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

[amispartacus]

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.

Absolutely the passengers fault. The passenger must check its safe before opening the door anywhere. Cyclists making their way up the inside of the traffic is common and they are there to be seen

Filtering on the left hand side should only be done when the traffic is completely stationary and the cyclist is confident that it will remain so until they are safely past the vehicle."
That shows to me the cyclist is NOT in the wrong. He believed the cars were all stationary and therefore was filtering past them. His belief that the traffic was stationary is backed up by the fact that Grayling chose that moment to get himself out of a presumably stationary and not moving vehicle.

it would be very hard for Grayling to disprove this point as he himself thought the same and was exiting car, if the cyclist takes civil action then Greyling wouldn't be able to use this as a counter argument

Well seeing as the car was waiting at a red light, I think the cyclist was right - he had no idea someone would just get out in the middle of the road.

Passengers should always be aware of what's on the road when getting it out - it could have been a pedestrian or even a motorbike, and could've been far worse. Grayling was totally wrong here.

Grayling is the least competent minister in governmental history going back some years. He now presides over the Southern railway strike. He single-handedly provided the manner of messing up the legal aid system and the probation service.

now we discover he can't open a door safely.

quelle surprise.

'Taking care' does not mean that you need to assume everyone else will do something stupid'

That's exactly what it means when you're driving. And it doesn't mean you have to be frozen into inaction, it simply means you have to be aware of what's happening around you on the road and being prepared to react appropriately if/when someone does something unexpected or stupid.

There's stupid and then there's stupid. So for example, if I come up to a roundabout turning right and there is already someone on the left of me going straight on (two lanes), I assume they haven't seen me and are going to cut across my lane, as that is something I have seen too many times to mention. Assuming that someone will randomly jump out of the car in the middle of traffic is not something I have seen much of at all.

You don't open a car door into someone or in their way.

Definitely passengers fault. Even my children know to check before opening car doors. It's basic.

And cyclists always cycle next to the kerb where I am. To be fair, I don't live in London though.

its the passengers fault

someone was recently killed near me due to a stupid selfish passenger of a taxi throwing the door open and smashing them straight off their bike into oncoming traffic
should have been charged with manslaughter

I walk past that bit of road multiple times a day. The traffic lights are pretty fast there and there is no way that a cyclist could know that the traffic wasn't about to move off.

It's also directly outside Parliament/Westminster Abbey and people are constantly getting in and out of taxis and cars at that particular point. Cyclists round there constantly run the lights, ride on the pavements and go far too fast for an area that has a particularly high number of pedestrians and tourists.

Seen some very nasty incidents with cyclists coming up the inside of traffic and mowing straight into people getting off at bus-stops. Really bad idea unless you are going extremely slowly and can stop instantly.

It was entirely reasonable and sensible for the cyclist to be on the left as the cycle lane started only a few feet away, and it was also perfectly reasonable for him to filter past what must have been a stationary car, otherwise Grayling wouldn't have got out. If you choose to get out of a car which is in traffic and hasn't parked, you obviously have a duty to check that it is safe to do so.

But even if the cyclist had been acting illegally, that still wouldn't absolve Grayling. It's a basic principle that, even if you are acting illegally or negligently, you can't be responsible for any accident unless it was your illegal or negligent driving or cyling that actually caused the accident. If, for example, I was driving at 35 mph in a 30 speed limit and a child stepped out right in front of me, I wouldn't be liable for any injuries the child suffered if it is the case that, even if I had been obeying the limit, I still couldn't have avoided hitting him. The simple fact of the cyclist being on the inside did not cause Grayling to open the door without looking, and the cyclist wouldn't be expected to cater for someone getting out of a car without looking in the middle of a traffic lane.

even

Ah, causalities. And alternative causalities. Good time ;)

Yabu. Have you ever cycled? You can't go weaving in and out both sides of cars! Cyclist was in the right, the safest place to cycle is about a shoulders width away from the kerb, so you can be seen but cars can pass you. This happens all the time in London, usually when passengers 'just hop out' of a cab in slow traffic or coming up to the lights. When it happened to me i was pootling along at almost walking pace on an old lady bike and the guy had plenty of time to look, but didn't, opened his door and i flew headfirst over the handlebars. Really hurt and wrote off my bike!

YABU. Cyclists get knocked off passing on the right too - happened to my dad over 50 years back, not a new phenomenon. You should always look before opening a car door.

I was listening to this in the radio, have watched the video, read the thread.

My first thought still seems the most reasonable. There is no one person more/less at fault than anyone else here.

1. The driver should a) not have agreed for his passenger to alite there (traffic lights, double yellows) and b) should have checked his mirrors and given the passenger the all clear

1. The passenger for a) being so impatient he couldn't wait for a safer spot to alite and b) for flinging the door open without checking, waiting for the driver to check

1. The cyclist for making an assumption and not cycling far more carefully up to the traffic lights.

1. The Highway Code for not being clear cut in any/all matters where car and cycles may clash.

But... cyclist DO and SHOULD undertake/filter on the left as a) that's where the cycle lanes are and b) the Highway Code says so... in as many places as it says don't! The should NOT hurtle, ride through red lights or any of the other ridiculous, kamikaze actions they routinely undertake.

