A recent video posted to Twitter by a London black cab driver captures the moment when a cyclist is doored, causing him to veer and fall in the path of the taxi. The London Evening Standard reports that the incident took place on a stretch of Cycle Superhighway 2 along Mile End Road.
The cyclist is riding in the cycle lane, but must move towards the outside of it as he approaches a long row of parked cars. As he passes one car, the door opens. He veers, loses control and falls in the road with the black cab stopping seemingly inches from him.
|
The driver subsequently wrote on Twitter that the cyclist had in fact been hit by the door, but while he was left with a few cuts, he was otherwise okay.
“I think they should make it an offence for anyone hit cyclist with door,” he wrote. “That way everyone would check before opening.”
The taxi driver took the details of the person who opened the car door and says they will be paying for any damage. For his part, the cyclist seemed grateful he wasn’t run over. "Just spoke to cyclist, he's nice n well. Man wants to take me out for a drink now."
The taxi driver also pointed out how much worse the incident could have been had he been driving a bus or a truck. In 2012, a Surrey motorist was acquitted of manslaughter after allegedly opening his car door in the path of a cyclist without looking, causing him to be killed under the wheels of a bus.
This section of CS2 is earmarked for improvements. Work is being carried out to provide segregated cycle lanes along the A11 between Aldgate and Bow with work on Mile End Road due to be complete by April 2016.
63 thoughts on “Video: Doored cyclist falls in path of black cab”
Good on the driver for his
Good on the driver for his reactions.
I think it is an offence to open your door without checking?
the driver’s reaction was
the driver’s reaction was sensible, moderate and exactly the attitude to take. If you get doored there is only one person to blame.
Nice to see fellow road users
Nice to see fellow road users helping each other out.
An independent witness is always nice.
It is certainly against the Highway Code:
Rule 239 (Laws CUR reg 98, 105 & 107, RVLR reg 27 & RTA 1988 sect 42)
Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside…
you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic.
Using my mystic google-fu powers:
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/the-law-for-cyclists-hit-by-vehicle-doors
Bad cycling, bad motorist –
Bad cycling, bad motorist – let’s hope they both learn something from this. Sadly it’s mostly the case that the cyclist is the one that gets hurt.
danthomascyclist wrote:Bad
Bad road design, yet again. Cyclist did nothing bad, or wrong or unusual. Even the driver of the parked car did nothing unusual – they were careless, but even if they had looked the same risk still exists – it’s easy to misjudge speed and the space needed.
What shouldn’t happen is expecting everyone to act perfectly all the time when the known consequences of a common mistake (by either party) is the injury or death of the more vulnerable road user. This is exactly why we need #space4cycling.
Bad cycling, how ?
Bad cycling, how ?
ianrobo wrote:Bad cycling,
I guess from the point of view of cycling a door’s width from the line of parked cars but that’s being very harsh!
ianrobo wrote:Bad cycling,
Don’t ride close to parked cars, ride at least a door-width away. Of course the person opening door should check and double-check before opening, but if you want to stay safe on a bike you have to assume that a door could be flung open at any moment.
ianrobo wrote:Bad cycling,
Don’t ride close to parked cars, ride at least a door-width away. Of course the person opening door should check and double-check before opening, but if you want to stay safe on a bike you have to assume that a door could be flung open at any moment.
ianrobo wrote:Bad cycling,
Don’t ride close to parked cars, ride at least a door-width away. Of course the person opening door should check and double-check before opening, but if you want to stay safe on a bike you have to assume that a door could be flung open at any moment.
Any council planning
Any council planning department that has put in door-zone bike lanes should be sent a link and made to watch that video. Ride in the lane and risk a dooring, or ride a safe distance from the parked cars and get punishment passes and abuse.
The highway code is a guide
The highway code is a guide only. The relevant part of legislation covering this is Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988 which makes it an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”.
Very lucky escape.
Properly
Very lucky escape.
