- 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
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)London cyclist found jointly liable for crash with pedestrian gets £60K-plus bill
A cyclist who made national news last summer after he was sued and found partially liable for crashing into a distracted pedestrian has revealed the outcome of the case was "not the result I was hoping for". A crowdfunder set up to cover Robert Hazeldean's legal fees with the aim of any surplus going to charity was all swallowed up, as he settled for £30,000 costs and £4,300 damages.
So, 8 months since the last hearing, I'm finally able to update on the outcome of my case. It's not the result I was hoping for, but I do at least feel free of it now.
1/11
— Robert Hazeldean (@RobHazeldean) February 24, 2020
The crash occurred at a junction near Cannon Street Station in London back in 2015, with Hazeldean and pedestrian Gemma Brushett both knocked unconscious. Though Mr Hazeldean was described as a "calm and reasonable road user" and Ms Brushett was using her phone when she was crossing the road, Hazeldean was found jointly liable and was initially ordered to pay compensation and costs of £100,000 after Brushett sued. Crucially, Hazeldean did not have insurance and was facing bankruptcy, so a crowdfunder was launched to cover legal fees.
Mr Hazeldean announced on a Twitter thread this morning: "It's not the result I was hoping for, but I do at least feel free of it now." The crowdfunder raised £59,643, and after everything was paid on both sides this swallowed up all of that money plus an extra £2,979 Hazeldean had to cover himself. Hazeldean's costs came to £25,122, Brushett's costs were settled for £30,000, the GoFundMe crowdfunder fees came to £2,766, and the damages were £4,300 with £434 interest.
He expressed regret that nothing was left over for Action Aid, the charity any extra money would have gone to if he didn't have to cover such a large bill. He continued: "I feel horrible that there was no money left over for Action Aid UK.
"This was one of the few positive things that could've come out of this. It was made very clear to their lawyers that this was charity money they were taking, but they wouldn't budge."
Initially Brushett's lawyers wanted £112,000 costs, but settled at £30,000. Hazeldean said there was still a rescheduled hearing to come, but facing the threat of bankruptcy, decided to settle because he has "no faith in the court system and the risks were simply too high."
He also claimed some lawyers are exploiting the civil court system which "desperately needs reforming."
I can't say enough of a thank you to everyone who supported me: my girlfriend, family and friends, my lawyers, @Brittlovebike for the GoFundMe and the more than 4k amazing people who donated and sent messages of support to a stranger. You're all incredible.
7/11
— Robert Hazeldean (@RobHazeldean) February 24, 2020
Hazeldean ended his thread by urging cyclists to get insurance and to think carefully about suing due to the lengthy and stressful process: "I don't want to go over the ins and outs of the case, but there are some points I want to make: Firstly, if you cycle, get insurance from British Cycling. If you get sued, get a lawyer (such as) Levi Solicitors.
"Finally, if you're in an accident, think very hard before you sue someone. The process is long and unpleasant and there is another person on the other end, someone you likely know nothing about."
Jack has been writing about cycling and multisport for over a decade, arriving at road.cc via 220 Triathlon Magazine in 2017. He worked across all areas of the website including tech, news and video, and also contributed to eBikeTips before being named Editor of road.cc in 2021 (much to his surprise). Jack has been hooked on cycling since his student days, and currently has a Trek 1.2 for winter riding, a beloved Bickerton folding bike for getting around town and an extra beloved custom Ridley Helium SLX for fantasising about going fast in his stable. Jack has never won a bike race, but does have a master's degree in print journalism and two Guinness World Records for pogo sticking (it's a long story).
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 12 min 43 sec ago
True, fwiw they're half decent round my neck of the woods, but I appreciate having travelled around the UK via train, it ain't always so good...
- PRSboy 14 min 18 sec ago
"Mitigating on behalf of the defendant, and addressing her failure to stop, Foster’s barrister said: “This is a young woman who was in shock by the...
- Legin 1 hour 20 sec ago
The tory party will oppose anything that might restrict their tanks rolling at the next election.
- EraserBike 1 hour 5 min ago
I'm sure this (and other 3D printed models) are made where labour costs are cheap also. Nobody is making these in Europe. There's only so much ...
