Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 03:20

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 23:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Says "look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
be aware of traffic coming up behind you ".

Then we have -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3185881/The-heart-stopping-moment-cyclist-swerves-avoid-car-door-opened-hit-passing-taxi.html

Accident analysis from web evidence.
1) car driver opens door with out looking.
2) cyclist is riding too close to parked cars, AND FAILS to observe movement in driver seat.
3) Cyclist is unaware of following traffic.
Of course ,there's the problem with a cab driver ( in this case a so called professional driver)failing to make allowances for possible problems ahead.

Any UNBIASED VIEWS (Weepy should look at all sides before walking in with boots from bloke down pit), might be interesting.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 21:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
The cyclist rode to close to the vehicle, but that's not illegal.

The driver opened his door into the path of a road user. Very illegal, and a strict liability offence (i.e. no excuses like I looked but didn't see).

The cab driver should have hung back a bit, but did a good job in the end.

Cyclists should ride central (primary position) in such situations, he should have been way out in the middle of the lane, or at least a good way across it, way before the parked vehicles.

However, that's not always easy as some drivers take offence at this and may pass dangerously close or cut in early (a punishment pass as it's refereed to in the trade) or drive dangerously close to the back of the cyclist if they can't pass. Some honk and get very angry.

I remember having a massive argument on here with safespeed acoloytes saying cyclists should stay well left and never ride central, safespeedv2 was a leading protagonist of the "ride in the gutter" brigade in this debate.


Last edited by weepej on Sat Aug 08, 2015 21:21, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 21:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
For instance ride in this bike lane, get doored.

Ride outside it get passed close, beeped at, swore at for not being in the cycle lane.

Your choice!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 22:15 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
weepej wrote:
For instance ride in this bike lane, get doored.

Ride outside it get passed close, beeped at, swore at for not being in the cycle lane.

Your choice!

Image


Oh get real! Much as I sympathise with the cyclists worries, how likely is it that a driver is going to open his door in those circumstances?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 22:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
dcbwhaley wrote:
Oh get real! Much as I sympathise with the cyclists worries, how likely is it that a driver is going to open his door in those circumstances?


Unlikely, but it only takes one.

Certainly if you were riding at 15-20mph I wouldn't recommend travelling in that cycle lane, but even a low speed collision, say 12mph can send you out into the road or over a door.

Anyway, as the highway code says:


"Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened "


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 23:56 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
If you were doing 15-20 in those conditions on a pushbike, so close to parked cars from between which a kid could run out (or indeed, a door get opened), I'd say you were traveling at an "inappropriate speed for the conditions".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 00:09 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
I was expecting some posts, hence I posted "Any UNBIASED VIEWS (Weepy should look at all sides before walking in with boots from bloke down pit), might be interesting."

So far, I haven't seen any "UNBIASED VIEWS" from WEEPY /OTHERS.

We have " Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
be aware of traffic coming up behind you ".
FROM our so called cycling road safety forum
Quote:
For instance ride in this bike lane, get doored.

Ride outside it get passed close, beeped at, swore at for not being in the cycle lane.


But then ,IF the cycling lot had not alienated Motorists, THEN perhaps, they might get a bit of sympathy.

Mole- with cyclists priorities in focus, what chance for a kid or two - they only come into the equation when a CAR is involved.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:09 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
botach wrote:
So far, I haven't seen any "UNBIASED VIEWS" from WEEPY /OTHERS.


It is very difficult to remain unbiased when replying to someone as biased as you are, botox. **

But to refer to the original incident.
Opening a car door without checking that it is safe to do so is a clear case of Careless Driving which is a criminal offence.
Riding a cycle so close that to a car that the cyclist is endangered if a door is opened is contrary to the advice in Highway code paragraph 67 but is not a criminal offence.
And the driver of the taxi should be commended for driving with the degree of alertness required to minimise the consequences of the original criminal behaviour

(** These two statements, neither of them accurate, are evidence of your bias
"But then ,IF the cycling lot had not alienated Motorists, THEN perhaps, they might get a bit of sympathy." SOME cyclists have alienated SOME motorists. That does not justify endangering other cyclists.
"with cyclists priorities in focus, what chance for a kid or two - they only come into the equation when a CAR is involved." Blatantly untrue. Cyclists HAVE been prosecuted for injuring children)

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 18:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
dcbwhaley wrote:
Opening a car door without checking that it is safe to do so


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.”, so not quite about just checking it's safe to do so, even if you check you cause an offence if you open your door and endanger or inure somebody; it's a strict liability offence.

dcbwhaley wrote:
is a clear case of Careless Driving which is a criminal offence.


