-
Oh I do not dispute that, it was principled but stupid. However the fact remains she made the decision to make a claim against him for something that was to most observers entirely her fault
Some more info coming out from a discussion between the legal bods involved and Martin Porter, specifically that [Hazledean] admitted that he saw her from 20m away and chose to accelerate rather than slow down.
https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143233029776842752
(Useful info in those tweets from first to last...)
Greenbank-
Something else quite frustrating is that the law, the application of the law, and the reality are all very far apart. We don’t have jaywalking laws, and we don’t often observe the laws that are in place anyway. When we do observe them we don’t consistently observe them.
So, regardless, if a pedestrian is already in the road the vehicle should yield, but a pedestrian should not step into the road when a vehicle is coming. The solicitors argue speed and distance to determine who had the right to be on the road and who should have stopped and decided they were equally to blame.
However, the equally to blame is determined on the basis that the guy saw her in the road so could and should have yielded. That is based on their own analysis of what would be acceptable distance and speed.
But, this never marries up with the reality of British infrastructure and behaviour. London is a clusterfuck, and if you would yield for every pedestrian that stepped out, you would never make your destination.
In a situation like this, when you see a pedestrian walking along you probably saw them from 20m away, but their decision to cross in front of you was made after the gap had already closed to maybe 5 or less.
I’d question why did the guy have an airhorn if he wasn’t frequently confronted by lack of awareness by pedestrians when crossing.
Probably the takeaway should not be, insure and lawyer up, but improve infrastructure and educate.
pdlouche
Oh I do not dispute that, it was principled but stupid. However the fact remains she made the decision to make a claim against him for something that was to most observers entirely her fault. While the judge may have ruled him equally to blame public opinion it seems does not. She and her lawyers look very greedy and the court system exploitative and unfair.