To think this was quite unfair

I’m a wheelchair user and I’ve lost count of the number of times people have walked into me or tripped over the wheels because they are focused on their phones instead of where they are going.

It’s even happening in supermarkets now - I’ve had people browsing the shelves whilst talking on their phones and they’ve either stepped backwards into my path, or rammed my chair with a trolley. Then they act as though I’m at fault even though I’m actually watching where I’m going !! Same on the roads - it makes me so mad when pedestrians run out onto zebra crossings right in front of cars whilst looking at their phones. They think a crossing is some kind of magic carpet so they don’t have to think about vehicle stopping times before they step out.

It’s rude, anti social and as in this instance, sometimes downright dangerous. I agree with others on here- it’s about time we introduced USA style jaywalking laws and if people fall foul of them, not only should there be a hefty fine, they should automatically lose the right to take legal action. I’m not a fan of the nanny state but if people are not prepared to take responsibility for their own actions and culpability, then the law should protect innocent parties.

From what I understand about the situation they were both at fault. Even if she had not existed, he was still technically in the wrong as there were pedestrians still crossing, and in the road. He was presumably planning to pass behind them assuming they'd keep going in a straight line to the pavement they were heading for. In fact he should not have done that at all, he should have stopped until all pedestrians were off the road. Had he done so, the phone woman would not have been at risk, as she started crossing while there were still other people crossing.

Maybe the cyclist could use crowd-funding to pay for an appeal, I reckon there would be plenty of supporters, maybe this is happening at this moment.

I heard a similar comment regarding people being disrespectful on these speed awareness courses! Appalling behaviour in my opinion!

Maybe they should start filming those attending and anyone who displays such dreadful behaviour has their course attendance cancelled and is re-issued with the summons for speeding/phone use, gets a hefty fine and points on their licenses. Perhaps they will think twice about laughing at authority!

I read this too. From accounts there were witnesses to say the woman was looking at her phone and stepped onto the road oblivious. I too, am totally bewildered by the prosecution of the cyclist. SO, anybody can throw themselves in front of a cyclist and claim damages eh? If ever there was justification for a petition to the high courts...this is it!

No - insurance isn’t automatically invalidated by behaviour. It all depends. Blame can be apportioned. Foe example if you are the innocent victim of a road accident but your injuries were exacerbated by the fact you were not wearing your seat belt, the money paid to you would be reduced ‘contributory negligence’ but not not paid. Her award was reduced by 50% because of the phone

A lot of money

An appeal costs money

suziewoozie if you went out, left all your house doors open and a notice saying 'back at 5.30pm' you would get short shrift from your insurance company if you were burgled. Insurance claims depend upon you abiding by the terms of the policy. This claim was made by someone who behaved irresponsibly and any insurance should therefore have been invalid, but some solicitor saw a chance to make some cash. Accidents can and do happen and some personal responsibility should be accepted.

Willa - the judge split the blame 50/50.

Cyclists usually have a car as well as a bike, and so, already pay road tax. And a bike causes much less wear and tear on the road surface than cars.

We should be encouraging cycling.

I read this yesterday and I too was shocked. Totally unfair. He was on the road. She stepped out on the road in front of him. He couldn't avoid her.

Surely there will be an appeal.

As well as cyclists, horse riders and people on mobility scooters should have to have compulsory insurance too.

TerriBull, they say "Justice is Blind" and in this case it's true.

If only there were laws against utter stupidity and lack of common sense! Unfortunately, the judge couldn't exact liability from the woman , so 100% of it went to the cyclist, instead. I'm left wondering why the judge couldn't have applied more leniency towards him.

Nonetheless from your post, the woman was clearly the culprit and she was the one who caused the incident, but she didn't break any laws, hence the judge was powerless to go after her.

Beggars belief!

Sorry for long post - clearly feeling pedantic today

Trisher I don’t agree that it’s an example of how wrong the claim culture is. It’s an example of the way the legal system does not work equitably. The concept of being able to claim if you suffer loss is perfectly acceptable - I’ve claimed on my home, car and holiday insurance. I’ve also claimed against the owner of a holiday villa for it not being as advertised, a gym over cancelling membership, SNCF for my car being damaged on a Motorail - for the first two I had help in drafting the letters from Which Legal Services which costs about £90 a year to be a member, I think. I don’t see anything wrong with any of these legitimate claims. What is wrong is that if you are not insured, the legal system is not really there for you unless you have plenty of money. The quarrel here is that the judge ruled 50/50 so far as liability is concerned. I absolutely understand that not everyone would agree with her decision re the responsibility of the cyclist to be more aware. However, the woman was perfectly entitled to sue, she clearly could afford the risk of losing ( maybe insured?). I think not agreeing with the judgement is not really sufficient grounds for criticising the perfectly reasonable idea that we should be able to claim when we suffer a loss of some kind.

In this case the woman is to blame however I have long thought cyclists should have to have insurance & pay some sort of road tax.
We have a lot of organised cycle events around here & they cause a lot of problems on the narrow country lanes riding 2 or 3 abreast & will NOT move to let cars past. I believe cyclists belong on cycle tracks.

It seems to me that this whole thing is an example of how wrong the claim culture is. She was in the wrong, they both had injuries, she claimed, he didn't, judgement went against him and he has costs, which will now be crowdfunded. The people lauging all the way to the bank are the solicitors.

I feel deeply sorry for this young man- completely ruined financially by an idiot. Let's hope that a 'crowd funding' might help him. Knowing next to nothing about law I don't understand why he can't claim against her now - I have a hazy recollection of seven years being significant when making any legal case against another person.
The mobile phone user not looking where they are going is a real hazard. Last summer I was walking through town close to the wall of a store when young woman came around the corner, pushing one of the enormous 'armoured car' type of buggy, clearly in a vile temper as she was shouting into her mobile and pushing the pram one handed, heading straight for me at a speed. I had to squash myself against the store windows as she barrelled past, with about one coat of paint between us, and charged on oblivious. Had she hit me with that buggy i shudder to think of the state my legs might have been in.

Sorry but that’s ridiculous - his crowdfunding will save him from bankruptcy - which is absolutely fine. Is it normal not to read the whole thread before posting?

I cycle, drive and walk and the amount of people of all ages glued to their phone as they walk about and cross the road is ridiculous. Quite often with earphones in too. The amount of times I’ve had to shout and even get off my bike for these people because a) they can’t hear you b) they’re that immersed in their text messages, snap chat, et al they’re oblivious to all around them c) they can’t see you and and/or expect everyone to manoeuvre around them.

This ruling is a disgrace. The poor cyclist is now verging on bankruptcy and the woman that sued him should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for ruining someone’s life.

Tillybelle - he’s left it too late to counter sue - he’s said himself he should have got legal advice at the beginning. He could appeal but that would be very expensive - best thing is to continue crowdfunding and hope that the judge is hard on the costs she awards the pedestrian.

My apologies if I'm repeating anything that anybody else has said, I've not had time to read all the posts. It does seem unfair that he's had to pay her compensation, they were judged to be equally culpable - though how they came to that conclusion when she was in the road and looking at her phone I do not understand. However most of the cost to him was to cover her legal costs and initially he chose not to make a claim against her.
He said: "I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome, reeling from the impact it will have on my life, and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists."
He also warned cyclists may not be aware that they can counterclaim. He said: "This was not because I was not injured, but because I do not advocate the claim culture. Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself."

Yes, this is so unfair. There is crowdfunding page if you would like to chip in:
www.gofundme.com/f/help-cover-rob-hazeldean039s-legal-fees