have greatly improved his financial out come by counter claiming through a personal injury lawyer. He did not need cycle insurance to do that.

That does not mean that having some kind of specific cycle insurance is not a good idea, just that in this case to quickly make a counter claim by engaging a personal injury lawyer would have been all he really needed to do to massively reduce his financial culpability.

From what I understand, and I'm certainly no lawyer, he's having to pay out the estimated £100,000 because he didn't have personal liability insurance, not because he didn't use a personal injury lawyer.

Putting things VERY simply:
1. Cycle insurance - pays out if your cycle is stolen, damaged etc by a 3rd party

2. Legal insurance - pays for a lawyer to represent you provided you have a good case. This may include a personal injury lawyer

3. Personal liability insurance - pays out if the courts have found you liable for 3rd party claims

None of these are compulsory and I personally forego 1 & 2 but think that 3 is worth the £40 a year or so considering the liability could run into £100,000s whereas 1 & 2 could be just a few £k.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

The LCC claims to offer "Free liability insurance incl. sportive cover " but I couldn't find any mention of the limit on the insurance cover on their web site. Cycling UK provide £10m of insurance cover but this might just as well be £10 from what I can make out from the judge's ruling (see my previous postings).
Good point about ebike coverage, I've assumed it is with Cycling UK but I need to check this....

I've enquired and yes, the full insurance benefits apply to ebikes with Cycling UK, provided it's a legal ebike of course.

By the way, Cycling UK informed me today that:
"We experienced an unexpected 250% increase in website traffic and membership sign-ups over the week which, in turn, throttled and disabled the postcode lookup feature on the website. We’ve subsequently increased the resources available to the postcode lookup and are continuing to monitor the situation. You should therefore now be able to complete your transaction." (I was having problems registering with them).
I guess a lot of people have been following this story with the £100,000 liability and are now looking for personal liability insurance....

 

[georgehenry]

Let the panic begin!