Properly segregated cycle tracks can’t come soon enough.
Actually, lots of bads:
Bad
Actually, lots of bads:
Bad to park in cycle lane (though depending on time of day, may have been perfectly legal).
Bad to open door into path of cyclist – should have looked.
Bad to cycle close enough to car to put rider at risk. Shouldn’t be necessary, but in the real world, people make mistakes and this stuff happens. No reason in this circumstance why cyclist could not have done so.
Bad to design cycle lane so as to exacerbate this risk.
flobble wrote:Bad to park in
TfL shouldn’t create part time cycle lanes when full time idiots will use them for parking.
Don’t know why some on here
Don’t know why some on here are praising the taxi driver. It wasn’t the best place to begin overtaking and he was passing too closely to the cyclist. Remember it isn’t just with doorings that someone riding a bike could fall ( into the taxi driver’s lane).
Lycra Lout wrote:Don’t know
To defend the Taxi Driver and to praise him,
a) He hadn’t started his overtaking manoeuvre,
b) He had adjusted his speed (or so it appears) so that he would be overtaking after the end of the barriers where he could overtake safely,
c) His full attention was on his driving, and most important of all
d) He was driving in such a manner and speed that he could react in time to prevent major injury.
This driver by his actions prior, during and after the incident (for which he is not at fault) has shown himself to be truly a professional driver.
Well done Sir.
levermonkey wrote:Lycra Lout
Well if he hadn’t started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver’s lane.
He was concentrating on the road, but he didn’t take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.
Lycra Lout wrote:levermonkey
Well if he hadn’t started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver’s lane.
He was concentrating on the road, but he didn’t take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.— Lycra Lout
If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he’d have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads – this incident is a great example – cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they’re not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!
daddyELVIS wrote:Lycra Lout
Well if he hadn’t started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver’s lane.
He was concentrating on the road, but he didn’t take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.— levermonkey
If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he’d have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads – this incident is a great example – cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they’re not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!— Lycra Lout
First of all he wasn’t in a cycle lane. He was in the same lane as the taxi driver, as there is no line demarcation.
By the same token, a driver shouldn’t assume that since the person ‘isn’t’ in their lane, that everything is safe. Paint does not protect you. We should be looking at distances, not lines. Also, the statement ” Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take” implies that’s it’s ok for a driver not to do a proper overtake if the cyclist wasn’t assertive. Not everyone is comfortable cycling in front of vehicles, but that shouldn’t stop good drivers from driving properly regardless.
Lycra Lout wrote:daddyELVIS
Well if he hadn’t started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver’s lane.
He was concentrating on the road, but he didn’t take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.— Lycra Lout
If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he’d have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads – this incident is a great example – cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they’re not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!— levermonkey
First of all he wasn’t in a cycle lane. He was in the same lane as the taxi driver, as there is no line demarcation.
By the same token, a driver shouldn’t assume that since the person ‘isn’t’ in their lane, that everything is safe. Paint does not protect you. We should be looking at distances, not lines. Also, the statement ” Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take” implies that’s it’s ok for a driver not to do a proper overtake if the cyclist wasn’t assertive. Not everyone is comfortable cycling in front of vehicles, but that shouldn’t stop good drivers from driving properly regardless.— Lycra Lout
Ok Mr Pedant, it was a Bus Lane. And no, I didn’t imply that at all – just stating what a cyclist should do to stay safe when passing parked cars, that’s all.
daddyELVIS wrote:Lycra Lout
Well if he hadn’t started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver’s lane.
He was concentrating on the road, but he didn’t take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.— daddyELVIS
If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he’d have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads – this incident is a great example – cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they’re not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!— Lycra Lout
First of all he wasn’t in a cycle lane. He was in the same lane as the taxi driver, as there is no line demarcation.
