Cyclist "doored" by car passenger - input and advice please!

[GreatGranny]

You've actually gone and done it!

You've blamed the cyclist for something where there was absolutely no blame on their part.

Hell, it wasn't even a car drivers fault but a female passenger with a history of erratic behaviour yet there are still posters who question the actions of the cyclist.

I have had a similar altercation with a passenger door some years ago when filtering.
It was a young ad who opened the door. I was perhaps doing 8-10 mph in a CYCLE lane yet I went over the handlebars and ended up on the pavement.
Luckily I was only shaken with some bruising.
You don't need to be going any speed at all for it to hurt when you hit the road surface.
Just imagine being dropped onto your side from 1.5m above the ground.
It will hurt, then try it being catapulted at 10 mph.

[PAULJ5555]

Dick Turpin said:

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?

Edited by Dick Turpin on Monday 29th June 14:51

Try this one, passenger opens car door and causes another car (doing 80 in a 30 zone) to smash the door off and then crash into a bus stop full of people. 100% the passenger?

[Dick Turpin]

PAULJ5555 said:

Dick Turpin said:

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?

Edited by Dick Turpin on Monday 29th June 14:51

Try this one, passenger opens car door and causes another car (doing 80 in a 30 zone) to smash the door off and then crash into a bus stop full of people. 100% the passenger?

No, but it's illuminating that you need to resort to such an absurd scenario in order to argue that the person opening the door is not 100% at fault.

[Mave]

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

Just to put the concept of momentum into context, a few years ago I was running on the pavement. For me a fast run is a 7 minute mile, so less than 10mph. Someone opened a car door in front of me, I hit it hard enough to double it back on its hinges so it hit the front wing, broke 2 ribs and damaged my shoulder. So I can easily believe that a cyclist can come a cropper at a relatively low speed.

[jdw100]

Mave said:

Just to put the concept of momentum into context, a few years ago I was running on the pavement. For me a fast run is a 7 minute mile, so less than 10mph. Someone opened a car door in front of me, I hit it hard enough to double it back on its hinges so it hit the front wing, broke 2 ribs and damaged my shoulder. So I can easily believe that a cyclist can come a cropper at a relatively low speed.

I've had similar but luckily just ended up with some bruised forearms.

Rubbish old Astra and I think the damage to door probably wrote it off from a value perspective.

Driver was a very angry little man until I picked myself up off the floor then suddenly became all sweetness and light.

From "you f***ing f*ck look at my car you c**t" to "all right mate, all right mate you all right, mate mate mate..all right..."

The idiot.

Hate to even think about doing the same on an bike - ouch!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Aretnap said:

Ultimately the passenger bears liability, but the car's insurance is required to cover the liabilities of anyone "using" it, not just the driver. If you read the small print of your own insurance policy then under the third party section it will probably say something to the effect of "we will also cover the liabilities of anyone getting into or out of your car". So his insurers will end up paying.

Indeed, the cover is often there, but it's not a legal liability, and it's there as a contingency cover. And to provide defence costs as the insurers will fight the claim.

There is no vicarious liability on a driver for their passenger. A driver is liable if they stop to let the passenger out in a dangerous place, or the passenger is a child and so should have been supervised by the driver. But that aside, legally it's down to the passenger.

[Devil2575]

PAULJ5555 said:

Dick Turpin said:

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?

Edited by Dick Turpin on Monday 29th June 14:51

Try this one, passenger opens car door and causes another car (doing 80 in a 30 zone) to smash the door off and then crash into a bus stop full of people. 100% the passenger?

I believe that's known as a strawman argument.

[otolith]

I expected someone to blame the cyclist. I wonder if there would be anything but sympathy if a passenger did something really awful to something important, like opening a door into someone's pride and joy and horrifically putting a small dent in the metalwork. A few broken ribs on a cyclist is really nothing to an atrocity like that.

[Jujuuk68]

As far as I am aware, all insurers in the UK will cover the passengers in the vehicle for using/getting in and out the vehicle.

Directlines policy booklet states :-

2. Cover for other people
We
will also provide the cover under section 1a for:
•
anyone insured by this
policy
to drive
your car
,
as long as they have
your
permission;
•
anyone
you
allow to use but not drive
your car
;
•
[i] anyone who is in or getting into or out of
your car[/i]
;
•
the employer or business partner of anyone covered by this section
while
your car
is being used for business purposes provided
your
certificate of motor insurance
allows business use; or
•
the legal personal representative of anyone covered under this section if
that person dies.


So the passenger is covered. And by failing to look, they are frankly, 100% at fault. There is no realistic way to judge the speed of a cyclist, but the passenger can't even begin to do so as they clearly didn't look to judge.

Just report it to the insurer, let the insurer deal with it.

[GreatGranny]

otolith said:

I expected someone to blame the cyclist. I wonder if there would be anything but sympathy if a passenger did something really awful to something important, like opening a door into someone's pride and joy and horrifically putting a small dent in the metalwork. A few broken ribs on a cyclist is really nothing to an atrocity like that.

