- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgCyclist found partly liable for crash with pedestrian who was looking at her mobile phone as she stepped into road
A woman who was looking at her mobile phone while crossing the street will receive compensation from a cyclist who collided with her after a judge ruled that bike riders “must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”
Pedestrian Gemma Brushett and cyclist Robert Hazeldean were both knocked unconscious following the collision at a junction near Cannon Street railway station in the City of London in July 2015, reports Mail Online.
Ms Brushett, who also sustained a minor head injury and what her lawyer described as “post-traumatic amnesia,” sued Mr Hazeldean, with Judge Shanti Mauger, sitting at Central London County Court, finding them both jointly liable for the crash.
The court heard that Mr Hazeldean, who suffered cuts in the incident, had ridden through a green traffic light and was travelling at a speed of between 10 and 15mph.
Spotting Ms Brushett crossing the road while looking at her phone, he sounded his airhorn and shouted a warning as well as swerving and braking.
When the pedestrian became aware of him approaching, she reportedly “panicked” and tried to step back to a pedestrian island but Mr Hazeldean had already altered his course to try and avoid her and the pair collided.
The judge described Mr Hazeldean as “courteous and mild-mannered” and said that he “gave every impression of being a calm and reasonable road user” but added that he “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.”
There were conflicting witness accounts of the incident. One cyclist, whose testimony was used to support Ms Brushett’s claim, was said to have confronted Mr Hazeldean afterwards and made a voice recording in which he accused him of “aggressive riding” and being “arrogant and reckless.”
The judge rejected that evidence, however, with three pedestrian witnesses who gave statements to the police saying that Ms Brushett was “not looking where she was going” and “the cyclist was not at fault.”
Giving judgment, Judge Mauger said: “The other witnesses feel that the accident was Ms Brushett's fault.
“Mr Hazeldean is clear that she was looking at her phone as she was crossing the road.
“Three other witnesses said she stepped out or that the cyclist could not avoid her.
“I find that she was looking at her phone and I accept the account of Mr Hazeldean that she turned and went back towards the central reservation.”
However, the judge found both parties equally liable for the collision.
She 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.
“Ms Brushett must clearly have equal responsibility if she is crossing the road without looking – and if she is looking at her phone, even more so.
“But cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.
“The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50,” she added, meaning that Ms Brushett will only receive half the amount she claimed.
Costs and damages will be set at a later hearing.
Commenting on the case Roger Geffen, policy director at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “The UK’s civil courts have a reasonable record for upholding cyclists’ damages claims, even though criminal courts have a far worse record of convicting drivers or dismissing their driving as merely ‘careless’.
“Still, from media reports, it seems odd that the judge attributed responsibility on a 50/50 basis given the judge’s own reported comments on the case. However this case highlights why Cycling UK recommends regular cyclists have third party insurance cover to protect them from this sort of situation.
“It’s worth remembering that serious injuries to pedestrians from collisions involving cyclists are rare, and that the cyclist can also be seriously injured when they happen too.”
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
- chrisonabike 2 sec ago
Could it be that an industry * with vast wealth and long cultivated influence, which is now seen as providing something both practically and...
- chrisonabike 18 min 25 sec ago
Presumably a) expense b) for something that (mostly) works against your customers' convenience? And the usual "but emergencies - what about when...
- Aluminium can 17 min 59 sec ago
Is there any real world evidence that slightly reducing the weight of your crank arms actually makes your bike faster? Seems like a hell of lot of...
- David9694 1 hour 24 min ago
Remembrance event driving incident sees woman reported (paywall)...
- quiff 4 hours 44 min ago
I was going to suggest the Fairlight Strael too, and went to check if it came in on budget. While there, I finally ordered the frameset I've been...
- quiff 7 hours 39 min ago
"No darling, I said a cactus bike holder, not a bike cactus holder."...
- Andrewbanshee 9 hours 54 min ago
I have visited Guernsey and my wife goes there a few times a year for work. This act of premeditated violence shocks me. There are quite a lot of...
- hawkinspeter 10 hours 20 min ago
You could well be right. Personally, I think Avonvale Rd is just a disaster for having two way traffic. So many drivers think the traffic calming...
