Pedestrian Wins Compensation Despite Not Looking
shortfall
Posts: 3,288
Comments
-
Judge ruled they were both to blame.0
-
On the bright side, that's the first time ever I've read Daily Heil comments and they're all in favour of the cyclist!
The judge said it was 50/50, so hopefully the cyclist can sue the ped too....0 -
The judge said cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.
This obviously goes without saying, but I am disappointed that the judge did not also state that people should be aware of traffic when crossing roads, and should look where they are going, rather than at their mobiles.0 -
If it's 50/50 blame, can he sue her as well?0
-
Would she have been able to claim compensation if she had been hit by a car I wonder?
Nice to see that the DM has helpfully provided a picture of Ms Bruschett suitably attired!0 -
Clickrumble wrote:Would she have been able to claim compensation if she had been hit by a car I wonder?
Nice to see that the DM has helpfully provided a picture of Ms Bruschett suitably attired!
quite disappointed that they haven't provided the usual valuation of her house, especially as she lives in London0 -
PoweredByIdris wrote:Clickrumble wrote:Would she have been able to claim compensation if she had been hit by a car I wonder?
Nice to see that the DM has helpfully provided a picture of Ms Bruschett suitably attired!
quite disappointed that they haven't provided the usual valuation of her house, especially as she lives in London
Yes, age, number of children and value of house are usually supplied0 -
I'm convinced the DM has an estate agent in a helicopter parked on their roof, ready to be dispatched at a moment's notice to any breaking story to provide a full valuation of any related property0
-
He should sue:
1/ The Phone manufacturer for making the device by which she was distracted
2/ The Content Creators for making available the content by which she was distracted
3/ The Network Provider for enabling the content to be played on the device by which she was distracted
4/ The woman for being a f'ing brainless moron
Seems legit to me......Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
Sounds like he knew people were still on the road but he went for a gap - possibly a bit harsh but not quite someone just stepping off the pavement in front of him. Yes if it's 50:50 he should definitely counter-sue her.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
redvision wrote:The judge said cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.
This obviously goes without saying, but I am disappointed that the judge did not also state that people should be aware of traffic when crossing roads, and should look where they are going, rather than at their mobiles.
Does that also go for drivers when they deliberately (more so in bad weather, #couldntgiveaflyinfck) close pass and you might have seen an effin great pothole hidden by a puddle..??0 -
looking forward to her suing and the judge saying the same about the police rider
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48685340my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Despite the outrage, this seems to be a case based on a duty of care to more vulnerable road users doesn't it?
What strikes me is that he had time to (1) swerve (2) use an air horn and (3) brake. In what order exactly?
My instinct is to stop pedalling when I'm in that sort of situation because hitting anything and falling off hurts. I also find that pedestrians are more predictable only than squirrels. Even new born lambs and pheasants are more predictable than pedestrians.
I don't use a bell or an air horn because I get shouted at for startling people if I use one, and shouted at if I don't and politely alert anyone to my presence. Either way some pedestrians have the ability to move in both directions when they see a bike coming, like they are trying to evade sniper fire. No matter what you do they are going to be startled.
I figured out when I was a child cycling to school that you are pretty much always have to be the one to avoid anything - whether it's a person an animal or a vehicle. It doesn't seem that this particular cyclist took that view. Bet he does now.0 -
It sounds a bit suspicious to me. It says that a group of pedestrians were just about to finish crossing the road and step onto the pavement, of which she was one. So why if that is the case did the cyclist feel the need to take any action? If the road ahead was genuinely clear, why didnt they just sail past with nothing happening. The fact that he had to take action lends weight to the other cyclist witness, whose testimony was discounted for some reason, that he was riding recklessly and trying to badger the pedestrians into hurrying up to get out of his way and aiming for a gap which wasnt as large as the article implies.
50/50 seems a reasonable outcome therefore if the pedestrian wasnt paying attention either.
I dont understand how, if she was 50% responsible, she is due to get compensation from the cyclist though? Seems weird that one...0 -
Pretty much - you either have to give notice a long way out - or just whizz past hoping they don't notice you until it's too late.First Aspect wrote:I don't use a bell or an air horn because I get shouted at for startling people if I use one, and shouted at if I don't and politely alert anyone to my presence. Either way some pedestrians have the ability to move in both directions when they see a bike coming, like they are trying to evade sniper fire. No matter what you do they are going to be startled.
