Phone zombies vs road users

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
(No, not another cute Pop Cap game)

There are many things in this world I don't understand, and here is another (e: added more links so both lefties and righties can read the story ;)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...epped-road-looking-mobile-phone-wins-damages/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-down-while-on-phone-wins-payout-from-cyclist

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/18/cycl...on-woman-stepped-front-looking-phone-9996411/

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.

Basically phone zombies can cross the road without looking and the law will allow them to sue anyone who fails to avoid a collision with them.

This seems decidedly silly.

Anyway besides this crazy ruling, I know from my own personal experience that more and more pedestrians are crossing the road (or otherwise behaving in an unsafe manner) whilst glued to their phones.

Not only are these people indefensible idiots, but extremely anti-social too.

Just the other day I had to stop my car as a runner - with attached dog - was running in the the road utterly unaware of my existence. She never looked up once from her phone. Never attempted to control the dog who was running slap-bang in the middle of the road, towards me.

And yes, of course I stopped, but mainly because I'm an animal lover ;) Who knows what was on her phone - maybe her pal had eaten a really spiffy lunch - but it was clearly more important than either her safety or the safety of her pooch.

Does anyone else look at phone zombies and basically think, "This is how our civilisation ends. Slaves to social media and unable to function for the slightest moment without staring at our phones."

Sure I post a lot of inane, useless **** here - but from my PC, in the living room. Out and about, however, I like to actually look at the scenery/my surroundings; look both ways before I cross the road; avoid walking into people and objects as best as my aging senses allow. Phone zombies are a modern plague of biblical proportions.

And it's getting worse all the time. As in, more accepted. Expected. That people absolutely can't wait even a single minute to check their social media is slightly tragic. Even when their own safety is at stake.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,590
Location
ST4
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.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,149
Location
Cambridge
Agree with the OP 110%. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent; it absolves pedestrians of any kind of responsibility or duty of care for their own safety when crossing the road.

I too have already witnessed people running in the road, or even crossing right in front of me (both in my car and on my bicycle) and their attitude is the whole 'if you hit me, it's your fault and I can sue' post-no win, no fee type of attitude. This ruling, however, could lead to people deliberately stepping out in front of bikes in particular, knowing that if the bike hits them they can get 'compo'

Phone zombies are definitely a blight on modern public life, and another reason why I hate city centre shopping rather than online...
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2006
Posts
4,551
Location
Edinburgh
From third link:

Another cyclist said that Hazeldean was to blame after cycling in an aggressive way and labelled him ‘arrogant and reckless’.

Clearly more to the story that just 'Basically phone zombies can cross the road without looking and the law will allow them to sue anyone who fails to avoid a collision with them.'

What is unclear is that the 50/50 decision means she's apparently guaranteed some form of payout (likely half her initial claim), but presumably it also opens her up to a counter claim?
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
9,621
Location
Buckingham Palace
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2004
Posts
5,902
Location
Essex
(No, not another cute Pop Cap game)

There are many things in this world I don't understand, and here is another (e: added more links so both lefties and righties can read the story ;)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...epped-road-looking-mobile-phone-wins-damages/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-down-while-on-phone-wins-payout-from-cyclist

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/18/cycl...on-woman-stepped-front-looking-phone-9996411/

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.

Basically phone zombies can cross the road without looking and the law will allow them to sue anyone who fails to avoid a collision with them.

This seems decidedly silly.

Anyway besides this crazy ruling, I know from my own personal experience that more and more pedestrians are crossing the road (or otherwise behaving in an unsafe manner) whilst glued to their phones.

Not only are these people indefensible idiots, but extremely anti-social too.

Just the other day I had to stop my car as a runner - with attached dog - was running in the the road utterly unaware of my existence. She never looked up once from her phone. Never attempted to control the dog who was running slap-bang in the middle of the road, towards me.

