Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by Vorpal »

Highway Code wrote:63

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by irc »

Vorpal wrote:
Highway Code wrote:63

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable.


I'd argue it isn't practical when you get doored.

Same applies to Rule 61.

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.


It obviously isn't safe if you risk a dooring or hitting a pedestrian stepping out.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by Vorpal »

Well, I agree, but first of all, not all cyclists know the HC. The folks on this forum are , IME, rather more knowledgeable about the HC than most people. Secondly, many people are not as spatially aware as I am. Or they don't really know how wide doors open. People that I had in Bikeability training often didn't get it until I told them that a parked car should be well beyond the reach of their arms. So, if they put an arm out, they should not be able to touch a parked car. If I told them 1.5 metres, or 'the width of door and a little bit more', often they still rode in the door zone, and believed that they were not in the door zone. If I could demonstrate riding position, on the other hand, they seemed to understand. And sometimes, I got lucky, and someone opened a car door to show them how wide it opened.

Lastly, there is an awful lot of misinformation going about, especially as regards what cyclists should and shouldn't do.

I think that it's entirely possible that the cyclist in the video believed he should ride in the cycle lane. He may not have been aware that he was in the door zone. Even if he was aware, he may have thought it was better to ride in the cycle lane than out of the door zone. I don't expect that he will make that mistake again. But that all it was. A mistake, not a reason to blame him for his misfortune. The cause of the incident was someone Illegally opening a car door in his path.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
aspiringcyclist
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 6:11pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by aspiringcyclist »

Despite what I said about the efficacy of bikeability in another thread I think it's a shame that the guidance isn't more widely spread among existing cyclists and motorists. You have to go out of your way to buy a book or do cycle training to learn of the recommendations. It seems the common opinion is that hi viz, helmets, etc, are important rather than the style of riding.
PRL
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 9:14pm
Location: Richmond upon Thames

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by PRL »

aspiringcyclist wrote:Despite what I said about the efficacy of bikeability in another thread I think it's a shame that the guidance isn't more widely spread among existing cyclists and motorists. You have to go out of your way to buy a book or do cycle training to learn of the recommendations. It seems the common opinion is that hi viz, helmets, etc, are important rather than the style of riding.


It would be even better if transport planners would refuse to design cycle lanes that are not safe. ( we can imagine the scenario - "we want to encourage cycling but can't possibly remove parking spaces so......".)
PRL
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 9:14pm
Location: Richmond upon Thames

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by PRL »

bovlomov wrote:
reohn2 wrote:... but many's the time both whilst driving an cycling I think the vehicle with the hazard lights flashing is indicating to move off because it's nearside indicator is obscured by the vehicle parked behind it,which gives a false impression.

It's a fundamental problem with hazard lights, and I'm surprised it hasn't been tackled by the motor manufacturers. There is simply no way of knowing which of the two functions an indicator is performing. You'd think it wouldn't be beyond them to devise a different pattern (long on/short off, or irregular?) for the hazard mode.


+ 100 ! ( and why does a big red bus in daylight need hazard lights anyway ?)
aspiringcyclist
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 6:11pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by aspiringcyclist »

PRL wrote:
aspiringcyclist wrote:Despite what I said about the efficacy of bikeability in another thread I think it's a shame that the guidance isn't more widely spread among existing cyclists and motorists. You have to go out of your way to buy a book or do cycle training to learn of the recommendations. It seems the common opinion is that hi viz, helmets, etc, are important rather than the style of riding.


It would be even better if transport planners would refuse to design cycle lanes that are not safe. ( we can imagine the scenario - "we want to encourage cycling but can't possibly remove parking spaces so......".)


Of course it should always be infrastructure first. Many councils seems to be only interested in training, though, so it is surprising that it is still relatively unknown.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Only watched it once, but it looked like the taxi did hit the cyclist - not hard, but it looked to me as if contact was made.

The blame lies fully with the door opener - the taxi driver was prepping for an overtake, which was limited by the roadworks up to that point, and hence had closed his distance and increased his speed. The 'perfect storm' for him, and he still managed to stop (well, close enough that the cyclist is probably happy).