I figured out when I was a child cycling to school that you are pretty much always have to be the one to avoid anything - whether it's a person an animal or a vehicle. It doesn't seem that this particular cyclist took that view. Bet he does now.
It should be everyone's responsibility to avoid a collision0 -
I get cyclists and other road users have to be pretty much ready for anything, but he took avoiding action, she did the same just happened to be in the same direction and the collided. 50/50 is probably about the only way it could go, despite her basically going phone zombie mode.
Also with you on the horn/bell issues, they seem angry at you using it, but are the same people that get angry when you pass them and don't use it.0 -
I'm prejudiced against anyone with an air horn. It all smacks a little of "coming through, my right of way, coming thr... Oh sh!t."apreading wrote:It sounds a bit suspicious to me. It says that a group of pedestrians were just about to finish crossing the road and step onto the pavement, of which she was one. So why if that is the case did the cyclist feel the need to take any action? If the road ahead was genuinely clear, why didnt they just sail past with nothing happening. The fact that he had to take action lends weight to the other cyclist witness, whose testimony was discounted for some reason, that he was riding recklessly and trying to badger the pedestrians into hurrying up to get out of his way and aiming for a gap which wasnt as large as the article implies.
50/50 seems a reasonable outcome therefore if the pedestrian wasnt paying attention either.
I dont understand how, if she was 50% responsible, she is due to get compensation from the cyclist though? Seems weird that one...0 -
I'm prejudiced against anyone with an air horn. It all smacks a little of "coming through, my right of way, coming thr... Oh sh!t."apreading wrote:It sounds a bit suspicious to me. It says that a group of pedestrians were just about to finish crossing the road and step onto the pavement, of which she was one. So why if that is the case did the cyclist feel the need to take any action? If the road ahead was genuinely clear, why didnt they just sail past with nothing happening. The fact that he had to take action lends weight to the other cyclist witness, whose testimony was discounted for some reason, that he was riding recklessly and trying to badger the pedestrians into hurrying up to get out of his way and aiming for a gap which wasnt as large as the article implies.
50/50 seems a reasonable outcome therefore if the pedestrian wasnt paying attention either.
I dont understand how, if she was 50% responsible, she is due to get compensation from the cyclist though? Seems weird that one...0 -
TBF - as a regular shared path user - the inability for some to not hear 2 bells and a polite call is astounding - plus you get those with headphones on ...First Aspect wrote:I'm prejudiced against anyone with an air horn. It all smacks a little of "coming through, my right of way, coming thr... Oh sh!t."
Sometimes, with their dogs on leads, you've just not got enough room to get past without them doing something positive and sometimes, even with no dogs, whilst you could squeeze past - it's better to warn them first.... if they'd listen ...0 -
Step83 wrote:
Also with you on the horn/bell issues, they seem angry at you using it, but are the same people that get angry when you pass them and don't use it.
I have a piercing whistle (not a referee's whistle, more purse your lips and blow) - so I do that, or shout if I have to. In 7 years of commuting in London I've never had anyone moan at me yet (at least not to my face), nor collided with a pedestrian . Well there was that one proper eyes rolling crack head wandering in the road in Tooting, who started ranting back at me after I ranted at him for staggering into my path, but I think that was his state of mind.
I kind of understand the airhorn thing - theoretically a driver who starts to drift into you, or starts to pull out in front of you should be able to hear the airhorn, whereas they won't hear a whistle or a shout. I have to say I don't like bells, they always sound officious but ineffective, ting ting ting ting ting. That's just my opinion though.0 -
hopkinb wrote:Step83 wrote:
Also with you on the horn/bell issues, they seem angry at you using it, but are the same people that get angry when you pass them and don't use it.
I have a piercing whistle (not a referee's whistle, more purse your lips and blow) - so I do that, or shout if I have to. In 7 years of commuting in London I've never had anyone moan at me yet (at least not to my face), nor collided with a pedestrian . Well there was that one proper eyes rolling crack head wandering in the road in Tooting, who started ranting back at me after I ranted at him for staggering into my path, but I think that was his state of mind.
