To think this was quite unfair

As he was also knocked unconscious in the collision caused by her careless actions, perhaps he should counter-sue.

The judge said that the cyclist was a calm and reasonable road user and the woman was looking at her phone and just stepped out. The traffic lights were on green for the cyclist to have right of way. He swerved to avoid her but she stepped the same way.

In this case, the judge is an ass.

She was jaywalking but unfortunately there is no law against it in this country.
Perhaps one should be introduced so that people take more responsibility for their own safety instead of gazing at their phones and stepping out into the road.

Though I've been a keen cyclist all my life, the Highway Code, I believe says we should give way to pedestrians? You do get automatic insurance if you join the national organisation, Cycling UK, used to be CTC (Cyclists Touring Club).

Phones and similar are disastrous for our modern age. A friend broke her shoulder when a pedestrian walked out in front of her bicycle without looking because he was on his phone. She's become permanently disabled as a result.

How many accidents are caused by phone use? My DH was on a speed awareness course and came home saying that at least half the room were there because they'd been caught using phones while driving. What really shocked him was the sniggering that went on behind the trainer's back. No one thought their phone use was a problem.

It's bigger than this simple case and bigger than 'cyclists as a potential problem'. How it gets tackled though I'm not sure.

Yes my thoughts too Callistemon, I didn't realise he had been knocked unconscious in the collision.

I have no idea how easy it is to stop suddenly on a bike, as my cycling in the past 20 or so years has been confined to sedately riding around Center Parcs.

It's bad enough when people don't look up from their phones when walking along the pavement and have near collisions with other pedestrians, but to step out into a road looking at a phone seems foolish in the extreme. I also hate the message given out with this ruling "we don't have to be responsible for our own actions"

He did try to avoid her but both went the same way.

She is at fault.

It surprises me that when someone knows, as she must have done, that they have a good measure of culpability in the accident, that person then sues the other party

Modern bikes with disc brakes stop on a sixpence but cheaper and older bikes usually have unreliable brakes.

It is now common in cities for people to wander about looking at their phones and not look up when crossing the road. Can't believe the situation is unfamiliar??

This is totally unfair - she was obviously completely unaware of her surroundings.

A couple of years ago I was stopped in traffic by the university (not at traffic lights). A young woman, head down staring at her phone, stepped into the road crossed in front of my car ............... and walked into the side of a bus! I just don't know what is so important people can't put their phones away whilst walking.

Is this a situation where he can appeal?

Yes definitely seems unfair especially as the cyclist was injured as well. Jay walking should be an offence. I have seen parents with buggies pushing them into the road with one hand and a phone in the other hand.

How many times have I had to side step some one looking at their phone even when walking in town , too many !

This should surely be reversed on appeal.
It seems a travesty of justice to me.

Absolutely ridiculous, the cyclist should appeal.

The message behing this ruling is: If you want 5k and also would like to ruin a cyclist's life, just step out in front of them.

This poor cyclist. He tried to swerve her but unfortunately they both went the same way.

He says will be left 'bankrupt' after being forced to pay up to £100,000 in court costs and compensation. He has moved to France since the accident. His mental health has been badly affected.

The law is an ass ! Certainly in this case it is. I've never heard anything so ridiculous or totally unfair------then again, judges are another lot who live on a different planet.

Silly woman, daft judge

The judge ruled that the blame was 50/50 so reducing the compensation payable to her. However he didn’t make a counter claim so he has apparently to foot the legal bill. The compensation was just over £4000. 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. He wouldn’t have been able to pay her compensation because of his limited means - that’s not really fair is it? My take away from this is that there should be compulsory insurance for cyclists.

I agree suziewoozie regarding insurance.

I thought it was reported that the compensation is £200,000 but he is only liable to pay her half.

Enough to wreck his life and to set her up very nicely.

I agree re insurance, suziewoozie.

I agree Suzie - if you're using the roads you should have some form of insurance.

And a personal injury insurance which I've had for years.

The judge is a fool. I now see a tsunami of pedestrians walking into the road in front of a cyclist and then suing with that he aid of one of those no win no fee legal firms. The law is an ass!