On 18. 6. 2019 21:59, 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...-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?


It is a free country.
He is allowed to fee anyone he likes.