I kind of understand the airhorn thing - theoretically a driver who starts to drift into you, or starts to pull out in front of you should be able to hear the airhorn, whereas they won't hear a whistle or a shout. I have to say I don't like bells, they always sound officious but ineffective, ting ting ting ting ting. That's just my opinion though.
the Tooting incident sounds familiar - I may have been on your wheel that day (although I imagine this is a weekly occurrence in Tooting)0 -
PoweredByIdris wrote:
the Tooting incident sounds familiar - I may have been on your wheel that day (although I imagine this is a weekly occurrence in Tooting)
I certainly remember there was someone around. I think I exchanged a few words at the lights at Broadway with whoever was behind me when it happened.
I'm biggish, ti bike, deep wheels.0 -
hopkinb wrote:PoweredByIdris wrote:
the Tooting incident sounds familiar - I may have been on your wheel that day (although I imagine this is a weekly occurrence in Tooting)
I certainly remember there was someone around. I think I exchanged a few words at the lights at Broadway with whoever was behind me when it happened.
I'm biggish, ti bike, deep wheels.
World commuting Racer! good interval session0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... om-cyclistRobert 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.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.
Wonder what the total value will be?0 -
I assume that this ruling sets her up to be counter-sued now. This was a case that she brought to get compensation, whereas I can't find anything to say that the cyclist is also looking for compensation (yet).
So she'll end up paying half of the inflated costs if he does decide to seek compensation. So only the lawyers win.0 -
If it's any consolation, this type of legal work is fairly low profit.PoweredByIdris wrote:I assume that this ruling sets her up to be counter-sued now. This was a case that she brought to get compensation, whereas I can't find anything to say that the cyclist is also looking for compensation (yet).
So she'll end up paying half of the inflated costs if he does decide to seek compensation. So only the lawyers win.0 -
Moonbiker wrote:Wonder what the total value will be?
She has claimed £100k :shock:
His lawyers words on the case.
https://levisolicitors.co.uk/news/our-c ... hazeldean/Levi Solicitors wrote:The Personal Injury team is acting for Mr Robert Hazeldean in defending a claim brought against him by Gemma Brushett.
Unfortunately, Mr Hazeldean had not felt able to instruct solicitors at the outset due to costs. He therefore tried to deal with the case as a litigant in person. The Claimant took advantage of this and has now sought almost £100,000 in costs. We are strongly resisting this as a total abuse of process, and are pleased to report that the court has listed this matter for a third occasion. The court has ordered that the Claimant pays our client’s costs of this third hearing.
Emma Farrell, head of the Personal Injury team, said; “If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the Claimant’s legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690. If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order.”
Sadly, this is not the only uninsured defendant case that we are running. We believe that the law in this area urgently needs reforming.
Our client is reeling and taking some time to reflect on his options. He asks for privacy at this time. Any press enquiries should be sent to rjago@levisolicitors.co.uk
Mr Hazeldean has, however, asked us to share his own thoughts on the matter.
The cyclists words on the case.Robert Hazeldean wrote:Today finally brings to a close four years that have taken a great toll on my mental health. I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome, reeling from the impact it will have on my life, and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
I am more grateful than I can say for the support of my wonderful girlfriend and my friends and family. I would not have got through this without them. I have also been extremely touched by the messages of support from strangers who have read about the case in the press.
I’d like to thank my lawyers for helping me understand and navigate the complexities of the legal system. I feel that most cyclists would not have appreciated the consequences of not taking the opportunity to put forward a counterclaim which meant that I was unable to rely on the legislation in the same way that the Claimant has to protect myself against a destructive costs award. This was not because I was not injured, but because I do not advocate the claim culture. Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.
I would urge other cyclists to take out insurance through British Cycling to help protect them from experiencing what I’ve gone through.
The case has cast a shadow over our new life in France and left our future uncertain. Covering the costs and the compensation is going to exceed £20,000 and will leave me bankrupt. I can only hope that the focus on this case highlights the vulnerability of cyclists, both physically and against the courts, and that it might help reform a legal system that appears to leave certain road users disproportionately exposed.
If you do want to help him out.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-cover-r ... legal-feesI've added a signature to prove it is still possible.0 -
I guess that's a test of whether you can get banned from this site.0
-
KingstonGraham wrote:I guess that's a test of whether you can get banned from this site.
Why? It’s not inciting anything or anyone. It’s an opinion. Far less offensive than the vicious calls for Kirby to be fired.0 -
How tiresome.0
