- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Royal Courts of Justice, London (picture bortescristian, Wikimedia Commons)London cyclist who suffered horrific injuries in taxi crash is being sued by cab firm for damage to car
A London cyclist who sustained horrific injuries in a crash involving a taxi almost three years ago is being sued by the cab firm for £5,000 for damage to the vehicle. A crowdfunding drive launched to help him meet defence costs has so far raised £650.
Sasha Evans, a 28-year-old teaching assistant from London, sustained injuries including a broken cheekbone, teeth and leg and was left with permanent scars to his face after the collision at a junction in south London in January 2015, reports the Evening Standard.
He told the newspaper: “As I was approaching the junction I thought I had enough time to cross. As I committed to go over the first lane, I realised I had miscalculated and the car was going faster than I thought.
“My head smashed into his windscreen and I flipped over the car and landed face first on the ground. Then it all went black.”
Mr Evans, who is also a musician, was treated for six days at King’s College Hospital and had to take four months off work, during which time he underwent rehabilitation.
However, when he sought a loan to make up the income he had missed during his time away from work, he discovered that cab firm The Keen Group had sued him, with the summons delivered to his former address and judgment entered against him with a court telling him to pay £3,500 plus costs.
That judgment has since been set aside but tomorrow Mr Evans will appear at Central London County Court, with the cab firm having launched a fresh claim for £5,000. He is counter-suing the company for £10,000.
“It’s absolutely crazy, £5,000 is so much money for a non-luxury car,” he said.
“I still have huge problems with my leg and can’t really run any more but I’m lucky to be alive. My head wound was so deep.
“I’ve got permanent facial scars and still intense pain when I walk for a long time. It’s been a nightmare. I just worry about the impending court case all the time.”
While police attended the incident, Mr Evans decided not to press criminal charges against the cab driver involved because two witnesses were unwilling to give statements.
So far, £680 has been raised on Crowdfunder to help Mr Evans meet defence costs including a medical report on the extent of his injuries.
The page on Crowdfunder.co.uk says: “As if getting hit by a taxi wasn't bad enough, the situation has escalated through no fault of his own when the taxi firm tried to claim £5,000 in damages to the car, and he is now caught up in a complicated legal battle with the company.
“This is proving to contain many hidden costs - from solicitors fees to medical reports – all of which add to the stressful ordeal of an impending court case.
“Please chip in if you are able to at all, to help alleviate some of the financial strain that this situation is putting on Sasha.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 5 min ago
I think it depends on the Lidl. There's two near me, one is just half a mile away and has been open over 20 years. The bike parking is not great,...
- hawkinspeter 27 min 44 sec ago
How about just putting the 20mph limits in wherever there's been a traffic collision? That could change the nature of motorways though.
- OnYerBike 1 hour 3 min ago
Obviously we only have the snippets of information from the newspaper report, but Mr Brayley might be correct....
- MattKelland 1 hour 27 min ago
Thanks! For some reason it's not showing up here: https://road.cc/show/tags/nmotd/145572
- brooksby 1 hour 27 min ago
But it's OK because our taxes are being used to subsidise those poor hard-done-by motorists by freezing fuel duty
- Surreyrider 1 hour 22 min ago
Yeah, I saw the Standard headline and thought 1 how many drivers have jumped red lights and been fined (after all they're the ones risking the most...
- PeteZahad 1 hour 45 min ago
I have the same issue and recently switched to hot waxing the chain and keeping the drive train free from conventional grease. On dry days a simple...
- bianchi51 2 hours 11 min ago
The Redshift bar has its potential uses; I've had a Giant Defy for a few years and I'm not as flexible now as when I bought it. I would really like...
- Benthic 2 hours 49 min ago
Highway Code rule 237 If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop.
- Secret_squirrel 3 hours 34 min ago
Im betting these come out of the same factory as the SG and the Grip grab gloves. Identical apart from the Silicon overlay....
Add new comment
41 comments
This is the very reason I have membership with British Cycling, who provide indemnity cover. I have never needed it, but I have a friend who has and he spoke very highly of it. I have however needed the legal cover provided by BC to claim from a driver liable in a crash with me which caused injury and wrote off my bike. The service provided was second to none.
That said, I cannot make out all the facts from this case given the information provided, but from what is written it looks like the cyclist made an error when she should have given way. It is also possible the taxi was speeding.
Unfortunately human beings make mistakes, and I am no different. Sooner or later I may end up in this position and I want to be fully covered should something occur. Even if not my fault, it is highly likely in this day and age that the third party might fight it all the way.
The point here is that because no one asked to pursue this at the time, there will be minimal police evidence to present in court.
Therefore the counter claim is the best way to get the other party to drop their action.
