The 1994 TdF crash with the policeman (taking a photo?)

[GuyBoden]

Both parties were found equally culpable. He apparently went for his airhorn rather than the brakes first. I presume he did this so she will respond in time. The huge compensation was because he was not insured, he did make a counterclaim and initially represented himself. A series of errors on his part. The bulk of the cost was from the pedestrian's lawyer. The lawyer's bill is shocking btw even if it is 50%.

I am still wondering why he went for the airhorn instead of braking first.

Re: Compensation.
"most people have household insurance which covers them (and, usually, anyone else living in their household – e.g. a child, spouse or adult offspring) for public liability. This insurance gives third party cover and will usually cover both cyclists and pedestrians for claims made against them when walking or cycling, and not just claims connected to their house. The actual terms of the insurance policy will set out what it covers but most people don’t even realise that they have this cover until it is explained to them."

 

[matticus]

I have zero idea what relevance that UK case has to the 1994 Tdf crash.

Can we talk about this week's Emmerdale? There was a character riding a bike for 8 seconds.

 

[GuyBoden]

I have zero idea what relevance that UK case has to the 1994 Tdf crash.

Yes, it's gone off at a bit of a tangent, but here's a clue.
"In most European countries, presumed liability means the more powerful road user is judged to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise."

 

[matticus]

Yes, it's gone off at a bit of a tangent, but here's a clue.
"In most European countries, presumed liability means the more powerful road user is judged to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise."

Do you think that is relevant to the 1994 policeman? If so, I'm interested to hear your explanation ...

 

[GuyBoden]

Do you think that is relevant to the 1994 policeman? If so, I'm interested to hear your explanation ...

My explanation, but admittedly slight tangent, is the discussion of laws that concern pedestrians walking into cyclists.


Your earlier post in this thread:

I'm only hearing snippets of the news, but I *think* the Hello Opi incident is different in that the French police are actively seeking the perp (presumably with intent to prosecute for something). ASO have stated intent to sue, but I wonder if they wouldnt be bothering if the police weren't already giving them an assist, so to speak.

Part of me hopes they do prosecute and/or sue, purely pour discourager les autres. (Even though she meant no harm, it was selfish, dangerous and negligent.)

 

[matticus]

The UK laws don't apply. The landscape was very different (legally) in 1994. The course was barriered off then. The policeman was looking at the riders. And I don't believe the 2021 woman is being prosecuted under any law relating to presumed liability.

So yes, a slight tangent, I'd agree!

 

[bitsandbobs]

I've seen it was reported on news this afternoon that the woman arrested will not be prosecuted. Or at least ASO has withdrawn its complaint.