- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgCyclist found partly liable for crash with pedestrian who was looking at her mobile phone as she stepped into road
A woman who was looking at her mobile phone while crossing the street will receive compensation from a cyclist who collided with her after a judge ruled that bike riders “must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”
Pedestrian Gemma Brushett and cyclist Robert Hazeldean were both knocked unconscious following the collision at a junction near Cannon Street railway station in the City of London in July 2015, reports Mail Online.
Ms Brushett, who also sustained a minor head injury and what her lawyer described as “post-traumatic amnesia,” sued Mr Hazeldean, with Judge Shanti Mauger, sitting at Central London County Court, finding them both jointly liable for the crash.
The court heard that Mr Hazeldean, who suffered cuts in the incident, had ridden through a green traffic light and was travelling at a speed of between 10 and 15mph.
Spotting Ms Brushett crossing the road while looking at her phone, he sounded his airhorn and shouted a warning as well as swerving and braking.
When the pedestrian became aware of him approaching, she reportedly “panicked” and tried to step back to a pedestrian island but Mr Hazeldean had already altered his course to try and avoid her and the pair collided.
The judge described Mr Hazeldean as “courteous and mild-mannered” and said that he “gave every impression of being a calm and reasonable road user” but added that he “did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.”
There were conflicting witness accounts of the incident. One cyclist, whose testimony was used to support Ms Brushett’s claim, was said to have confronted Mr Hazeldean afterwards and made a voice recording in which he accused him of “aggressive riding” and being “arrogant and reckless.”
The judge rejected that evidence, however, with three pedestrian witnesses who gave statements to the police saying that Ms Brushett was “not looking where she was going” and “the cyclist was not at fault.”
Giving judgment, Judge Mauger said: “The other witnesses feel that the accident was Ms Brushett's fault.
“Mr Hazeldean is clear that she was looking at her phone as she was crossing the road.
“Three other witnesses said she stepped out or that the cyclist could not avoid her.
“I find that she was looking at her phone and I accept the account of Mr Hazeldean that she turned and went back towards the central reservation.”
However, the judge found both parties equally liable for the collision.
She said: “When I stand back and ask 'how did the accident happen?' it seems to me that Mr Hazeldean owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill.
“Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way.
“Ms Brushett must clearly have equal responsibility if she is crossing the road without looking – and if she is looking at her phone, even more so.
“But cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.
“The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50,” she added, meaning that Ms Brushett will only receive half the amount she claimed.
Costs and damages will be set at a later hearing.
Commenting on the case Roger Geffen, policy director at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “The UK’s civil courts have a reasonable record for upholding cyclists’ damages claims, even though criminal courts have a far worse record of convicting drivers or dismissing their driving as merely ‘careless’.
“Still, from media reports, it seems odd that the judge attributed responsibility on a 50/50 basis given the judge’s own reported comments on the case. However this case highlights why Cycling UK recommends regular cyclists have third party insurance cover to protect them from this sort of situation.
“It’s worth remembering that serious injuries to pedestrians from collisions involving cyclists are rare, and that the cyclist can also be seriously injured when they happen too.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 40 min ago
Take it to an understanding LBS like mine who will return to Shimano whatever state the cranks are in and you get a brand new Ultegra chainset for...
- Rik Mayals underpants 12 hours 19 min ago
Here's my cycling related Christmas gift. Beautiful enamel garage sign to go above my Campagnolo Super Record RS equipped Colnago.
- Rendel Harris 16 hours 27 min ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
- wtjs 18 hours 5 min ago
Fair enough:...
- SecretSam 19 hours 16 min ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
- Rome73 21 hours 23 min ago
That's not strictly true - Reform will legalise immigrant baiting, trans bashing and tar and feathering of anyone woke. Loads of fun for all the...
- Rendel Harris 21 hours 10 min ago
What's a "legitimate cyclist" please? Someone who doesn't conform to your arbitrary norms? At the age of 56 I admit that you have 13 years more...
- mattw 1 day 11 hours ago
This risks turning me into a hanger and flogger....
- Spangly Shiny 1 day 17 hours ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
Add new comment
87 comments
He doesn’t need to counter sue, the pedestrians is now also liable for 50% of his damages too. If he turns up to the costs hearing with a medical report that says his injuries are worse than hers she’ll end up owning him money, which would be lolz
The responsibility for this collision may be shared, but the primary blame lies with the pedestrian for stepping into the road without looking. I'm pretty sure a driver wouldn't have been found 50% liable if she had stepped out in front of them.
Isn't it time we had a law about walking/phoning, and another for pedestrian helmets.
Why is the judge talking about "right of way" and not about "priority"? Seems a very sloppy use of language and inaccurate.
Anyhow, the cyclist should have hit the brakes or at least said that he was slowing down but didn't have enough time before the ped endangered him - that might have changed the 50/50 result.
From the article:
"Spotting Ms Brushett crossing the road while looking at her phone, he sounded his airhorn and shouted a warning as well as swerving and braking."
He may well have thought that sounding a horn and avoiding action were sufficient but, as with the Alliston incident, the zombie pedestrian clearly reacted by stepping into his path.
As he rode through a green light does this mean she ignored the red man on a ped crossing?
Moral of the tale: if you see a ped crossing into your path you MUST anticipate that they are very likely to make the 'wrong' move. Regardless of fault, you will cop at least 50% of the blame.
