[Closed] have we done Chris Grayling Dooring a cyclist yet?

In saying the cyclist was going too fast he surely is admitting he saw him before opening the door? But never mind, technically it is the driver, not the passenger, who is responsible.

Got to admit I'm a wee bit sympathetic when there's a cyclist passing on the left, it's one of those "shouldn't happen but you can kind of understand why it does". And then instantly less sympathetic for "you were going too fast" of course.

The driver definitely seems to be guilty of an S170 though, for failing to provide details and probably for not declaring the accident...

The Dutch reach

The Dutch reach around is great.

Have to admit I nearly doomed someone getting out of a car when a teenager. Hope wouldn't do it now but I'm sure I've remembered slightly too late wen getting out of a cab.

Dutch reach around rocks. Will have to remember that

Needs a Guard to operate the doors.

darkcove - Member

Needs a Guard to operate the doors.

Oh! Well done!

Orange crush - What makes you think it is the drivers responsibility if a passenger opens the door on somebody?

Poly - it's what the law states

Orange crush - What makes you think it is the drivers responsibility if a passenger opens the door on somebody?

and its the drivers insurance that pays for injuries to the cyclist plus all other costs incured

Argh that's so obviously occurred because of a lack of cycle lanes! In the video there's even a cycle lane that starts a few metres up the road - a sort of tacit acknowledgment that the road bloody needs one. I'd feel terrible if I took someone out like that, no matter who is at "fault". If only the perpetrator was in a position to improve the situation and ensure this sort of thing didn't happen so often.

Won't hold my breath.

I taught my kids to aim for the person opening the door if that happens to them - for several good reasons.

Firstly they get a softer landing.

Secondly the person learns a lesson they'll never forget.

But most importantly they don't swerve out into the traffic and get creamed and and then have everyone standing around consoling the distraught door opener "It was an accident". No it bloody wasn't.

I had someone nearly do this to us on the tandem - heavy traffic - car appeared to be turning right and a cycle lane on the left. We wer going reasonably fast (perhaps wrongly) Guy opened the door and got out right in front - I shouted and he jumped out of the way and slammed the door shut just as we went thru - fortunately for him as it was a volvo and two of us makes for a fair bit of momentum. We would have squashed him to the door

the driver is guilty of several offences there including failure to give details. I'd be after his hide for it

STATO - except that is not what s105 of the C+U regs says.

So tell us what it says. Does it, for instance, exclude Gov. Ministers from all legal and moral responsibility?

Argh that's so obviously occurred because of a lack of cycle lanes!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made

Upto 1000 fine.

cheers_drive - Member

That could quite easily happen with the typical narrow cycle lane

Yeah, tbh I don't think a cycle lane would have made any difference here tbh

When I stop to allow someone to get out of my car in traffic, I'll typically indicate and move closer to the kerb. If it's not safe for someone to filter through, don't leave a gap for them.

I've been doored once, on the offside by a parked car in a line of parallel parkers. It hurt, a lot, and nearly put me in front of traffic coming the other way as I hit the floor. It won't happen again, I can tell you.

That, dear motorists, is why I am 1-1.5m away from parked cars as I pass them. And if it inconveniences you slightly, I'm sorry but nothing compared to the inconvenience to the person who has to arrange the funeral.

[i]When I stop to allow someone to get out of my car in traffic, I'll typically indicate and move closer to the kerb. If it's not safe for someone to filter through, don't leave a gap for them. [/i]

this.

Looked like they were queuing in traffic to get nearer the door but he just said 'don;t worry I'll just get out and walk and opened the door'

Either that or really he hates cyclists as much as his statements about them indicate he does.

I'm going to get flamed for this, but looking at the positions of the bike and the rider, he must have been traveling at a quickish pace, and doing so up a narrow gap on the inside of the traffic. That's not a massively brainy thing to do as, people tend to get out of cars on that side.

So, yeah, DG should have checked before he opened the door, but, equally, cyclist chappy should have been riding a bit more sensibly.

[i]That's not a massively brainy thing to do as, people tend to get out of cars on that side.[/i]

there's a painted cycle lane exactly the same size as the gap the rider was on about 20yds up the road - would you ride in it?

The risk is the same, I'd wager Grayling would have done the same if the vehicle had been stopped there.

I would ride in it, at the same cautious speed that I would have have ridden up the inside of the traffic. It's not the position he's riding in that's the issue, cos he had no choice and as you say there's a cycle lane coming up, it's the speed he was riding at that I think wasn't massively brainy.

it's the speed he was riding at that I think wasn't massively brainy.

