Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Woman Knocked Down While on Phone Wins Payout From Cyclist (theguardian.com) 377

A woman who was knocked unconscious by a cyclist will be awarded compensation, despite a judge finding she had stepped into the road while looking at her phone. From a report: Robert Hazeldean, a garden designer , who was also knocked out by the collision, will pay thousands in damages and court fees to Gemma Brushett, who works for a finance firm in the City of London and runs yoga retreats. Hazeldean was returning from work in July 2015 when he crashed into Brushett as she crossed a busy junction near London Bridge. She launched a legal claim for compensation after sustaining a minor head injury. Judge Shanti Mauger, at Central London county court, said the cyclist was "a calm and reasonable road user" and that Brushett was looking at her phone when she walked into the road in front of him. However, she ruled that Hazeldean was liable to pay damages, saying: "Cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woman Knocked Down While on Phone Wins Payout From Cyclist

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @11:45AM (#58782392)

    Although at first this seems a little unfair, I think it's probably good policy that whoever is going more quickly is the one at fault for not managing speed properly under the circumstances...

    If the impact had enough force to knock both of them out, he was probably biking rather quickly. If I'm biking and see a pedestrian obmiouly unaware, I give them a wide berth or slow down enough I can stop if they do something like wander out in front of me.

    You obviously can't avoid every accident but even so, everyone going fast should be trying to be extra careful of pedestrians. It's way too easy to grow careless either biking or driving, and not really be scanning for possible problems as often as possible.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @11:49AM (#58782404)

      Yes, cyclists, like all road users, ought to be prepared at all times for other road users to do unexpected things.

      But that doesn't mean that pedestrians, also road users, deserve relief from having to do that very thing. This woman wilfully did not pay attention at all. No fair all the burden is on the cyclist. Also, lots of damages to pay for a minor head wound, plus substantial court costs? Disproportional and thereby abuse of law.

      • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:00PM (#58782486)

        This woman wilfully did not pay attention at all. No fair all the burden is on the cyclist

        If you read the story though, you'll see both were found to share some responsibility for actions- so she's only getting half the damages she would otherwise for her own part. That seems reasonable.

        Also, lots of damages to pay for a minor head wound

        Paying out thousands does not seem like a lot honestly for anything medical.

        • Also, lots of damages to pay for a minor head wound

          Paying out thousands does not seem like a lot honestly for anything medical.

          This is in the UK where I don't think it is typical to pay out thousands for a small medical issue. Isn't that the purpose of the NHS?

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @11:57AM (#58782460) Homepage Journal

      I think it's probably good policy that whoever is going more quickly is the one at fault for not managing speed properly under the circumstances...

      Ah, but that's not a physics-based policy, and thus it's always going to end in tears. The slower-moving party has less inertia, and thus has a much easier time managing their mass, if they are paying attention. Pedestrians also have a superior traction-to-mass ratio to pretty much anything without tracks, they're really in the ideal position to manage their position.

      Cyclists in particular are using smaller contact patches to manage much more inertia than pedestrians, while in turn having to watch out for automobiles. They've got enough to worry about without having to watch for pedestrians stepping off of curbs in the wrong places.

      • by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:01PM (#58782496)

        Physics doesn't account for the pure evil of being fast and high inertia, therefore we must reject physics based models. Instead we arbitrarily assign guilt based on perceived evilness of the encounter. It sounds like cyclists are currently more evil than pedestrians, therefore they should burn.

        • Traffic Liability Intersectionality. In an Intersection.

          I say we do it (I live outside the city anyway, so y'all go right ahead.)

        • Depending on who you ask, "person glued to phone at all times" might be considered more evil.
      • Right of way (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:16PM (#58782616)

        The slower-moving party has less inertia, and thus has a much easier time managing their mass, if they are paying attention.

        You might want to revisit that physics course. The validity of your statement has a lot to do with how much mass each party is managing. The difference in mass between a cyclist and a pedestrian is close to negligible so your point is valid there. Motorcycles and cars have substantially more mass so their kinetic energy can be much higher even if they are the slower moving party.