And yes, of course I stopped, but mainly because I'm an animal lover ;) Who knows what was on her phone - maybe her pal had eaten a really spiffy lunch - but it was clearly more important than either her safety or the safety of her pooch.

Does anyone else look at phone zombies and basically think, "This is how our civilisation ends. Slaves to social media and unable to function for the slightest moment without staring at our phones."

Sure I post a lot of inane, useless **** here - but from my PC, in the living room. Out and about, however, I like to actually look at the scenery/my surroundings; look both ways before I cross the road; avoid walking into people and objects as best as my aging senses allow. Phone zombies are a modern plague of biblical proportions.

And it's getting worse all the time. As in, more accepted. Expected. That people absolutely can't wait even a single minute to check their social media is slightly tragic. Even when their own safety is at stake.

Pedestrians have ultimate right of way. The cyclist / driver is operating a vehicle, of course they should do everything they can to avoid hitting a pedestrian!!

Pretty basic concept surely.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Sep 2006
Posts
4,121
Location
Gloucestershire
As much as I love Hong Kong, I got really fed up last time I was there with all the bloody zombies walking on busy pavements glued to their phone. I was so close to just whacking the thing out of their hands as they often just avoid walking into me.

Just the sad way the world is now unfortunately.

As a cyclist, the chap who lost the case hitting a stupid woman on her phone is absolutely comical.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
9,852
Location
South Wales
Luckily there is a picture of the girl in a bikini so I can fully form my judgement of the incident. :rolleyes:

Pedestrian is in the wrong but she didn't just step out, she along with other pedestrians were already on the road crossing when the biker came along. Instead of stopping the biker tried to go around them and ended up clobbering the woman. As the article clearly states if there are pedestrians in the road, you have to stop for them regardless if they have right of way or not.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,738
Location
Lincs
I'm having a hard time seeing how it was the cyclists fault.

It says she was with a group of other pedestrians....so was she in the road already but dawdling across, or did she step right out in front of him? I know the collision happened because she jumped back out of the way as he swerved the same way to avoid her.

It describes the cyclist as

Mr Hazeldean, a graphic designer, was also knocked out by the impact on his commute home. Three other pedestrian witnesses backed him, telling police that Ms Brushett was "not looking where she was going" and that "the cyclist was not at fault".

Judge Shanti Mauger, sitting at Central London County Court, said the cyclist was "a calm and reasonable road user" who was "courteous and mild-mannered".

But she went on to find that Ms Brushett deserved a payout, saying Mr Hazeldean "owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill."

As to that last bit, how is

Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his Specialized roadbike, as well as shouting, swerving and braking in a bid to avoid the pedestrian.

NOT riding with reasonable care and skill.

EDIT :

Pedestrian is in the wrong but she didn't just step out, she along with other pedestrians were already on the road crossing when the biker came along. Instead of stopping the biker tried to go around them and ended up clobbering the woman. As the article clearly states if there are pedestrians in the road, you have to stop for them regardless if they have right of way or not.

Right yeah, that's the bit I couldn't picture. I guess if there was a throng in the road technically he should have stopped....but if there was a gap to the left and she had carried on walking right he would have missed her.

Guess that's why it was 50/50
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Right yeah, that's the bit I couldn't picture. I guess if there was a throng in the road technically he should have stopped....but if there was a gap to the left and she had carried on walking right he would have missed her.

Guess that's why it was 50/50
All of the articles say she stepped out. Also that she tried to "step backwards onto the pedestrian island". If she was in the middle of the road a backstep wouldn't take her onto the pavement/island.

Also the judge ruled that cyclists should be always able to avoid a collision if a pedestrian acts contrary to common sense/the law/the best interests of their own safety.

In other words, peds can step out into the road with no warning and it's the road-user's problem to avoid them.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,738
Location
Lincs
Also the judge ruled that cyclists should be always able to avoid a collision if a pedestrian acts contrary to common sense/the law/the best interests of their own safety.

In other words, peds can step out into the road with no warning and it's the road-user's problem to avoid them.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom