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

Grayling is at fault for getting out of a car without looking. Not complicated.

Two people broke the law here - Grayling and his driver. the cyclist may well learn a lesson in defensive riding for the future. However this does not alter the fact of who broke the law.

The Grayling situation is not remotely borderline [s]because[/s] irrespective of the fact the car hadn't pulled fully over to the kerb before he opened the door.

FTFY. Still his fault, no matter what you may think. No different to the dual carriageway example.

You mean that if the car had pulled right up to the kerb and the cyclist had gone past on the pavement it wouldn't be different?

Undertaking is legal if the traffic outside of you has stopped or is going slowly - absolutely clear. the car was not stopped at the kerb - it was in a queue of traffic. The highway even warns drivers to look out for cyclists passing on the left.

Undertaking is legal if the traffic outside of you has stopped or is going slowly - absolutely clear. the car was not stopped at the kerb - it was in a queue of traffic. The highway even warns drivers to look out for cyclists passing on the left.

Rule 163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

- not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
- use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
- not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
- move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
- take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
- give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
- only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
- stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
- give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).

Note the very limited exceptions, the last one only applies when the overtaker is in a "lane". That is the tricky bit, a cycle lane is clearly a lane, a ~1m gap between a car and the kerb - stretching it a bit? Not really the situation that rule had in mind I think.

Passing when not in a "lane" is acknowledged as something people do and so other users should be aware of, but this does not really amount to approval of the practice:

Rule 151

In slow-moving traffic. You should

- reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow
- never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely
- leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past
- not change lanes to the left to overtake
- allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion
- be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

The cycling-specific guidance is also non-committal on the topic, we have:

Rule 67

You should

- look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do (see ‘Signals to other road users’)
- look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
- be aware of traffic coming up behind you
take extra care near road humps, narrowings and other traffic calming features
- take care when overtaking (see Rules 162 to 169).

From which one can point out take care when overtaking and watch out for opening doors.

Undertaking is certainly discouraged at junctions:

Road junctions (rules 72 to 75)
Rule 72

On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

Rule 73

Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.

Of course, that is guidance. The fact that something is "allowed" or "not allowed" in the Highway Code does not mean that any offence is committed or not committed by doing it (ie it doesn't make things "legal" or "not legal", though in some situations, it does simply parrot the criminal law). Nor does it determine the issue of whose "fault" a collision is, mainly because of the over-riding duty on all road users to take care and drive sensibly and the issue of causation.

[quote=greyspoke ]The cyclist ends up about 3 metres in front of the door, Grayling takes six steps forwards to get to where the cyclist is on the ground. It looks like his forward movement was partly blocked by a lamp-post.

You're using that as evidence of the speed of the cyclist? 🙄

[quote=greyspoke ]Passing when not in a "lane" is acknowledged as something people do and so other users should be aware of, but this does not really amount to approval of the practice:

So how many other non approved or illegal practices does the HC warn drivers to be aware of? It seems quite clear to me from that mention that it is accepted practice, not only in general but also by the HC.

From which one can point out take care when overtaking and watch out for opening doors.

Can we do the victim blaming analogies again here? It's probably good advice for women not to walk down dark alleyways alone wearing a short skirt.

Of course, that is guidance. The fact that something is "allowed" or "not allowed" in the Highway Code does not mean that any offence is committed or not committed by doing it (ie it doesn't make things "legal" or "not legal", though in some situations, it does simply parrot the criminal law).

I'm not quite sure you understand the HC - if it says "must" or "must not" then that does mean that an offence is committed by not complying - not because of what the HC says, but because such statements are always backed up by statute law. The HC even provides handy references to the relevant law, making it trivial to find the law to quote (as I tend to when discussing things on here).

Though if you're trying to imply here that filtering on the left is illegal despite not being specifically prohibited in the HC, off you go to find the law... As for allocation of fault, then one of the parties involved broke the law, the other didn't (until such time as you find that law...) - so how do you think that one will go?

If a guide from the NHS said "you should not get stabbed". In the event you are stabbed is blame a grey area?

That's basically what you are saying GS.

Not read all of this in detail so apologies if it's been covered. Having had a look at the film, it seems that (at 0:14) the passenger alights from a car stopped in a clearway. The car seems to be stopped in a queue just before the end of the restriction?

Of course, 151 say be aware of cyclists, 163 says 'get on with it if you are overtaking'.

Is there a specific offence of undertaking? I'd understood that it wasn't advised, but not illegal per se?

@aracer, All the bits of the HC I quoted are "should" not "must". As far as I can tell, it uses "must" when it is parroting actual law (when it gives the references you refer to), "should" when it is giving guidance. But I haven't done a complete analysis of the text to check this. I stand by my final paragraph.

And yes, speed can indeed be inferred from the aftermath of collisions. This is the type of analysis the courts go into when dealing with accidents where speed is considered relevant. We may or may not abide by the Highway Code, but we are bound by the laws of physics...

@njee20 I will join you in here, your victim-blaming analogies are funny, but not relevant. I am talking about apportioning blame, which is how the law approaches these things (in civil situations, not criminal). But not in the case of stabbing, which is a deliberate act. People who commit deliberate acts are held to be responsible for all the consequences and contributory negilgence does not come into it. Stabbing in a kitchen accident would be different from where someone deliberately sticks a knife into someone else. So yes, getting your fingers too close to a cook who is busy chopping onions and being stabbed, may be completely or partly your fault.

This is not a deliberate act, in the sense that Grayling did not target the cyclist with his door. He deliberately opened the door, but did not deliberately hit the cyclist with it. Like the cook and the onions, only he is *partly* to blame. Probably. But not wholly.

[quote=greyspoke ]But I haven't done a complete analysis of the text to check this. I stand by my final paragraph.

You don't need to do an analysis to check, it's the way the HC works, hence I stand by my assessment of your understanding.

And yes, speed can indeed be inferred from the aftermath of collisions. This is the type of analysis the courts go into when dealing with accidents where speed is considered relevant.

Ah, so you've been to the spot and checked skid marks etc. rather than just basing your opinion on watching a video?

So yes, getting your fingers too close to a cook who is busy chopping onions and being stabbed, may be completely or partly your fault.

Well if you're going to suggest our analogies are irrelevant, then so is that one, because the cook is doing something perfectly reasonable and legal and the danger is clear before you do anything with your fingers.

How about you're cycling up to a roundabout, there's no traffic on the roundabout, you come to a stop at the give way line and somebody accidentally runs into you from behind - how does the fault get allocated there? Because clearly you're negligent for not pulling onto the empty roundabout...

...and there's also this bit of advice in that para you quoted

be aware of traffic coming up behind you

so by your logic, if you weren't aware of traffic behind you, presumably you could be partially negligent if it runs into you?

And to extend your chef analogy that would be closer to a driver sat there flapping the door, into which you rode. You knew there was an element of danger by entering that scenario.

If you're going to say that you should always expect that, and are thus partially culpable, then the same is obviously true to drivers simply mowing you down because they've not seen you.

aracer, you are moving the goalposts to pick an argument, go back and read through what I said, I'm out of here