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

It's half my fault but your fault is the greater



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 18th 19, 02:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Modesty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

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

Ads
  #2  
Old June 18th 19, 03:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,424
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

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.
  #3  
Old June 18th 19, 07:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Modesty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

On 18 Jun 2019 15:50, 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.


So a person may be massively to blame for an accident but yet still be
the victim and claim damages.

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.


That sounds reasonable.

At least, then, the principle of apportioning blame in these
circumstances is no longer quite the mystery to me that it previously
was.

  #4  
Old June 18th 19, 07:44 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,318
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

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.

  #5  
Old June 18th 19, 07:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,424
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

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.
  #6  
Old June 18th 19, 08:42 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,318
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:58:40 PM UTC+1, 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....".


Did the cyclist sue the pedestrian for damages?


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"...


There is no evidence of that.


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.


I am saying these things happen. You get up, dust yourself off and get on with your life.
The pedestrian was not seriously hurt and suffered no material loss.
I believe "snowflake" is the current term.
'Something bad happened to me so I am entitled to money.'


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?


That does not make sense. If the pedestrian had been wearing a cycle helmet in this low energy impact it would most likely have prevented the minor head injury.


If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds.


Agreed.


The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not
mean that you are entitled to mow her down.


Agreed

But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do.


Please supply evidence to support this claim.


  #7  
Old June 18th 19, 08:59 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,383
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

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?


  #8  
Old June 18th 19, 10:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:59:20 GMT, "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...a-teacher-hit-
by-cyclist-as-she-crossed-road-on-her-phone-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?

Snowflake.



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
  #9  
Old June 19th 19, 12:30 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,424
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

On 18/06/2019 20:42, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:58:40 PM UTC+1, 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....".


Did the cyclist sue the pedestrian for damages?


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"...


There is no evidence of that.


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.


I am saying these things happen.


That much is true. But they would happen less frequently and otherwise
with less severity if the cyclist default was to STOP when approaching a
pedestrian rather than bending every sinew to avoid having to reduce speed.

You get up, dust yourself off


Some of us might.

and get on with your life.
The pedestrian was not seriously hurt and suffered no material loss.
I believe "snowflake" is the current term.
'Something bad happened to me so I am entitled to money.'


The reports seem to have that the other way round.

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?


That does not make sense. If the pedestrian had been wearing a cycle helmet in this low energy impact it would most likely have prevented the minor head injury.

If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds.


Agreed.

The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not
mean that you are entitled to mow her down.


Agreed


And in that case you will condemn the actions of this cyclist, who took
a completely different approach to the situation.

But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do.


Please supply evidence to support this claim.


If your constant calls for pedestrians to wear helmets have already
ceased, I am willing to withdraw it. The icing on the cake would be your
condemnation of that cyclist who killed a hapless pedestrian in London
some time ago, in circumstances which sound remarkably similar to this
reported case (lack of brakes excepted).
  #10  
Old June 19th 19, 06:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,383
Default It's half my fault but your fault is the greater

Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:59:20 GMT, "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...a-teacher-hit-
by-cyclist-as-she-crossed-road-on-her-phone-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?

Snowflake.


You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be.




 




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
over half of car/cycle accidents are the cyclist's fault Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 2 July 18th 12 07:57 AM
Whose Fault? Nuxx Bar[_3_] UK 72 July 18th 11 08:04 AM
Its all our fault Tony Raven UK 49 December 20th 05 03:07 PM
It's your fault Maggie General 22 November 16th 04 05:41 PM
it's all your fault! David Martin UK 78 April 22nd 04 12:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM.


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.