Cycling UK suggests Chris Grayling should be prosecuted for dooring incident

rollotommasi wrote:

No actually.  Double yellow lines prohibit waiting, not stopping.  And, as far as I can tell, the car had stopped because it was in a stationary queue.

Small point, but if the car was waiting, why did he get out of the car? Don't you have to stop to get out of a car? Is it acceptable to get out of a vehicle that hasn't stopped?

rollotommasi wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Lane splitting is definitely legal and it's expected behaviour for cyclists to undertake when safe to do so.

There's nothing in the Highway Code that legitimises lane splitting.  You've weaved in your own imagined provisions.  And undertaking is not "expected". It's become tolerated, because there's so little enforcement.  The fact that buses have to have notices reminding cyclists not to pass on the inside, which too many cyclists still choose to ignore, illustrates this.

[/quote]

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

I think you're taking an unusual stance there. The Highway Code doesn't explicitly allow/disallow filtering, but it does infer that it is allowed. Your comment about buses is just trolling.

hawkinspeter wrote:

rollotommasi wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Lane splitting is definitely legal and it's expected behaviour for cyclists to undertake when safe to do so.

There's nothing in the Highway Code that legitimises lane splitting.  You've weaved in your own imagined provisions.  And undertaking is not "expected". It's become tolerated, because there's so little enforcement.  The fact that buses have to have notices reminding cyclists not to pass on the inside, which too many cyclists still choose to ignore, illustrates this.

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

I think you're taking an unusual stance there. The Highway Code doesn't explicitly allow/disallow filtering, but it does infer that it is allowed. Your comment about buses is just trolling.

Implies not infers!
Apart from that, agree. Not least because the location of cycle lanes pretty much makes it clear that its expected for cyclists to pass on the left. The idea that cyclists can pass on the left for the length of a ten-yard-long cycle lane, then are supposed to stop and wait till traffic crawls forward, when they can trundle on another ten-yards to the start of the next ten-yard cycle lane segment, is just absurd.

rollotommasi wrote:

My whole premise for contributing is that, if we're serious about encouraging cycling in this country, we need to focus on safe conditions for cycling.  If we're serious about that, then that requires a range of things:

• better cycling infrastructure (so I'm sympathetic to the argument that the gap between cycle routes in this case should be filled)
• consistently high standards of care from drivers, and clear enforcement where that doesnt happen
• and yes, consistently standards of care from cyclists, and taking reasonable steps to be responsible for their own safety.

So, while others may argue that what I argue for isn't so important, neither ktache nor anyone else has any right to simply dismiss me as some kind of anti-cycling troll.

Unfortunately, too many comments on this thread are all about:

• we want to be safe when cycling on roads
• but only through good infrastructure and making other road users responsible for our safety
• we shouldn't be made responsible for our own safety in any ways that might inconvenience us (e.g. if it stops us from undertaking).

Which is why some posters are desperate to justify undertaking under the Highway Code through tenuous interpretations which try to minimise what it requires of cyclists, even though undertaking against both the letter and the spirit of the Code.

This whole comment is predicated on the existence of a 'we' that doesn't actually exist.

rollotommasi wrote:

My whole premise for contributing is that, if we're serious about encouraging cycling in this country, we need to focus on safe conditions for cycling.  If we're serious about that, then that requires a range of things:

• better cycling infrastructure (so I'm sympathetic to the argument that the gap between cycle routes in this case should be filled)
• consistently high standards of care from drivers, and clear enforcement where that doesnt happen
• and yes, consistently standards of care from cyclists, and taking reasonable steps to be responsible for their own safety.

So, while others may argue that what I argue for isn't so important, neither ktache nor anyone else has any right to simply dismiss me as some kind of anti-cycling troll.

Unfortunately, too many comments on this thread are all about:

• we want to be safe when cycling on roads
• but only through good infrastructure and making other road users responsible for our safety
• we shouldn't be made responsible for our own safety in any ways that might inconvenience us (e.g. if it stops us from undertaking).

Which is why some posters are desperate to justify undertaking under the Highway Code through tenuous interpretations which try to minimise what it requires of cyclists, even though undertaking against both the letter and the spirit of the Code.

This comment is just nonsense-on-stilts. Its hard to know where to start.

There's the weird use of 'we', to imply some collective responsibility, for starters.