- mdavidford 1 hour 31 min ago
Especially since the similarly priced Tickr X did have that functionality.
- anke2 2 hours 11 min ago
CX is brutal in terms of forces acting on the chain. A single, technical kick at 40 RPM by Iserbyt with a small chainwheel might put more load on...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 35 min ago
Perhaps some of the difficulty here is in the language - what we're comparing with what?...
- Andrewbanshee 2 hours 48 min ago
I experience this quite often when out running. I follow the guidelines, running towards traffic and keep hard right. I am very visible too but...
- mctrials23 3 hours 2 min ago
Not enough to warrant having the role exist at all would be my guess.
Add new comment
17 comments
What a pointless action by Ms Brushett (minimal compensation); obviously legal driven, who are the only winners here, but she was gullible enough to 'believe the b#llsh#t'. On the plus side, Cycling UK and British Cycling must have done well with increased membership; certainly prompted me to sign up!
I'm glad that Mr Hazeldean can see some sort of closure on this now. As others have said, the amount of compensation versus the costs say everything about the British justice system. I will, however, breath a sigh of relief now that this will of course show how car drivers will be treated in the future too.........
I would like to take the oppertunity to point out that CyclingUK also offer 3rd party insurance and legal cover as part of their yearly subs.
Thanks for reminding us - a good point and a good reason for joining. British Cycling also offer 3rd party insurance.
(Edit - didn't spot the mention of British Cycling in the article
)
Free Motor Legal told me via email that I would be covered for legal expenses when on a bike by them. For free as the name says.
Luckily had no reason to test them.
https://www.freemotorlegal.co.uk/
London Cycling Campaign also offer free third party insurance for members.
Yep, also have 3rd party liability insurance through CyclingUK membership.
£4300 compensation dwarfed by c£55k in legal costs - if that isn't a sad, disgusting illustration of the justice system, I don't know what is (regardless of where the compo is going)
The legal costs would have been limited to around £7000 if only he'd got some legal representation instead of thinking that he could represent himself.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cyclist-faces-bankruptcy-over-100k-costs-bill-for-injured-pedestrian/5070701.article
Sorry hawkinspeter, I seem to be hounding you on Hazeldean stories! There is some doubt if the fixed costs would actually have applied to this case as it appears to be limited to accidents involving motor vehicles - see discussion on an earlier thread at https://road.cc/content/blog/264304-cycling-and-law-why-cyclist-being-su...
EDIT - but getting legal representation is good advice
Yeah, I just got that figure from the article I referenced in my earlier post which mentions having insurance - that'll need some kind of lawyer to determine whether the fixed costs portal would have applied.
No worries about the "hounding" - it's good to figure out some of the facts behind the somewhat misleading headlines.
So basically, the law was changed to limit legal costs for motorists, as a measure against 'win no fee' companies. Only they completely forgot other road users (cyclists, pedestrians etc) so it doesn't apply to them.
Good job we have 800 lords overseeing our ill thought out legislation.
As I understand it, the capping is related to insurance companies so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to a cyclist with insurance.
However, the best solution would be to have presumed liability so that pedestrians and cyclists don't have to spend years going through the courts for the majority of cases. Presumed liability would likely have counted against Mr Hazeldean in this instance as he was the larger/faster vehicle. On the plus side, he could have avoided a lot of legal bills.
The fact that someone chose to represent himself should not have opened this loophole and the cap should still have applied to the opposing parties representation.
Badly worded legislation again.
That would be the ideal, but realistically we expect people to have basic knowledge of the field that they're attempting to work in. It'd be nice if a novice builder could put up a house, but in the real world, it'd end up a disaster. You could argue that the house building regulations are poorly worded or you could just employ a house builder that knows what they are doing.
You point about the Lords being relevant how? We also have 650 MP's designing and reviewing legislation often guided by knee jerk press articles or their own political stupidities such as Brexit. Both houses screwed up equally in this instance and therefore your comment has absolutely zero relevance to this.
It's relevant because the legislation was put through by the house of commons and then ratified by the house of lords. ergo the house of lords didn't do the one thing they are required to do - probably they were all asleep during the readings. Both houses are equally useless.
You're a bit sensitive on this - are you a lord?