By the same token, a driver shouldn’t assume that since the person ‘isn’t’ in their lane, that everything is safe. Paint does not protect you. We should be looking at distances, not lines. Also, the statement ” Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take” implies that’s it’s ok for a driver not to do a proper overtake if the cyclist wasn’t assertive. Not everyone is comfortable cycling in front of vehicles, but that shouldn’t stop good drivers from driving properly regardless.— levermonkey
Ok Mr Pedant, it was a Bus Lane. And no, I didn’t imply that at all – just stating what a cyclist should do to stay safe when passing parked cars, that’s all.— Lycra Lout
Wasn’t a bus lane either. No line demarcation means it is the same lane.
So I have a question, what stops the driver from doing a proper overtake if someone isn’t assertive?
My point is that 0.5 seconds is not enough because the cyclist could easily fall into the taxi driver’s path. What he should have been looking at was the distances between the taxi and cyclist, which was insufficient to justify being so close behind him.
Lycra Lout wrote:daddyELVIS
Well if he hadn’t started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver’s lane.
He was concentrating on the road, but he didn’t take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.— Lycra Lout
If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he’d have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads – this incident is a great example – cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they’re not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!— daddyELVIS
First of all he wasn’t in a cycle lane. He was in the same lane as the taxi driver, as there is no line demarcation.
By the same token, a driver shouldn’t assume that since the person ‘isn’t’ in their lane, that everything is safe. Paint does not protect you. We should be looking at distances, not lines. Also, the statement ” Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take” implies that’s it’s ok for a driver not to do a proper overtake if the cyclist wasn’t assertive. Not everyone is comfortable cycling in front of vehicles, but that shouldn’t stop good drivers from driving properly regardless.— Lycra Lout
Ok Mr Pedant, it was a Bus Lane. And no, I didn’t imply that at all – just stating what a cyclist should do to stay safe when passing parked cars, that’s all.— levermonkey
Wasn’t a bus lane either. No line demarcation means it is the same lane.
So I have a question, what stops the driver from doing a proper overtake if someone isn’t assertive?
My point is that 0.5 seconds is not enough because the cyclist could easily fall into the taxi driver’s path. What he should have been looking at was the distances between the taxi and cyclist, which was insufficient to justify being so close behind him.— Lycra Lout
Blimey, who cares what it is? – it’s a strip of paint the cyclist felt compelled to cycle on even when dangerous!
When cycling you have to assume that all drivers are inconsiderate at best and that the door of a parked car can fling open at any time! Anything less and you’re not doing all you can to stay safe. Arguing about what constitutes are separate lane and how far back a taxi driver should be, etc, doesn’t matter.
What matters is how to stay safe on a bike – take it or leave it!
daddyELVIS wrote:
Blimey, who
I’m the first person to not cycle in the door zone. However, that is mitigation due to actions of other drivers. It doesn’t help that cycling infrastructure encourages dangerous cycling!
If you look at the twitter comments there are some people saying what I am. The driver responded saying words to the effect ‘he was in his lane, I was in mine’, which is not the correct attitude.
Lycra Lout wrote:daddyELVIS
I’m the first person to not cycle in the door zone. However, that is mitigation due to actions of other drivers. It doesn’t help that cycling infrastructure encourages dangerous cycling!
If you look at the twitter comments there are some people saying what I am. The driver responded saying words to the effect ‘he was in his lane, I was in mine’, which is not the correct attitude.— daddyELVIS
But, driver behaviour isn’t going to change. Who is at fault doesn’t really matter if a cyclist is seriously injured (or worse). What matters is riding in a way to avoid these potential hazards as much as possible!
daddyELVIS wrote:Lycra Lout
I’m the first person to not cycle in the door zone. However, that is mitigation due to actions of other drivers. It doesn’t help that cycling infrastructure encourages dangerous cycling!
