The judge was entirely right!

Published: Thursday, 27 June 2019

Regarding that it cost the cyclist £100,000 in the court case, writes John Coxon.

I consider that the judge in this case got it entirely right. The cyclist did not observe the Highway Code, had no insurance and did nothing to prevent a large claim for costs against himself. The actual damages awarded were only £4,161.79, the rest is legal fees which, in fact have still to be determined and he could have limited them to £6000.00 had he wished to.

Equally to blame

Quoting from the Sun internet website it states:

“Ms Brushett sued the keen biker and was awarded a payout, despite Judge Shanti Mauger finding that she was equally to blame for the accident....”

Central London County Court Judge Mauger only awarded her the relatively small sum of £4,161.79 in damages which is half the full amount due to her being equally to blame. Ms Brushett has also asked for up to £100,000 in costs which the Judge has ordered Mr Hazeldean to pay because he was not insured at the time of the crash.

The court ruled that he was liable to pay damages as 'cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways' and “Mr Hazeldean knew the road was not entirely clear when he tried to ride through.”

Would have protected him

If Mr Hazeldean's had taken out insurance his costs would have been limited to £6,000. Also, if he had made a counter claim the law would have protected him against having to pay large amounts in costs.

It is quite clear that the judge only awarded half of the full award to Ms Brushett as she said Ms Brushett was equally to blame. The reason Mr Hazeldean has been left with such a high bill for costs is because he was not insured and he did not counter claim. Both reasons are his own fault so therefore he should not blame others for his losses.

Calm and reasonable road user

The Sun article also stated:

“Judge Mauger said Mr Hazeldean was 'a calm and reasonable road user'. But ruled he was liable to pay damages as 'cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways'.

"Although Ms Brushett 'was looking at her phone' when she walked into the road in front of him, Mr Hazeldean knew the road was not entirely clear when he tried to ride through.”

I think this comment by the judge is fair and justified. No one has the right to just barge through people, especially when they don't have the right of way, like so many cyclist are now doing on the pavements, footpaths and towpaths.

Highway Code

Those saying that as he had a green light then he had automatic right of way need to take note that the Highway Code states 'GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing'.

This applies to cyclists as well as motorists in that it only allows you to proceed if the way is clear. It does not give you carte blanche to plough your way through anything that is in your way, although many cyclists and motorists think they are allowed to and indeed try very hard to do so.

Highway code rule 62 (for cyclists) states: 'Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary'. There is no mention of this only applying on roads either.

Including towpath users

I hope this court judgement will be a wakeup call to cyclists and show them they are not above the law and do not have unrestricted right of way over any other highway, including towpath, users.