On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:58:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2019 19:44, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:50:10 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2019 14:06, Modesty wrote:

A pedestrian gets hits by a cyclist. The case goes to court and the
judge decides that because the pedestrian was using her phone and not
looking-out when she stepped into the road to cross, she must accept
50% of the blame for a resulting collision with the cyclist. The judge
also accepts that the cyclist is a "calm and reasonable road user" and
at the time of the crash was not cycling aggressively nor recklessly.

Still, however, the judge rules that the cyclist must pay the
pedestrian thousands of pounds in compensation (the case will return
to court at a later date for the amount of compensation to be
decided).

How can that be right? If the pedestrian was 50% at fault for the
accident how can the cyclist's fault be the greater?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a4169716.html

The principle of apportioning blame in civil proceedings - especially
those arising out of traffic accidents - is not a mystery. Where the
nominal victim is 50% to blame, the damages (for pain, stress,
suffering, loss of earnings or whatever) from the other party can be
reduced by 50%.

So had they otherwise been, say, £10,000, he/she would get £5,000.

Of course, the same thing can apply the other way round - if there is a
loss to be quantified.

In a motor vehicle collision, relevant insurance companies usually
(though not always) manage to come to some agreement over these matters
without the need for court action, unless there has been some
substantial injury.

It has been established by other recent case(s) that a driver or cyclist
must do their best to avoid a pedestrian, even a pedestrian who has
walked out into the carriageway without taking full account of the
traffic. There is no available excuse of "It was MY right of way". As I
understand it, the cyclist in the instant case might well have been able
to stop in time, but decided to continue in the hope that he would be
able to avoid the pedestrian. We've heard of that sort of case before.
An emergency stop (which is what the law actually expects us to do in
this sort of circumstance) is what the brakes are for.

So if the cyclist sues the pedestrian the cyclist will be awarded the same compensation and both can walk away empty handed after wasting the court's time.

"...If....".

Did the cyclist sue the pedestrian for damages?


It depends on lots of answers we don't know about the reported case.

Seriously, you walk in to the road with your head down on your phone and get hit by a cyclist...

...who could have avoided the collision by stopping but didn't out of a
fit of pique and after all, it was "his right of way"...

There is no evidence of that.


Grow up and take responsibility for your actions. Why, in modern society, is it always someone else's fault?

Some things are your fault. Some things aren't.

Deciding which is which is the job of the court.

I am saying these things happen. You get up, dust yourself off and get on with your life.
The pedestrian was not seriously hurt and suffered no material loss.
I believe "snowflake" is the current term.
'Something bad happened to me so I am entitled to money.'


Then there is the question of why she was not wearing a helmet.

Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. Why, in modern
society, is it always someone else's fault?

That does not make sense. If the pedestrian had been wearing a cycle helmet in this low energy impact it would most likely have prevented the minor head injury.


If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds.

Agreed.


The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not
mean that you are entitled to mow her down.

Agreed

But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do.

Please supply evidence to support this claim.