If the other party is an insurance company, which it could be, they don't give a f***.
Hang on, in the Charlie Alliston case the deceased moved into the path of Alliston who not only braked/slowed substantially but veered away from her and still he was found guilty of a crime when the deceased had no priority/misjudged their action.
Again, why is this different?
Massive mistake not pressing for criminal prosecution because could have shown taxi driver had ample chance to stop and/or was speeding.
ATEOTD he made an error and looks like it's going to cost him big time, that's how shitty things are. Small error on your part and you can be fubar'd, the system doesn't look kindly on small errors if you're vulnerable road user but massively even less if you're on a bike where the expectations are higher than everyone else.
The Charlie Allison case, is fundumently different, in that he was.
* riding a bike with out working brakes
* failed to slow significatly, infact seemed not to try to stop. its worth noting he had the distance to stop in the distance, or at least slow significatly with working brakes.
* not only showed no remorse but not only shouted at the victem both before the crash and after, and posted about in on forums and so on.
* seems to have a rather aggresive riding style.
vs the taxi driver who may or may not be speeding, who was driving a taxi with we assume working brakes.
we also have to trust the cyclists pereption that he was speeding, which isn't really going to stand up in court, and persumably would also bring into at 3am where you sober since he was cycling to a friend in the wee hours.
I feel very sorry for him, but can't see any way it doesn't end up being his fault.
Alliston had what is recognised as a working brake
He DID slow significantly from circa 18mph to circa 10mph, admitted by the prosecution.
given the circumstances one is not want to stop completely otherwise you would stop for almost everything that came into view/vicinity for potential of collison and as seen everywhere rarely does anyone come to a complete stop for similar scenarios.
it's worth noting that he DID NOT have the distance to stop AFTER the second movement into his path by the deceased, thinking the police stunt is valid shows you how you and others are gullible to such stunts. it took ZERO into account thinking time not to mention mechanical action time.
Remorse is BS if you don't think you were in the wrong
Posting on a forum means nothing, he simply stated she was to blame which i think she was
his shouting at her is no different to a motorist using the horn to warn others of your presence, this is advised in the HC, what he shouted is irrelevant.
HTH
he had one brake, which is very inefficient at that, and thus illegal. Which is the point here.
18 to 11 mph isn’t much at all, and the distance was sufficient to stop in, since he had noticed, and had decided to shout at her. So thinking distance isn’t a factor. And realistically with working brakes he should of been able to stop.
He was in the wrong, he was riding a bike that he knew couldn’t stop well, at speed in busy streets. To have not grasped this is why he had a harsher sentence.
if you are doing a emergency stop bike or car, most will not use the horn/shout etc, as your busy not crashing, using the horn takes your hand off the wheel etc, shouting less so but really you should be thinking about how to stop/not crash. In terms of that case it’s suggestive that he though he could keep going.
fundmently the two cases are really worlds apart.
I think you are wasting your time here.
I don't think they are worlds apart. Different enough to have different outcomes, but not 'worlds apart'.
In practice the biggest difference (apart from the fact it resulted in serious injury not death) is that in this case there are no witnesses (and hence no clear story of exactly what happened), and speeding, if it occured, doesn't leave physical evidence the way an absence of legal brakes does.
Otherwise there are similarities - a vulnerable road user unexpectedly enters the road in front of a vehicle, that fails to stop in time. Plus the suggestion that a failure to obey the rules of the road may have contributed to that failure to stop.
The social media comments and Alliston's unappealing personality aren't central issues.
(Also, I don't quite get how you conclude that Alliston shouting means thinking time isn't required. I don't get the logic there - nobody can react without thinking, shouting doesn't obviate the need to think before reacting)
The whole problem with that Alliston case is how similar it was to any number of incidents with motorists hitting pedestrians or cyclists, which get treated differently.
This one probably isn't the best comparator because of that absence of witnesses and information. We don't know how similar it was and probably never will.
The Daniel Squire case seems closer (the texting driver's defence was that he came off the verge into the road in front of him). In fact just the contrast between the Squire and Alliston cases and how they were investigated makes me quite irate.
In Sasha Evans's crowdfunding page he claims the taxi was speeding. "Sasha was hit by a speeding minicab whilst cycling in January 2015."
Would that then rest the liability with the taxi driver?
Given that on those sorts of 20mph roads speeding is almost universal, especially when there isn't much other traffic about, that would be a safe bet I reckon (I'm sure I've cycled along that road myself in the past).
And higher speed = worse injuries (and, I suppose, more damage to the taxi). So even if the cyclist made an error, the taxi driver would have a share of the blame.
But how on earth could anyone prove it?
