Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Odd judgements? Blame the cyclist!

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Odd judgements? Blame the cyclist!

Old 18th Jun 2019, 18:55
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Odd judgements? Blame the cyclist!

Did you hear the one about the judge who believed 3 witnesses that the cyclist
"was not at fault"
after the pedestrian walked straight into the path of the cyclist, and 3 witnesses stated that "
she [the pedestrian] stepped out or that the cyclist could not avoid her"
, and summed up that
"I find that she was looking at her phone and I accept the account of Mr H [the cyclist] that she turned and went back towards the central reservation".
Further, that Ms B's [the pedestrian] conduct as a pedestrian must have contributed to the accident.
Ms B must clearly have equal responsibility is she is crossing the road without looking - and if she is looking at her phone, even more so."
... and yet the judge found in the pedestrian's favour and awarded damages against the cyclist.

What a bizarre judgement, though surely we must believe that the judge being female had nothing whatsoever to with finding against the man in favour of the woman. Surely?
pilotmike is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 19:06
  #2 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 55
Posts: 5,743
I read that and find it appalling.

I nearly hit a female pedestrian in exactly the same way in Croydon several years ago, she walked straight into the road without looking. When I reviewed the GoPro, yep she was looking at her phone. Lucky for her I was not going fast and was paying attention. Lucky for me I mean...

I hope he is insured...
treadigraph is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 19:08
  #3 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 2
The pedestrian behaved like a headless chicken, the cyclist should have just stopped. That's what you would have done in a car. The judge simply laid down a give way rule that says cyclists give way to pedestrians the same way as car drivers give way to cyclists. Buses apparently do not have to give way to cyclists or car drivers but that probably has something to do with Mayor Khan.
Ms Brushett will only get 1/2 of what she claimed because of her contributory negligence. Costs and damages to be assessed at a later date.
I confess freely that in London in particular I, an old and non violent man, would do great execution among the cycling fraternity were I armed with my old Colt .32 automatic and legal immunity for chastising the arrogant and foul mouthed bunch, mostly, who give bad reputation to one of Edwardian England's most genteel forms of transport for the masses. That's before we get onto the category of pizza boys for whom I would reserve a blunderbuss full of the rustiest of nails.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 19:17
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 457
If I had been the judge in this case, I'd have sentenced the pedestrian to a lifetime ban - a lifetime ban on using a mobile phone - on the basis that the evidence indicated they were utterly incapable of figuring it was suicidal to be glued to using it with zero spare capacity to recognise their life was in immediate and very real danger, without the commonsense to leave the surfing / texting / twatfacing etc. until after they had safely navigated their way across the busy road full of life-threatening danger using all their senses on 'danger alert' to the full.

This is right up there for a Darwin award, not a financial payout! What message does this ruling send out? "Go right ahead with impunity and cross busy roads while spliced to your phone 'cos it will reward you financially if you can dart into someone's way and nearly kill yourself" That's the very clear message I hear.

Total muppetry - by both the pedestrian and the judge, by all accounts.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 19:26
  #5 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 2
No, I suspect that the judge was right in law, the interpretation of which was probably formulated before women with mobile telephones began to walk about in public without due care and attention.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 19:47
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,677
Originally Posted by cavortingcheetah View Post
I confess freely that in London in particular I, an old and non violent man, would do great execution among the cycling fraternity were I armed with my old Colt .32 automatic and legal immunity for chastising the arrogant and foul mouthed bunch
I've been cycling for 60-odd years and I'm still waiting for my invitation to join this mysterious fraternity. What have I done wrong?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 20:37
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 0
The curse of the mobile phone whether folks walking down the high street heads down walking all over the place, people in cars with one or no hands on the steering wheel!! These numpties need locking up and throwing the key away!!
GLIDER 90 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 21:35
  #8 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 2
DaveReidUK
(for chastising the arrogant and foul mouthed bunch)
(for chastising the arrogant and foul mouthed bunch, mostly, who give bad reputation to one of Edwardian England's most genteel forms of transport for the masses. )

I am thrilled that you must fall outside the arrogant and foul mouthed bunch, being excluded by the artful insertion by myself in the original sentence of the word 'mostly'.
I'm glad I remembered to do that and so, happy cycling.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 21:45
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,428
Originally Posted by cavortingcheetah View Post
happy cycling.
On the subject of happy cycling, having just started cycling again after cataract operations, having not cycled without glasses since about the age of seven, I discover that cycling without glasses results in insects getting into your eyes.

I know that a few keen cyclists buy goggles to protect against things getting in their eyes, but I see plenty of cyclists out there with no eye protection at all - do they just put up with the occasional insect, or what?
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 21:46
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,677
Originally Posted by cavortingcheetah View Post
DaveReidUK
(for chastising the arrogant and foul mouthed bunch)
(for chastising the arrogant and foul mouthed bunch, mostly, who give bad reputation to one of Edwardian England's most genteel forms of transport for the masses. )

I am thrilled that you must fall outside the arrogant and foul mouthed bunch, being excluded by the artful insertion by myself in the original sentence of the word 'mostly'.
I'm glad I remembered to do that and so, happy cycling.
Ah, OK.