        Basically I think they have it right for boats and aircraft. The less maneuverable craft always has the right of way. Hot air balloons have the right of way over gliders which have the right of way over jet aircraft. Big unmaneuverable tankers are not expected to get out of the way of your little fishing boat. Same with cars and bikes. The party traveling at speed on the road generally should have the right of way except for well marked pedestrian crossings because it is much easier for pedestrians to get out of the way and change speed/direction.

        • You might want to revisit that physics course. The validity of your statement has a lot to do with how much mass each party is managing. The difference in mass between a cyclist and a pedestrian is close to negligible so your point is valid there.

          Well, I was addressing the current situation. I mean, it's a lot more complicated than either of us are alluding to; what's the surface traction like? Etc. etc. But I figured it was sufficient for the conversation at hand.

          Basically I think they have it right for boats and aircraft. The less maneuverable craft always has the right of way.

          Same logic, admittedly stated more elegantly.

        • The party traveling at speed on the road generally should have the right of way except for well marked pedestrian crossings because it is much easier for pedestrians to get out of the way and change speed/direction.

          Generally this is already the case (hence jaywalking tickets/citations), save for places which do not have crosswalks within a practical distance of the crossing point, which is typical for rural areas (the nearest crosswalk to my house is 20+ miles away, but I take the time to look before crossing the highway from the driveway to my mailbox, and vehicular traffic has right-of-way even when I do cross where I do.)

          But - I assume (because who reads TFA?) that the collision did happen in a crosswalk, or a plac

        • Basically I think they have it right for boats and aircraft. The less maneuverable craft always has the right of way.

          Regardless of what the law actually says, I act like the maritime laws apply (when I'm the pedestrian) because right of way doesn't keep me out of the hospital. I suspect that's why maritime and aircraft laws are that way - you generally don't have "minor" accidents between planes, or between tankers and sailboats.

      • I think it's probably good policy that whoever is going more quickly is the one at fault for not managing speed properly under the circumstances...

        Ah, but that's not a physics-based policy, and thus it's always going to end in tears. The slower-moving party has less inertia, and thus has a much easier time managing their mass, if they are paying attention.

        If it were solely based on "the one with the most inertia" then (stupid) people could just constantly throw themselves in front of cars from hiding and blame the car, due to it's higher inertia.

      • by dasunt ( 249686 )

        Ah, but that's not a physics-based policy, and thus it's always going to end in tears. The slower-moving party has less inertia, and thus has a much easier time managing their mass, if they are paying attention. Pedestrians also have a superior traction-to-mass ratio to pretty much anything without tracks, they're really in the ideal position to manage their position.

        By that logic, fault in a motor vehicle crash that either party could have avoided should always go to the person operating the lightest vehi

    • by Anonymous Coward

      This attitude should honestly be terrifying for anyone who actually pays attention when driving. I am pretty rigorously attentive to pedestrians when I drive, especially kids, who are the most likely to behave unpredictably. I pay attention to where they are, where theyâ(TM)re headed, where their attention is, etc. I try to predict the possible outcomes of their future behavior and what I could do to avoid a collision. The simple fact is that there are at least a few dozen times per year that I drive b

    • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:03PM (#58782506)

      Although at first this seems a little unfair, I think it's probably good policy that whoever is going more quickly is the one at fault for not managing speed properly under the circumstances...

      Disagree. When you are operating a vehicle (car, bicycle, etc) you physically cannot always respond quickly enough to avoid people or animals crossing the road unexpectedly. One only has to look at the amount of roadkill to see proof of this. Demanding that the motor vehicle operator always be at fault essentially makes it impossible in many cases for them to operate the vehicle normally. It's one thing if there is a crosswalk or other such indicator that pedestrians might cross at a given location but if a person darts out unexpectedly (or irresponsibly) in front of my car when they shouldn't be on the road, that probably shouldn't be my fault.

      If the impact had enough force to knock both of them out, he was probably biking rather quickly.

      Not necessarily. Riding 15-20kph is more than sufficient if the person hits their head and that is a very casual riding speed. I don't even breath hard riding my bike for long distances at 20-25kph on flat ground. And that is slower than most cars normally travel even when going very slow. The slowest posted speed limits on public roads near my house are 25mph (40kph). Anyone who steps into a road should expect anything traveling on that road to be coming at a speed close to that or faster.

      If I'm biking and see a pedestrian obmiouly unaware, I give them a wide berth or slow down enough I can stop if they do something like wander out in front of me.

