The cyclist that was knocked over by Chris Grayling is complaining that people might think it was his fault.
Liu said he was in shock and became aware of the pain later. “One thing he did say was that I was cycling too fast, which was not true,” Liu said. “That made me really upset. He made out it was my fault.”
So, on a busy street, you were cycling along the left-hand side of vehicles and didn’t allow for a door opening? Yup. That was your fault. Okay, Grayling was at fault for not checking. However, supposing it had been a child in the passenger seat of the car? Can you assume sufficient situational awareness on their part to check for cyclists travelling between them and the pavement? If not, and you weren’t making allowance such that you could stop in time, then you were travelling too fast for the situation.
It seems that Grayling may face prosecution.
Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, could face a private prosecution for “dooring” a passing cyclist in Westminster, when he sent a man crashing off his bike by opening the door of his ministerial car in traffic.
A cycling organisation hopes to contact the cyclist to offer legal assistance.
Oh, for crying out loud! Grayling should have checked. The damage was of a minor nature and can be resolved between the two parties according to tort law. A prosecution is over the top and is symptomatic of just why cycling organisations are held in contempt by other road users. This is between the two parties and no one else. And, as mentioned above, the cyclist concerned was not exercising sufficient situational awareness, so was contributorily negligent.
A regulation under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which designates criminal motoring offences, states: “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.”
The charity has recently lobbied the government to review this law, believing it is not adequately enforced. Dollimore said: “Currently it’s treated as a minor offence with a maximum £1,000 fine, despite the fact that people have been killed and seriously injured by car dooring.”
Thing is, it is a minor offence and an unnecessary one in law. If you cause harm to another through your negligence, there is sufficient law to cover it, so this part of the RTA is redundant. I ride my motorcycle past cars with sufficient space that if the door opens it won’t hit me. If I can’t, I drop my speed such that I can stop in what I can see to be clear. If I hit a door, I would sort it out with the other party, realising that I had cocked up in allowing it to happen. I would not invoke the RTA, because it is not necessary. Unless there was injury or a dispute, I would not call for the police to be involved.
This is about politics, it is about punishing the “evil Tories”. Grayling is an idiot. But, then so is the cyclist. Cycling UK are just a bunch of opportunistic bastards.
“…cycling organisations are held in contempt by other road users.”
They piss me off and I’m a cyclist. They would have you believe that all cyclists’ roadcraft skills are totally exemplary and that everything that happens to them is someone else’s fault. Back in the real world all of us regularly witness cyclists riding like idiots, so it is no surprise that some of them come a cropper now and then. If it weren’t for the vigilance of other road users it would happen more often. Whether cycling or motorcycling, I very rarely filter through traffic, I only do it when there is a real hold up. On the occasions when I do, I only do so slowly and with great care. Passing on the left is obviously potentially dangerous and needs to be done with extreme caution. As you mention, passing stationary cars is best done a door width away if possible.
I travel regularly in peak times, so filter on a BMW R1200RT. And I am bloody careful about how I do it.
A friend of mine,s father was car doored in the fifties, and he died,
he was riding a vincent motorcycle
I understand that Mr Grayling’s car was stationary at the kerb to allow him to alight from the vehicle. In this instance, only a complete twonk, a suicidal cyclist, or someone determined to make a point would consider undertaking that stationary vehicle parked at the kerb. I would imagine that Liu, after receiving the publicity he so obviously craves in being the one to ‘take down’ a government minister, will now continue to be traumatised, right up until the compensation cheque clears. Personally, I feel that Liu should be charged with criminal damage to a lamp post.
The common sense interpretation of the Road Traffic Act would be that drivers don’t open their doors while on the road without checking their mirrors and they would discourage a passenger from emerging ‘roadside’ unless they were satisfied that it was safe. Similarly a passenger would be expected to check that the pavement was clear before opening a door ‘pavement’ side. It is very difficult, if not impossible for a passenger to do much more ‘pavement’ side.
Cycling does seem to be becoming an activity where everyone else takes on responsibility for the safety of the cyclist, regardless of how stupidly they behave.
It takes two to cause most accidents, if we make a mistake one-in-a-thousand times then in the ‘takes two’ situation accidents happen only ‘one-in-a-million’ times. Leaving the responsibility to the other party increases the risk of an accident a thousand-fold. Pretty stupid when you are riding a wire donkey.
“Cycling does seem to be becoming an activity where everyone else takes on responsibility for the safety of the cyclist, regardless of how stupidly they behave.”
As I mentioned in my earlier post, this is something that I have observed, usually while driving. I do however think that you get the impression that this is always the case due to a noisy minority of complete prats who give a bad name to the rest of us. I take great care while cycling on public roads, I am also courteous toward pedestrians when cycling on shared spaces and generally try to avoid causing inconvenience to fellow travelers. I suspect that not many people notice cyclists like me, the loud pricks are much more visible.
Hmmm.. judging by the video I can’t see that the cyclist was at fault at all here. The car was NOT at the kerb. It was in the line of traffic, leaving space for cyclists to pass on the left.
The cyclist could have had no indication or warning that someone was going to get out of the car and it seems as though it’s pretty much expected that cyclists will be staying to the left hand side on that stretch of road. There are clearly a number of cyclists filtering on the left and a cycle lane restarts only a few yards beyond this point.
I’d say that this was Grayling’s fault and I really can’t see that the cyclist could have behaved differently. Even if he had been at walking pace, he would still have been swiped by the door if he had been a few seconds ahead.
I’ve revisited the video in light of your comment. However, I remain of the opinion that he lacked situational awareness. Sure, there was always a possibility that a few seconds later he could have been sideswiped, but less likely. The left is a really bad place to be – it is largely blind to the driver and passengers are likely to be less aware. A door opening is a high probability, so anticipating this is essential.
Yes, of course Grayling is at fault. But Liu was at fault for not planning his ride to minimise the likelihood. That said, cycle lanes that come and go on the left side of the road don’t help matters.
I think that’s my real point – cycle lanes make riding SO much MORE dangerous because it completely skews everyone’s behaviour into a dangerous pattern. Drivers think they don’t have to worry about passing at speed because they’re in “their” lane and the lane will invariably stop just at the point were it is needed most (because the road narrows).
What about not driving/cycling without due care and attention; caution when overtaking stationary vehicles; not overtaking on the left – or does the generally accepted highway code not apply to cyclists?