If you look at the twitter comments there are some people saying what I am. The driver responded saying words to the effect ‘he was in his lane, I was in mine’, which is not the correct attitude.— Lycra Lout
But, driver behaviour isn’t going to change. Who is at fault doesn’t really matter if a cyclist is seriously injured (or worse). What matters is riding in a way to avoid these potential hazards as much as possible!— daddyELVIS
We both agree that drivers should look but that cyclists should still cycle outside of the door zone anyway. That’s a separate issue entirely, though. We were discussing whether the driver did everything correctly. I’m arguing that he didn’t.
daddyELVIS wrote:
What
The problem though is that the vast majority decide that the way to stay safe on a bike is not to get on it in the first place.
From now on this video will
From now on this video will be referenced as my standard twitter response to motorists complaining about cyclist “riding in the middle of the road” .
I don’t know of any video that better illustrates the risk of not riding primary next to parked cars.
Why are people saying it was
Why are people saying it was “bad cycling”?
The guy on the bike did nothing wrong. What’s bad is the crap cycle lane.
ibike wrote:Why are people
It is bad cycling for one reason, the cyclist assumed the door wouldn’t open and cycled too close. I know why he didn’t, but this is why you need to “take the lane”/”ride in primary” etc. Simply never ride in the gutter, never ride close to parked cars, the risks aren’t worth it.
mrmo wrote:ibike wrote:Why
It is bad cycling for one reason, the cyclist assumed the door wouldn’t open and cycled too close. I know why he didn’t, but this is why you need to “take the lane”/”ride in primary” etc. Simply never ride in the gutter, never ride close to parked cars, the risks aren’t worth it.— ibike
Totally 100% agree but of course we then get called Lane hoggers, now check on ITV London’s view on this and see how we are treated
mrmo wrote:It is bad cycling
Taking precautions is good cycling practice, but that doesn’t mean that the cyclist in this video was a bad cyclist. He was simply a cyclist trying to get to a destination and breaking no laws in the process.
A cyclist should not be blamed for not compensating for someone else’s faults.
Definitely a good reminder to
Definitely a good reminder to give yourself a door’s width.
Being doored hurts.
Being doored hurts. 🙁
don simon wrote:Being doored
Seconded.
ITV London report and this is
ITV London report and this is not only a lie but a deliberate story to blame the cyclist
TV News London @itvlondon 3h3 hours ago
Terrifying moment cyclist swerves in front of a cab caught on camera http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-08-05/terrifying-moment-cyclist-swerves-in-front-of-london-cabbie-captured-on-film/ …
ianrobo wrote:ITV London
Christ’s Sake, anyone with a pair of eyes can see he hits the door first. Twats.
ianrobo wrote:ITV London
Yeah, what amazed me about that report (and I think it was the blogger Bez who pointed this out first on twitter, but it struck me also) was the way it referred to ‘the car that opened its door’.
I don’t know what all the fuss is about these google self-driving cars. It seems we already have robocars on our roads. They open their own doors, apparently, with no human input.
I guess the driver wasn’t able to over-ride its Artificial Intelligence in time.
We should probably rethink the whole self-driving car thing, given how our roads seem to be full of these killer autonomous robo-cars – mounting the pavement, flipping themselves over, driving into buildings – judging by the news reports in most of the media.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Full sentence reads “the driver of the car that opened its door”
Could be read as ” the driver (of the car) that opened its door.” But more likely not. However I am more concerned by the ” forced to swerve” line which suggests evasive action when it can clearly be seen that the door impacts the cyclist as he passes, knocking him into the path of the taxi. Cyclist does well to stay long enough for the taxi to stop.
I’m pretty sure it looks like
I’m pretty sure it looks like he kicks his own door open which would indicate that he’s leaning to the passenger side to pick something up before getting out – defo not checking first.
Also, that driver needs a good kicking for having one of them gay man purses strung across his chest.
STiG911 wrote:Also, that
What, you mean a musette? B-)
To me, this video shows everyone doing the very natural human thing of lazily assuming everything will happen as usual, and not being ready for the worst eventuality.
The cyclist assumes no car doors will open (they very rarely do) and rides within a door’s width of the cars.