And car drivers and passengers should ALWAYS remember that 10 seconds of them being irritated/inattentive could kill someone! Cyclist, pedestrian, mobility scooter etc... ALL lose when colliding with a car.

At the end it matters not who may or may not be at fault... the possible consequences mean everyone should be more careful, more attentive and, most importantly, more patient!

Rule 160 states that road users should ‘be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic’ and Rule 88, in relation to manoeuvring, states that road users should take care and keep speed low ‘…when filtering in slow-moving traffic’. Furthermore, rule 211 says that ‘it is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are filtering through traffic’.

It was the passengers fault.

Cycle Law

The driver should a) not have agreed for his passenger to alite there

That is not easy when the passenger is your boss. :)

In this case, the passenger should have checked with the drive that it was ok to leave.

When I give lifts, I always check and any passengers double check with me or check the mirror on their side.

That is not easy when the passenger is your boss True.. but the Highway Code does leave responsibility with the driver... maybe all politicians/city drivers need child locks and central locking in the front seat only

I think it's a bit of both.

However, my kids (10) randomly fling car doors open on school run and I'm forever telling them to check, in case they take out a pram or pre schooler on a scooter. who opens a passenger door without checking? certainly not an adult.

that said, cyclists can creep up on you. I stopped cycling as it's just too risky in this country.

I agree it was the cyclist's fault in this incident. There are two key rules in the highway code that apply here.

1. Don't overtake on the inside. Yes you are allowed to do so if your lane is moving faster in queuing traffic but it is asking for trouble. Remember that while drivers have to have a licence, their passengers don't. Passengers SHOULD look but they are not obliged to do so, and may be children, or visually impaired. So many accidents involving cyclists are caused by attempts to overtake on the inside - it is precisely for this reason that many lorries have signs explicitly warning cyclists to heed the danger.

2. While in control of any vehicle you must NEVER travel at a speed whereby you would not be able to make an emergency stop. You don't know what will happen. Perhaps someone will run out, perhaps someone will open a car door. It is the responsibility of the driver or rider to ensure that they travel at a speed whereby they are able to stop their vehicle in a controlled manner at any moment. If this means driving or riding at a pedestrian pace, this is what the driver or rider has to do. Cyclists are always allowed to dismount if the pace requires it.

Too many accidents are caused as a result of cyclists failing to observe these basic rules of the road. As usual, it is never their fault, it's always someone else that gets blamed for a cyclist's foolhardy actions.

To be fair to the person getting out of the car, he stops to check if the cyclist is OK, which is more than reasonable in the circumstances.

Let's just get this straight...

If he'd ridden up the inside, he was wrong
If he'd ridden up the outside, he'd was wrong
If he'd stopped and queued in the traffic, he'd have been blocking space unnecessarilys and wrong
If he'd bunny hopped onto the pavement he'd have been wrong (I'm saying that)
If he'd walked, he wouldn't have been cycling.

And (based on this and other threads)
If cyclists don't ring their bells to alert you , they're a silent menace and therefore wrong.
If they do ring their bells, they are being aggressive louts and they're wrong.
(I'd love to know how to ring a bell "imperiously" though. Don't they just...ring?)

And
If they wear Lycra, they're showing off and louts and wrong
If they don't wear Lycra, they are invisible and wrong.

And
If they do have lights, they are a blinding menace, and wrong
If they don't have lights, they are asking to be run over and wrong.

Riiiight. Sorry, no, 'wrong'

the person getting out of the car is Chris Grayling, Transport Minister SnatchedPencil and he left a possibly concussed cyclist, with a damaged bike, after about 2 minutes, without giving his name. None of the other passengers, also ministers acted either!

For those spouting the law: section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: 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. So, equal fault, I'd say!

The cyclist filming it didn't know either of them, didn't recognise Grayling (who would?) until days later and he only sent the footage to the media after Grayling's recently spoke out against cycle lanes, saying cyclists are a pain to other traffic users.

The whole thing must carry extra embarrassment, you'd think, given his support against certain unions fighting about safety when opening doors

I just can't get over the proposal that cyclists should be on the right side of the cars as standard, sandwiched in between two lanes of traffic going in opposite directions.

It is safer on the left. There was a fatal accident near me fairly recently when a car door opened on the right knocked a cyclist into the path of a bus.

Snatched, neither of those statements of the rules is correct. As discussed upthread, the Highway Code does allow cyclists to filter up the inside. And there is no rule that says " While in control of any vehicle you must NEVER travel at a speed whereby you would not be able to make an emergency stop". Self evidently, you can make an emergency stop at any speed, and there is no rule that says you must travel at a speed which enables you to stop within a couple of feet and guarantee that you won't hit anything - otherwise the speed limit would be around 10 mph.

Do we know that Grayling didn't give his name? I hold no brief for the man, but from what I can see he seems to have taken some trouble to go over to help the cyclist and spends some time talking to him before shaking hands - assuming I'm looking at the right person. I'm guessing the cyclist wouldn't have been that amicable if Grayling had refused to give his name. There also seems to be a minion standing around who I guess may have stopped to give details as well.