To think this was quite unfair

Agree with you tickinbird I absolutely detest this culture that feels 'entitlement' even when they are at fault!

We aren't - yet - in the same situation as USA when 'suing' appears to be a profession! I remember reading about a mother who tried to sue another mother because her child was pushed down a shoot (slide) in a kiddies playground. Both kids were under 5 and neither was hurt! Thankfully in this case, common sense prevailed but heaven forbid it becomes the norm here (although can see it!)

In my earlier post which was sticking to what I understand to be legal facts, I said the judge was right. What I didn't say in that post is that I think the law should change, and place more responsibility upon pedestrians. I believe in some parts of the world it is an offence to be crossing roads when the pedestrian light is not in your favour, and there is no reason that cannot be the case in this country - in which case the pedestrian in this case would have been at fault and the cyclist would have been in the clear.

Readymeals your post reminded me of a German exchange student we had staying some years ago who was mortified at us crossing the road when the pedestrian signal was red and similarly when we got off a bus other than at a stop.

Jaywalkung as it's called in the US is a peculiarly British habit. When we've visited Scandinavia, Canada, the US and various other European countries, we always marvel at the ranks of pedestrians waiting meekly by an empty road until the signal allows them to cross. Are we impatient or individualist?

Notentirelyallhere, I think it's our Viking blood. Same reason Brexit won the vote. Basically we don't like authority and rules. Another example: most other countries have ID cards. We refused those on the grounds of "privacy", but I think it had more to do with not wanting the authorities to know who was where and doing what

Can someone explain to me what would happen if this remains unchallenged? Presumably it will set a precedent in law and can be used in other cases. So if someone steps out in front of a car and is seriously injured will the car driver be held responsible and have to pay up? They will of course have insurance but this ruling seems to say that the pedestrian is not at fault unless they are looking at their phone

suziewoozie you mention foreseeability ie expecting pedestrians to be idiots

As someone who often has to encounter lone and groups of cyclists on a regular basis and has, I admit, found the attitude of some rather annoying, I do find now that I have great sympathy with this young man and with any cyclist riding in a built-up area. Not only do they have to be aware of inconsiderate car drivers, lorries etc but now are supposed to be aware of stupid pedestrians who are so careless with their own safety that they will step out into a road on a red light because whatever is on their phone is more important than their life.
This woman is very lucky it wasn't a car which hit her - she probably wouldn't be here to sue anyone.

X posts trisher but an interesting point re cars.

Readymeals you mention it could be our Viking blood that we don't like rules whereas notentirelyallhere has just posted that Scandinavians will wait until they are told to cross.

Trisher - my understanding is that this judgement was based on precedent ie that of foreseeability and as with all cases like this will turn on the circumstances of each individual case. There are precedents involving both cars and cycles as sometimes the issues are common to both. One famous case that went back and forth with appeals involved a car hitting a child who walked into his path from a school bus. In the end I think it was split 30/70 blame - the latter was the motorist. The point at law was that a driver seeing that a school bus had stopped and children were dismounting should have foreseen that a child might step out without looking and should have waited. What is really important to bear in mind with all court judgements like this is that they always turn on the individual facts of each case and there is nothing in this judgement that means that in all circumstances all pedestrians can step out in front of all cyclists and get some compensation

Callistemon - I think personally being a driver or cyclist in our built up areas is indeed very difficult. We rarely drive the length of our high street without encountering at least one idiot stepping out in front of us from between parked cars or whatever. We drive expecting this as I’m sure most people do - this is foreseeability and I can’t see a way round it. I get really cross at the pelican crossings when parents with young children cross against the lights even when the coast is clear.

Perhaps we need to bring back The Tufty Club - for adults.

Our High Street has exactly the opposite problem, car drivers who come up on the outside lane and don't stop at red lights on pedestrian crossings. A man rushed past me the other day- I always take my time because I know what happens- if a man behind us hadn't shouted at him he would have been under the car which drove by at speed. I don't suppose the driver even knew he'd driven through a red light.

The basic point is that amongst all the sensible pedestrians, cyclists and motorists there are some selfish, unthinking, entitled people. We all have to practice ‘foreseeability’ and I think most of us do most of the time.

May I just point out that it is illegal to use mobility scooters on public highways. There are vehicle type personal mobility scooters which can be used on roads but these are equipped with lights, indicators and vehicle number plates. They are subject to road tax and the rider must be insured.