The driver who’s just parked assumes there’s no cyclist (there usually isn’t) and opens his door.
The taxi driver assumes the cyclist will continue cycling with more or less the same speed and direction (they usually do) and drives a little too close for comfort (IMO). Very fortunately for all concerned, he did at least react sufficiently quickly to (just) avoid running over the bike rider.
This incident vividly illustrates that in an environment as dangerous as the public road, natural human instincts lead to potentially fatal behaviour. Our tendency to make the inductive leap from experience to generalisation is doubtless one of the great contributors to human achievement, and, indeed, it could be argued that the world would be incomprehensible without it, but in this situation it almost got someone killed. In such circumstances, it would be wise to adopt a much stronger than usual sense of paranoia.
It was bad cycling because he
It was bad cycling because he was too close and got doored. Cyclists aren’t immune to criticism, but every time someone on here dares to suggest a cyclist wasn’t perfect it’s dubbed as “victim blaming”.
The cyclist was too close to the car. He should have shoulder-checked and moved to a stronger position earlier. In this video he didn’t shoulder-check once despite significantly changing lane position.
The motorist should not have opened the door without checking. That’s really stupid also.
The cycling infrastructure is silly.
This video shows a cocktail of stupidity – some more stupid than others. But I hope the cyclist learns that you *do* get idiot motorists that open doors so steers clear in future.
There’s a lot of lessons to be learnt here, the cyclist would do well to learn his.
danthomascyclist wrote:It was
The problem with that rationale is that there’s nothing illegal about riding close to parked cars and everything illegal about dooring other road users. So whether it’s “bad” cycling is based on some arbitrary metric other than the actual law. You could just as well say that cyclists who are hit by cars weren’t riding perfectly because if they had been then they wouldn’t have been hit by the car for whatever arbitrary reason you care to choose.
vonhelmet wrote:You could
Exactly. How long before we get blamed for being obscured by the sun?
Unfortunately already
Unfortunately already happened
http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/321
vonhelmet
Silly argument. Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it’s sensible. The Highway Code even states to not go close to car doors – I don’t think that’s an arbitrary reason. Apart from making it illegal (which would be entirely unworkable, stupid and no doubt deemed as a ploy to vilify cyclists) how much more hand-holding do you need?
danthomascyclist wrote:The
Where? Which rule?
AFAIK contributory negligence will be considered of the person who hit the door had sufficient time to react. I don’t know of any rule that specifically warns against going too close.
The IAM teaches defensive driving, that is, how to anticipate and avoid other people’s mistakes. This is (at least in motoring) considered to be advanced technique and not required knowledge for a drivers license, as the name IAM implies. If it’s not a requirement for anyone who is in charge of a ton of self propelled metal, why should a cyclist be blamed for not anticipating others mistakes?
ron611087
Higway code
Guidance not law, but it is pretty clear.
Dooring as an offence
Rule
Dooring as an offence
Rule 239 of the Highway Code states that motorists “MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for Cyclists or other traffic.” The Highway Code serves as guidance only, and non compliance with a rule of the Highway Code is not an offence. However, s.42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.”
ratattat wrote:Dooring as an
I guess the door opener won’t be getting an £829 fine for it.
Quote:If it’s not a
Maybe he was. Maybe he made the decision to ride close to the left in otder to avoid a close pass by a road raging driver?
Anyway, while we are arguing amongst ourselves there’s a whole world of crap driving out there that we should be addressing.
#DivideAndConquer
I agree with an earlier
I agree with an earlier comment and must say the taxi guy deserves to be told he did well – good to see –
I have been doored a couple of times – ride a door away if there is space but there is not always space – this cyclist would have likely have been listening to the taxi approach and been reluctant to get too far out so I would not be too quick to blame him for being close…
riding in town is one big compromise – always…
Wouldn’t have happened if
Wouldn’t have happened if he’d had his lights switched on. B-)
Has anyone noticed right at
Has anyone noticed right at the end of the video there is another cyclist that has just seen this incident who is riding even closer to the doors in the bus lane.