And hindsight is a wonderful think, hopefully the cyclist will learn from this experience as well*, but it's the other guy that will be getting the fine (hopefully) and telling off. Hopefully some good will come of this too, if nothing else it's a decent reminder to everyone what can happen when someone makes a poor decision or isn't paying enough attention on the roads, no matter what vehicle you're using.

This is a subtle problem though isn't it? you might not be [i]blaming[/i] the cyclist for not anticipating that someone could do something that they're not allowed to do, (and that there is a specific offence to cover the doing of), but there's still the expectation on them to do so, and to some non-cycling folk they will latch onto any way it can be twisted and interpret it as being the cyclists fault.

resisted urge to reply with "walking into a dark alley at night could also be considered as not massively brainy, but it doesn't make you to blame if you get mugged or worse" because I don't get the impression you were actually trying to blame the cyclist.

ah bum, resistance is futile 🙁

* I did, as kid I got doored, and I now forever have it etched in my mind to the point that now I can count at least another half dozen times [i]I would have been[/i] doored had my previous experience not meant that I was far enough out to avoid it, or being cautious enough to stop in time.

I'm a cyclist (I'm assuming everyone who posts on here is a cyclist, or at least used to be a cyclist). About this time last year I nearly hit a cyclist with my door getting out of the car I'd just parallel parked. I checked the mirror (I'm sure) opened the door and nearly took him out. Luckily he had cat like reflexes.

I don't think I've ever been as apologetic, and I now double check (at least) every time I open the door, and part open the door first so it's apparent I'm getting out. The guy was actually OK with it once I'd spoken with him. He was going at speed but I don't blame him, it was a long downhill and he probably wasn't doing over the 30mph limit. He could've been further away from the cars, but I understand that he wasn't and it was my fault.

That's not a massively brainy thing to do as, people tend to get out of cars on that side.

Equally its London there are bikes riding the inside all the time, opening your door without checking is not a massively brainy thing to do (but we are taking about Failing Grayling) especially between 2 cycle lanes when the car hasn't even pulled over

I've been doored whilst riding up the inside but in a cycling lane, the driver was apologetic, his wife's response- the one that hit me- when I told her she should be more careful was ' You are making me late for work' 😯

Equally its London there are bikes riding the inside all the time, opening your door without checking is not a massively brainy thing to do (but we are taking about Failing Grayling) especially between 2 cycle lanes when the car hasn't even pulled over

Totally agree, that's why I said

DG should have checked before he opened the door, but, equally, cyclist chappy should have been riding a bit more sensibly.

I just all parties need to understand that they have a responsibility for both their own [b]and [/b]other's safety. Much of the argument tends to be about assigning blame to one side or the other, when that is very rarely the case; when accidents happen there are generally things that all parties could have done to prevent it.

Yeah, tbh I don't think a cycle lane would have made any difference here tbh

I don't know. Pretty hard to get doored if you're in this cycle lane on the right:
[img] ?w=1125&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=37928234eabf17e988959a3e2e5367cb[/img]
Edit: Actually, I've just seen that lorry parked on the divider!

Just this
Grayling: “Motorists in London have got to be immensely careful of cyclists.”

Twonk. Must've forgotted there were cyclists in the city.

This is not an accident - its a reckless act causing the cyclist injury. accidents are when something unforeseen happens / where there is no reckless or dangerous action by one party.

The car driver / passenger is 100% at fault. No question.

As a cyclist however one needs to reflect on incidents like this and to try to find ways to avoid putting yourself in a position whereby you can be the victim. I don't know how anyone can say the cyclist was going too fat - its impossible for me to judge the speed from the video but judging by how little damage was done and how small a distance the cyclist travelled my guess is they were going slowly.

I look into EVERY car I pass to see if anyone looks like opening their door. If the cars are close to the kerb like this I tend to go down the otherside of the cars. If I see a door start to open I scream at them in the hope they will stop.

Why is the cyclist passing on the left?

'cos that is the norm. the expected thing to do and contrary to what others claim on here perfectly legal

fourbanger - Member
Why is the cyclist passing on the left?

Because (rightly or wrongly) the last 20years of cycling 'infrastructure' deployed in the Uk suggests that's where you should be...so it's normal and expected

DezB - Member

Grayling: “Motorists in London have got to be immensely careful of cyclists.”

OK, that's possibly unfair, "be careful of X" can mean "be careful on their behalf" It's a bit archaic but it doesn't follow that he meant watch out drivers, cyclists are gonna get ya.

[i]it doesn't follow that he meant watch out drivers, cyclists are gonna get ya.[/i]

Did you think that's what I understood him to mean? Or is you makin a joke?
It's like the "CAUTION CYCLISTS" sign on my way to work, as if we're an obstruction that shouldn't be there. But obviously not really what is meant by the stupid sign (that was partially funded by the co I now work for!)