So is it most cyclists who are arrogant and foul-mouthed, or just most of the latter who give the former a bad reputation?

Either way, I clearly need to pose and swear more to join the brotherhood.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 21:48
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 160
Here we go. Idiot cyclists, pedestrians and car drivers take on the trams. I confess I laughed at the cyclist who missed one tram but managed to embed himself in another.

Steepclimb is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 22:05
  #12 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 2
DaveReidUK

I think I'll decline the proffered shovel and let the word 'most' hang lonesome like on its own recognisance and thank you for your understanding.

On the subject of bugs in the eyes, I used to wear a cheap pair of sunglasses, probably not such a sensible thing to have done in hindsight but then all my road cycling was done in South Africa and there were far worse dangers than bugs. Lots of small holders and house gardens had concealed dogs that often used to rush out, quite vengefully, in the attack mode. There was no way to outrun them and anyone wearing shorts who has ever stood, with a bicycle between his legs and faced a Doberman knows the meaning of real fear.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 22:14
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 517
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
On the subject of happy cycling, having just started cycling again after cataract operations, having not cycled without glasses since about the age of seven, I discover that cycling without glasses results in insects getting into your eyes.

I know that a few keen cyclists buy goggles to protect against things getting in their eyes, but I see plenty of cyclists out there with no eye protection at all - do they just put up with the occasional insect, or what?
Try it with a bit of speed and distance added


WingNut60 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 22:21
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 461
...anyone wearing shorts who has ever stood, with a bicycle between his legs and faced a Doberman knows the meaning of real fear.
On the odd occasion when I've been ambushed by a dog (though never a Doberman, I admit) while cycling, I found that if I got in first and barked at them, they inevitably turned tail and ran the other way, especially if encouraged by a boot under the ear.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2019, 23:51
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 227
Cavortingcheetah, I'm sure the cyclist would have stopped if they could of.

I find it interesting that we are born with 5 basic senses yet we routinely remove the two that will save our live when out in a fluid and dynamic environment. Earphones and mobile phones anyone?

Hawaii is one place, as a pedestrian,where you can be fined sending messages crossing the street.
clark y is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 03:42
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 461
Hawaii is one place, as a pedestrian,where you can be fined sending messages crossing the street.
And fair enough, too. I was on a bus in Honolulu a couple of years ago when an idiot woman stepped in front of it, blissfully unaware, with earbuds in, eyes glued to phone, thumb in bum and mind in neutral.
Fortunately for her, the driver threw out the anchors and stopped inches from her. Had any passengers been standing they would have almost certainly injured. Idiot woman, bemused, looked at the bus as though he had no right to interrupt her viewing.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 05:07
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: awstrukinfailure
Posts: 61
As has been mentioned above, the judge has to (and was quite correct) apply the law. Now in simple terms, under the Common Law, as individuals we have right of passage, unimpeded, if we are using Shank's Pony. Use of a conveyance (either un powered or powered.by whatever means - under your control) is deemed a privilege hence the nascent notion that a right will always eclipse a privilege. Then that other little consideration that you should control your conveyance in such a manner so as to stop clear of any obstruction - pedestrians included (no differentiation if they are a shuffling OAP, distracted teenager, whatever. Here in Oz, the right of the pedestrian is absolute - they can rush out onto a pedestrian crossing without nary a consideration knowing they have the full protection of the LAW. :-( In some of the other countries that has been modified such that a pedestrian should check before entering the roadway (note it does not say MUST). Thankfully the pedestrian mentioned above was hit by a bicycle - a HGV may have produced a different result. As an adjunct, the same obligation exists when crossing railway property (level crossings etc). Sadly now, local authorities are putting lights IN the ground on pedestrian crossings to alert the vacant-headed populace that something a bit bigger than they are is about to win the argument as to who has right of way.
plainmaker is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 06:36
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
On the subject of happy cycling, ... I discover that cycling without glasses results in insects getting into your eyes.
Cyclists with good eyesight get insects in their eyes.

Happy cyclists with good eyesight get insects in their eyes and their teeth!

Oh, and did I mention? ... Cyclists (happy or sad) unfortunate enough to be near stupid pedestrians with a death-wish that cross busy roads while glued to their phones instead of looking out that its clear to cross safely get damages awarded against them.....

Presumably the unfortunate widow Mrs Mayor, aged 83, who was knocked down by a 'professional' police motorcyclist outrider whose task was to clear a safe passage for HRHs William and Kate will be found completely innocent of any wrong doing, and the old lady will be found entirely to blame, despite neither being on any phone or social media at the time, nor being as quick on her feet as Usain Bolt. How very unfortunate that the 'professional' motorcyclist couldn't manage to avoid hitting her and putting her in hospital, where she'll be very lucky to make anything close to a full recovery.

Last edited by pilotmike; 19th Jun 2019 at 06:50.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 06:39
  #19 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by clark y View Post
Hawaii is one place, as a pedestrian,where you can be fined sending messages crossing the street.
Are you saying its dangerous to cross using a Huaweian phone?!
pilotmike is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2019, 09:49
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,984
Beware if someone suddenly steps into the road staring at a phone and you hit them

You could be liable, even though witnesses say you were not at fault..

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...red/ar-AAD3icB
NutLoose is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.