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

[towelie]

Jesus there's some properly thick people on here.. how can some people blame the cyclist for it.

Boggles my mind

[cat with a hat]

towelie said:

Jesus there's some properly thick people on here.. how can some people blame the cyclist for it.

Boggles my mind

I agree

[MrsMiggins]

[quote=singlecoil
Even in a car I am very wary of passing stopped stationary cars, especially ones which have only just pulled in.
[/quote]
But that's not the scenario. The bike was using the road space on the left. The car had not pulled in, it was effectively in the outside lane.

If you were approaching a junction with vehicles waiting to turn right and you wanted to go left would you queue behind the right-turners until they cleared or would you pass on the inside and proceed on your way?

[singlecoil]

MrsMiggins said:

singlecoil said:

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

But that's not the scenario. The bike was using the road space on the left. The car had not pulled in, it was effectively in the outside lane.

That's why I started that sentence with "even". I'm well aware that it's not the scenario described by the OP. I had already dealt with that by saying that passing a stationary car with occupants is a risky thing to do. Maybe not very risky, but some risky. If it's unavoidable then slowing down is appropriate if the risk is to be minimised. If one isn't bothered about the risk or sees it as being very small then not slowing down is appropriate.

[Roo]

singlecoil said:

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.

They weren't stopped stationary cars. They were waiting to turn right onto a main road. The cyclist was filtering past on the left, the same as you would do in a car.

[Roo]

swerni said:

You on day release or part of " care in the community"?

Now be a good boy and stop dribbling on your keyboard

[stuart313]

swerni 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. Sue the two wheeled wker for a new door card.

You on day release or part of " care in the community"?

Now be a good boy and stop dribbling on your keyboard

So the advice only applies to car drivers does it, If I came round a bend and there was a stricken car in the road I would be expected to be able to stop in time, we are taught to give parked cars a wide berth in case someone opens a door. If a car tries to squeeze through a tight gap when he really should have waited and someone was to open a door then both would be partly to blame.

Why should it be any different for a cycle, it seems because they are planet savers they have impunity from any wrong doing. Also If they were in a traffic queue how far away from the kerb was the car? If the car was stopped is it unreasonable to get out of the passenger door onto the pavement without getting mown down by a cyclist squeezing up the gutter between the car and the kerb, I thought you overtook on the right.

[wolves_wanderer]

stuart313 said:

So the advice only applies to car drivers does it, If I came round a bend and there was a stricken car in the road I would be expected to be able to stop in time, we are taught to give parked cars a wide berth in case someone opens a door. If a car tries to squeeze through a tight gap when he really should have waited and someone was to open a door then both would be partly to blame.

Why should it be any different for a cycle, it seems because they are planet savers they have impunity from any wrong doing. Also If they were in a traffic queue how far away from the kerb was the car? If the car was stopped is it unreasonable to get out of the passenger door onto the pavement without getting mown down by a cyclist squeezing up the gutter between the car and the kerb, I thought you overtook on the right.

Christ almighty.

[davepoth]

wolves_wanderer said:

stuart313 said:

So the advice only applies to car drivers does it, If I came round a bend and there was a stricken car in the road I would be expected to be able to stop in time, we are taught to give parked cars a wide berth in case someone opens a door. If a car tries to squeeze through a tight gap when he really should have waited and someone was to open a door then both would be partly to blame.

Why should it be any different for a cycle, it seems because they are planet savers they have impunity from any wrong doing. Also If they were in a traffic queue how far away from the kerb was the car? If the car was stopped is it unreasonable to get out of the passenger door onto the pavement without getting mown down by a cyclist squeezing up the gutter between the car and the kerb, I thought you overtook on the right.

Christ almighty.

The woman is to blame, but he does have a bit of a point. Swap the bike for a car for a second, and assume that the gap was a foot wider than a car rather than a foot wider than a bike. In that situation I would be crawling through at walking pace, and I expect you would be too. I have no way to take evasive action so the only thing I can do if anything untoward happens is stop.

The situation is similar for a cyclist in the same place. No options to do anything except stop, so to my mind going really slowly would seem to be sensible.

[otolith]

When approaching traffic lights in a left filter lane with traffic stopped in the right lane, does the possibility of someone opening a door influence your driving plan?

[Retroman]

stuart313 said:

So the advice only applies to car drivers does it, If I came round a bend and there was a stricken car in the road I would be expected to be able to stop in time, we are taught to give parked cars a wide berth in case someone opens a door.