There's the unsupported claim that "we want to be safe when cycling on roads" (no, I want _everyone_ to be safe when cycling on roads, I have no idea who 'we' are)

There's that sneaky reference to 'making other road users responsible for our safety' (a common petrol-head line, subtly trying to insinuate cyclists are trying to offload responsibility for things they are objectively responsible for).

No, other road users (i.e. motorists and road planners) mostly _are_ responsible for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians, because they are the ones responsible for the danger, and who have most of the control reducing it.

And there's the weird implication that if every cyclist obeyed every non-compusory point of the highway code (including, I presume, high-viz and helmets) that would somehow make vulnerable road users safe and 'earn' them collectively the right to not be killed by others (when it would do nothing of the kind). Oddly, motorists manage to 'earn' safety without having to do anything of the kind.

You aren't a troll, but you seem to be a conservative fellow who appears to think taking the side of those with power will get you better treatment.

ktache wrote:

Brooksby, its rule 211- It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic.

Notice how it seperates overtaking and filtering.  Filtering is at most a grey area.  Cyclists are advised to show extra care when filtering, but that seems mainly in respect for turning vehicles.

This is a dooring. And of course Rule 239 states- you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic.

The driver is ultimately responsible for this, now in the video you don't see the car drive away, but the traffic does start to move, indicating to me that the car is no longer there.  And I think it would be pushing our credulity, that our Secretary of State for Transport was not responsible for his own actions.  But still the driver should have stopped to exchange details, or should have reported it to the police, as we know from http://road.cc/content/news/212905-red-light-jumping-cyclist-causes-cras... that even when the cyclist was running a red light it was the responsibility of the motorist to report the incident.  Five points and a fine.  Just because a rule is being broken doesn't mean other rules stop applying.

Griff500  there has to be exceptions with the immediate exchange of details, there can be a delay, especially when injuries have been sustained, happened to me, I was rushed off to hospital with breathing difficulties, one of my ribs had been broken and punctured my lung, strangely enough, no exchange of details.  The cyclist did appear to be dazed and confused.

 

Exactly... So off the driver (not the cyclist) pops to a cop shop, except in this case it appears that he didn't...

W12 Hatter wrote:

One question that springs to my mind: How close to the kerb should one's vehicle need to be without having to consider the possibility of a vehicle passing between the door I'm about to open and the kerb? Another question: Should I really expect a vehicle to 'undertake' my vehicle when my vehicle is already in the lane nearest the left-hand kerb?

For vehicle, consider anything from an HGV to a bicycle. For kerb, consider a one-way street and both the right- and left-hand kerbs.

Reading the reports, it seems someone said Jaiqi Liu was travelling "too fast". Other than the relevant 20/30 mph limit, is there a speed above which one is 'travelling too fast'? If so, I think we should be told.

You must always ensure that it's safe to open your door, irrespective of distance to the kerb. There could easily be someone walking/jogging on the pavement, so you can't just throw the door open without making reasonable effort to ensure that it's safe.

The question of "too fast" on a bike is subject to debate. Speed limits are generally motorised speed limits (unless specifically targetted at other vehicles) and thus don't apply to bikes. In theory you can be prosecuted for "pedalling furiously" but there's no clear definition. It's irrelevant to this situation as swinging a door into someone's path is careless no matter the speed that they're travelling.

W12 Hatter wrote:

One question that springs to my mind: How close to the kerb should one's vehicle need to be without having to consider the possibility of a vehicle passing between the door I'm about to open and the kerb? 

The minister's car hadn't pulled over: traffic was practically not moving and this looks like a classic case of "this is taking too long, I'll just get out here". It doesn't matter how close to the kerb you are, or whether or not there's a cycle lane: the law says you look before you open your door. End of.

Quote:

Reading the reports, it seems someone said Jaiqi Liu was travelling "too fast".

Yes, allegedly, Mr Grayling who didn't see the cyclist was able to see that the cyclist was travelling "too fast".

W12 Hatter wrote:

One question that springs to my mind: How close to the kerb should one's vehicle need to be without having to consider the possibility of a vehicle passing between the door I'm about to open and the kerb? Another question: Should I really expect a vehicle to 'undertake' my vehicle when my vehicle is already in the lane nearest the left-hand kerb?

For vehicle, consider anything from an HGV to a bicycle. For kerb, consider a one-way street and both the right- and left-hand kerbs.

Reading the reports, it seems someone said Jaiqi Liu was travelling "too fast". Other than the relevant 20/30 mph limit, is there a speed above which one is 'travelling too fast'? If so, I think we should be told.

