View Single Post
  #12  
Old June 22nd 19, 01:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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:
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?


I only know what has been reported. The court decision was reported. The
decision was that the cyclist's attempt to avoid the pedestrian was not
the correct response to her presence on the carriageway in front of him.
He swerved without slowing but she went the same way (back towards the
footway, IIRC). The court's view was that the swerve was not a proper
reaction and that the cyclist should have simply braked and if
necessary, stopped. That's not too much to ask, is it? Your mother could
make the same mistake.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home