      Sure but sometimes that's not possible (especially in traffic) or unreasonable. Sometimes you simply can't see the person or they simply do something spectacularly dumb that you didn't think to predict. There HAS to be some accountability on both parties. If you are a pedestrian and you step foot into a road, you damn well better be paying attention. This person is just lucky it was a bicycle and not a car or a motorcycle. Someone crossing a road while distracted by their phone falls into the spectacularly dumb category.

    • The ruling may be correct but the rationale the judge put forth is stupid.

      A more sane rationale would've been that while the pedestrian was distracted and crossing illegally the cyclist WAS NOT distracted and should've been observant of any and all obstacles in the road that could've been dodged (especially on a cycle)

      That's typical court procedure here in the US where the last car to avoid an accident (and didn't) is the majorly responsible party.
      • A more sane rationale would've been that while the pedestrian was distracted and crossing illegally the cyclist WAS NOT distracted and should've been observant of any and all obstacles in the road that could've been dodged (especially on a cycle)

        That logic only works if the conditions were such that the cyclist could have or should have taken reasonable precautions to avoid the situation. Simple fact is that not all things crossing the road can be avoided. One merely has to look at the amount of roadkill to see proof of this. Human pedestrians should have an obligation to take reasonable measures to protect themselves when crossing any road. The bicycles and other vehicles will avoid them if they can but they are rolling the dice when they step

      • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        "That's typical court procedure here in the US where the last car to avoid an accident (and didn't) is the majorly responsible party."

        That only works if the last vehicle had a chance to mitigate the collision and did not. IANAL, but I've seen this multiple times.

    • }}} I think it's probably good policy that whoever is going more quickly is the one at fault for not managing speed properly under the circumstances... {{{ --- so if someone walks onto a limited access expressway while looking at their phone, and gets hit by a car who could not swerve or stop in time, then the car driver is at fault?
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:29PM (#58782706) Homepage Journal

        In the UK it's generally the case that the road user should be able to come to a stop before hitting anything. The road user, be they in a car or on a bike, should leave enough space and go at a speed where they can stop before hitting anything reasonably predictable.

        On a limited access road like a motorway the same applies, but since people are not allowed to walk into the road there and speed limits are set on that assumption the driver would successfully argue that they couldn't reasonably have been expecting that to happen.

    • Although at first this seems a little unfair, I think it's probably good policy that whoever is going more quickly is the one at fault for not managing speed properly under the circumstances...

      I respectfully disagree. While those in control of vehicles should obviously be reasonable and keep safety in mind, including allowing for other people to do silly things where that could sensibly be anticipated, it is impractical to allow for every possible eventuality even when someone does something blindingly stupid as appears to have been the case here. You would literally not be able to ride or drive faster than walking pace along any road that had pedestrians walking at the side, for example, just in

      • You would literally not be able to ride or drive faster than walking pace along any road that had pedestrians walking at the side, for example, just in case one of them suddenly stepped out in front of you without warning and without checking for traffic themselves.

        This. When cars - then known as "horseless carriages" - were new, people were worried about the effect they'd have on horses [wikipedia.org].

        The most infamous of the Red Flag Laws was enacted in Pennsylvania circa 1896, when legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible ... disassemble the automobile", and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified.[3]

    • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:10PM (#58782570)

      If the impact had enough force to knock both of them out, he was probably biking rather quickly

      TFA says 10-15mph. That's a perfectly reasonable speed for normal on-road cycling in London, and it apparently did allow the cyclist to try to swerve to avoid the silly pedestrian, but unfortunately the pedestrian saw the cyclist at the last moment and stepped back in the same direction as the swerve. It does look like there was some sort of crowd at this particular junction, so without knowing all of the details it's difficult to know whether that speed was reasonable at the point where the incident happened, but the judge did acknowledge that the cyclist was calm and reasonable so something doesn't quite add up here.

    • I agree, in the totality of the circumstances in the article. It sounds like the cyclist decided to just push through a crowd of jaywalking pedestrians on his green light, at speed. One of them, being oblivious to his coming until the last second because they were looking at their phone, panicked and moved in the direction he was already going to avoid them. It's really only the phone thing that is saving the cyclist from being entirely liable.