- hawkinspeter 10 hours 27 min ago
Although Muller Rd isn't great to cycle on (the north end, anyhow), it's certainly not the worst. I'm definitely in the "brave and bold cyclist" at...
Add new comment
87 comments
No doubt this bloke will be told, 'Motorcyclists must be prepared', eh?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48685340
"At Central London County Court today, Judge Mauger awarded her £4,161.79 in damages after saying the 8mm scar she suffered to her lip did not wreck her "very attractive" appearance.
The judge also ordered Mr Hazeldean to pay her legal bills, thought to be in the region of £100k, because he was not insured at the time of the crash.
[Lawyers acting on his behalf revealed that because he was uninsured, Ms Brushett has sought almost £100,000 in costs.]
The landscape designer, who has since moved to Côte d’Azur in France to start a new life, said he was "deeply disappointed" by the decision and could be left "bankrupt"."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9343692/cyclist-pay-compensation-yoga-teac...
Where has the Sun got these figures from?
UP to 130 people were seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists last year and four were killed on Britain's roads.
And more than ten pedestrians suffer life threatening injuries every month when they are hit by people on bicycles.
UP to 130 people were seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists last year and four were killed on Britain's roads.
The definition may include cyclists killed as well as pedestrians. There have been a couple of cyclists killed recently including one killed in a collision at traffic lights between a cyclist and a drunk pedestrian and one woman killed hitting another woman on a mixed use cycle/foot path.
I am sure we would be familiar with the cases if cyclists were blamed so I wold assume these were not the cyclist's fault.
I wonder if Mr Briggs has waded into this one?
Meanwhile;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48718618
Driving at 120mph with a 7yo in the car trying to evade police, assaulted police when arrested
Usual No MOT/Tax/Insurance/Driving whilst DQ add-ons
Jailed for two and a half years, banned for a further three years (not that that will stop him of course)
Only a matter of time before he kills someone yet they let him get his license back. Mind boggles.
He should be an advanced driver/rider, so even worse, nowt will come of it.
Ouch
Amazed that he didn't have cover through home insurance or similar. Double-checking mine, not that I encounter peds that often.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-...
dataset ras10012
But is does not determine fault and you have to check the definitions
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injuredby the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally
The data is for 2017
I thought there was a death in a road race when an elderly woman ignored marshalls and crossed any way but I can't remember enough details to find it.
The table also tells you that 406 were killed by "vehicles" and 5145 seriously injured but it is important to punish all cyclists.
As you mentioned, it won't stop him whether he had a license or not. But they should start bringing in permanent bans after a certain amount of crimes or GPS tags that alert when going more then 30mph.
The pedestrian death was in Ride London on New King's Road. However, she died more than 30 days after the collision so might not feature in the statistics as a death, only a serious injury.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212147
Thanks for that.
Road cc reported on the coroner's court
https://road.cc/content/news/238075-pedestrian-who-died-after-ridelondon...
Sounds like he should just go for bankruptcy now and avoid having to pay anything to her.
As he was at work at the time, surely it's his employers who should pay out? I think they aren't short of a few bob.
You missed the next section of that:
"As a result, the government is looking at ways to make the roads safer for pedestrians and are urgently reviewing whether new laws should be brought in to cover dangerous cycling."
So, the Sun thinks that whole road safety review was to do with making pedestrians safer from Evil Cyclists and nothing to do with making cyclists safer from motorists...? Thanks a lot, Mr Briggs
I'm surprised he had the time or ability to use an airhorn. When I have to do an emergency stop both hands are full of brake lever. Then shout if your brain can process it all in time.
Fwiw, I this is really down to the consequences of weak legal representation in an adversarial justice system.
Our system is based on what's presented by adversarial parties as evidence in the proceedings in a bid to win the case. It is not about uncovering the truth, per se. Consequently, relying on something being self-evident or common sense, just because in the "outside world" it is is a serious error. Unless it is convincingly surfaced by a skilled legal team in court, it arguably should not be, or is at least liable, not to be considered in any subsequent judgement.
