To think this was quite unfair

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.

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

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.

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.

Willa - the judge split the blame 50/50.

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.

An appeal costs money

A lot of money

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

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

All I can say is thank god for crowdfunding! This day and age social media can be such a force for good.

What would’ve happened years ago? Nothing, because we couldn’t do anything, apart from sympathise.

There are many more cyclists on our roads now and some are, without doubt, aggressive and dangerous. I agree that all cyclists should be required to be insured, just like car drivers have to. I wonder who represented the cyclist in court? Surely they would have known that he would have to counter-sue in order not to have to pay all the costs involved??

If ever there was a unfair judgement in a court case,then this has to be it.Cyclist had three witnesses who saw what actually happened.Pedestrian engrossed in her mobile phone,walked straight out Without looking of the sidewalk & straight onto the main road.Cyclist sounded his bicycle air horn,to warn her,he swerved to miss her,but she swerved the same way.Judge lay`s the blame on both parties 50/50 Both were to blame! But No the woman wins the case? How if that was the case.It should have been case closed,& both parties share the court costs. I really do hope the cyclist counter sues this ridiculous situation,& gets awarded costs for his injuries,& a New bicycle to boot.And a different Judge,that one sounds very Bias!Dare I say it,she is a lady judge! maybe she is a bit adverse to men & bicycles. lol

The legal position is far more complex and nuanced than most media reports suggest. First of all he cannot counter sue as he is out of time - he should have sought legal advice as soon as he knew she was taking the case to court. She did not ‘win’ the case . Judgement was 50/50 responsibility so she was only awarded half of what she claimed in damages. The question of costs is separate and is to be decided at a future hearing. Costs include court casts and legal costs. In a straightforward case of someone being 100% liable, then they may well have to pay the other sides costs as well as their own of course. However, and quite rightly, the costs have to be looked at as they may be unreasonable. In this particular case £100k sounds a bit high but we’ll see atvtge costs hearing. Sometimes costs escalate because one side has been unreasonable eg not turned up and forced an adjournment. As for the judge’s decision - judges have to take previous case law into account as appropriate whether they like it if not. There has been an increasing body of case law regarding such things as ‘foreseeability’ ie expecting pedestrians to be idiots and the judge would take things like this into account. As for appealing - he would have to ask for leave to appeal and this being granted is not a foregone conclusion ( even if he could find someone to act for him anyway). And I don’t find your comment about the judges sex acceptable if I may say so.

suziewoozie it’s not ridiculous at all. You are obviously overly litigious and readily claim for anything. All these claims are a blight on our society. People should take personal responsibility for themselves.

Also the cyclist went through a green light, sounded a loud horn on his bike and tried to avoid this idiot woman. The judge is a disgrace and another judge with more sense would have probably found differently. However, I repeat my earlier comment that the woman concerned should be ashamed of herself.

Taking out insurance is taking personal responsibility for ourselves - it’s a pity more cyclists don’t do that

This isn’t about insurance, it’s about an idiotic judge and a selfish woman with a sense of entitlement. The lights were on green for the cyclist, he sounded his horn loudly and he shouted a verbal warning plys he tried to avoid her. She crossed the road against a red light and was staring at her phone plus she stepped back into the path of the cyclist. They were both knocked unconscious. The cyclist didn’t think to claim against her as he’s not of that mindset, unlike yourself. Most ordinary people aren’t looking to claim for every mishap in life. We’ve already heard that the average cycle insurance is capped at £25000 anyway. I detest serial claimants and repeat, this woman should be ashamed of herself.

Tickingbird I’m finding your ill-informed personal attacks on me rather unpleasant. I think I’ll just remove myself from such behaviour by leaving the thread.

Cyclists should insure themselves against third party claims. So should riders on mobility scooters.

Parents of unruly kids on bikes likewise.

However I agree with Tickingbird and I condemn silly litigiousness.

Suziewoozie I apologise for any offense caused. It wasn’t intentional. It’s often difficult when it’s a written discussion instead of face to face. However, I do feel strongly about this.

Alexa I agree that maybe regular cyclists should be insured but for the occasional cyclist that just likes a meander to the shops or down a quiet road it can be quite expensive. Life has become really rather complicated.