Distance from the kerb is utterly irrelevant. I've been doored while walking on the pavement by an twunt of a BMW driver is his new-ish 3-door convertable (ie longer than average doors) as he threw the door open in his rush to get to the takeaway shop across the pavement, all the while as he was looking at the out his windscreen.  Luckily for me (not for him) I was on my way to take some photos and had a tripod in the hand nearest his car, which left a nice dent in the door, also just coming out the takeaway was a local policeman with his lunch. So as well as leaving with his lunch, and a dent in his door he was also lucky enough to get a fine for his carelessness.
 

I've also been almost doored in a cycle lane when a passenger decided to hop out a few metres ahead of me. . .  ringing of bell and shouting had no effect.

It is the responibility of the person opening door to make sure they are doing so safely.

StuInNorway wrote:

Distance from the kerb is utterly irrelevant.

...
It is the responibility of the person opening door to make sure they are doing so safely.

This. To add another example, I've heard of people being doored on the cycle path the other side of the oddly shaped high kerbing/miniwall from the carriageways:

https://goo.gl/maps/XTzgWkj9uNn

As for much of the rest of the discussion, Highway Code interpretations or not, people do filter up the inside. A lot. Search on YouTube for "Student Rush Hour - Cambridge, UK - 8h58am" . Reputations well and truly destroyed, eh? No way back, really. But perhaps that's because in general you are better protected from the effects of dooring (or of being squeezed off line by car bodies moving obliquely to lanes) by filtering on the nearside than on the offside? You get pushed onto the footway, rather than, in the worst case scenario, under someone's wheels.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

I think the people who are saying the cyclist shouldn't have overtaken on the left are wrong.

It may be unwise in general, but here the infrastructure (painted line) indicates that this is what is intended. The cycle lane on the left is a very few metres further on. Yes, where the guy was hit, there was a break in the lane, but it doesn't seem logical to me to expect someone riding a bike to swerve to the outside of the traffic where there is no painted lane, and swerve back in again afterwards.

I agree, the infrastructure is awful here

HarrogateSpa wrote:

I think the people who are saying the cyclist shouldn't have overtaken on the left are wrong.

It may be unwise in general, but here the infrastructure (painted line) indicates that this is what is intended. The cycle lane on the left is a very few metres further on. Yes, where the guy was hit, there was a break in the lane, but it doesn't seem logical to me to expect someone riding a bike to swerve to the outside of the traffic where there is no painted lane, and swerve back in again afterwards.

Sorry, but your point makes no sense to me.  When there's a break in the lane, the cyclist has the option of moving to the outside of the traffic (in which case overtaking with care is allowed) or stay to the left or adopt primary position. In the latter 2 cases, the cyclist then stays within the line of traffic.

The point is that any attempt to undertake other traffic where there's no cycle route contravenes Rule 163 of the Highway Code.

ktache wrote:

Rule 239 states- you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic.

and that is a MUST one, enforcable by law.

The onus is on the driver and it is they who is responsible for their passengers.  It was the driver who should have stopped and exchanged details and reported the incident to the police.

We are having a go at Grayling because he is the Secretary of State for Transport, former Justice Secretary and should know better.

Rule 239 does not override Rule 163.  And, had the cyclist abided by Rule 163, then the situation would not have arisen where Rule 239 might be breached.  

So blame rests primarily with the cyclist.

rollotommasi wrote:

ktache wrote:

Rule 239 states- you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic.

and that is a MUST one, enforcable by law.

The onus is on the driver and it is they who is responsible for their passengers.  It was the driver who should have stopped and exchanged details and reported the incident to the police.

We are having a go at Grayling because he is the Secretary of State for Transport, former Justice Secretary and should know better.

Rule 239 does not override Rule 163.  And, had the cyclist abided by Rule 163, then the situation would not have arisen where Rule 239 might be breached.  

So blame rests primarily with the cyclist.

Rule 163 is mainly aimed at motor vehicles and although the recommendations should be followed by everyone, it's tricky for cyclists to check their mirrors and wouldn't be considered at fault for not having mirrors. Rule 239 is a MUST rule rather than a recommendation, so it is considered more important to follow than Rule 163.

It's ludicrous to blame the cyclist.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rule 163 is mainly aimed at motor vehicles and although the recommendations should be followed by everyone, it's tricky for cyclists to check their mirrors and wouldn't be considered at fault for not having mirrors. Rule 239 is a MUST rule rather than a recommendation, so it is considered more important to follow than Rule 163.