      However the line from the judge, "Cyclists must be prepared a

      • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        "It sounds like the cyclist decided to just push through a crowd of jaywalking pedestrians on his green light, at speed."

        Where did you get that from in the article? I see nothing to indicate that conclusion.

    • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:13PM (#58782600)

      Although at first this seems a little unfair, I think it's probably good policy that whoever is going more quickly is the one at fault for not managing speed properly under the circumstances...

      If the impact had enough force to knock both of them out, he was probably biking rather quickly. If I'm biking and see a pedestrian obmiouly unaware, I give them a wide berth or slow down enough I can stop if they do something like wander out in front of me.

      You obviously can't avoid every accident but even so, everyone going fast should be trying to be extra careful of pedestrians. It's way too easy to grow careless either biking or driving, and not really be scanning for possible problems as often as possible.

      You're assuming this biker had time to react.

      That is certainly key when it happens to be a driver and a pedestrian. Suppose someone is suicidal and steps in front of moving traffic. The driver has no time to react. Are they at fault? If not, then why would anyone else moving a vehicle at a much higher rate of speed than a walking pedestrian be liable for something they could not avoid?

      Sorry, but I think this is a dangerous ruling. Pedestrians should not get a free pass for every damn thing around them, absolved of all responsibility simply because they're a pedestrian. And if they do, then perhaps the walls we should be building in the US is around every fucking sidewalk to keep the idiot smartphone junkies quarantined.

      • by jbengt ( 874751 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @05:09PM (#58784566)

        You're assuming this biker had time to react.

        And you're assuming he didn't. The judge, on the other hand, heard a lot more evidence than a /. summary, and made their decision based on that.

        Sorry, but I think this is a dangerous ruling. Pedestrians should not get a free pass for every damn thing around them, absolved of all responsibility simply because they're a pedestrian.

        But in this case that you're complaining about, the pedestrian did not get a free pass - they were found 50% responsible for the accident.

    • Responsibility usually falls on the one with the most power.
      Now if this was a 3 way accident, where the biker had to choose to hit the person or run into a car, then I would expect the driver of the Car may be more in fault, for not giving enough room for the biker and the walker.

    • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      So, I have a two lane road that I travel on frequently, with woods right up to the edge of the road on both sides for a couple of miles. The speed limit is 40mph. Should I be going 10 in case some moron walks out in front of me from behind a tree? It has happened...thankfully with enough space for me to slam on the brakes. Even at 10mph, a pedestrian could be killed by a vehicle, so I guess we should just stop driving? I'm being a bit sarcastic here because we all take risks every day when on the road.

    • If somebody on foot step on the road without looking, and at that point do not have right of way, they should be 100% responsible period. And what do you expect bike on the road to go as speed ? 1 mph / 2 kmh ? Because any speed which is sensible on bike (10 to 20 mph / 15 kmh to 30 kmh on big road) will result in injury is somebody is stupid enough to step into the path. Think about and change bike to car. Even car do not instantly stops. So now think of a pedestrian stepping in front of a car leaving
  • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @11:50AM (#58782408)

    Where I live, pedestrians only have the right of way when the crosswalk is indicating it's their turn to cross, but from what I understand (and I may be mistaken), pedestrians always have the right of way at crosswalks in the UK, and users of the road are expected to yield so that they may cross. This pedestrian may have done something stupid, but it sounds like she had the right of way and that the cyclist had an obligation to come to a stop for her, which he failed to do. As such, the ruling makes a lot of sense.

    • by fazig ( 2909523 )
      Here in Germany pedestrians also always have the right of way at cross walks. It works pretty well as far as my experience goes.
      However the article doesn't say anything about a cross walk. It states that it was at a busy junction near London Bridge. I've looked up London Bridge on Google Maps and didn't see any cross walks in that area, although I might have missed something.

      Anyway, the more important point here might be that IF a pedestrian leaves the side walk and enters the driving lanes (correct expr
      • She actually did share some liability. While the cyclist in this case was obligated to bike such that he wouldn't crash into pedestrians, the court agreed that the situation only arose because of her stupidity, hence why she only received half the compensation she would have otherwise been entitled to receive. Her stupidity didn't absolve him of his responsibility, but it did limit his liability.

