Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
...post traumatic amnesia...
I rolled my eyes so hard I nearly had a stroke.
...post traumatic amnesia...
That's the bit that seems off yea, hopefully it's applied on a case by case as a carte blanche to just step out in the road oblivious to everything else while looking at your phone seems rather silly.
Scale this up to a car and your doing 30, you have no chance to avoid hitting a pedestrian if they step out in front of you, but in the same situation as above with a throng of people crossing the road, you obviously would stop to let them pass and not try to squeeze down one side of them.
Not seeing a problem here but it's annoying that the judge didn't fine them both; him for being an obnoxious cyclist and her for being a yoga disciple.Summing up the case and detailing why Ms Brushett should get a payout, 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. ‘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.’
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/18/cycl...pped-front-looking-phone-9996411/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
That's the bit that seems off yea, hopefully it's applied on a case by case as a carte blanche to just step out in the road oblivious to everything else while looking at your phone seems rather silly.
Scale this up to a car and your doing 30, you have no chance to avoid hitting a pedestrian if they step out in front of you, but in the same situation as above with a throng of people crossing the road, you obviously would stop to let them pass and not try to squeeze down one side of them.
Wasn't there somebody on here who had an idiot who was cycling along the pavement smash into their car as they were waiting to pull out of a junction. Pretty sure that given as 50/50 too, despite the bloke on the bike being completely at fault. It's almost as if there has been a ruling whereby Judges/Magistrates have been told to ignore common sense.
Only skim read a few lines of one of the articles you linked but it states the pedestrian was in the road looking at her phone and the collision happened when she saw him coming and tried to step back and he turned the same way and hit her.
If you see a pedestrian in the road staring at their phone not giving a flying. Just slow down and let them fully cross the road as if they were at a zebra crossing. Its better than the alternative.
The concept of riding a little slower and/or giving way to other road users is completely alien to most cyclists.
Anyhow, back to the main topic. What the UK needs are laws similar to jay-walking laws from several other countries.
Jay-walking is defined as "crossing or walking in the street or road unlawfully or without regard for approaching traffic." Now the unlawfully bit could be attributed to ped crossings where the "red man" is displayed.
Still going, just don’t do much in the way of advertising and instead focus on workplace H&S campaigns and advanced driving/riding qualifications.Whatever happened to the Royal Society for Prevention of Accide
Chances are you'd only be walking on the road unlawfully if you were doing something unsafe, like the woman in this story. Disobeying traffic lights for example. You don't get angry about having to abide by traffic lights as a road user, so that should be equally acceptable as a pedestrian.No, stop making this country an authoritarian *******. I will walk on an empty road if i want to.
Speaking as a cyclist it makes perfect sense, I mean if it had been a child that stepped out and he killed them would it have been okay to just say the child should have been paying attention and move on?Pedestrian walks into road absorbed in looking at phone, whilst traffic lights were green for traffic.
Gets hit by cyclist; sues cyclist for damages; wins.
Judge declares 50/50 liability and that "cyclists should expect the unexpected". Like, seriously, what the actual? Orders cyclist to pay her compensation.
There are circumstances already mentioned in the thread where, yes, a child walking into the road (eg from behind a bus) and getting themselves run over/killed would be 100% nobody else's fault.Speaking as a cyclist it makes perfect sense, I mean if it had been a child that stepped out and he killed them would it have been okay to just say the child should have been paying attention and move on?
All road users should excise a certain level of competence/awareness, regardless of if they are driving a truck, a car, riding a motorbike, a bicycle or on rollerblades. If he hit her then he either wasn't paying attention or was going too fast for the area, either way it's his own incompetence/unawareness at fault. Yes she should have looked before entering the road but once in the road a pedestrian has right of way and road users are expected to know this and act accordingly.
Sadly too many cyclists these days lack proper care and attention and just think "the speed limit is X so I can do anything up to X!" despite the fact our braking distance is longer than a vehicle doing the same speed.
There are circumstances already mentioned in the thread where, yes, a child walking into the road (eg from behind a bus) and getting themselves run over/killed would be 100% nobody else's fault.
As a driver or a cyclist (I have been both), you cannot - despite some people assertions - guarantee that you will never collide with a pedestrian, unless you drive everywhere at 1mph. And hire an escort to clear the roads in front of you.
As a driver/cyclist you cannot reasonably be expected to make such accidents impossible, by virtue of your awareness and driving skill. It just isn't humanly possible.
People who claim they are such good drivers they can avoid accidents are frankly deluding themselves.
e: To clarify: regardless of how good a driver you are, there could arise a situation where there was nothing you could have done to prevent an accident. Short of giving up driving or driving everywhere at 1mph. The skill of th edriver can never reduce the chance of an accident to 0%. Never, ever, ever.
No, stop making this country an authoritarian *******. I will walk on an empty road if i want to.
Chances are you'd only be walking on the road unlawfully if you were doing something unsafe, like the woman in this story. Disobeying traffic lights for example. You don't get angry about having to abide by traffic lights as a road user, so that should be equally acceptable as a pedestrian.
I doubt any law is going to seek to stop you walking on the roads. Heck, down here that would be impossible, since we haven't invented pavements in most places yet.
It's like when there are parked cars on a roadside, you're expected to drive slower than the speed limit in case anyone runs out.
I think you either misread or misunderstood, nobody is saying we should cycle everywhere at 1mph, just that we should cycle with proper care and attention in order to reduce the chance of hitting pedestrians/etc. If the gentleman in question had done so there wouldn't have been an accident, this is basic cycling proficiency level stuff.There are circumstances already mentioned in the thread where, yes, a child walking into the road (eg from behind a bus) and getting themselves run over/killed would be 100% nobody else's fault.
As a driver or a cyclist (I have been both), you cannot - despite some people assertions - guarantee that you will never collide with a pedestrian, unless you drive everywhere at 1mph. And hire an escort to clear the roads in front of you.
As a driver/cyclist you cannot reasonably be expected to make such accidents impossible, by virtue of your awareness and driving skill. It just isn't humanly possible.
People who claim they are such good drivers they can avoid accidents are frankly deluding themselves.
e: To clarify: regardless of how good a driver you are, there could arise a situation where there was nothing you could have done to prevent an accident. Short of giving up driving or driving everywhere at 1mph. The skill of th edriver can never reduce the chance of an accident to 0%. Never, ever, ever.
Indeed.True but in this instance he saw her in the road and rather than slow down and allow her to fully cross he took a more risky approach and it back-fired. Just because she did something stupid doesn't mean it couldn't have been avoided.