The cyclist was exactly where he was told to be - the number of cyclists who have heard of primary/secondary position or taking the lane is small. But I'd wager it's even smaller in the Netherlands...

The person opening the door was, I think, getting out of the drivers seat - so I am assuming he is licensed to drive in this country, which should mean a familiarity with the highway code and the laws of the road - which includes checking before you open the door...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by irc »

[XAP]Bob wrote:The person opening the door was, I think, getting out of the drivers seat - so I am assuming he is licensed to drive in this country, which should mean a familiarity with the highway code and the laws of the road - which includes checking before you open the door...


The same Highway Code which tells cyclist not to ride close to parked cars and that cycle lanes are optional. The same Highway Code which the RTA 1988 says can be used to apportion blame.
Knowledge of the Highway Code isn't a requirement for cyclists but if you choose not to know the rules or learn to ride safely then expect to be involved in avoidable accidents.
aspiringcyclist
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 6:11pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by aspiringcyclist »

irc wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:The person opening the door was, I think, getting out of the drivers seat - so I am assuming he is licensed to drive in this country, which should mean a familiarity with the highway code and the laws of the road - which includes checking before you open the door...


The same Highway Code which tells cyclist not to ride close to parked cars and that cycle lanes are optional. The same Highway Code which the RTA 1988 says can be used to apportion blame.
Knowledge of the Highway Code isn't a requirement for cyclists but if you choose not to know the rules or learn to ride safely then expect to be involved in avoidable accidents.


But don't you find it ridiculous that cyclists have to be told not to use the infrastructure that has been built. Imagine if certain roads/lanes were too dangerous to drive on and it was up to drivers to know which ones not to use - and then nothing was done to make those roads safer.

Also, there is no way that a cyclist will have blamed apportioned to them in the event of a dooring. The highway code also states that, when crossing a pelican crossing, pedestrians should: "When a steady green figure shows, check the traffic has stopped then cross with care." However, if someone crossed on green but a driver jumped the light and hit the pedestrian, the pedestrian wouldn't have been partially responsible. One is advice and the other is law.
iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by iviehoff »

bovlomov wrote:
reohn2 wrote:... but many's the time both whilst driving an cycling I think the vehicle with the hazard lights flashing is indicating to move off because it's nearside indicator is obscured by the vehicle parked behind it,which gives a false impression.

It's a fundamental problem with hazard lights, and I'm surprised it hasn't been tackled by the motor manufacturers. There is simply no way of knowing which of the two functions an indicator is performing. You'd think it wouldn't be beyond them to devise a different pattern (long on/short off, or irregular?) for the hazard mode.

I call them Stupid Lights. Because they are nearly always used stupidly, for example to indicate the driver is about to do something stupid, or in situations where people won't be able to see one of the lights and will misinterpret them. Then there's the sad fact that that plenty of people stop where they shouldn't stop (No Loading At Any Time) and think it's OK, or at least that they'll get away with it, if you turn your stupid lights on. Having a distinctive flash pattern would help with just one of those problems.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by irc »

aspiringcyclist wrote:But don't you find it ridiculous that cyclists have to be told not to use the infrastructure that has been built. Imagine if certain roads/lanes were too dangerous to drive on and it was up to drivers to know which ones not to use - and then nothing was done to make those roads safer.


Drivers also need to take account of road conditions - gravel, potholes, obstructions etc. Part of safe driving and cycling. Though I agree dangerous cycle facilities are worse than nothing.


aspiringcyclist wrote:Also, there is no way that a cyclist will have blamed apportioned to them in the event of a dooring. The highway code also states that, when crossing a pelican crossing, pedestrians should: "When a steady green figure shows, check the traffic has stopped then cross with care." However, if someone crossed on green but a driver jumped the light and hit the pedestrian, the pedestrian wouldn't have been partially responsible. One is advice and the other is law.


Don't be too sure It has been tried. In this example the only reason the cyclist wasn't found to be contributory negligent was that in this particular case fast moving traffic made it unsafe to pull out.