I wouldn't dare to make any assumptions about how this case might turn out. I suppose it will come down to who is considered to sound the most credible. And the prejudices of those deciding (is it a jury or a magistrate or a judge?).
What this highlights to me is that no matter how small or big the incident, if damage to either you or the other person / vehicle has taken place, you have to assume a fight is coming your way. Therefore, treat it as such from the start.
What people do and say at the time is not what they will do and say once they have had time to cool down adn think of the consequences / opportunities.
I remember being wiped out by a dude overtaking a car coming towards me. He saw me at the last minute, paniced, lost control of the car and came at me sliding down the hedge. Somehow at the last second I jumped from the bike onto the hedge and listened to my bike biting the dust under the car.
The chap was hugely apologetic at the time, even gave me a lift home, promised to cover the damages. Anyway, I trusted him... 24 hours later his viewpoint had changed and he wasn't covering anything.
People are assholes.
That said, from what has been covered, this sounds like an error of judgement on behalf of the cyclist.
However as there is no evidence, I'd be saying that the taxi was travelling far faster than appropriate and sped up as he began to cross... balls to it.
> It is possible that the taxi was speeding.
This is the explanation given on the crowdfunding page. (Just for info)
No evidence here to suggest the cyclist was in the right. Awful what happened to him, but if we expect car drivers to be fair to cyclists then we need to be impartial where there are possible cycling transgressions.
At least taxis will be first to go once self driving cars get going. Good riddance.
Just as long as you're happy to make up the short fall in lost taxes or more cuts in spending.
It is possible that the taxi was speeding. This is one possible cause of the self-confessed misjudgement. Even if they were not exceeding the soeed limit, the extent of the injuries suggests to me that the taxi driver was travelling inapporpriately fast for the conditions if they could not stop in time for an easily forseeable hazard.
The taxi firm (or perhaps their insurers) certainly seem pretty heartless.
...but the problem is that the cyclist's misjudgement may be related to the taxi speeding...or it may not. People make mistakes. In this case, it APPEARS that the cyclist got it wrong and that the taxi was going 'a bit fast'. In order for the cyclist to prove that his miscalculation was based on the taxi going at a greatly excessive speed there would have to be some kind of quality statement, as in a car that that was following at 30mph who could state that the taxi was pulling away from that speed. Having a couple of peds at the side of the road saying "He was a bit fast" doesn't really cut it in law.
If the facts are as they SEEM to be, I have sympathy for the cyclist but I don't think it is unfair for the taxi firm to sue (or at least their insurers sue), being "heartless" has no bearing on it. When I was injured by a car driver who was wholly at fault, the fact that she appeared to be genuinely upset by it did not deter me from pursuing (and winning) a claim for damages to the bike and injuries to me, irrespective of the damage I caused to her car when I bounced off it.
This article is a reminder that we should all have 3rd party liability insurance or face lawsuits if we are the cause of incidents.
18 mph was considered as reckless for Charlie Alliston, and he was on a bike. Not sure how this case really differs from that one.
Different case. Different part of London. Different police officers. Different parties involved.
Looks like a 20 zone on Google maps. So he'd have to find someone who was willing to say that they were travelling at 30 mph behind the taxi.
Not likely to happen at 3am in the morning unfortunately.
The police pay no attention to speeding in situations like this. My car was written off when a white van driver changed his mind about overtaking my car and instead pushed it across four lanes of traffic plus the central reservation. Plenty of witnesses but they were dismissed by the police as the priority was simply to reopen the road.
From the article it suggests that he's actually wrong. Also, the counter-suing doesn't seem well conceived more retribution. Curious.
Linked article says " cycling to a friend’s house in Nunhead when he tried to cross Hollydale Road at the junction with Evelina Road."
Looking at that junction on Streetview one thing strikes me about it, given who was said to be on which road.
But one can't be certain that what it says in that article is accurate. The way he describes it in this article sounds more consistent with it being the other way round. So I'm confused.
Her in France Cyclists are considered as pedestrians. It is automatically the motorist’s fault and his insurance has to pay up for corporal damage. The cars damage are always taken by the car’s insurance also. Who ever is at fault...
Sorry but who is at fault here, article doesn't make it clear what happened, if he's at fault then? If the cab driver is it fault then that's different but can't make a descision from what is written here.
£10 from me...
"two witnesses were unwilling to give statements"
This seems more than a little fishy.
Only if you are cynical. The witnesses could have simply been intoxicated so their statements would have carried no weight.
The mistake the cyclist made was not pursuing criminal charges. The CPS would be unlikely to prosecute with no witnesses but it would still be on file. The taxi firm would be more unlikely to pursue him as at any point their driver could have faced criminal charges.
Pages