Cyclist "doored" by car passenger - input and advice please!
Discussion
gradeA said:
... Fast forward to this morning, female passenger is called into manager's office at work, ...
What has this incident got to do with work (as the incident didn't happen at work or at a work-related event)? Why are management involved? (Perhaps I am answering the first question with my second one...
)I did wonder - seems there was a breakdown in communication when I heard the story. The work management weren't getting involved, she came in this morning playing the "woe is me" victim card to anyone in earshot, making a big fuss over it so they simply asked her what was going on in a private meeting. After which they very kindly gave her a few days off to stop her annoying everyone recover from the ordeal...
gradeA said:
I did wonder - seems there was a breakdown in communication when I heard the story. The work management weren't getting involved, she came in this morning playing the "woe is me" victim card to anyone in earshot, making a big fuss over it so they simply asked her what was going on in a private meeting. After which they very kindly gave her a few days off to stop her annoying everyone recover from the ordeal...
Sounds like she is a right manipulative b
h that has some guys wrapped around her little finger. Management and driver are different presumably.Is she a home owner? I understood most home insurance includes a degree of third party cover.
http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering...
not quite law ? but quoted from the above site
Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
not quite law ? but quoted from the above site
Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
x type said:
http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering...
not quite law ? but quoted from the above site
Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
And that is why they often paint cycle lanes up to junctions and those great big green boxes and a picture of a cycle at the head of junctions. not quite law ? but quoted from the above site
Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
Filtering is reasonable and sensible, providing you keep you brain in gear and expect the dunce at the front with no indicators going to turn left. Otherwise you might as well drive a car and sit in a queue.
Victim = cyclist does not seem to compute to some people, because it's always the cyclist's fault, right?
Victim blaming at it's finest on this thread, the only thing missing is a photo of the vapid bh so that the White Knights on here can be sure that it wasn't her fault that she opened a door into the path of another road user going about his business of getting home after a day at work.
Victim blaming at it's finest on this thread, the only thing missing is a photo of the vapid b
h so that the White Knights on here can be sure that it wasn't her fault that she opened a door into the path of another road user going about his business of getting home after a day at work.stuart313 said:
I thought the idea was to be able to stop in time when the unexpected happens, I have heard that line time and time again on here. Sue the two wheeled wker for a new door card.
Don't be knob. ker for a new door card.By the same token next time someone pulls out in front of you I hope they sue you for the damage you did to their car, you big hairy ball sack
Aretnap said:
Not really. Ultimately if he's worried about keeping his insurance record clean he can avoid giving lifts to muppets who can't open doors safely,
Amazing how many on PH ers never ever make mistakes. 
Seriously, the passenger made a mistake and is at fault. Mistakes happen.
stuart313 said:
I thought the idea was to be able to stop in time when the unexpected happens, I have heard that line time and time again on here.
Does sound like the cyclist was going a tad too fast to be filtering, fast enough to chuck him over the door not just bump into it.Edited by PAULJ5555 on Monday 29th June 12:39
PAULJ5555 said:
stuart313 said:
I thought the idea was to be able to stop in time when the unexpected happens, I have heard that line time and time again on here.
Does sound like the cyclist was going a tad too fast to be filtering, fast enough to chuck him over the door not just bump into it.Edited by PAULJ5555 on Monday 29th June 12:39
10MPH would be enough to "chuck him over the door"...
jesusbuiltmycar said:
PAULJ5555 said:
stuart313 said:
I thought the idea was to be able to stop in time when the unexpected happens, I have heard that line time and time again on here.
Does sound like the cyclist was going a tad too fast to be filtering, fast enough to chuck him over the door not just bump into it.Edited by PAULJ5555 on Monday 29th June 12:39
10MPH would be enough to "chuck him over the door"...
Filtering on the left would seem to call for a slow pace to ensure stopping safely or in this case slow enough if the worst were to happen - as it did.
I'm not saying the passenger is not fault, if the cyclist was going very fast and was killed I would hope the passenger would not be totally to blame as the cyclist could have taken steps to protect himself. Even if this was go at a walking pace.
PAULJ5555 said:
I'm not saying the passenger is not fault, if the cyclist was going very fast and was killed I would hope the passenger would not be totally to blame as the cyclist could have taken steps to protect himself. Even if this was go at a walking pace.
So in your scenario, someone opens the door without checking, and kills someone, but that wouldn't be 100% their fault? WTF?So, if I were to shoot someone, it wouldn't be 100% my fault, as they could have worn a bulletproof vest to "take steps to protect themselves".
Edited by Dick Turpin on Monday 29th June 14:51
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff