In the news

Knowing who had priority or who may have been at fault is of little consolation when you're lying in the road in pain. Ride to avoid anything.

Funnily enough, I was making exactly the opposite point i.e., that you should be aware that anyone already in the road has priority and that ringing your bell or sounding your horn doesn't give you priority. As a general principle, you can give priority, but you can't take it.

Same point, but priority irrelevant.

Except that it is relevant. I get the point you're making, but knowing about who has priority and acting in a predictable way that takes that information into account keeps you safer, which is why it's taught as part of Bikeability.

Riding "to avoid anything" makes it sound like you're just a fringe part of the ecosystem of road users; that everyone else is doing their thing and you're just fitting in around them. That's not a safe or forward-thinking way of riding. If you know when others have priority and act accordingly and know when you have priority and ride so as to communicate that you have priority, that will actually keep you safer.

Riding without presumption is what keeps you safer.

There's a difference between assuming theoretical priority and presuming people will give way to you

Like @TvH said, what exactly have I suggested that you should presume?

One of the most critical attributes for anyone operating in a shared environment is predictability.

If someone takes evasive action no matter the theoretical priority then they are a liability as every other user cannot predict where they shall be next.

I think the worst thing that can be taken from all of this is that if the rider had ridden in exactly the same way, but just happened to have been a member of LCC/CTC/BC or been covered by their home insurance (i.e. having 3rd party liability cover and legal cover) they could have ridden like a twat and got away without losing/paying a penny.

#yayforlawyers

^^ Exactly this.

In other news, OG:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-48763791

Aw, isn't that a great use of police time, while the cunts won't turn up to burglaries.

That and you can ride like a twat and get away with it though the sympathy of others who worry they may find themselves in a similar situation.

Not too different from driving like a twat and walking away from a jury trial for the same reason.

To be fair, he was riding like a bit of a twat, but not to the extent where he deserves to pay £100k in legal fees for an accident where the blame was apportioned equally (IMO).

It's really a shame that it went to court in the first place, causing 2 years of stress and lawyers' fees, rather than both parties recognising their own part in what happened, being grateful it wasn't worse, and leaving it at that.

not to the extent where he deserves to pay £100k in legal fees for an accident where the blame was apportioned equally (IMO).

That was due to a quirk of the legal system though wasn't it? As I understand it, the pedestrian entered a claim, he could equally validly entered a counterclaim, which would have balanced it, but he didn't. Therefore when her claim was found to be valid (or whatever the correct term is) he ended up on the hook for a heap of cash, despite the fault having been found as 50:50.

The problem that I see there: so the whole process cost her a pretty penny, judging by the amount she's apparently claiming back from him, right?

So if he had counter-sued, those process cost would just have been doubled overall, meaning both are just out of pocket more? How is that beneficial to anyone? Apart from the lawyers, obviously.

May 1990.

I think (and IANA lawyer) that the claim was for damages and costs already incurred. He could have claimed on the same basis, so the net cost in either direction would have been minimal, and the increase in process costs likwise, small.

Ah I see, that makes some sense then.

Thanks.

Luke found no hard evidence at all to support the company’s claim.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/cyclist-gets-bus-advert-banned-falsely-linked-cycling-erectile-dysfunction-428749

FUBAR, never thought I'd see something like this

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/27/alabama-pregnant-woman-shot-manslaughter-charge-marshae-jones

Laughter seems a bit harsh.

Will no one think of Stephen Fry?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48795057

Does that link work?