It's ludicrous to blame the cyclist.

Hold on.  Rule 163 is NOT "mainly aimed at motor vehicles".  It applies to ALL road users.  It would be nonsense to suggest otherwise, just because a couple of phrases are specific to motor vehicles.  Were it intended that Rule 163 should not apply to cyclists, then it would have been explicit about that.

And Rule 239 is NOT more important than Rule 163, because the 2 rules should not come into conflict.  If the cyclist had complied with Rule 163, then the collision would not have occurred, pure and simple.  Which means Rule 239 would not have been an issue.

So I repeat - the cyclist is primarily to blame.

rollotommasi wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rule 163 is mainly aimed at motor vehicles and although the recommendations should be followed by everyone, it's tricky for cyclists to check their mirrors and wouldn't be considered at fault for not having mirrors. Rule 239 is a MUST rule rather than a recommendation, so it is considered more important to follow than Rule 163.

It's ludicrous to blame the cyclist.

Hold on.  Rule 163 is NOT "mainly aimed at motor vehicles".  It applies to ALL road users.  It would be nonsense to suggest otherwise, just because a couple of phrases are specific to motor vehicles.  Were it intended that Rule 163 should not apply to cyclists, then it would have been explicit about that.

And Rule 239 is NOT more important than Rule 163, because the 2 rules should not come into conflict.  If the cyclist had complied with Rule 163, then the collision would not have occurred, pure and simple.  Which means Rule 239 would not have been an issue.

So I repeat - the cyclist is primarily to blame.

You really need to look up 'should' and 'must'.

davel wrote:

You really need to look up 'should' and 'must'.

I know exactly the difference between "should" and "must", thank you very much.  And I also know that BOTH "should" and "must" instructions are to be complied with.  You can't argue that you can ignore something in the Highway Code because it says "should".

It's also Rule 163 which states that road users should "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". That's not a "must" instruction, but I would expect that to be complied with. Wouldn't you?

And the fact remains the cyclist failed to comply with Rule 163.  If the cyclist had complied, then the collision would not have occurred.

rollotommasi wrote:

davel wrote:

You really need to look up 'should' and 'must'.

I know exactly the difference between "should" and "must", thank you very much.  And I also know that BOTH "should" and "must" instructions are to be complied with.  You can't argue that you can ignore something in the Highway Code because it says "should".

It's also Rule 163 which states that road users should "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". That's not a "must" instruction, but I would expect that to be complied with. Wouldn't you?

And the fact remains the cyclist failed to comply with Rule 163.  If the cyclist had complied, then the collision would not have occurred.

 

The cyclist did comply with Rule 163:

• 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

rollotommasi wrote:

davel wrote:

You really need to look up 'should' and 'must'.

I know exactly the difference between "should" and "must", thank you very much.  And I also know that BOTH "should" and "must" instructions are to be complied with.  You can't argue that you can ignore something in the Highway Code because it says "should".

Um, yes, you can. That's the whole point of having two different words. 'Shoulds' are advisory only, not legally obligatory. By definition, you can chose not to follow advice. That's why its advice not orders.
So it seems to me that you _don't_ know the difference between 'should' and 'must'.

And I think you will find that motorists ignore pretty much everything that says 'should'.

For example, since when have drivers followed the rule about not parking facing against the traffic flow? Or the one saying 'you should not park on the pavement' (in London, and only in London, its a 'must' but many drivers still do it even there).

rollotommasi wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rule 163 is mainly aimed at motor vehicles and although the recommendations should be followed by everyone, it's tricky for cyclists to check their mirrors and wouldn't be considered at fault for not having mirrors. Rule 239 is a MUST rule rather than a recommendation, so it is considered more important to follow than Rule 163.

It's ludicrous to blame the cyclist.

Hold on.  Rule 163 is NOT "mainly aimed at motor vehicles".  It applies to ALL road users.  It would be nonsense to suggest otherwise, just because a couple of phrases are specific to motor vehicles.  Were it intended that Rule 163 should not apply to cyclists, then it would have been explicit about that.

And Rule 239 is NOT more important than Rule 163, because the 2 rules should not come into conflict.  If the cyclist had complied with Rule 163, then the collision would not have occurred, pure and simple.  Which means Rule 239 would not have been an issue.

So I repeat - the cyclist is primarily to blame.

