Re: cycling on the pavement cost family 150k
- From: Doug <jagmad@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
On 22 June, 09:54, JNugent <jennings...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:At least there is a little justice but the life of the victim can
he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still got some
What can one make of that report? Perhaps it isn't accurate, because it does
not seem totally consistent with the outcome.
The cyclist bypassed some congestion by the expedient of cycling along a
footway, then returned to the carriageway alongside a lorry (ie, on its
nearside) in a spot where he could not see the vehicle's indicators (the
lorry was turning left) and the driver could not see him.
How, then, can it be the driver's fault or the vehicle owner's fault?
As the report said:
"Simon Michael, the family's barrister, told the court that the fatal
accident occurred after Mr Donald briefly headed onto the pavement close to
his home in Graham Road, Hackney when a gap in the markings of the cycle lane
he had been travelling on coincided with a traffic snarl-up".
And of course, probably the last thing he would want to do would be to wait
like everyone else. So onto the footway he went (but it was only "briefly").
The judge's comments on the "confusing" nature of cycle lane markings seem to
be an exercise in ultimate non-sequiturs. Surely he wasn't saying - or trying
to say - that this TV and film set-builder was too unintelligent to know that
you aren't allowed to cycle along footways in Dalston? Or that the absence of
a cycle lane means that he could do as he liked?
£335,000 is a fearful amount of money to have awarded against one even if it
is covered by insurance. There is an obvious and understandable temptation in
such cases for the judge to try to find reasons to compensate a bereaved
family. I've seen it happen in a case in which I was a witness, thirty+ years
ago. I shouldn't have been surprised if the insurance company had appealed
against it. However, the passage: "The family agreed to accept a payout on
the basis of 75 percent of full liability, due to the fact that Mr Donald had
left the road and travelled on the pavement just prior to his death" seems to
indicate some sort of bargain made in connection with the proceedings.
never be reclaimed.
So, an HGV with faulty mirrors was the cause then. There are so many
faulty vehicles and drivers on our roads at present, which the
government seems either to tolerate or ignore, is it any wonder that
so many are killed or seriously injured? While the penalties for this
carnage remain so derisory?
The usual attempt to direct blame at the vulnerable victim, because he
had been cycling on the pavement prior to the collision, obviously
failed this time around. Yet another victory for justice!
UK Radical Campaigns
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
- Prev by Date: Re: Helmets reduce bicycle-related head and facial injuries
- Next by Date: Re: "The most dangerous cycle crossing in the UK?"
- Previous by thread: Re: cycling on the pavement cost family 150k
- Next by thread: Re: cycling on the pavement cost family 150k