Lord Justice May said that the Claimant, Burrage, could indeed have foreseen that the door would open and had the opportunity to take evasive action but was he wrong not to do so? The Judge found that each case must be decided on its own facts and ruled that Mr Burrage was not at fault as he would have put himself in more danger by moving further in to the carriageway (where vehicles were travelling at speed).


http://www.cyclingaccidentlaw.co.uk/?p=152
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by AlaninWales »

irc wrote:Don't be too sure It has been tried. In this example the only reason the cyclist wasn't found to be contributory negligent was that in this particular case fast moving traffic made it unsafe to pull out.

Lord Justice May said that the Claimant, Burrage, could indeed have foreseen that the door would open and had the opportunity to take evasive action but was he wrong not to do so? The Judge found that each case must be decided on its own facts and ruled that Mr Burrage was not at fault as he would have put himself in more danger by moving further in to the carriageway (where vehicles were travelling at speed).


http://www.cyclingaccidentlaw.co.uk/?p=152

The facts in this case include that the (professionally trained) Traffic Engineers have decided to put a cycle lane in which cyclists are expected to cycle. The car occupant should have seen the cycle lane and realised that cyclists would be using it. The cyclist will (as we are) have been subject to abuse for not using provided facilities. Unless inculcated in the arcane mysteries of 'which infrastructure to avoid using' the cyclist will naturally ride in the provided lane - perhaps even believing that he must do so.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by irc »

AlaninWales wrote:[The facts in this case include that the (professionally trained) Traffic Engineers have decided to put a cycle lane in which cyclists are expected to cycle. The car occupant should have seen the cycle lane and realised that cyclists would be using it. The cyclist will (as we are) have been subject to abuse for not using provided facilities. Unless inculcated in the arcane mysteries of 'which infrastructure to avoid using' the cyclist will naturally ride in the provided lane - perhaps even believing that he must do so.


According to the comments in the Evening Standard this wasn't a cycle lane. It is a bus lane active a certain times. There is a blue advisory cycle lane within the bus lane. The cyclist wasn't in the cycle lane though he was in the bus lane and chose not to leave it to safely overtake parked cars. His choice, his fault.

If the cyclist believes he must use the bus/cycle lane even when unsafe he is sadly lacking in basic knowledge. It is common in my area for cyclists to choose to avoid some "facilities". I'm sure London cyclists are in general equally competent. If he didn't recognise it was unsafe he has poor hazard perception. I bet the next time he rides it he'll be further out. It's better to learn from other people's mistakes than to make them all yourself though.

Of course the driver is also to blame.
aspiringcyclist
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 6:11pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by aspiringcyclist »

irc wrote:
AlaninWales wrote:[The facts in this case include that the (professionally trained) Traffic Engineers have decided to put a cycle lane in which cyclists are expected to cycle. The car occupant should have seen the cycle lane and realised that cyclists would be using it. The cyclist will (as we are) have been subject to abuse for not using provided facilities. Unless inculcated in the arcane mysteries of 'which infrastructure to avoid using' the cyclist will naturally ride in the provided lane - perhaps even believing that he must do so.


According to the comments in the Evening Standard this wasn't a cycle lane. It is a bus lane active a certain times. There is a blue advisory cycle lane within the bus lane. The cyclist wasn't in the cycle lane though he was in the bus lane and chose not to leave it to safely overtake parked cars. His choice, his fault.

If the cyclist believes he must use the bus/cycle lane even when unsafe he is sadly lacking in basic knowledge. It is common in my area for cyclists to choose to avoid some "facilities". I'm sure London cyclists are in general equally competent. If he didn't recognise it was unsafe he has poor hazard perception. I bet the next time he rides it he'll be further out. It's better to learn from other people's mistakes than to make them all yourself though.

Of course the driver is also to blame.


And this is where the victim blaming comes in. Cyclists avoiding the door zone is mitigation for other people's behaviour. The same way avoiding certain areas at night is and looking even if the pelican crossing light is green. The driver is solely at fault.
Post Reply