It's illegal, but not dangerous driving:

Quote:
A gap in the law was highlighted in 2012 when Kenan Aydogdu was charged and tried for manslaughter in 2012 for the death of cyclist, Sam Harding, after he opened a car door into his path. Mr Aydogdu parked his car next to a bus lane which was shared by cyclists. He opened his door, hitting Mr Harding, who was flung into the path of a bus which was following him. The cyclist went under the wheels and was crushed. Mr Aydogdu had added a very high level of tint to his car windows which reduced visibility to 17%. He also admitted he had made a mistake by not looking in his mirror.

Mr Aydogdu was charged with manslaughter. Although the death involved a car, Mr Aydogdu could not be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving as he was not driving. The jury took just over an hour to find Mr Aydogdu not guilty of manslaughter. As there was no other appropriate offence which he could have been charged with, he received no punishment or penalty. Clearly this shows a gap in the law which needs to be addressed.


http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/t ... icle-doors


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 22:55 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
It's illegal, but not dangerous driving:

Quote:
A gap in the law was highlighted in 2012 when Kenan Aydogdu was charged and tried for manslaughter in 2012 for the death of cyclist, Sam Harding, after he opened a car door into his path. Mr Aydogdu parked his car next to a bus lane which was shared by cyclists. He opened his door, hitting Mr Harding, who was flung into the path of a bus which was following him. The cyclist went under the wheels and was crushed. Mr Aydogdu had added a very high level of tint to his car windows which reduced visibility to 17%. He also admitted he had made a mistake by not looking in his mirror.

Mr Aydogdu was charged with manslaughter. Although the death involved a car, Mr Aydogdu could not be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving as he was not driving. The jury took just over an hour to find Mr Aydogdu not guilty of manslaughter. As there was no other appropriate offence which he could have been charged with, he received no punishment or penalty. Clearly this shows a gap in the law which needs to be addressed.


http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/t ... icle-doors

It's a fair point. He WASN'T driving. OK, he was the drivER and HAD BEEN driving, but wasn't at the time of the offence. Even if that one COULD have been argued, what about the case of a 4 door car where a rear seat passenger opens the offside rear door? (And they wouldn't even have a mirror to look in). If it's going to be made an automatic offence (and I'm not sure that's a good idea, because there is a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of whether or not you "endanger" someone vs. whether that "someone" contributed to it by (say) not being adequately visible or ravelling at too high a speed), then it would need to apply to any user of a car door and not just the driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 23:18 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Mole wrote:
It's a fair point. He WASN'T driving. OK, he was the drivER and HAD BEEN driving, but wasn't at the time of the offence. Even if that one COULD have been argued, what about the case of a 4 door car where a rear seat passenger opens the offside rear door?

No reason for the same law not to apply to (adult) passengers as the the man in the driving seat

Quote:
f it's going to be made an automatic offence (and I'm not sure that's a good idea, because there is a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of whether or not you "endanger" someone vs. whether that "someone" contributed to it by (say) not being adequately visible or ravelling at too high a speed), then it would need to apply to any user of a car door and not just the driver.


Opening a nearside door in the path of a cyclist riding on the pavement would be an interesting case :-)

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 00:40 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
dcbwhaley wrote:
botach wrote:
So far, I haven't seen any "UNBIASED VIEWS" from WEEPY /OTHERS.




(** These two statements, neither of them accurate, are evidence of your bias
"But then ,IF the cycling lot had not alienated Motorists, THEN perhaps, they might get a bit of sympathy." SOME cyclists have alienated SOME motorists. That does not justify endangering other cyclists.
"with cyclists priorities in focus, what chance for a kid or two - they only come into the equation when a CAR is involved." Blatantly untrue. Cyclists HAVE been prosecuted for injuring children)



Can you provide proof. or is this another cycling myth. ( I might even suggest an ad hominie attack from the cycling warrior group).
I and a lot of other motorists have constantly belated the poor driving standards on our roads. HAVE you and Weepy done likewise on cycling standards. I think not. I might suggest that instead of fuelling the two wheel/four wheel contest, that you as representatives on a motoring forum ,might look to build bridges to IMPROVE RELATIONS, AND ROAD SAFETY between the groups.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 01:25 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
botach wrote:
Can you provide proof. or is this another cycling myth. ( I might even suggest an ad hominie attack from the cycling warrior group).

Proof of what?

Quote:
I and a lot of other motorists have constantly belated the poor driving standards on our roads. HAVE you and Weepy done likewise on cycling standards. I think not.

