Re: Get on your bike...institutional bias against cyclists? Archived Message
Posted by John Monro on June 23, 2019, 10:06 pm, in reply to "Re: Get on your bike...institutional bias against cyclists?"
Actually she was a random person launching off the curb last minute, at least according to this article The fact that she was with others shouldn't be that relevant. Additionally, again according to this article, and three witnesses, he did do all he could to avoid her. (He was knocked out as well so might not be able to recall exactly what happened) https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-post/2019/06/19/Yoga-teacher-wins-damages-from-cyclist-after-stepping-into-the-road-while-looking-at-phone Yoga teacher wins damages from cyclist after stepping into the road while looking at phone A woman who was knocked over by a cyclist after she walked into the road while looking at her phone, has been awarded damages from the cyclist. 28 year old yoga teacher, Gemma Brushett, collided with Robert Hazeldean on a crossing in London in 2015. Ms Brushett was knocked out and suffered a minor head injury, whilst Mr Hazeldean was also knocked unconscious and suffered cuts in the collision. An action was subsequently launched by Ms Brushett against Mr Hazeldean, blaming him for the accident at Central London County Court. Despite Ms Brushett looking at her phone, the court ruled Mr Hazeldean liable, with the judge saying: “Cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.” The court heard how Mr Hazeldean passed through a green light and sounded a loud airhorn, shouted, swerved and attempted to brake, to try and warn the pedestrian and avoid a collision. However it was to no avail and he ploughed into Ms Brushett at 15mph when she stepped off of the kerb into the cyclist’s path. Judge Shanti Mauger accepted Mr Hazeldean was a "calm and reasonable road user" and that Ms Bushett had been distracted by her phone when she walked into the road in front of him, however she also stated that the cyclist fell below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist. Three witnesses told police that she was not looking where she was going and also said that the cyclist was not at fault for the accident. The judge ruled that Ms Bushett should get 50/50 payout, meaning she 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 to be set. I think the Judge was far too critical of the cyclist. Yes, he collided with her, but she collided with him (Newton's second law?) and from the account, I cannot see how he managed to apportion blame equally. Of course a green light isn't a carte blanche for dangerous or careless riding or driving, but at the same time, pedestrians should also make themselves aware of their surroundings, talking on a phone crossing a busy highway is not making yourself aware. Also, I didn't respond to your comment that there are dangerous cyclists. Indeed, I despair when I see mostly young men in their lycra outfits riding their cycles in the traffic in the most aggressive manner, and running red lights, weaving in and out, etc.and giving cyclists a bad name. But you're right, it's not the place to point this out, as we're not talking about a dangerous cyclist in this instance, just the sort of cyclist any of us could be. In addition, the only person generally put at risk by a cyclist's poor behaviour is the cyclist himself. That's not the case when a car runs a red light, I don't know about London, but in Wellington, running red lights in your car is a pretty popular pastime and very few lights have cameras on them.
|
|