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.

oh the bit about ignoring the legal demands of the need to exchange details involving an RTA has by-passed Grayling, even as a transport minister.
He has no traction as a competent person, yet he gets positions of power!

This is not the same. Haven't RTFT but want to whinge a bit.

Bus pulls up about 4ft from the kerb this evening. Woman in queue says to me: 'Go ahead. You were first.' I thank her and step into the road and she yells: 'Stop!!!'.

A cyclist has nipped round the left hand side of the bus and would have hit me if she hadn't shouted. Why he didn't overtake the bus on the right I do not know. It was easier to weave, I guess. He swears at me and just goes.

I thank the woman again. She said: 'Actually, I was shouting at him. But at least you stopped, so you didn't get hurt.' I really don't think this was my fault. On the whole, I don't mind cyclists. That one's on my shit list though.

and that adds to the thread exactly how, limited?

Just a Friday evening whinge NotToday. Are you wearing the Thread Monitor's Badge tonight? Can I have it tomorrow or is there a waiting list?

Lots of videos of bike near misses on the internet

This one looks common. Queue of cars. Car leaves space to let a car turn right into a side road. Cyclist undertaking, Nearly gets hit. Luckily happened at slow speed.

I know why people undertake. I just think that you've got to be really careful as it can be hard to see you and personally I don't want to rely on someone else for my safety. I would feel that I had a lot of personal responsibility if I got hit undertaking.

I have seen a motorcyclist hit in the classic accident of going past a queue of traffic, a car leaving the gap and a car pulling out to turn right. The motorcyclist was overtaking at speed and didn't have time to react. The car pulled out and either didn't look right to see if anything was overtaking or looked but didn't see. In that case, the motorcyclist was overtaking legally but was at a speed where he couldn't be seen.

Undertaking just means you make yourself more vulnerable to potential accidents.

no limited, just sounded like a usual irrelevant whinge from yourself, tbh Friday or no Friday evening. Added nothing.

A cyclist has nipped round the left hand side of the bus and would have hit me if she hadn't shouted. Why he didn't overtake the bus on the right I do not know. It was easier to weave, I guess. He swears at me and just goes

At a bus stop, you'd probably assume that passengers were going to get on or off. Slowing down would have prevented accidents. Or waiting.

Another near miss. You can see how dangerous the roads are for cyclists.

I don't cycle fast enough to cycle with traffic or on the right. Hardly anyone does.

no limited, just sounded like a usual irrelevant whinge from yourself

I thought it was just a Thread Monitor Badge you were wearing tonight NotToday. I didn't realise you had a Limited Monitor Badge to spot my irrelevant posts. I'm going to decide to be flattered.

Anyway, I've viewed the film now and think the cyclist in the OP was correct and the passenger was at fault. At my bus stop tonight I think the cyclist was wrong. Possibly the bus driver. Definitely not me. Don't ask for a diagram because I can't do one. I can explain the situation at length though.

Probably this will have limited interest but if you want to know, you have only to ask.

At a bus stop, you'd probably assume that passengers were going to get on or off. Slowing down would have prevented accidents. Or waiting.

That's what I thought. There is no cycle lane in this road and the whole road was parked up except for 30ft of the clearly signposted bus stop. Plus, the bus was indicating left to stop. People are going to get on or off. This was bad driving by the cyclist. If he couldn't get past on the right he should have waited.

That clip of yours shows other cyclists making stupid decisions. I don't think all cyclists do this. Some do. So do other road users, including pedestrians.

I think it was the passenger's fault in your OP. I guess that's why black cab drivers have locks on their doors to prevent people blundering out into traffic. The open-backed Routemaster is no more either for the same reason. That doesn't stop idiots using the emergency handle to release the doors in the middle of a busy road.

It's not always easy to "read the road" though, especially where buses are concerned.

Yes, I got caught filtering to the left, in Oxford, going up Headington Hill. Coming up to traffic lights which were red - 2 buses (no bus stop at that point) and I was certainly not zooming uphill - went past a side road just as a motorbike turned into it from the opposite direction. My wheel went into the fork between his front wheel and the body, luckily I was going too slowly to be thrown over his bike but it was a nasty jolt. He gave me the evils - and yet I could NOT have seen him at all because of the buses. He hadn't been left a space to turn either, but he could because he was riding a motorbike, not driving a car.

No harm done that day but oh there could have been. And no, I couldn't have gone round the buses on the other side as it's 2 lanes of traffic and they're tightly squeezed!