Personally I would never go up the inside of a load of traffic like that, but then I am not a hardened London rider, I value not getting squashed by a bus too much.

DezB - Member

Did you think that's what I understood him to mean? Or is you makin a joke?

Bit of exaggeration. But do you see the point? "Be careful of cyclists" can genuinely mean "We need to be careful and make sure we keep cyclists safe".

its impossible for me to judge the speed from the video but judging by how little damage was done and how small a distance the cyclist travelled my guess is they were going slowly.

What I saw on the video was the bike, then a bit after that the lamppost that the cyclist hit, then a bit after that the cyclist himself. Hard to judge, but I'd say about ten feet between point of impact and where the cyclist stopped rolling.

The fact that the cyclist is not next to his bike implies he was going pretty quick; if he'd have been going past at, say walking pace (which would have been the speed I'd have gone at in that situation), he'd be on the ground pretty much straight to the side at the place where he was hit.

Could be IHn - but we certainly don't know.

Years ago when i lived in London, a lady threw open the door of a black cab straight into my path, i sort of fell right and ended up with me lying on top of a shrieking lady lying in the back of the cab.. She was a lot more surprised than i was!

Why is the cyclist passing on the left?

It's a very heavily used bit of road (by cyclists and car drivers), the road narrows because of the terrorism barrier thingummies they've installed and there's a gap in the cycle lane, so it's far and away the logical place to be. You could move into the non-existent gap on the offside, and get flattened by the oncoming traffic. You could wait in the traffic, but you'll probably be there for 10 minutes whilst 200 cyclists use the cycle lane 10 yards up the road.

They've actually improved it by adding the cycle lane - and Google shows before and after.

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.4997545,-0.1262342,3a,75y,0.3h,84.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNzEqpIGDOCFfxH4u2XWVsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en]Cycle lane[/url] with protected traffic lights, two lanes of motor traffic and a central pavement.

And looking the other way:

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.5000521,-0.1261056,3a,75y,239.02h,79.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8uTfjfVu5bNdzYs-4vy-Rg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en]before[/url] with three lanes of traffic, no pavement and no cycle lane.

[i]"Be careful of cyclists" can genuinely mean "We need to be careful and make sure we keep cyclists safe".[/i]

Exactly my point! The bloke who said that doored a cyclist!

'cos that is the norm. the expected thing to do and contrary to what others claim on here perfectly legal

<geek mode>

Unless in an area covered by the town police clauses act 1847 (essentially most incorporated towns)

[i]or who in passing any other carriage does not keep his waggon, cart, or carriage on the right or off side of the road (except in cases of actual necessity, or some sufficient reason for deviation) or who, by obstructing the street, wilfully prevents any person or carriage from passing him, or any waggon, cart, or carriage under his care:[/i]

</geek mode>

My friend got 'doored' passing on the right. It was a 3 door car and he just swung the (very large) drivers door wide open.

You can get doored on either side.

At least on the left you don't get thrown into the oncoming traffic.

Why is the cyclist passing on the left?

Indeed, the early image shows a nice yellow warning side but both cyclists seem happy to ignore

Nothing in law either way although H Code "suggests" that filtering on the left is acceptable. Still hardly advisable as this clip points out very clearly. Just because something is the norm, doesn't make it right.

As above, it's vastly impractical to go up the right.

and dangerous to go up the left, you decide

a legal perspective

Clearly there are dangers surrounding the practice of filtering by cyclists and there is as yet little guidance from the courts as to what is expected of cyclists in this regard. What does seem reasonably certain is that in the event of a collision, the success of a claim for damages would depend on the manner in which each party was driving or riding. Where a cyclist was riding in an unsafe manner it is likely that they will be held at least partly responsible for the accident, despite the Highway Code placing a duty on drivers to look out for riders who may be filtering through traffic. It would be highly beneficial for some definitive legal and practical guidance to be produced in this area because as it stands, the uncertainty surrounding the practice of filtering only causes confusion.

Radio 2 now. Jeremy Vine so I expect we'll get some interesting views.

Thanks nick - funny (apart from the subject matter)

Pretty much everyone who cycles in a city filters up the near side from time to time. Regardless of whether it's safe, there are two obvious criminal offences here. Failing to check properly before opening the door (s.239 of the Highway Code) and failing to give details where there's been an accident involving damage or injury (s.170 Road Traffic Act). Hope the CPS is paying attention.

a legal perspective

A legal perpective on whether filtering could affect your payout in a compensation claim, and therefore not relevant here.