Agree 100%

PH, where paintwork is worth more than a person's (cyclists) health and well being.

[Billsnemesis]

Devil2575 said:

PAULJ5555 said:

Dick Turpin said:

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?

Edited by Dick Turpin on Monday 29th June 14:51

Try this one, passenger opens car door and causes another car (doing 80 in a 30 zone) to smash the door off and then crash into a bus stop full of people. 100% the passenger?

I believe that's known as a strawman argument.

Anyone remember the stopping distance chart on the back of the Highway Code? Thinking distance in feet was the same as the speed in mph and the stopping distance was mph/20 x mph (30mph equalled 30 feet thinking and 45 feet stopping)

On those numbers if a cyclist is doing 10mph then it will take 10 feet even to react. The best human reaction times are about 1/4 second so that is still over a yard even before the brakes are applied assuming that the cyclist had hands over the brake levers at that point.

So to stand a decent chance of stopping a cyclist doing 10mph would need at least 15 feet of warning to be able to stop in time.

I commute by bike every day and tend to ride slowly past stationary vehicles but 10mph is only a little over jogging speed and not remotely uncommon on the roads.

So anyone who thinks that the cyclist could have done anything to avoid this can kiss my smelly saddle.

[singlecoil]

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the cyclist is the one sailing over the door on his way to a hard landing. Cycling past occupied stationary cars is a risky occupation.

[Squiggs]

It really doesn't matter what speed the cyclist was travelling at ..... assuming he had brakes it sounds like he simply wasn't able to stop in time. It's not as if he would have seen the door open and thought to himself 'sod it - I could stop if wanted but I'll hit it anyway and hurt myself.'

If the passenger had of looked, seen the cyclist coming she wouldn't have opened the door .... if for no reason other than knowing the impending collision could damage her colleagues car door.

And she was lucky she hadn't stuck her leg out to start getting out the car. In a cycle wheel v's horizontal leg collision I'd put my money on there being less damage to the wheel and more to the leg.

[wolves_wanderer]

singlecoil said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the cyclist is the one sailing over the door on his way to a hard landing. Cycling past occupied stationary cars is a risky occupation.

So is cycling in general, or driving or walking. Lucky that we have insurance to cover the cost of compensating the victims of negligence really.

[singlecoil]

wolves_wanderer said:

singlecoil said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the cyclist is the one sailing over the door on his way to a hard landing. Cycling past occupied stationary cars is a risky occupation.

So is cycling in general, or driving or walking. Lucky that we have insurance to cover the cost of compensating the victims of negligence really.

Cycling in general, or driving or walking, in general, is not as risky as cycling past occupied stationary cars. That is the point I was making. I can see the point you were making, but have no idea why you posted it in response to mine, it could have stood on its own.

Compensation is ok, but not (in general) as good as not having the accident in the first place, unless you are really strapped for cash that is.

[otolith]

Filtering past stationary traffic is not an unacceptably risky thing to do. Knobheads opening doors is a relatively unusual event.

One could misinterpret your statement as a bit of victim-blaming, you might want to clarify that wasn't your intent.

[singlecoil]

I'm not blaming the victim, but I stand by my point that he was taking a chance doing what he did. It's not his fault, but he is the one who crashed.

Even in a car I am very wary of passing stopped stationary cars, especially ones which have only just pulled in.

[wolves_wanderer]

singlecoil said:

Cycling in general, or driving or walking, in general, is not as risky as cycling past occupied stationary cars. That is the point I was making. I can see the point you were making, but have no idea why you posted it in response to mine, it could have stood on its own.

Compensation is ok, but not (in general) as good as not having the accident in the first place, unless you are really strapped for cash that is.

Where one draws the line of unacceptable risk is a matter for that individual, you are not the arbiter so your statement of the relative risk of filtering which may not even be true (unless you know it for a fact) is irrelevant.

[singlecoil]

wolves_wanderer said:

singlecoil said:

Cycling in general, or driving or walking, in general, is not as risky as cycling past occupied stationary cars. That is the point I was making. I can see the point you were making, but have no idea why you posted it in response to mine, it could have stood on its own.

Compensation is ok, but not (in general) as good as not having the accident in the first place, unless you are really strapped for cash that is.

Where one draws the line of unacceptable risk is a matter for that individual, you are not the arbiter so your statement of the relative risk of filtering which may not even be true (unless you know it for a fact) is irrelevant.

FFS you would argue a train of its tracks.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Jujuuk68 said:

So the passenger is covered. And by failing to look, they are frankly, 100% at fault.

I answered this point my last post. The cover is there as a contingency and to allow for defence of the policyholders position by the insurer. But the insurer is not legally obligated to pay the tp if they feel the passenger was 100% to blame. They can pass the claim on to the passenger. Unless passenger was a child or was let out by the driver in a dangerous spot.