If I am undertaking on a bicycle I will have right of way over any road user turning into a space left in the traffic. While it is true that I should look out for myself, the turning vehicle will be at fault if there is a collision because I have right of way (and, one hopes, a life and a functioning brain).

"How are passengers supposed to know any 'rules'. We don't get any training in being a passenger."

Checking before you open a car door is basic common sense. Bikes, other vehicles, pedestrians, bollards that dent the door..,

My five year old doesn't open doors without checking. One might expect better from the transport secretary.

No Catsize As many train drivers will tell you, the Transport Secretary is really against anyone checking before doing anything with doors

As the Transport Secretary, he is responsible for highway design standards.
He has the authority to improve the quality of vehicle traffic separation design quality.

He chooses to allow dangerous and unsafe highway design. People sre killed every day in accidents that are predictable and preventable because of poor highway layout.

Someone should sue the arse off him for corporate mansalughter..

A pedestrian could have been crossing the road and may well not have looked to the left - and a cyclist coming up the inside could easily have hit them

It's highly unlikely a cyclist would hit a pedestrian in those circumstances. They're likely to be able to see them in advance, and when you're cycling in a narrow gap like that you don't get any speed up.

Highway code - look out for doors being opened and pedestrians

Well, obviously. But you can't do much about looking out for it if the door is opened just as you reach the car, can you?

If a pedestrian had been hit, the cyclist would have been blamed - they were undertaking.

No, they wouldn't. As stated upthread, the cyclist would only be blamed if the undertaking caused the accident. If a pedestrian steps into the road and is hit because they didn't bother to look - which is realistically the only way they are likely to be hit - they would be to blame.

It's not a perfect world - and especially if you are in the back seat, it might be hard to see if anyone is coming on the inside.

All the more reason to be careful. As a driver, if I am letting someone out of the back seat in circumstances like this, I get them to wait while I check my mirrors to see that it's safe.

Just like a bus lane. If a taxi stopped, I get out and get hit by the bus in a bus lane, I have myself to blame.

Don't taxis have the right to share bus lanes in most places?

And, yet again, even if you are in a bus lane illegally, that doesn't absolve the bus driver of the duty to drive carefully. If he hits you when he could perfectly easily have avoided you, then he is to blame.

And, yet again, even if you are in a bus lane illegally, that doesn't absolve the bus driver of the duty to drive carefully. If he hits you when he could perfectly easily have avoided you, then he is to blame

Does that absolve the cyclist of any responsibility to cycle carefully? Don't cyclists have a duty of care to themselves?

From your own post quoting the Metropolitan Police, OP:

1. Speed: are you filtering at a speed that makes allowances for unexpected events? If not, slow down. Queued traffic can conceal a multitude of potential hazards.

So the police are perfectly happy for cyclists to filter, they just don't want people to do it at speed, which is common sense. There's no indication that the cyclist in this scenario was cycling at speed.

Of course cyclists have a responsibility to cycle carefully, OP. Who said they didn't?

Does that absolve the cyclist of any responsibility to cycle carefully? Don't cyclists have a duty of care to themselves?

Most civilised countries have what I think is called strict liability, which is very sensible and should be brought in here.

It means that in a car/bicycle collision the car driver is presumed to be at fault and in a bike/pedestrian collision the cyclist is presumed to be at fault.

Generally it makes.life.much safer for vulnerable road users with no negative impact on car drivers in general.

Of course cyclists have a responsibility to cycle carefully, OP. Who said they didn't

So if a cyclist gets hit by something when undertaking, are they blameless?

There's no indication that the cyclist in this scenario was cycling at speed

The cyclist was on the inside. Filtering comes with risks. If you take risks, then you have to accept some of the blame if something happens to you.

If you do anything risky, then you are taking some blame if something happens to you.

OP, the post that you quoted related to someone getting out of a taxi when in a cycle lane, so I'm not sure why you're asking about cyclists.

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.

No, if you take risks you don't necessarily have to accept blame in circumstances where the accident would have happened even if you had not taken the risk. I think that's the fundamental flaw in your logic. If, say, you are driving just above the speed limit, you are taking a risk. But if someone jumps off a bridge or walks into the road in front of you, and the fact is that you could not have stopped in time even if you had been driving within the speed limit, then you will not be held liable.

Just to clarify your point OP, you think the cyclist is in the wrong because he was on the left and should have anticipated the Transport Minister of our great country who is far too busy and important to check for cyclists even though he is the minister for cycling. Because the cyclist shouldn't have been there? Because I've got to ask, why use this example as a general point of principle? Far too many cyclists are injured or killed every year as it is and it's his job to ensure that is prevented. You could search YouTube all day and find countless examples.