I would have thought, that if the judge had thought that the cyclist was riding too fast for the conditions, she (not he as the Mail blindly assumed) would have said so.She went on to say that 'Mr Hazeldean did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.' But the reason the road was not completely clear was that the pedestrian had blundered into it whilst staring at her mobile - and I appreciate that the judge will have had a more detailed report on the incident than was reported in the paper. Crucial, I think, should have been how long before the incident had the pedestrian walked out (this is sort of implied by the judge's comment about pedestrians who are established on the road having right of way).There's a slightly more detailed report in the Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/18/yoga-teacher-stepped-road-looking-mobile-phone-wins-damages/ - paywall) which, whilst managing to shoehorn in a piece of clickbait in a totally irrelevant photograph of the pedestrian wearing a bikini at the head of the article, also reported that "the cyclist, who had been travelling at between 10-15 mph, swerved in the same direction and hit her.""Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his Specialized roadbike, as well as shouting, swerving and braking in a bid to avoid the pedestrian," adding that the cyclist was "a calm and reasonable road user" who was "courteous and mild-mannered." "Altogether a rather complex case, but it does seem the cyclist got the rotten end of the stick from the judge.
Richard Carter ● 2199d