Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that if you cycle up a road on the left hand side of cars, you can't blame the passenger if you get a door in your face

256 replies

amispartacus · 16/12/2016 11:47

It looks like the cyclist was on the inside. No cycle lane but there is one coming up. The cars are queued. Passenger door is open. Cyclist is on the ground.

I cycle a lot. I don't go past cars on the inside. You are vulnerable. If you have to overtake queuing cars, do it on the outside. Then go to the cycle lane.

The person was the transport secretary.

OP posts:
Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 10:35

But yes, if a cyclist gets hit by something when undertaking and it's something they could not have anticipated or guarded against - like a passenger suddenly opening a door without looking - they yes, they are blameless. If a passenger does that, the cyclist would get hit even if he is stationary

If you are undertaking, you are taking a risk. You are on the inside of a vehicle. It is different if you are stationary such as waiting at traffic light but if you are cycling on the inside at a faster speed than the car, you are undertaking - and the law clearly states that vehicles are not allowed to undertake (unless the vehicle they are undertaking is turning right) and it is safe to do so.

Where is the law that states that undertaking by a cyclist is legal? It's accepted practice but it's done at risk.

The law applies to all vehicles on the road. If you are cycling at a faster speed on the inside of a vehicle, you are cycling illegally. It's accepted practice but it is undertaking. Someone should be looking out for cyclists if they open the door but surely the cyclist (if they are undertaking and are not stationary) know that they are in a dangerous position on the inside.

OP posts:
Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 10:36

Just to clarify your point OP, you think the cyclist is in the wrong because he was on the left and should have anticipated

I think they are both in the wrong.

OP posts:
Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 10:38

You could search YouTube all day and find countless examples

YouTube shows a lot of dangerous driving and cycling.

By cyclists and drivers. I know a cyclist who was killed by a lorry. On the inside and wasn't seen.

OP posts:
DeepanKrispanEven · 17/12/2016 10:40

OP, you quoted Metropolitan Police advice that indicated they clearly think that undertaking by cyclists is acceptable.

I don't get why you think that the fact that someone is taking a risk - even a small one - absolves people in cars from the duty to obey the very clear requirement imposed by law in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 that:

  1. 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.
intheknickersoftime · 17/12/2016 10:41

I think your last post explains a lot. I'm so sorry about your friend Flowers

Nicknameofawesome · 17/12/2016 10:46

Tbh in that situation the inside is the safest place for a cyclist surely? I always assumed cyclists should ride close to the kerb for safety, hence why cycle lanes are always on the left. I'm not a cyclist but that makes sense to me.

Regardless you should always check before you open your car door. You could hit another car, a bike, a motorbike, a pedestrian. Surely it's common sense to take a 2 second glance before you fling your door open?

Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 10:48

I don't get why you think that the fact that someone is taking a risk - even a small one - absolves people in cars from the duty

I have said they are both to blame. Nothing about being absolved - just as the cyclist is not absolved.

intheknickers

Thanks - she wasn't a friend but a daughter of a work colleague who was devastated by what happened.

Cyclists are so vulnerable. I have cycled loads and I am so so careful on the inside. I know it makes life a lot easier but anything can happen and you have a duty of care to yourself. Yes, passengers have to look out as well but why take such risks?

OP posts:
DeepanKrispanEven · 17/12/2016 10:54

But why is the cyclist automatically to blame because he is taking a risk? Again, if he is riding slowly and the passenger suddenly opens his car door without looking, such that he would have been knocked over even if he was stationary, how is that the cyclist's fault?

Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 10:57

But why is the cyclist automatically to blame because he is taking a risk

Would you feel a sense of responsibility and blame if you were undertaking and something happened to you?

I would.

Blame is not binary. Both people can share the blame.

OP posts:
Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 10:59

If it had been a few seconds later, it would have been the filming cyclist who was hit.

Look at how they're cycling. A narrow gap. On the inside. Railings to the left. 2 big buses to the right. And they are not going slowly.