Oh I see - I read it differently

{but useless site given he says: The Highway Code was first issued under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930. [b]It is not actual law [/b]but provides guidance and instruction for road users, including cyclists.]

Anyway, you decide

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/

"Steve" should come on here!

"Steve" should come on here!

Isn't Vine usually more anti-cyclists? He seems quite balanced so far!

The Highway Code was first issued under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930. It is not actual law but provides guidance and instruction for road users, including cyclists

No, that's technically correct. The Highway Code isn't legislation, but where it says "you must" there is legislation mirroring its requirements. Where it says "you should", it's setting out best practice rather than legal requirements.

Isn't Vine usually more anti-cyclists?

Vine is a cyclist.

Just turned it on. Nope. turned it off again.

my god - heard the piece on Jeremy Vine. Steve Berry is the most massive tool imaginable. What a revolting specimen.

Jeez! so the cyclist was in the wrong?! Man, there are some pillocks on here.

No facts, poorly prepared and irrational statements. He'll fit right in.

If that's the standard, why isn't Grayling on here?

why isn't Grayling on here?

Too busy adding to the accident statistics...

Timing was "perfect". I was exprcting the door to be opened and the cyclist to be unable to stop and crash into the inside of the door. But Grayling clonks him exactly as he goes past- like a half volley.

Cyclists speed is irrelevant he had no time at all to stop and Grayling should have looked. I think Grayling probably was bored of sitting in traffic and said to the driver "I'll just get out here" and opened the door hastily.

unfortunately hes unlikely to be prosecuted for the nightmare situation hes created in the Prison Service

but this is a start

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/16/chris-grayling-could-face-private-prosecution-for-dooring-cyclist

Is there a link to another video that shows clearly what happened. Very hard to tell from the one in the Guardian. Thanks in advance

teamhurt if you can expand your screen it looks like Grayling opens the door into the side off the passing cyclist so catches him at 90% rather than opens door in front of cyclist cyclist hits door. car is still in traffic not pulled over to curb and not indicating to pull over or stop so £1000 fine to Grayling.
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
Opening of doors

105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.

Road Traffic Act 1988
42

Breach of other construction and use requirements.
.
A person who—

(a)

contravenes or fails to comply with any construction or use requirement other than one within section 41A(a) or 41B(1)(a) [F2or 41D] of this Act, or
.

(b)

uses on a road a motor vehicle or trailer which does not comply with such a requirement, or causes or permits a motor vehicle or trailer to be so used,
.
is guilty of an offence.]

Polly got there first with the law I know

Tried that but still hard to tell what happened exactly. Judging from the details posted above I am assuming that there is a better video somewhere.

It's not exactly 4k HD but it looks fairly clear to me - cyclist is filtering up the left hand side of stationary traffic & is hit, as CTK says, perfectly on the half volley by the door as he goes past, sending him into a lamp-post causing damage to him & his bike. Government minister accuses him being at fault by cycling too fast - faster than light perhaps, that's why he couldn't possibly have seen him even if he had looked - then offers a cursory apology and a gentleman's handshake which heals injuries & can be exchanged for replacement bike parts at any high street retailer. Government Minister then leaves the scene, as does his driver - neither of whom have left their details with the injured party, as there is obviously nothing to see here please move along.

HTH

I especially liked the aide bloke hiding his ID badge in his pocket.

failing to give details where there's been an accident involving damage or injury (s.170 Road Traffic Act). Hope the CPS is paying attention.

Which the CPS will know only applies to drivers of motor vehicles so Grayling is in the clear for that.

His driver is the guilty one there.

And on Jeremy Whine this afternoon, Steve Berry has reinforced my opinion of him as a total and utter bell end

Perhaps rather than have the passenger jump out of vehicle while it was in middle of road, driver could indicate and pull up to side of road to drop passenger - might prevent this kind of thing happening?

Many people blaming the cyclist on other forums ,but double yellow line ,car away from curb ,doesn't check over ,shoulder, opens door causes accident .

This is an interesting take.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/the-myth-of-the-blameless-cyclist/

A lot of the comments I've seen have been a bit reminiscent of society's attitude to sexual assault, where no matter what the victim did to prevent it, she should have done more.

And cycling UK are helping the injured rider take out a private prosecution against Grayling.
Excellent

How is this a news story? Both equally at fault so a non starter.

A press attempt to smear or lazy journalism.

Abit like Syria reporting- asault on one Iraqi city, almost zero reporting. Syria= all Russia's fault.

the press should be hounding him for the cuts he oversaw in the prison service

but its legaly him thats at fault