It's not unlike how you have to treat the dumbest creatures on the planet - sheep and pheasants - on country lanes. They can be on the opposite side of the road but, on sighting the cyclist, will often do a U-turn and cross back in front of you.
"sustained a minor head injury and what her lawyer described as “post-traumatic amnesia,”"
This just means that she couldn't recall the incident. This is extremely common (and not surprising as she wasn't paying attention) but the lawyer couldn't pass up the chance to add some melodrama.
Jesus wept, renounced religion, joined a death cult and nuked the entire planet.
The only positive in this is that the Daily Mail reader comments are almost 100% backing the cyclist! Who'd have thunk it!
Bigotry bingo though is its a woman / yoga teacher / mobile phone user verses a white man who was riding a bike.
Article doesnt even mention his age despite it mentioning hers with that she teachers yoga, despite working for a finance firm.
Probably dimly aware that it's a short step to holding motorists to the same standards...
This is worrying in so many ways. Yes, the spot where the accident happened is very busy with pedestrians, who are often trying to cross on green lights. However, his speed of 10-15mph is pretty cautious (I can tell you that vehichles go through that same spot much faster). What I don't understand is the "Established on the road.." comment. If she stepped out maybe 10m away from him then I'd agree, but not if she did it a couple of metres from him. If the former I'd have less sympathy with him, although if he'd just come round the bend from London Bridge he'd have not seen her step out.
In the City of London people do walk out everywhere, so you need to be cautious at all times, but you can't do anything if someone steps out when you are a metre or two away from them.
In the region of 100m from that spot I recently saw a woman on her phone doing the same thing with a bus. Luckily she responded to his horn and jumped back when he was less than a metre from her. I honestly thought she was about to be squashed. Would a judge also be holding the bus driver liable?
All I can say is that if you are riding in a city as busy as London it is a good idea to have a camera mounted to you or your bike for your own protection.
“Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way."
Surely the point of right of way is that one party only has it and it is clear which one. This makes no sense to me.
Telling pedestrians that it is in any way safe to cross a road without looking is madness.
Traffic travelling at 30mph has a total stopping distance of 23m. The article doesn't say but I would bet that the distance between the pedestrian stepping off the kerb and the cyclist was less than this.
Making it the law that the cyclists or motorists break the laws of physics just won't work.
You're confusing right of way with priority.
They don't have the" right of way" to step off the kurb, without looking, into traffic that has right of way. This judge needs to be sacked!
Pedestrians have priority, if they're crossing a side road that motorist wants to turn in to, from the main carriageway, it's even in the highway code.
I call bullsh#t....this is another reason why cycling numbers are dropping and another reason why my bike is staying safely on my turbo. This is Bullsh#t
Sounding an air horn, shouting a warning and swerving out of the way...but stopping was not an option?
I utterly disagree with the judgement and award of damages, but not the principle of responsibility towards other road users regardless of how fuckwitted they are.
So, he basically behaved as if he was driving a car?
Someone really needs to tell the motorists this!
I call BS here.
The pedestrian had not established herself on the road, and did not have right of way. She walked into his path without looking, giving him little time to react, that is not establishing herself on the road.
A thought I have every day when pedestrianising Came up at least twice today, when crossing side-roads and having to scurry/jump out the way because of drivers just turning into them at speed when they could see I was already part-way across.
Not massively disturbed by this case, except for the huge and obvious double-standard with respect to motorists.
Indeed in countries with presumed liability, ie most of Europe, it would be up to the cyclist as the least vulnerable road user to prove the negligence of the pedestrian to avoid paying compensation.
A small price to pay for the benefits to cyclists involved in collisions with motor vehicles.
Everyone needs to be more alert and courteous on the roads.
the irony being 3 witness saying it wasn’t the cyclist fault and the ped being on the phone would have probably been enough to satisfy any Europen judge that they weren’t at fault.
Pedestrians have priority when crossing side roads.
Highway Code: 170
Take extra care at junctions. You should:
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
Yeah, Burt, but when do motorists actually obey that one? Its a "should" rule, not a "must" rule, so its treated as a "safely ignore" rule
I hope he sued her for more.
This ruling has effectively green lit zombie walking with no consequence.
Sounds like he made reasonable efforts and she actually countered his efforts by her actions. Bullshit.
Cough! Cough - Alliston! - Cough! Cough!
So, a pedestrian glued to their phone, walks into a road without making sure it was clear and as a direct consequence, it hit by a bike. Had a car been coming, she would have been hit at much greater speed, with a much larger object and probably would have been killed.
But it's a cyclists who shouts a warning, then has to decide on a course of action. Was she: a) going to freeze, b) not hear and continue crossing, or c) move backwards towards where she had come from (which I was always told from a very early age not to do when crossing a road). She also had the same decision, but as ill luck would have it, the course of action he thought she wouldn't take, she took. Then she has the audacity of sueing him?
A number of cyclists are knocked off bikes, seriously injured and in some cases, killed by pedestrians walking off safe pavements without looking, normally glued to phones but none of this ever gets mentioned or reported.
If I happen to be knocked off my bike by a pedestrian, remind me to sue the pants off them!
Did he also sue her? Seems ridiculous!
“But cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways."
Thanks for the oxymoron.
Perhaps I should be prepared for someone to run out of a shop straight into the road.
There's a list somewhere of various pedestrians killed when on the pavement
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-...
sticks out the most.
Pages