OP posts:
Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 11:01

It would have been interesting to see the 10 seconds before the accident. Was the cyclist stationary? Was he cycling at speed?

OP posts:
DeepanKrispanEven · 17/12/2016 11:04

I have said they are both to blame

Your thread title says "You can't blame the passenger".

Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 11:07

Your thread title says "You can't blame the passenger

Have you read the full thread?

OP posts:
intheknickersoftime · 17/12/2016 11:09

There are definitely risks on cycling on the inside and at a junction you probably won't be visible especially to a lorry. I think the point most posters are making is that the traffic was stationary and this cyclist, as did the cyclist behind him probably anticipated it was safe to carry on. I haven't been to London for years but I am guessing cyclists are probably pretty common there so he should have known to check. As to whether the cyclist was in the wrong, I just don't think him, or the cyclist behind him had a lot of choice. It was either cycle on the left, on the right which has its own risks or just sit in stationary traffic which is pointless. In this instance the cyclist took the least risky option so blame definitely lies with the passenger in this instance. However, yes undertaking has its risks. I think it has to be balanced with the knowledge that you are visible to anyone in the car and in this instance the cyclist was. So Grayling was very much in the wrong and in my opinion handled it really badly. However as someone who lost their brother in a RTA I have some sympathy for what you're trying to do. I just think this is the wrong example.

intheknickersoftime · 17/12/2016 11:11

You did start the thread with saying you can't blame the passenger. Have you changed your position on this?

Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 11:15

Have you changed your position on this

I think there is more blame on the cyclist than on the passenger. I don't think it's 50/50.

I would never undertake at speed - even in stationary traffic. I would go on the outside. You are more visible to oncoming traffic. And potentially more room to manouvre. If there's no gap, you wait.

OP posts:
DeepanKrispanEven · 17/12/2016 11:51

The significant wording in your last post is "at speed". I don't think anyone is suggesting that that's sensible conduct. But it doesn't mean that the cyclist referred to in your OP is more at fault than the passenger.

intheknickersoftime · 17/12/2016 12:46

Well I'm out now because I'm sure you've said before they are both to blame. I don't particularly think this thread has done much to advance the cause for safer cycling as the accident could most certainly have been avoided by Grayling. As is common in any accident, nothing is black and white and he clearly tried to deny any responsibility at the outset. The cyclist was visible, Grayling should have checked and shouldn't have left him without exchanging insurance details. He was completely in the wrong.

Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 12:54

think there is more blame on the cyclist than on the passenger. I don't think it's 50/50

Well I'm out now because I'm sure you've said before they are both to blame

Yes - both to blame. But I would put more of the blame on the cyclist.

Grayling should have checked and shouldn't have left him without exchanging insurance detail

What insurance details? He was a passenger in a taxi. What insurance have you got that would cover such an accident? Not sure if house insurance covers that.

OP posts:
intheknickersoftime · 17/12/2016 13:03

As I said, I'm out.

Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 13:12

I suppose if anything positive comes out of this - as it involved the Transport secretary, it might be:

  1. More people become aware that they should check when opening passenger doors on both sides.

  2. The Dutch method might be taught

  3. Cyclists become even more aware of the dangers of undertaking

  4. The Transport secretary might help clarify the law on this

  5. There might be a much bigger push for cycling safety especially in bigger cities.

OP posts:
ivykaty44 · 17/12/2016 13:17

Are you going to explain the Dutch method? Grin

Original poster
amispartacus · 17/12/2016 13:20

ivykaty

OP posts:
eddiemairswife · 17/12/2016 13:30

The Transport Secretary is an idiot; he was an idiot when he was Justice secretary, and he will continue to be so.

OurBlanche · 17/12/2016 13:32

Ha! Has anyone ever tried the Dutch Reach?

Forgetting anyone with joint issues, lack of mobility, just assume that everyone can twist and look aback over their shoulder.

Go and try it in your own car... what do you see?

No... me either! Nor in DHs car, nor in his company pick up!

Swipe left for the next trending thread