    • "The judgeâ(TM)s ruling found that the parties shared responsibility, so while Brushett is guaranteed a payout, she will get only half of the full value of her claim."

      That means that the pedestrian was assigned some fault. Apparently England is a comparative negligence jurisdiction. Even though the pedestrian had the right of (even in a crosswalk), the pedestrian still must take reasonable card.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There are different types of "crosswalk" in the UK. Ones with traffic lights are called zebra crossings and are controlled by the lights as you would expect, although road users must still be able to stop if someone steps out into the road anyway. So if a driver sees someone looking at their phone and stood by the crossing, they should slow down just in case.

      The other type is a pelican crossing, which doesn't have traffic lights. On those pedestrians always have right of way and it's up to drivers to see th

      • He actually was injured according the article. The crash knocked both of them out.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I should be more specific. If he suffered any losses, such as needing to pay for medical treatment not available on the NHS or having to take time off work, he could claim for that.

          TFA is a bit thin on details, maybe he did claim.

  • by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @11:50AM (#58782412)
    Why is this on Slashdot? This is news for cyclists, not nerds. If she were looking at a book instead of a phone, would this be here?
    • If she were looking at a book instead of a phone, would this be here?

      No, it would not be here. But she was looking at a phone, right?

      You are correct: that's why this is here.

      Good question.

    • It does seem a bit tangental, but she was on a smartphone which is relevant to lots of us... interesting to consider the ramifications of technology distracting us and harm resulting.

    • Why is this on Slashdot? This is news for cyclists, not nerds.

      You do realize that a lot of "nerds" are cyclists, right? Myself among them now and then. They are not mutually exclusive groups. I don't give a shit about vintage video games but you don't hear me bitching about it. If you don't care about the story that's ok. Just move on to the next one. Not every story has to be tailored to your interests or mine.

      If she were looking at a book instead of a phone, would this be here?

      Probably not but she wasn't looking at a book was she? You kind of answered your own question.

      • No, he made a point that you missed: Although a phone is a computer, someone looking at a phone does not make it a tech story. This isn't supposed to be a general news website, it's supposed to be a tech news website. Nothing about this is "news for nerds". Biker hit pedestrian, got sued. End of story. No reason for it to be here.

    • If you had ever visited the bike mechanics subforum of bikeforums.net, you would know how nerdy cycling can get.

      • If you had ever visited the bike mechanics subforum of bikeforums.net, you would know how nerdy cycling can get.

        No doubt. I bet those people could submit some much more relevant stories than this one.

  • I actually kind of side with one point: You do have to be prepared for people and cars to do unexpected things. But the liability was a crock. A person doing something wacky shouldn't make you liable for damages.

  • by maroberts ( 15852 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @11:59AM (#58782478) Homepage Journal

    “Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way. Mr Hazeldean 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.”

    Mauger said Brushett‘s conduct as a pedestrian must have contributed to the accident. “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,” she said.

    The judge’s ruling found that the parties shared responsibility, so while Brushett is guaranteed a payout, she will get only half of the full value of her claim.

    • Perhaps, but if they're equally at fault, why does he have to pay? Would he be entitled to a claim if he sued her for not paying attention? Doesn't seem "equally at fault" if he's the only one paying.
  • by doubledown00 ( 2767069 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:02PM (#58782504)
    This really isn't all that controversial. The judge found that the plaintiff had a role in her own injury thus her recovery will be reduced by the percentage responsibility assigned to her.

    So if her total damages claimed were $50,000 and she was found 50 percent liable, then her recovery is only $25,000.
    Many states in the U.S. do similar. The most common here being that in order for the plaintiff to collect, the defendant must be found 51 percent or more responsible. Straight 50 / 50 in many U.S. jurisdictions results in a "take nothing" judgment for the plaintiff.

    I would also add that from the article it appears that the pedestrian tried to cross against a green light. In most U.S. jurisdictions this is a violation of the law which resulted in foreseeable injury and the case would be dismissed (the doctrine is referred to as "negligence per se").

    /IAAL
  • In the US, I'm pretty sure that judgement would have gone the other way. Nonetheless, legal bullshit like this is why I carry an umbrella liability insurance policy. You never know when some asshole is going to sue you for something.

