View Single Post
  #23  
Old June 22nd 19, 05:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tosspot[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,563
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 12.47, Peter Parry wrote:
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 Brushett’s
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.


Oh do shut up with your namby pamby nanny state facts and voice of
reason. This is URC, we do NOT NEED FACTS, we DO NOT need REASONED
ARGUMENTS, we need an ABSENCE of REASONED arguments, we need the DAILY
EXPRESS TO JUDGE, CONVICT AND EXECUTE in the name of the PUBLIC!

phew Did I get the tone correct?
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home