The World's gone mad!

[sneggyblubird]

What was the purpose of Section 3 of The Road Traffic Act 1972 then? Mobile phones hadn't been invented then. In other news, everyone is innocent unless proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal court. In a civil court, it's a balance of probabilities. But no one has to prove they're innocent.

On reflection I could have worded it better but was in a rush and didn't read the article properly.To my knowledge you cannot be prosecuted for using a mobile phone whilst crossing the road if your a pedestrian.It seems that the guy was trying to avoid her rather than trying to stop,therefore I would agree with this decision.

[Harry Monk]

On reflection I could have worded it better but was in a rush and didn't read the article properly.To my knowledge you cannot be prosecuted for using a mobile phone whilst crossing the road if your a pedestrian.It seems that the guy was trying to avoid her rather than trying to stop,therefore I would agree with this decision.

You are right, you can't be prosecuted for using a mobile phone when crossing the road. This wasn't a prosecution though. It was a claim for damages. The court has listened to the evidence from both parties, including an independent witness - who was also cycling at the time - who describes the cyclist as riding aggressively. On a balance of probabilities, the judge has ruled that the cyclist was liable for damages. The judge has also acknowledged that the pedestrian is partly to blame. What you have here is a sensationalist headline drawing in the reader and hoping they'll become outraged by the decision.

I would agree with you, that the Judge has probably (on balance ) made the right decision.