I thought cyclists were allowed to filter in stationary or practically stationary traffic, on either side (isn't there a Highway Code rule about watching out for filtering cyclists/motorcyclists?). And in this specific case, the cyclist was in a gap where two cycle lanes hadn't been joined up. In practically stationary motor traffic.  So: no, not the cyclists' fault.

(Isn't rule 163 about giving sufficient room when overtaking?)

rollotommasi wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rule 163 is mainly aimed at motor vehicles and although the recommendations should be followed by everyone, it's tricky for cyclists to check their mirrors and wouldn't be considered at fault for not having mirrors. Rule 239 is a MUST rule rather than a recommendation, so it is considered more important to follow than Rule 163.

It's ludicrous to blame the cyclist.

Hold on.  Rule 163 is NOT "mainly aimed at motor vehicles".  It applies to ALL road users.  It would be nonsense to suggest otherwise, just because a couple of phrases are specific to motor vehicles.  Were it intended that Rule 163 should not apply to cyclists, then it would have been explicit about that.

And Rule 239 is NOT more important than Rule 163, because the 2 rules should not come into conflict.  If the cyclist had complied with Rule 163, then the collision would not have occurred, pure and simple.  Which means Rule 239 would not have been an issue.

So I repeat - the cyclist is primarily to blame.

That seems a peculiar interpretation. It's like waving around a hammer and then complaining when people get hit that they shouldn't have been so close.

Although Rule 163 should apply to all road users, it's clearly aimed at motorists:

Quote:

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

You'll also notice the sentence that indicates the behaviour that the cyclist is following:

Quote:

If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left

Quote:

That seems a peculiar interpretation. It's like waving around a hammer and then complaining when people get hit that they shouldn't have been so close.

No.  It's like waving a hammer and then complaining when people get hit that a statutory code told them not to get so close.

Quote:

Although Rule 163 should apply to all road users, it's clearly aimed at motorists

You're contradicting yourself.  Either the "no undertaking" passage in Rule 163 applies to all road users or it doesn't.  Even you accept that it does.  There's nothing in that passage that applies to drivers of motorised vehicles only.

Quote:

If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left

That passage is about roads with more than one lane.  It talks about staying in lane, and being able to pass traffic in a queue in the right lane if it's moving more slowly than traffic in your lane on the left.  That's irrelevant in this case, where the cyclist and cars were sharing the same lane, and the cyclist was trying to undertake within that same lane. 

I also go back to a point I made at the outset. It's hard enough ensure that all drivers give cyclists plenty of space when overtaking as it is.  If cyclists undertake through narrow gaps, it provides justification for drivers to overtake cyclists with the same small gap.

rollotommasi wrote:

You're contradicting yourself.  Either the "no undertaking" passage in Rule 163 applies to all road users or it doesn't.  Even you accept that it does.  There's nothing in that passage that applies to drivers of motorised vehicles only.

I'm not contradicting myself - Rule 163 is aimed at motorists despite not explicitly stating that. It's a list of recommendations about safe overtaking, so it technically should be followed by everyone, but I have trouble with the following applying to a bike:

• Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre

rollotommasi wrote:

Quote:

If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left

That passage is about roads with more than one lane.  It talks about staying in lane, and being able to pass traffic in a queue in the right lane if it's moving more slowly than traffic in your lane on the left.  That's irrelevant in this case, where the cyclist and cars were sharing the same lane, and the cyclist was trying to undertake within that same lane. 

I interpret that as applying equally to lane-splitting. I'm effectively making another lane by finding sufficient room between the kerb and the car and the cycle lanes before and after echo that sentiment.

Personally, I often overtake slow/stationary vehicles either to the left or the right depending on the particular situation. Both methods have pros and cons which is why the Highway Code warns drivers about cycles and motorcycles overtaking either side.

rollotommasi wrote:

I also go back to a point I made at the outset. It's hard enough ensure that all drivers give cyclists plenty of space when overtaking as it is.  If cyclists undertake through narrow gaps, it provides justification for drivers to overtake cyclists with the same small gap.

I appreciate that point, but I partially disagree. The situation isn't symmetrical as drivers tend to overtake with a much greater speed difference and obviously impacts cause more injury to the cyclists. If I'm overtaking a slow car, then I'm usually only going a few mph quicker than them and it's much easier for me to judge speed and distance (and I would come off worse if I get it wrong). However, I do see that motorists might not understand the distinction.