Cyclist who fractured pedestrian's skull while riding laps of Regent's Park fined £500 over group ride collision on wrong side of crossing

[ebikeerwidnes]

There should be no conflict. It's easily inevitable because the driver (not the car) should be looking far enough ahead to see the obstruction and not overtake if they can't see for sure that there's space to do so safely.

That said, I believe advisory (dashed) lanes simply disappearing at pinch points is no longer the current standard design... and even that was better than the previous common practice of painting a narrowed lane through the pinch point, directing cyclists to take up a dodgy position.


I can't sympathise with it. We've always been meant to check the left shoulder and mirror before moving or turning left. It's a bad habit if some drivers weren't doing it and ideally they'd be caught before they hurt someone.

It has never been the convention to pass on the right of a central island, especially where it has a keep-left arrow, has it? Doing so would put you heading into oncoming 70mph traffic on some dual carriageways, for example.


Doesn't matter. In Norwich 30 years ago, walkers used to look right at drivers as they stepped out. It's still up to other road users (except maybe cattle and wild animals) to avoid them and it's a bit sick that so many people seemed to forget this, or used their cars to bully people.

When I was young - but old enough to go out on my own
I was told that if I was crossing a road and there was an oncoming car - clearly far enough away but oncoming

then it was best to look look directly at the driver
partly because people tend to notice other people who look directly at them
and partly to be able to see what the driver is doing
in modern terms - it would allow you to notice that the moron is on his (or her) phone and not looking at the road
or whatever

but when I started cycling around - and especially when I started driving - it was always clear that it was always the responsibility of vehicle higher up the chain to be able to avoid a collision even if the lower vehicle did something stupid

My Grandad said that you should always go round a corned on the assumption that there is a Sherman tank coming the other way on the wrong side of the road and he is currently looking for his lost biscuits
or something like that

seemed like a good way to state it

 

[BoldonLad]

Cyclist who fractured pedestrian's skull while riding laps of Regent's Park fined £500 over group ride collision on wrong side of crossing

Plus £2500 compensation to be paid by the cyclist Mathew Thornley

> Lawyers representing the cyclist said there was a "build up of traffic" which led to him taking "evasive action" and riding on the wrong side of the road and a pedestrian island, where he hit Ms Dos Santos. Thornley added that he was not riding faster than the park's 20mph speed limit and called the riding an "evasive manoeuvre".
> However, Ms Dos Santos told the newspaper the sentence was "paltry and insulting", claiming she had not been informed of the change to Thornley's plea and never submitted an impact statement.
> She commented: "What annoys me is that the judge has sentenced this cyclist without any input from me about how this collision has affected me. The cyclist was on the wrong side of the road. If a motorist was driving on the wrong side of the road and caused these injuries he or she would have been punished far more severely.

I've got some problems with this firstly if there was "a build up of traffic" then he should have stopped, riding on the wrong side of the road is not an option. His ride is not more important the the laws he should have been following. If he was unable to stop then he is riding without due care, too fast or his bike was defective.

Then she absolutely should have been informed of the hange in plea, but I'm not sure if that would be the resposibility of the CPS/Court or her own solicitors. From something else she said "this man is a cyclist without insurance means he has got away with it. Solicitors are not prepared to fight such cases for victims because cyclists do not have insurance." it sounds like perhaps she didn't. Should insurance for cyclists on organised events be mandatory so pedestrians have some protection?

The "no Insurance" claim. It is not certain of course, but, if the cyclist was/is a property owner/tenant, with Household Insurance, it may well include liability for injury to third parties, and/or assistance with Legal Advice. AFAIK these are fairly standard "features" of home contents/propert insurance. I may be miss-understanding their scope, I have, thankfully, never needed to make use of these "features".

 

[wiggydiggy]

The "no Insurance" claim. It is not certain of course, but, if the cyclist was/is a property owner/tenant, with Household Insurance, it may well include liability for injury to third parties, and/or assistance with Legal Advice. AFAIK these are fairly standard "features" of home contents/propert insurance. I may be miss-understanding their scope, I have, thankfully, never needed to make use of these "features".