Correct. However there is a difference in the door scenario vs the stopped car on the corner scenario.
Both parts of advice are given to help reduce accidents. However the onus of liability if an accident happened in each scenario is different.
If you drive so fast round a corner that you can't stop in the distance you can see and hit something, you're very likely to be found liable through negligence.
Likewise if someone opens a car door without checking and causes an accident due to it, they are likely to be help liable through negligence.

stuart313 said:

If a car tries to squeeze through a tight gap when he really should have waited and someone was to open a door then both would be partly to blame.

Do you have any evidence of this? Because it sounds like you guessing based on your opinion, rather than something that does / would happen.

stuart313 said:

Why should it be any different for a cycle, it seems because they are planet savers they have impunity from any wrong doing. Also If they were in a traffic queue how far away from the kerb was the car? If the car was stopped is it unreasonable to get out of the passenger door onto the pavement without getting mown down by a cyclist squeezing up the gutter between the car and the kerb, I thought you overtook on the right.

You're supposed to overtake on the right, that's correct.
When bicycles, or motorcycles pass on the left or middle when traffic is either very slow or stationary then this is called filtering. There's a book you might of heard of that explains it well called the Highway code.

[heebeegeetee]

Retroman said:

You're supposed to overtake on the right, that's correct.
When bicycles, or motorcycles pass on the left or middle when traffic is either very slow or stationary then this is called filtering. There's a book you might of heard of that explains it well called the Highway code.

Reading his posts, I think he's a complete stranger to it.

[Devil2575]

heebeegeetee said:

Retroman said:

You're supposed to overtake on the right, that's correct.
When bicycles, or motorcycles pass on the left or middle when traffic is either very slow or stationary then this is called filtering. There's a book you might of heard of that explains it well called the Highway code.

Reading his posts, I think he's a complete stranger to it.

I think he's a bloody idiot.

Maybe it's because he's not getting enough sleep due to being disturbed by Police sirens...

[gradeA]

Wow, didn't expect this to still be going! Can't believe some people are blaming the cyclist though.. Actually, what's sad is that I can.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2197.h...

Beasley v. Alexander: motorcyclist filtering past stationary traffic at 45mph, car driver performed an unexpected manoeuvre without looking, motorcyclist hit car and sustained serious injuries. Judge ruled that even though he felt the filtering speed was too high, a lower speed wouldn't have affected the outcome so no case for contributory negligence.

I can guarantee the cyclist wasn't doing 45mph!

[StottyEvo]

I'm wondering if anyone has called her out on breaking that blokes ribs yet

[heebeegeetee]

stuart313 said:

So the advice only applies to car drivers does it, If I came round a bend and there was a stricken car in the road I would be expected to be able to stop in time,

Of course. And when you're driving along a straight road, the same would apply, you drive at a speed that you can see to stop in, it's sheer common sense. However if a car suddenly fails to stop at a side road, (or whatever scenario you choose) then you don't have time to adjust your speed accordingly before striking the other vehicle.

If we are required to drive at a speed where we can stop when the unpredictable happens, then we all have to drive at walking speed. The cyclist very probably was cycling at a speed in which he could see to stop in, then someone suddenly opened a door right in front of him, thus not giving him time to adjust his speed accordingly.

[maurauth]

gradeA said:

Wow, didn't expect this to still be going! Can't believe some people are blaming the cyclist though.. Actually, what's sad is that I can.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2197.h...

Beasley v. Alexander: motorcyclist filtering past stationary traffic at 45mph, car driver performed an unexpected manoeuvre without looking, motorcyclist hit car and sustained serious injuries. Judge ruled that even though he felt the filtering speed was too high, a lower speed wouldn't have affected the outcome so no case for contributory negligence.

I can guarantee the cyclist wasn't doing 45mph!

Any updates on what's happened to the dozy bint?

[Billsnemesis]

Rumour is that all cyclists are going to have to have a man walking in front waving a red flag and shouting

[stuart313]

Another thing, youtube is full of cyclists giving verbals and hand signals to vehicles they consider have passed them too closely, yet when a cyclist passes very close to a car its ok.

[Devil2575]

stuart313 said:

Another thing, youtube is full of cyclists giving verbals and hand signals to vehicles they consider have passed them too closely, yet when a cyclist passes very close to a car its ok.

You come to a traffic light controlled junction where you can turn right or go straight on. You are going straight on the car in front is turning right. The car in front positions themselves to the right giving you enough space to move forward and go through the junction. As you are passing the car turning right the passenger door opens at the last minute and you hit it. Is it your fault of the passenger in the car in front?