View Single Post
  #10  
Old June 19th 19, 06:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,896
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:59:20 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote:

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...a-teacher-hit-
by-cyclist-as-she-crossed-road-on-her-phone-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....".

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"...

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.

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?

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

The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does
not mean that you are entitled to mow her down. But you have made it
clear again and again that that is what you really want to do.


Mr Nugent
Why are you feeding this pillock?

Snowflake.


You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be.




Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home