Page 1 of 1

Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 5:05 pm
by JoyofBrex8889
In yet another example of Britains sick legal culture a cyclist has been bankrupted by a woman who stepped out into the road while staring at her phone. Not his fault, but now he is bankrupt.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7166305/Cyclist-Robert-Hazeldean-left-bankrupt-yoga-teacher-Gemma-Brushett-knocked-London.html

The lesson for cyclists seems to be if you run anyone over, even if it isnt your fault, it is your fault and you will be bankrupted, unless you make a counter-claim.

Get legal insurance. you are all gonna need it. Anyone short of cash will be looking to "collide" with cyclists for some easy money. Its open season for claims now.

Goldie Looking Chain were prophetic: Remember kids, no win no fee, its money for free, its gotta be true cos its on the TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubI87ZIF26I

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 5:20 pm
by JoyofBrex8889
Sounds like a potential claim to me.... Can you get a witness? If so, it seems you are golden under our current system. Prius driver should be worried....

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 6:04 pm
by jonesa1
It is an utterly bizarre decision but, commenting as a regular cyclist, it feels in tune with the prevailing attitude to cycling and cyclists. Some people apparently believe that cyclists travelling within the speed limit are more dangerous than motorists who exceed it: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/30mph-cyclists-alarming-50mph-motorists-according-speedwatch-group-427462

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 6:49 pm
by paulnumbers
I'm a cycle commuter, and have had a few few brushes with incidents myself.

Something doesn't quite ring true about this story though. He had the time to sound an air horn, but not to slow down. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it sounds like she walked into traffic, he tried to scare her out the way and didn't immediately slow, and then he finally made attempts to avert the problem but it was too late. So, probably poor cycling, but understandable when you get idiots walking out on you every day.

A good reminder for us all.

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 7:01 pm
by johnhemming
Cyclists and Pedestrians do need to be responsible for any damage that they cause. I don't think it should be compulsory for them to have insurance whereas it is compulsory for drivers to have insurance.

Looking at this case externally if the claimant got damages of about 5K and the defendant then had costs awarded against him of about 100K it strikes me that an offer of 10K without prejudice save as to costs would have been a sensible thing to have done.

Hence the lessons from this are:
a) Take the legal system seriously.
b) It is worth having some insurance that deals with public liabilities in these situations.

The costs seem high, however.

I have in the past been a commuting cyclist in London as well as Birmingham.

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 7:07 pm
by UncleEbenezer
Most of us have third-party insurance. My own is probably fairly typical: it comes as part of my household contents policy.

A much bigger risk is legal expenses. That (unlike the liability bit) actually costs extra to insure against.

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 8:42 pm
by Charlottesquare
Whilst I suspect none of us can really comment on the court's verdict if we have not heard all the evidence led, one factor may be that the woman struck was apparently not a single person crossing the road without observation but, if the paper is to be believed, one of a "throng" of people crossing, she merely being the one struck; this may well have had a bearing on why the cyclist was considered not to have taken sufficient care.

Certainly if one was driving one would likely slow/stop for a throng of people crossing the road, one would not try to pass through any such throng.

However, as I said above, I do not know all the circumstances so I make this point as mere conjecture as to why the decision by the court was as reported.

From the article:

"The court heard that Ms Brushett was one of a 'throng' of people trying to cross the road at the start of rush hour when the accident occurred."

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 8:52 pm
by Dod101
I am inclined to agree with Charlottesquare and what I thought as well when I read about it. Just because the lights are in your favour it does not mean that you have the right to plough on through whoever is in your way. I think that must have been in the judges thoughts. I see this often, both as a driver and as a pedestrian; nowadays not as a cyclist but the situation must be vey similar.

Dod

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 9:10 pm
by johnhemming
To me it appears that the handling of the legal case is key to this. The court concluded that both were at fault. The claimant had made a clam for damages and got some damages. This is a personal injury claim which may have qualified one way costs shifting as well. However, the conclusion was that the claimant was damaged and should get half of what she asked for because she was partially at fault.

The real question to study is why the costs ended up so much and why the case was not settled at an earlier stage (without 100Ks worth of costs). The case has been going on for almost 4 years. It could have been settled at any time during that period. If the defendant had offered a sufficient settlement then he would not have been hit by such a big costs bill.

There is an issue about QOCS in certain circumstances (this is potentially one of them).

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 10:00 pm
by Lanark
Some rather more balanced coverage over at the Guardian

“Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ion-london

So the real message is "Bankrupcy for attempting to represent yourself in court and messing it up."

Seriously people stop reading the Daily Mail every single thing they print is WRONG, just endless outrage clickbait for the hard of thinking!

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 11:36 pm
by JoyofBrex8889
Hmmmm

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 11:45 pm
by JoyofBrex8889
Lanark wrote:Some rather more balanced coverage over at the Guardian

“Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ion-london

So the real message is "Bankrupcy for attempting to represent yourself in court and messing it up."

Seriously people stop reading the Daily Mail every single thing they print is WRONG, just endless outrage clickbait for the hard of thinking!


Are we in the business of insulting people on this board? Thought it was neutral ground. Guess not.

Since you started it by effectively accusing me of being hard of thinking I will respond: Many would say the same about your rag of choice: The Guardian is horribly biased, badly written, prone to promoting coercion via dogpiling, and isn’t even very successful at getting clicks.

I actually read the Daily Telegraph but that is behind a paywall so out of courtesy linked a free site. MailOnline is the most visited English-language newspaper website globally. The MailOnline is successful beyond the wildest dreams of the Guardian shower.

So can you actually point out any inaccuracies in the linked Daily Mail article?

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 11:56 pm
by Dod101
No, the real point is 'Bankruptcy for attempting to represent yourself in Court.......' I do wish posters would get their spelling correct.

On the case, it would seem that both parties were to blame. The cyclist cannot just plough into a crowd of people and a pedestrian should take care where they walk. The cyclist may have been naïve in not seeking legal advice much earlier than he apparently did but that is not the fault of the accuser. Without further information, that is surely as far as we can go.

Dod

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 22nd, 2019, 8:41 am
by UncleEbenezer
Dod101 wrote:No, the real point is 'Bankruptcy for attempting to represent yourself in Court.......' I do wish posters would get their spelling correct.
Dod

Bear in mind that a Defendant who cannot afford legal fees has no option there. This isn't the criminal courts, where the taxpayer bears the costs and a conviction would've cost him very little.

If we accept that £5k was an appropriate penalty for being an idiot on a bike and for whatever damage that caused, the harsh penalty was for being backed into a corner. The spirit of Jarndyce lives on.

Upvote for calling out the smelling pistake. That kind of illiteracy really is painful. When you perpetrate a typo, this board allows you to edit the post after you've had the facepalm moment.

Re: Bankrupcy for cycling.

Posted: June 22nd, 2019, 9:54 am
by johnhemming
The underlying issue relates to the way costs are handled. The rules on QOCS are complicated and may appear counterintuitive. All cases need better pre-emptive costs management really.