I don't know who represented the cyclist (I'm guessing it was himself since I can find no mention of anyone else), but they were evidently made mincemeat of by the opposition (unsurprisingly if it was him). For all our sakes, I hope someone from British Cycling, Cycling UK etc., takes on this case and engages a better legal team to get this nonsense reversed. In the meantime, cameras and legal cover insurance now sound like musts to me (if they were not already). As does if being caught in similar unfortunate circumstances, never trying to defend it myself even if it seems like an unnecessary cost at the time.
I'm going to call myself out as a bit of a hypocrit following something that happened on the way to work this morning. 3 school girls, all walking in the road towards me, all staring at their mobile phone screens. I wasn't going fast but more than walking pace, I saw them in plenty of time. I could of just stopped, but there was plenty of room to go round them, so I did so and scared them by calling out (NOT shouting aggressively) "Pay attention!" as I passed.
No harm done, not even a close call collision wise, but potentially any one of them could have been startled, maybe moving into my path, maybe tripping over. Repeat that scenario enough times and eventually the random elements will string together until something bad, unexpected but in retrospect entirely foreseable happens.
Personally I don't ever want to be in the situation where I have a good excuse for blaming the victim in an incident in which I was involved. I should have just stopped.
Clearly I am not au fait with teh law in this regard, but a finding of 50/50 ... doesn' that mean that the judge considers the cyclist and pedestrian equally culpable for the collision?
That being the case, why is one party expected to compensate the other?
AFAIK it wasn't in a criminal case. She had sued the cyclist in a civil case. She was seeking damages. The judge ruled 50/50 which means (I think) that any damages awared are reduced by 50%; I don't know what happens about the costs etc.
Yeah the ped will get 50% of the damages as assessed by the court with the help of a medical report. She is also responsible for 50% of the cyclists damages too. I understand he hasn’t submitted a injury claim, which is a bad over sight on his part and is now out of time. However if she’s written off his pinarello dogma in the incident she could end up owning him money, which would be lolz.
The solicitors will get there full costs in these circumstances. Incidentally I’d be very surprised if the cyclist doesn’t have some liability cover. This was far from a slam dunk case for the peds solicitors and they would have want to know they had a good chance of getting paid if they win the case, and not a £1 a week for the 300 years.
This seems very strange
The only sensible reason I can see for the judge to have come to this conclusion would be if the cyclist saw the pedestrain and yelled/blew his horn - but didn't slow down. THEN tried to swerve and slow down too late. Hence she was 'established on the road' by the time he tried to avoid the collision.
But there is nothing in the article that supports or rejects that idea - in order to know whether the judge is being reasonable or not you would need to have listened to the whole case including all the witnesses and when they first noticed the cyclist - and the timeline of who noticed who and when.
I also wonder why the judge rejected the evidence of the other cyclist who said the cyclist in the collision was reckless - was he behind and saw the whole thing???
I dunno - but a pedestrian wandering across a road looking at her phone seems to to responsible for her own actions to me
I remember "It's frothey, man" but what did the bear have to say on road safety?
So maybe the teachings of Green Cross Man and Cresta Bear are going to unravel? I believe that with the best of intentions these safety campaigns have served to make the car king of the road - step out without looking, expect trouble.
Maybe he should have hit the brakes, slid in sideways and taken her legs out with the chainwheel.
Better yet with a disc brake, we know the damage they can do!
Reading between the lines I’d be very surprised if the cyclist doesn’t have some kind of liability insurance, perhaps the £2 million you get on your home contents policy which nobody seams to know about.
This was far from a slam dunk for the peds solicitor and they will have wanted to know they were going to have a chance of getting there costs back and not at £1 a week for 3000 years. The injured party got a really poor outcome from their perspective. A judge finding 50/50 in an injury case is fairly rare. When I say poor she wouldn’t have got anything in the same circumstance if she been hit by a motorist every solicitor would have laughed her out of there office and she would have been paying for the damage to the car.
Whoops double post
What frightens me is that the Judge clearly stated that he was disregarding the 3 witnesses who backed up the cyclist. The plaintiff must have been very attractive.
And fragrant. And possibly posh. Judges love those sorts. Fortunate she wasn't called Lavinia.
Pages