My Court Case

It couldn't have started any worse...

I met my barrister for the first time at 10.15, and her very first
question was, "were you wearing a helmet?" I tried explaining that a
helmet wouldn't have protected my shoulder in any way, but she wasn't
having any of it. "You should always wear a helmet, it will protect
you." I knew my case was lost there and then. I was at fault for a
driver running into me before the case had even begun!

There was worse.

The judge, once we went into court, said, "I don't cycle and you will
never ever see me on a bike."

My claim was that I passed a line of slow moving traffic of the right,
up to 1.5m across the centre line, on the right of the road. There
was no oncoming traffic, and cycling in that position gave me the very
best possible view of the road ahead and gave motorists the very best
possible chance to see me. The lorry pulled suddenly to the right to
reach a parking bay on the right, without looking or indicating, and
struck me. I had no chance to take evasive action.

My witness said something similar.

The contention of the defence was that I followed the lorry down the
road, immediately behind its rear doors, and when it stopped and
indicated right, I pulled out to the right and tried to overtake the
truck, with disasterous consequences. That was the only possible
explaination for the driver checking his mirrors twice and not seeing
me. I should have been on the left, and if I was going to overtake
should have hugged the kerb and overtaken on the inside. To further
back up his claim that I was not visible, the defendent recalled that
an oncoming vehicle flashed him to say, 'the road is clear, I will
wait while you turn.'

All this took 3 hours - yes, three hours...

We had a 15 minute recess.

After the recess the judge reiterated his previous comment:
"I don't cycle and you will never ever see me on a bike." He went
on... "I can fully understand why a prudent and skilled cyclist would
cycle on the right of slow moving or stationary traffic." He went on
to recount my evidence of why I overtook on the left, car doors, left
turning vehicles, better visibility, etc., etc., etc. "That is not to
say that the defendent is lying, but as he clearly didn't see the
claimant, he is in no position to come to the conclusion that the
claimant was immediately behind him."

"The claimant is very clear that the driver was not indicating when he
started his overtaking manoeurve, the defendent says that he started
indicating immediately after looking in his mirror for the first time.
However, the defendent didn't see the claimant so cannot say where the
claimant was at the time he started to signal. I am therefore minded
to take the claimant's version of events. I can see no reason why an
experienced cyclist, as the claimant certainly is, would start to
overtake a vehicle that was indicating right, and the claimant would
most certainly have had an excellent view of the defendent's
indicators if, as the defendent caims, he was immediately behind his
vehicle."

"The defendent says that he was in the middle of the road, signalling
right, for some 30 seconds, before making his turn, and that he made
his turn after checking in his mirrors for a second time. ( I do not
accept the claimant's counsel's claim that the driver should have
looked over his shoulder, the defendent's mirrors should have
sufficed.) I cannot believe that the defendent was stationary in the
middle of the road for as long as 30 seconds, and this contradicts his
earlier statement to the police which describes one continuous
manoeuvre, and makes no mention of a wait in the middle of the road. I
also do not believe that the defendent's vehicle was to the right of
the centre line. The witness clearly describes the van being to the
left of the centre line as does the claimant."

"Mr Crispin's evidence has been clear and he has also made it
absolutely clear when he is making assuptions, for example, Mr Crispin
said 'when I started to overtake the vehicle wasn't signalling, and I
don't think that it was signalling when it hit me.' [The defense
counsel had made much of that fact that I was vague about certain
points.] Likewise the defendent has also given clear evidence, but he
has stated with ablosute certainty things that he cannot know. For
example, he stated that the claimant was immediately behind him prior
to the collision. He cannot have known that as he hadn't seen the
cyclist."

"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
has been agreed. Is that correct?"

No further mention was made of magic helmets.


==========TROLL J BAIT==========
I expect some mission poster will pop up and make meaningless claims
about helmets and re-quote some crash statistics without context - and
I hope they do. To contradict a neutral judge, who is clearly pro
motorist, who describes me as *prudent and skilled* will beautifully
highlight the absurdity of their claims.
==========END OF BAIT==========

Tom Crispin wrote:

"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
has been agreed. Is that correct?"

:-)
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
| It couldn't have started any worse...

snip

| "I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
| has been agreed. Is that correct?"

Classic. Well done!.

pOB

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Tom Crispin wrote:

"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation has
been agreed. Is that correct?"

GREAT VICTORY!!

tom

--
Osteoclasts = monsters from the DEEP -- Andrew

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Crispin wrote:

"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
has been agreed. Is that correct?"

Result! Well done for sticking to your guns.

- --
Guy

May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
================================================== =====================
** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code **
================================================== =====================
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJHF9gHBDrsD+jvN4RAtVTAJ9gBUWJc+UaVGqggCA0GL 8aTitR1gCeJ4ZA
98omzqhb5YDx//5QpMo6Zv8=
=4CpM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tom Crispin wrote:


"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
has been agreed. Is that correct?"


Well done. A victory for you, and for all of us.

--
http://www.unmusic.co.uk Michael Reed -- technology, gender, and geek
culture freelance writer. Visit the site to buy my article compilation
book Tech Book 1

Well done that busy man.
--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
http://vulpeculox.net

On 13/11/2008 16:37, Tom Crispin wrote:
The judge, once we went into court, said, "I don't cycle and you will
never ever see me on a bike."
snip
After the recess the judge reiterated his previous comment:
"I don't cycle and you will never ever see me on a bike."

Neatly avoiding any chance of accusations that the judge might have
showed favouritism towards cyclists because he was himself a cyclist.

Excellent result.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

On 2008-11-13, Tom Crispin wrote:

"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
has been agreed. Is that correct?"

Congratulations.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:37:06 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:


"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation has
been agreed. Is that correct?"

Excellent! Especially the introduction.