BTW I think well done to the Taxi Driver for staying with the gut and making sure he was OK.
I am not a Bikeability
I am not a Bikeability instructor but… IMO best practice from the cyclist would have been:
1. Spot the line of parked cars and recognised them as a hazard (risk from being doored/risk of a close pass from an overtaking vehicle) much earlier… 25 meters +
2. Look over the right shoulder to check no traffic close behind and pulled into the middle of the main lane (well outside the door zone + preventing a close pass from any passing traffic), signalling if possible.
IMO he pulled out very late, one reason why the taxi was so close. He also didn’t look over his shoulder before moving, otherwise he’d have seen the taxi was v close behind.
The taxi driver did well to stop but if driver training was better he’d have anticipated that the cyclist would have to move out past the cars and past the door zone and would’ve been further back. However, I’ve not been able to ask him exactly what he did so this may not be fair criticism!
Good to see most of the comments on Evening Standard supporting the cyclist and praising the taxi driver – rather than the usual anti-cyclist idiocy. IMO the more of these videos the better, it serves as far better education than trying to talk to drivers in the heat of the moment
The offending door opener
The offending door opener might have seen him if he was wearing brightly coloured clothing like dayglo instead of black. We need to take some responsibility as cyclists to see and be seen.
Sledge wrote:The offending
You missed the “tongue in cheek” smiley of the end of this. Some people might actually think you’re serious, which, of course, you’re not, are you? Because that would be a stupid thing to really mean.
(|:
I don’t think you can call
I don’t think you can call this bad cycling; you can call it inexperienced cycling. The influx of new cyclists for both commuting and leisure is to be encouraged. Many have experience of driving but not of cycling and don’t recognise the risks. When I ride with some of my friends who are new to cycling I end up more knackered from shouting “move out”, when we are passing parked cars, than I do from riding the bike!
These riders are not idiots; many have been driving for years and have basic good road sense, just not from the perspective of an experienced cyclist.
It should be remembered it is incumbent on the motorist to ensure it is safe to open the door.
Is there a competition to see
Is there a competition to see who can copy the most text from previous comments? The first commenter whose post is long enough to be the correct distance to ride from parked cars wins a prize.
Quote” I think they should
Quote” I think they should make it an offence for anyone hit cyclist with door,” he wrote. “That way everyone would check before opening.”
It is an offence
Dooring as an offence
Rule 239 of the Highway Code states that motorists “MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for Cyclists or other traffic.” The Highway Code serves as guidance only, and non compliance with a rule of the Highway Code is not an offence. However, s.42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.”
^^^^^ Wot he said. Has the
^^^^^ Wot he said. Has the c**t who opened their car door been prosecuted yet? If not, why not?
There was only one cause of the his incident and it was the driver of the car who opened the door without looking. Period. It was lucky the cyclist wasn’t seriously injured or killed. The taxi driver deserves special praise for not running over the cyclist who fell into his path otherwise we could have been reading about another senseless cycling fatality.
Why no discussion of the
Why no discussion of the infrastructure? Why is there parking directly next to a cycle superhighway with no dooring zone?
A full investigation looks at all the factors, not just immediate ones.
And this is an actual incident that requires a full investigation. Zero incidents on building sites, why not on roads?
The driver or passenger
The driver or passenger should be prosecuted, for careless driving or GBH, to try and prevent future collisions.
All cyclists should have try to avoid this potential hazard by being at least 1 metre away from all vehicle doors irrespective of any road markings, even more for larger vehicles, because collision with an open vehicle door could cause serious, even permanent, injury, other costs, or worse death; punishment after the event is unlikely to change this!
Allowing car parking next to a cycle lane so that car doors can be opened into it and cars have to cross it is mind blowing negligence #o , WTF were the road planners thinking!