To think this was quite unfair

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

X posts trisher but an interesting point re cars.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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!)

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.

However I agree with Tickingbird and I condemn silly litigiousness.

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

Parents of unruly kids on bikes likewise.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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??

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.