Potentially, but I always thought it covers you for issues arrising at your home. Not if you injure someone away from your home.

Of course the existence of any policy that could help is in his benefit, not the victims, they can still civil claim against him regardless.

 

[steveindenmark]

For the compenasation I'd imagine (without diving into it) the magistrates have set guidelines to abide by, and/or sentencing in the UK and victim awards is often critisized so maybe this is one of those times. I didn't know that regarding psychological injury BTW.

The cyclist having 3rd party liability wouldn't have helped her only him, but it won't help him either here as he broke the law and presumably made any insurance null and void when doing so. Its only of use to us when we ride as we are supposed to, unlike this idiot.

If he had 3rd party insurance. Her insurers could claim against his insurance for damages. The fact that he has been convicted makes it a lot easier.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Her insurers could claim

Which insurance policy covers her when she is out walking?

 

[Alex321]

If he had 3rd party insurance. Her insurers could claim against his insurance for damages. The fact that he has been convicted makes it a lot easier.

Why would her insurers be involved? It isn't like a car accident, where your insurance pays for your damages, then clams back from the third party if they are at fault.

 

[wiggydiggy]

If he had 3rd party insurance. Her insurers could claim against his insurance for damages. The fact that he has been convicted makes it a lot easier.

Of course, but she doesn't need her own insurers to do that. She just gets a decent solicitor firm to start a claim against him, whether he has insurance or not is his problem.

 

[Alex321]

Potentially, but I always thought it covers you for issues arrising at your home. Not if you injure someone away from your home.

Mine (Aviva) covers liability for things you cause away from your home, including cycling (and it paid out for repairs to the car I damaged 3 years ago). The wording of that clause is:

Personal Liability Your liability in a personal capacity (not as owner or occupier of any building, land or fixed property). This includes accidents from your leisure activities such as golf or cycling.

There are exception, you are not covered for the use of watercraft or motorised vehicles, or a few other things, but it would certainly cover him in this situation.

Of course the existence of any policy that could help is in his benefit, not the victims, they can still civil claim against him regardless.

True, but if he doesn't have the means to pay any award himself, then him having insurance will benefit the victim as well.

 

[wiggydiggy]

Mine (Aviva) covers liability for things you cause away from your home, including cycling (and it paid out for repairs to the car I damaged 3 years ago). The wording of that clause is:

Personal Liability Your liability in a personal capacity (not as owner or occupier of any building, land or fixed property). This includes accidents from your leisure activities such as golf or cycling.

There are exception, you are not covered for the use of watercraft or motorised vehicles, or a few other things, but it would certainly cover him in this situation.



True, but if he doesn't have the means to pay any award himself, then him having insurance will benefit the victim as well.

Indeed, it was just her earlier saying "...a cyclist without insurance means he has got away with it...". He's not got away with it and if he doesn't have insurance he might end up regretting not having any.

 

[steveindenmark]

Of course, but she doesn't need her own insurers to do that. She just gets a decent solicitor firm to start a claim against him, whether he has insurance or not is his problem. insurance

Her insurance company would do it for free. A solicitor would cost or take part of the claim.

 

[boydj]

Steady on, he's only been convicted of careless cycling. I think he'd have to be convicted of deliberately committing a crime (which reckless or dangerous cycling might be) for the insurance to be even possible to be voided. Otherwise, it's a mistake and something he didn't forsee happening, and that's the sort of thing you insure against.

But I'm open to persuasion on this because I don't remember seeing insurance voided often. That may be because insurers think it cheaper to pay out than defend in court a denied claim.

If he has specific insurance for the bike, the third party liability would not be voided, but any liability he might try to claim for his own injuries or damage would be voided by the illegal act. Similarly, third party liability from his home insurance would be available to claim against.