    - Necron69

  • He had time to 'shout', but he didn't have time to slow down. And whatever happenned to bicycle bells?
  • So no matter what the pedestrian does the cyclist/motorist is always at fault?

    From the article "She was looking at her mobile phone when crossing the road, and only noticed Hazeldean approaching at the last moment, despite the traffic lights showing green."

    This sentence in the article is badly worded. I can't tell with 100% certainty if the cyclist or the pedestrian or both had the green light. Is it "...showing her a green light" or "...showing the cyclist a green light" or even "...showing both her
  • Knowing the law is well and good, but I never want to say, "But I had right of way," from a hospital bed.
  • by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:39PM (#58782768)

    I wonder what the ruling would be had both the Cyclist and the Pedestrian been on their smartphones.

    Who is at fault for not paying attention now ?

  • Every bicycle should have a bell, and this is precisely the sort of the scenario that the bell is for.
    While it should be the bicyclist's responsibility to adjust his speed to his surroundings -- so that he could break easily if there are people near to his path, the pedestrian would still get some (more*) blame if she does not respond to audio signals.

    The article does not tell whether the bike had a bell, or if it was used.

    *BTW. Note that the actual judgement does not lay all the blame on the cyclist.

  • ... that the woman should have to take her eyes off her effin' phone while she's walking about in a public. What if it had been someone running for a cab that she wandered in front of while she was wholly engaged with her phone and making herself unaware of her surroundings? What if she tripped over someone walking their dog because she didn't see the leash? Would they have to pay for her inattention as well?

    "Hey everyone! Watch out for ME! I'm a very important person using my cellphone!"

    I fully expect t

  • awareness (Score:5, Funny)

    by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @01:09PM (#58782962) Homepage

    Gemma Brushett, who works for a finance firm in the City of London and runs yoga retreats

    Gemma Brushell, who teaches YOGA, which advocates that its proponents to be AWARE OF THEIR BODY AND SURROUNDINGS AT ALL TIMES, was on a PHONE, not paying attention at all, and stepped out into a street. hmmm...

  • So now cyclists must violate the laws of physics in order to stop instantly to avoid hitting people that jump in front of them, or pay significant damages? I would have rewarded the cyclist damages for an idiot damaging their bicycle!
    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Allow me to quote the article:

      The biker "... was also knocked out by the collision". He was going some to do that. We're not talking a little tap.

      "The court heard that Brushett was one of a âoethrongâ of people trying to cross the road at the start of rush-hour."

      He was hurtling towards a crowd of people, she didn't jump out on anyone - she was crossing with others (happens all the time in the UK - and, yes, the light had gone green but that doesn't entitle you to drive into the groups of people

  • It would seem like the next step will be to require bicyclists to acquire insurance, public liability and property damage just like the drivers of cars are required to carry, at least in the US. I am a motorcycle rider and I really despise much of the bicyclists behavior, they go from sidewalk mixing with pedestrians, to the protected bike lanes to mixing in with auto traffic without regard for anyone else. Bikes need to stay within the bike lanes unless they aren't there and then stay within the auto lanes

  • I hate these little toys on the road where cars belong, but I hate people so wrapped up in their phones they tune out of the world around them....

  • This is again such an unbelievable outcome. The person that doesn't pay attention get's the payout.. So next time a person can just jump in front of a cyclist or car and get's a payout if they sue.. This is just ridiculous, if she was at a zebra crossing and didn't have a red light, it would be a different matter. But they should look at who's actually at fault, and in this case it's the moron that looks at her phone while crossing the street. The bitch should be happy it was a cyclist that hit her and not
  • ... to avoid hitting something or someone. You slow to a stop as quickly as you are able.

    [The pedestrian] was looking at her mobile phone when crossing the road, and only noticed [the cyclist] approaching at the last moment, despite the traffic lights showing green.

    The court was told she [the pedestrian] panicked and tried to step back, but the cyclist, who had been travelling at 10-15mph, swerved in the same direction and hit her.

    Honestly, if had just tried to slow down instead, he may have well miss

  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2019 @09:41AM (#58788050)

    All the blame should be on the woman. She has an obligation to pay attention, and not step directly in front of traffic. The cyclist, however alert, cannot avoid every jaywalking pedestrian.

    Also, society has a duty to stop these phone distracted idiots.

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...