To think this was quite unfair

i think the mobile user should pay the cylist as he was the one who was hurt, and he was in the right as the light was green for him to go.daft cow should look where she going and not at her mobile. i remember shoving some man out of the way of an oncoming tram.. he swore i pointed TRAM . didnt say thanks or anyting just a scowl. luckily passing policeman saw what happened and told him off ,told him he could have been dead had i not pushed him out the way.

Gosh I cycle (occasionally) with my 3 year old on the back of my bike. I am a safe, careful cyclist but if someone suddenly stepped infront of me, much like if someone suddenly stepped in front of a car, it'd most likely be too late to stop. That being said I cycle very slowly with the added weight of a child, so not sure if do much more damage than annoying someone!
I do think compulsory cyclist insurance would protect both cyclists and pedestrians. Unfortunate situation but I don't think the cyclist is really at fault

Yes, some cyclists are idiots with regard to cars and pedestrians, and some car drivers and pedestrians are idiots too. I used to cycle in an urban area before cycle paths and always tried to find quiet roads because it was too scarey on the main routes!

One thing that annoys me about cyclists is those who ride on the road (practising for road races?) when there's a perfectly good cycle path right next to them.

I feel sorry for this cyclist too, it was the womans fault in my opinion
I was a cyclist for years and i was coming to a crossroads one day when the lights were on green, when a car came hurtling from where the lights were red, he had skipped the red light and hit me, he said he didn;t see me as a lorry was cutting his view out, but he shouldn[t have been trying to skip the lights
I dislocated my shoulder and had whiplash,
Never thought of doing anything about it, although i needed a lot of physiotherapy,wished i had after, as i couldn;t work for a while, and didn;t get the cars reg

someone has set up a go fund me page for him with a target of £20,000. It is now at over £36,000 a day later. Just shows how many people are on the cyclist's side. He didn't want to sue as he against the 'claim culture'. Of course am on his side.

UNBELIEVABLE! We're all responsible for our actions!
If you're gawking at your phone, it's your responsibility to look out for yourself & be aware of what's going on around you. Not blame others for your carelessness.
Every action has a reaction!!
The judge is an ass! Why are these out of touch people in their jobs??
Hope the cyclist concerned gets something sorted, really feel for him..

suziewoozie - "What I haven’t seen mentioned is the fact that there is no compulsory insurance for cyclists - imagine if it had been all his fault and she had been disabled for life."

I must admit I had never considered this. I don't cycle on public roads that much, mostly in country parks or dedicated traffic free cycle routes, but I do have to use two quiet residential roads to get to the cycle lane I use to get to work. However, it only takes one small wobble and the consequences could be disastrous.

I am now going to be looking into getting insurance, so thank you for raising that.

The pedestrian in this case would have had to have paid compensation to the cyclist but he didn’t put a claim in.It’s not the job of the courts to put claims in for people who don’t do it for themselves. He may not be a villain but he’s certainly not the sharpest knife in the block is he? He sounds a bit of a drip really but I’m glad people are happy to crowdfund him. I am a bit surprised that some people don’t think he should have got himself some legal advice though.

HurdyGurdy what a lovely thing to say - as I’ve tried to explain I’m not anti-cyclist and certainly don’t like the sound of the pedestrian in this case but I just wanted people to think a bit about the bigger picture.

The pedestrian was 100% to blame. She was not taking proper precautions when crossing the road - I can only think that she employed a really expensive solicitor. Locally, a gentleman using his mobility scooter was run into by a jogger on the phone, causing the disabled man to take evasive action and crashing into a brick wall. The jogger just ‘jogged on’.

I think it would be great if a solicitor would give services pro bono to the cyclist and counter sue/appeal. What must that woman be like as a person when she was totally in the wrong, both parties injured and yet SHE sues HIM??? Difficult to believe!

I have just got myself an e- bike and it’s great.... but the intolerable amount of people just strolling along my cycle paths.. with a pedestrian path next to it,.. is incredible!! They walk about with phones in hand , earphones on head, chatting to friends, dragging kids and pushing proms..ALL. without the courtesy of putting their phones away. It’s diabolical behaviour. And on bin days... out come the bins to sit on the cycle paths! Reading all these posts I’m definitely going to look into cyclists insurance. Because I’m convinced it’s only a matter of time before I hit someone... and this being the litigious age it is... that’ll be me bankrupt!

This sounds grossly unfair. I wasn't there - I don't know all the circumstances. But if it's as you say, then it is very wrong, so, surely the cyclist can do something?

Worst RTC I ever witnessed was a pedestrian, on her phone, who stepped out at traffic lights to be hit by a car driver, who had right of way on green, The young lass was catapulted via the windscreen onto the road. Catastrophic head injuries were the result. The poor driver didn't know what had happened and the injured pedestrian was left with permanent cerebral damage. All because she was not concentrating.

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

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."

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry for long post - clearly feeling pedantic today

Beggars belief!