A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 22nd 19, 12:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 01:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 01:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 01:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 01:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 02:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,296
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 03:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Modesty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 03:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,477
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 04:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default 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  
Old June 22nd 19, 04:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.