Why do you think not. I have taught Cycling Proficiency at a local school and attempted to instil good cycling manners and safety appreciation in the young pupils. I have also taught several youths to drive and have likewise taught them the need of special consideration for cyclists and pedestrians.

Quote:
I might suggest that instead of fuelling the two wheel/four wheel contest, that you as representatives on a motoring forum ,might look to build bridges to IMPROVE RELATIONS, AND ROAD SAFETY between the groups.


I take no part in such a contest, if indeed it exists. Nor do I represent anyone but myself on this forum. And, as I explained in the previous paragraph, I have done my share with both cyclist and motorists.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 16:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
It's a fair point. He WASN'T driving. OK, he was the drivER and HAD BEEN driving, but wasn't at the time of the offence. Even if that one COULD have been argued, what about the case of a 4 door car where a rear seat passenger opens the offside rear door? (And they wouldn't even have a mirror to look in).

If it's going to be made an automatic offence (and I'm not sure that's a good idea, because there is a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of whether or not you "endanger" someone vs. whether that "someone" contributed to it by (say) not being adequately visible or ravelling at too high a speed), then it would need to apply to any user of a car door and not just the driver.


It is an automatic offence and it applies to any person in the vehicle opening any door.

This is current law, not proposed, I even cited the reference.

The exact wording is: it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 16:16 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
botach wrote:
I and a lot of other motorists


Have you never ridden a bike? If you have, you're a motorist and a cyclist, just like me.

In fact, you're a human being just like me.

Let's leave it at that shall we and not try and further divide us to create conflict, which you appear to be trying to do.

There is no single "cyclist" group or "motorist" group, it's verging on paranoia to suggest there is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 16:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
If you were doing 15-20 in those conditions on a pushbike, so close to parked cars from between which a kid could run out (or indeed, a door get opened), I'd say you were traveling at an "inappropriate speed for the conditions".


Yes, I wouldn't do it, or if I had to cycle in the lane I'd slow down.

Would you say driving at 30 in the car lane there was an "inappropriate speed for the conditions"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 23:35 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
Mole wrote:
It's a fair point. He WASN'T driving. OK, he was the drivER and HAD BEEN driving, but wasn't at the time of the offence. Even if that one COULD have been argued, what about the case of a 4 door car where a rear seat passenger opens the offside rear door? (And they wouldn't even have a mirror to look in).

If it's going to be made an automatic offence (and I'm not sure that's a good idea, because there is a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of whether or not you "endanger" someone vs. whether that "someone" contributed to it by (say) not being adequately visible or ravelling at too high a speed), then it would need to apply to any user of a car door and not just the driver.


It is an automatic offence and it applies to any person in the vehicle opening any door.

This is current law, not proposed, I even cited the reference.

The exact wording is: it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”.


I'm not disputing that it is an offence to open a car door so as to cause injury or danger. However, from your own post:

"...Mr Aydogdu was charged with manslaughter. Although the death involved a car, Mr Aydogdu could not be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving as he was not driving. The jury took just over an hour to find Mr Aydogdu not guilty of manslaughter. As there was no other appropriate offence which he could have been charged with, he received no punishment or penalty. Clearly this shows a gap in the law which needs to be addressed...." (my bold italic).

So if it's as clear-cut as you're making out, why couldn't they find anything to charge him for?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 23:40 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
Mole wrote:
If you were doing 15-20 in those conditions on a pushbike, so close to parked cars from between which a kid could run out (or indeed, a door get opened), I'd say you were traveling at an "inappropriate speed for the conditions".


Yes, I wouldn't do it, or if I had to cycle in the lane I'd slow down.

Would you say driving at 30 in the car lane there was an "inappropriate speed for the conditions"?


I can't see all "the conditions" from that video clip, so I couldn't form an opinion. Initial thought is that it probably WOULDN'T be - not least because you're further away from the parked cars - which helps with both the "child running out" scenario and the "door being suddenly opened" scenario.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 00:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
weepej wrote:

There is no single "cyclist" group or "motorist" group, it's verging on paranoia to suggest there is.


I have never tried to suggest that there is. My philosophy is that WE ( all wheeled groups on the road ) are thrown together to get along. UNTIL We all sing from that hymn sheet, we might All be attending the funeral of those who do not, instead of looking out for the safety of other road users,and after leaving our method of conveyance in he nearest park, head off for a pint together.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 07:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
So if it's as clear-cut as you're making out, why couldn't they find anything to charge him for?


Had they charged him with endangering a road user I think the maximum penalty is a £1000.00 fine.

The CPS charged him with manslaughter and the jury decided no.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.305s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]