|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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?Â* Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance.Â* If only he could be banned from the road as well. It probably won't be long before she will get a Darwin award anyway. Common sense is not one of her attributes. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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? Given he was “a calm and reasonable road user” he would have been in less aggro had he killed her. So ride like a cnut and you might not end up bankrupt is what it is telling people. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:38:26 +0100, Modesty
wrote: 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'. His exposure to costs could almost certainly have been reduced dramatically had his (had he had one) and the claimants solicitors communicated with each other at an early stage. Why he didn't seek (or possibly listen) to legal advice early on isn't clear. This case has been kicking around for several years which is in itself very unusual when the damages expected to be paid would only have been in the low thousands of pounds. It also seems that during his self representation in court he acted in some undefined way which increased the costs by his ignorance of procedure. This is unusual in itself as judges usually do all they can to help litigants in person. Possibly more may come out in the costs hearing. (Why a separate costs hearing is taking place for a low value claim is itself a bit puzzling, normally it would take a few minutes at the end of the main hearing). 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. It isn't mentioned anywhere I can see that this was a conditional fee case in which case the claimant has little risk but I would guess it is. There is also no doubt she was injured and (at least) had to pay for dental treatment and Hazeldean was partially responsible so the claim was reasonable. This would probably have been the advice any solicitor would have given him at the beginning. I doubt if anyone took advantage of any possible naivety. Perhaps stubborn refusal to believe it wasn't his fault at all caused him to continue long beyond the point where it was sensible to do so. This isn't unusual with litigants in person. 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? I'd guess this would have been what any solicitor would have said. The very high costs are puzzling. The claimants solicitors would have been entitled to an enhanced fee if it was a conditional fee case but nowhere near the level now being claimed. It also isn't obvious how the case went on for 3 or 4 years when it wasn't very complicated, the main facts were not in dispute and it wasn't going to set any precedent. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:45:35 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
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. So he can become a 'Cocky careless' pedestrian and wander into the path of a moving vehicle then blame the victim? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 14:57, Simon Jester wrote:
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. The victim is not in a position to even know whether the cyclist has home owner's insurance - or even whether the cyclist is a home-owner. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
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. As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception). They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a considerable source of noise nuisance. Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then). Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. I didn't see the report of that. 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. Braking is always a part of the best strategy. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 16:17, Bod wrote:
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?Â* Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance.Â* If only he could be banned from the road as well. It probably won't be long before she will get a Darwin award anyway. Common sense is not one of her attributes. And clearly also not his. One day, he'll try air-horning a lorry out of the way and it won't work. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 22/06/2019 18:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:45:35 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote: 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. So he can become a 'Cocky careless' pedestrian and wander into the path of a moving vehicle then blame the victim? Cyclists really *hate* pedestrians, don't you? We knew that anyway (it's observable from their demeanour), but it's good to get the confirmation from your good self and TMS320. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:43:01 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
Cyclists really *hate* pedestrians, don't you? We knew that anyway (it's observable from their demeanour), but it's good to get the confirmation from your good self and TMS320. Pedestrians are the most important road users, followed by equestrians and cyclists. Motorists only get to use our roads under licence and need to learn their place. This does not allow pedestrians to behave irresponsibly such as walking into the road without looking and giving a cyclist no chance to stop. |
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 |