|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure 5800 pedestrians a year. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. But there is another lesson for cyclists, because they can be injured and killed by pedestrians. It is reported that he was also injured in the collision but he decided not counter claim against the woman or seek legal advice. There is no point echoing Peter Parry's post about this. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 12:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:21, Bod wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:13, JNugent wrote: 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? Note that Nugent is doing his usual slippery routine by using the word word 'stop'. As though stop and avoid are the same thing. The court decided that avoidance (ie, changing direction, without braking and without stopping) was indeed not an acceptable thing for the cyclist to do. He should have braked, very hard, to a halt if necessary. The court decided that so there's no point to your wriggle. Braking (hard) is what I do in my car in similar circumstances. Isn't it what *you* would do? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 12:19, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:12, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 08:52, Bod wrote: On 22/06/2019 08:45, MrCheerful 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? We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich, and that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some compo. I have never said that and the law does not demand a cyclist to be insured. You should be lobbying for compulsory cyclist insurance which I would agree with. The law is who you should be targetting your gripe against. So is it impossible for cyclists to insure themselves without the law making it compulsory? It's just that we have, for a long time here, been assured and reassured that cyclists are all covered by unrelated insurance policies. I've never said that. I didn't say you had. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 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? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure 5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely or less dangerous. Braking hard does. Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. But there is another lesson for cyclists, because they can be injured and killed by pedestrians. It is reported that he was also injured in the collision but he decided not counter claim against the woman or seek legal advice. There is no point echoing Peter Parry's post about this. Yes, I did read it. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 1:00:21 AM UTC+1, 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? Maybe the victim is unaware his home owners insurance covers him for a pedestrian's stupidity. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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... (That should be 'She ruled' because Judge Shanti Mauger is a woman, but that doesn't materially change the point you are making.) ...[Hazeldean] was liable to pay 50 per cent of Ms Brushetts 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. So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims culture'. Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large legal bill, as well as her damages. Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out. As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have agreed not to proceed? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 15:38, Modesty wrote:
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... (That should be 'She ruled' because Judge Shanti Mauger is a woman, but that doesn't materially change the point you are making.) ...[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. So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims culture'. Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large legal bill, as well as her damages. Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out. As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have agreed not to proceed? Who cares? Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance. If only he could be banned from the road as well. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 13:31, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:49, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:21, Bod wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:13, JNugent wrote: 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? Note that Nugent is doing his usual slippery routine by using the word word 'stop'. As though stop and avoid are the same thing. The court decided that avoidance (ie, changing direction, without braking and without stopping) was indeed not an acceptable thing for the cyclist to do. He should have braked, very hard, to a halt if necessary. The court decided that so there's no point to your wriggle. Braking (hard) is what I do in my car in similar circumstances. Isn't it what *you* would do? In a car, it is the most obvious; if a lane is 8ft wide and a car is 7ft wide, there is clearly no alternative. When two pedestrians encounter each other on perpendicular tracks, one does not stay on track, stop and wait for the other; one will invariably track behind the other. A bicycle is somewhere between the two, depending on available space. A driver does not encounter dozy pedestrians like cyclists routinely do. I can't remember the last time I was driving when I had to make a sudden manouevre to avoid a pedestrian; probably while still relatively inexperienced and my action was the catalyst. A cyclist will have far more experience of avoiding than a non-cyclist can imagine. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 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? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure 5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over this one cyclist. I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely or less dangerous. Braking hard does. I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a course alteration. Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view. I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them unpredictable. Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USEFULL HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS | datakoll | Techniques | 1 | February 19th 13 01:12 AM |
Insurance - House, Contents & Bicycles? | Craig | Australia | 2 | July 26th 05 01:44 PM |
Lance bottle contents...? | Jaybee | Racing | 8 | July 13th 05 09:35 PM |
CTC Cyclecover vs Contents Insurance | PhilO | UK | 3 | July 10th 05 03:23 PM |
Pink Bikes (contents may cause nausea) | suzyj | Australia | 6 | September 8th 04 09:16 AM |