- Re: Get on your bike...institutional bias against cyclists? Archived Message
Posted by John Monro
on June 23, 2019, 9:33 pm, in reply to "Re: Get on your bike...institutional bias against cyclists?"
|
Derek, I think you're view is idealistic - theoretically it would be nice to say that pedestrians should always have the first priority, as it's them that are most vulnerable, but at the same time if you're legally driving a car or legally riding a bicycle you also need protection from other's actions. I still don't understand what the technicality was the caused the judge to award a smallish amount of damages and what appear to be hugely excessive court costs against this cyclist. What was the claim he was supposed to have made that would have avoided this award against him? In addition I don't know enough about this individual case. According to someone else's posting he was riding in a normal considerate manner. But is it then the case that no matter how stupid a pedestrian is that they can never be found at fault - for instance the pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist, who has to swerve to miss him or her and then hits a car and is severely injured. If the same principle applied to the pedestrian as applied to this cyclist here, that pedestrian could be the one to face huge court costs, in which case my point about needing insurance before going on a walk is perfectly valid, isn't it? If you're running to catch a bus and you accidentally knock some little old lady over and she breaks her arm and sues you? Would you then advise all pedestrians o have insurance, as this cyclist has been advised by you (and others)? I've done a bit more research. This article is from the law gazette. I still don't quite understand about the counter claim, because he sustained a minor injury himself, because if he had no injury at all then thet wouldn't be possible, and he'd be back to square one. It seems to me the person he knocked over is a litigious and greedy woman, as there is discussion about the amount of court costs being way over the top. And this matter has gone on for four years. Note his stance, he doesn't agree with a "claim culture" And note too his solicitor states he'd still be up for a £7,000 cost, even if he were insured. That's still a huge cost for most folk, and would leave one asking what insurance was for. A cyclist who knocked down a woman crossing a busy London road says he faces bankruptcy from the resulting costs bill. From Law Gazette https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cyclist-faces-bankruptcy-over-100k-costs-bill-for-injured-pedestrian/5070701.article Gemma Brushett was awarded £4,161 in damages by Central London's County Court this week after a judge ruled she was equally to blame for the collision as cyclist Robert Hazeldean. Much of the coverage this week has focused on the fact that Brushett was looking at her phone while she crossed the street at London Bridge, while Hazeldean, who was travelling up to 15mph, was going through a green light and had sounded his horn to warn the pedestrian. Hazeldean has spoken out about the toll the four-year matter has taken on his mental health, as well as his concerns about the precedent it may set for other cyclists. In a statement issued through his representatives Levi Solicitors, he stated that covering the costs and compensation will personally cost him £20,000 and will leave him bankrupt. Levi Solicitors says the claimant has sought almost £100,000 in costs, a figure which will be contested at a future hearing as an abuse of process. Emma Farrell, head of the personal injury team at the national firm, said Hazeldean’s costs would have been limited to around £7,000 if he had been insured. If he had sought legal advice earlier, the firm says it would also have advised him to counterclaim, given he has been left with permanent scarring, and ensure he was protected against a large costs order. Hazeldean said: ‘I feel that most cyclists would not have appreciated the consequences of not taking the opportunity to put forward a counterclaim which meant that I was unable to rely on the legislation in the same way that the claimant has to protect myself against a destructive costs award. ‘This was not because I was not injured, but because I do not advocate the claim culture. Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.’ Urging others to take out insurance through British Cycling, he added: ‘I can only hope that the focus on this case highlights the vulnerability of cyclists, both physically and against the courts, and that it might help reform a legal system that appears to leave certain road users disproportionately exposed.’ The cyclist has won widespread sympathy among the cycling community. Radio and television presenter Jeremy Vine, a campaigner for greater awareness of cyclist safety, said: ‘I feel very sorry for this fellow. I haven’t met anyone who thinks he could have done more to avoid hitting the pedestrian.’ Vine directed his Twitter followers to a crowdfunding site looking to cover Hazeldean’s costs. As of 11am today, the appeal, set up by one of the cyclist’s friends, had already raised around £2,500. 109 Comments Save article Clio-Gazette-Animated-Advert There's an article here about pedestrians' liabilities. https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/solicitors/news-main/what-happens-if-pedestrians-are-partly-to-blame-for-the-road-accident Even if the pedestrian was 75% at fault, a cyclist or motorist injuring them could still face substantial damages if the injury was serious. But the article doesn't yet explain if pedestrians themselves should have insurance. Perhaps it is possible one's home insurance might cover against third party claims against the occupants of the home? There's an article here on cycle insurance https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/do-cyclists-have-to-have-insurance-357751 And if a child riding his bicycle causes injury, would we now suggest they should have insurance before getting on their bike? In New Zealand, we don't have to worry about any of this - we have a no fault accident insurance scheme, so only very rarely can someone claim damages from another due to injury in an accident, however caused. The side effect of this though has been, until recently, a gang-ho attitude to safety in the community and work place, and also rather a high number of serious injuries or fatalities to tourists partaking in the "adventure tourism" of New Zealand. Some bereaved UK parents have found this out the hard way. |