I know I’ve discussed road behaviour here before and this generated some heated discussion. This time it is a cyclist who finds himself on the wrong end of it.
A woman who was knocked unconscious by a cyclist will be awarded compensation, despite a judge finding she had stepped into the road while looking at her phone.
Robert Hazeldean, a garden designer , who was also knocked out by the collision, will pay thousands in damages and court fees to Gemma Brushett, who works for a finance firm in the City of London and runs yoga retreats.
Hazeldean was returning from work in July 2015 when he crashed into Brushett as she crossed a busy junction near London Bridge. She launched a legal claim for compensation after sustaining a minor head injury.
Judge Shanti Mauger, at Central London county court, said the cyclist was “a calm and reasonable road user” and that Brushett was looking at her phone when she walked into the road in front of him.
However, she ruled that Hazeldean was liable to pay damages, saying: “Cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”
The last time we discussed this, it was a child stepping out onto a crossing and the driver was travelling too quickly for the conditions. The general principle that the Highway Code applies is that we should pay attention to the movements of others on the road – especially more vulnerable road users. That’s why this case went the way it did. Had Hazeldean been driving a car, then third-party insurance would have picked up the tab.
Judge Mauger said: “When I stand back and ask: ‘How did the accident happen?’ it seems to me that Mr Hazeldean owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill,” she said.
“Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way. 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.”
Actually, they don’t have right of way. There is no such thing. They have priority, however, pedantry aside, I would expect road users to be expecting the unexpected. This is the second time in recent years that a cyclist has been held responsible despite the pedestrian stepping out while distracted by the phone. On that occasion, the cycle wasn’t road legal and criminal charges rightly followed.
So, yes, the pedestrian is doing something silly. Something that they shouldn’t on a busy road. But the Highway Code is clear here – it is up to the driver (in this case the cyclist) to be paying attention and prepare to stop in what they can see to be clear.
The judge’s ruling found that the parties shared responsibility, so while Brushett is guaranteed a payout, she will get only half of the full value of her claim.
Contributory negligence applied. I’d say that’s fair. What I am wondering now is just how long before third-party cycle insurance becomes a thing.
She was injured because they were both careless.
He was injured because they were both careless.
Why not call it quits?
That would have been sensible, yes.
My wife and I have a collection of cycles, including three with carbon fibre frames. We took out separate insurance on them which includes basic third party insurance cover.
Third party cycle insurance is already a thing. It is however, not compulsory.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability
By “a thing” I meant calls for it to be compulsory.
I’m pretty sure 3rd party insurance is available from whatever the national cycling club is called. The question is not just that it is advisable but will it become mandatory: hard to enforce without number plates.
If she was 50% responsible for the accident and he was injured too it would seem he would have a valid claim against her and no longer has to prove that responsibility.
Approaching a crossing you have to take extra care so maybe the judgement was fair. You may expect a pedestrian to clear a crossing before you reach it but they may trip and fall. But there are things so unexpected that you cannot reasonably make progress accounting for them.
I don’t think cycles and pedestrians are compatible even when the cyclist is well-behaved.
Pedestrian traffic is largely unregulated, which is as it should be as it includes the very young and the old and infirm. As long as they keep to the pavements they cause no real harm to each other or anyone on the road. (What idiot thought it a good idea to allow cyclists on pavements travelling at up to 14 mph?).
Historically pedestrians have had access to the road space too, they were after all what roads were made for. The number and speed of motor vehicles led to the creation of reserved pavements for pedestrians and by and large pedestrians keep to them and vehicles keep off. The problem comes when pedestrians need to cross the road.
I would argue that a pedestrian has right-of-way when going forward across a side street versus turning traffic, they are on the ‘highway’ and a motor vehicle wouldn’t expect to safely cut across traffic but they will do it to pedestrian traffic. (In the USA they understand this idea).
By the same token a pedestrian crossing the main road is turning traffic and should give way to traffic going forward and mostly they do. I and I am sure many others as pedestrians, not having rear-view mirrors, get used to using my ears, no sound behind, probably safe to turn. This strategy works particulary well in towns where traffic lights create gaps in the traffic. Unfortunately modern cyclists don’t obey traffic signals, either riding through red lights or ‘pavement hopping’ (I’m a pedestrian now!) and they don’t make much noise or carry or use a bell. They will also be cycling in the pedestrian’s ’emergency stopping zone’, that little bit of road by the kerb that cars and motorbikes don’t use, that has saved many a careless pedestrian in the past.
Face it cyclists, you are not pedestrians on a bike, you are not the pedestrians friend. Just like the motorist or motorbiker you must learn to treat all pedestrians as a potential danger, not as a challenge.
It is a problem with all silent running vehicles.
Pedestrians (me too) do rely on the sound most vehicles make, so a moped burbling along ain’t such a threat as one screaming it out the expansion chamber (lousy example but hopefully point made).
It’s now such an issue with electric cars that some manufacturers are fitting them with dodas that make noise.
“But the Highway Code is clear here – it is up to the driver (in this case the cyclist) to be paying attention and prepare to stop in what they can see to be clear.”
The highway code is also clear that pedestrian must “always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross”
Hence the contributory negligence finding.
I don’t remember where I read it now but there were some unofficial guidelines about shared foot and cycle paths that said that cyclists who rode at over 10mph should use the road instead. I think that this is fairly sensible so I use the shared spaces when I’m pootling along in no hurry but use the road when I want to get a shift on, usually when I’m training for another triathlon. I have been subjected to motorists honking and gesticulating toward the path or their passengers shouting at me to use the path. On the old railway path I do have to mix with families and dog walkers but it is no trouble to slow down for them. Getting out of the saddle and accelerating hard after I’ve passed them is good training too.
“despite the traffic lights showing green. The court was told she panicked and tried to step back, but the cyclist, who had been travelling at 10-15mph, swerved in the same direction and hit her.”
She had no business crossing and was patently not paying attention. She then panicked and did something unpredictable which precluded the cyclist from being able to avoid her.
At which point, I say “There but for the grace of god go I etc.”
If a pedestrian completely unexpectedly turns and steps into the road in front of me, I would be reluctant to swerve into the road for fear of being hit – and very very much more severely injured or even killed – by the car that was equally not expecting the pedestrian to step out nor for me to swerve into its path. His decision to try to go behind her seems eminently sensible. I simply cannot understand the 50:50 ruling.
There’s a clash of two principles here. The Highway Code, which says expect the unexpected and be prepared to give way to pedestrians at junctions and the common law principle that says cause no harm. He was guilty of the former, she of the latter.
Given that both were guilty of a degree of negligence, I think the judgement of 50/50 was a fair one. What isn’t fair is landing the cyclist with £100,000 of costs. This is massively disproportionate and it is why the law is an ass. I don’t believe this one should have gone to court. Nor do I believe that landing someone with costs that cause bankruptcy even close to just.