So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich, and that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some compo. |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking across a road without even looking endangering other road users! Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 08:45, MrCheerful wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich, and that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some compo. I have never said that and the law does not demand a cyclist to be insured. You should be lobbying for compulsory cyclist insurance which I would agree with. The law is who you should be targetting your gripe against. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 08:52, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 08:45, MrCheerful wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich, and that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some compo. I have never said that and the law does not demand a cyclist to be insured. You should be lobbying for compulsory cyclist insurance which I would agree with. The law is who you should be targetting your gripe against. So is it impossible for cyclists to insure themselves without the law making it compulsory? It's just that we have, for a long time here, been assured and reassured that cyclists are all covered by unrelated insurance policies. |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 08:46, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking across a road without even looking endangering other road users! Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident. The court decided that the cyclist and the victim were each a nominal 50% to blame for the collion. She for stepping out without looking, he for proceeding to collide with her without even trying to stop. |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 08:52, Bod wrote: On 22/06/2019 08:45, MrCheerful wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich, and that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some compo. * * I have never said that and the law does not demand a cyclist to be insured. You should be lobbying for compulsory cyclist insurance which I would agree with. The law is who you should be targetting your gripe against. So is it impossible for cyclists to insure themselves without the law making it compulsory? It's just that we have, for a long time here, been assured and reassured that cyclists are all covered by unrelated insurance policies. I've never said that. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 12:13, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 08:46, Bod wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking across a road without even looking endangering other road users! Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident. The court decided that the cyclist and the victim were each a nominal 50% to blame for the collion. She for stepping out without looking, he for proceeding to collide with her without even trying to stop. He did apparently try to avoid her. Are you saying that he deliberately rode into her? -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:46:10 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was reeling from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking across a road without even looking endangering other road users! Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident. People seem to be getting a bit mixed up here and conflating responsibility/compensation and costs. The verdict was one of 50/50 responsibility and in line with other such claims in the past. "Shanti Mauger found against Mr Hazeldean and said he was jointly responsible for the accident. He ruled [Hazeldean] was liable to pay 50 per cent of Ms Brushetts compensation claim because cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways. While describing him as a calm and reasonable road user, he went on to add: Mr Hazeldean did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear. After a personal injury compensation battle lasting over three years he said: The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50. Any award the pedestrian may get will therefore be reduced by 50% to take into account her blameworthyness. Given that Hazeldean seems ta have shouted and blown his gerroutofmy way air horn before reducing speed some might think he did fairly well out of this decision. The allocation of blame contains an element for causative potency , something cycling organisations have been furiously lobbying in support of for years (at least until they realised that the number of pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists is at an all time high and it was being used against cyclists). Causative potency is the allocation of greater responsibility to act safely to the party with the greatest ability to cause harm. http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Preview/1024483.aspx The confounding issues in this case seem to be that the cyclist failed to put in a counter claim and also elected to act for himself in court without seeking legal advice. With no counter claim he could not be awarded any damages for his own injuries (which in a 50/50 ruling he could have expected. It also exposed him to large claims for costs from the claimants legal team. By the time he decided to employ his own solicitors he had lost the ability to limit his liability for costs or damages (although his solicitors are now going to claim the cost demanded are an abuse of process when the damages are going to be far less than the costs demanded). It seems on what has so far been reported) that the judgment was fair and the exposure to the vast costs (which may yet be held to be excessive) was in large part due to the cyclist choosing not to take timely legal advice in the first instance and then choosing to defend himself. What is really rattling the cage of various cycling organisations is their fear that cases such as this will fuel the existing public antipathy towards cyclists and lead to more calls for compulsory insurance for cyclists. Compulsory anything is unacceptable to cyclists groups. "Presumption of blame" has long been promoted as a pro-cycling measure by most cycling groups. They are now terrified that it is coming back to bite them. What may well happen is that cyclists perceiving that they are possibly facing huge costs if they hurt a pedestrian (even if not entirely their fault) will purchase insurance. This of course makes them a much better target for solicitors bringing claims for damages so more cases will come about which in turn puts pressure on the other cyclists to get insurance and increases the perception of cycling as a high risk activity. |
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 12:21, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:13, JNugent wrote: The court decided that the cyclist and the victim were each a nominal 50% to blame for the collion. She for stepping out without looking, he for proceeding to collide with her without even trying to stop. He did apparently try to avoid her. Are you saying that he deliberately rode into her? Note that Nugent is doing his usual slippery routine by using the word word 'stop'. As though stop and avoid are the same thing. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com