Barking MP doors cyclist

[jezer]

A case for keeping at least two metres out when passing cars (to the chagrin of passing motorists). I remember when my father had an ex-MOD Austin eight tourer in the fifties. It had no door locks or ignition key, but it had suicide doors at the front. The locks failed, and he fashioned a kind of fitment that enabled the doors to be held closed after a fashion. Those were the days of proper motoring, or perhaps not

[thirdcrank]

A case for keeping at least two metres out when passing cars (to the chagrin of passing motorists)....

Highway Code:
Advice to cyclists

67
You should
...
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
(My emphasis.)

Equivalent advice to drivers:

213
... cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make

.

My point being that it would be better if the bit I've highlighted in rule 67 were reflected in rule 213.

I raised this in a Highway Code consultation about 15 years ago and got short shrift. (Has anybody any experience of other types of shrift? )

[snibgo]

HC #239:

... you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic

[thirdcrank]

HC #239:

... you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic

That's right. The point I was trying to cover is the situation when a cyclist observing Rule 67 encounters the chagrin of motorists behind (as described by jezer.) IMO it would be better if Rule 213 advising drivers following cyclists reflected Rule 67. Before anybody says it, I can see that if a following driver cannot understand what the cyclist is doing by giving parked cars a wide berth, amendments to the HC will have little influence. It would make me feel a bit better.

[snibgo]

Agreed. I would like the HC to emphasise to drivers that cyclists are generally allowed to ride anywhere a car can go and that, for their own safety, cyclists will often leave a larger space from obstacles than a car would.

[gentlegreen]

My approach these days is that my default place is primary and I only move over a bit if I'm slower than the averaged speed of the traffic AND it's safe to be overtaken. If one driver takes my generosity in vain, all subsequent ones will pay the price.

[iviehoff]

Ho hum, glad the cyclist was unharmed, but isn't this a cut and dried "due care and attention"

Far from cut and dried as the doored-under-a-bus case made clear. And normally when an act is already illegal as a result of a more specific offence applying to that act, one tends not to consider whether it might also be a case of a more general offence. After all, presumably the penalties for the specific offence would normally be seen as more appropriate to that specific offence than those arising the application of a broader and vaguer offence.

I hadn't spotted the clearer offence, but to me the doored under a bus case is a clear case of negligent homicide (if we have have such a thing on the books)

The person who doored someone under a bus was charged with manslaughter and a jury found him not guilty. This despite the fact that there was an aggravating circumstance in that the car in question had illegal over-tinted windows substantially reducing visibility. So it can be clear to you that it is manslaughter (which is homicide caused by negligence rather than intent, so close to what you intend I suppose), but to a jury apparently sufficiently many disagreed with you to acquit. Thus I believe I can say that this is far from clear.

[[XAP]Bob]

I believe it is clear - but that the jury:
a) don't cycle
b) often open their own doors without checking

This is the single biggest failing of the jury system - when bad behaviour becomes common it becomes impossible to punish because the jurors are all equally culpable.

[661-Pete]

I'd not heard the expression 'suicide door'. My line of thought was this: if someone opens a door hinged towards you, you may have a chance to put out a hand (or foot) and slam the door shut as you pass. If the car occupant loses fingers in the process - well, that's their look-out. Better lost fingers than dead cyclists.

But this has never happened to me - yet . So far I've escaped a dooring while in motion (I was once doored at traffic lights while stationary) though like all cyclists I've had a few near misses.

Brings me on to recollections of train doors - nothing to do with cycling but pertinent. In the 'good old days' of slam door trains (of which I have plenty of experience) you could have a door opening either forwards or backwards, depending on which side of the train the platform was (generally the left-side doors opened forwards - the safer option - because platforms are more often on the left.

As a kid I used to habitually get on or off moving trains (we all did) - and I can testify that opening the train door with the hinge at the rear, with the train still moving, was extremely dangerous. All too easy for the wind to catch the door and hurl it round, and at least once I saw a passenger flung out of the train by this action (not me - and he wasn't hurt apart from a few bruises - except to his pride when he got a good 'talking to' by the station staff ). But the main danger is of course to passengers waiting on the platform. I think that's the main reason why they started painting yellow lines on the platforms, although with increased train speeds the slipstream also poses more hazard. Again, a rear-hinged door was much more difficult to control and hence more likely to hit someone. As a train-wise kid, I was of course wise to this risk...

Nowadays the slam door has virtually disappeared. Probably a Good Thing, considering my (and others') past misdemeanours...

[AlaninWales]

(Has anybody any experience of other types of shrift? )

Short Shrift: A short, hurried, incomplete shriving. Making confession, being given penance and absolution is important for several belief systems, especially before death. Being given 'short shrift' means having this possibility severely reduced potentially to be worthless. The opposite of short shrift is therefore 'having the chance of full confession and receiving absolution.

[661-Pete]

(Has anybody any experience of other types of shrift? )

Short Shrift: A short, hurried, incomplete shriving. Making confession, being given penance and absolution is important for several belief systems, especially before death. Being given 'short shrift' means having this possibility severely reduced potentially to be worthless. The opposite of short shrift is therefore 'having the chance of full confession and receiving absolution.

As in:

RATCLIFF
Dispatch, my lord; the duke would be at dinner:
Make a short shrift; he longs to see your head.

just as Hastings is being led off for the chop (without much of a trial )

[iviehoff]

I believe it is clear - but that the jury:
a) don't cycle
b) often open their own doors without checking

This is the single biggest failing of the jury system - when bad behaviour becomes common it becomes impossible to punish because the jurors are all equally culpable.

No, I don't call this a failing of the jury system, I call it a failure of the lawmakers. We can't expect jurors to interpret what they aer likely to see as a relatively minor lack of care such as they routinely indulge in as manslaughter unless the law is written in a way that they have to. And the law can be written in that way. This is precisely why we have the offence of causing death by careless driving, precisely because jurors won't interpret causing death by careless driving to be manslaughter, because they routinely indulge in careless driving themselves. If the law had been written to include dooring within the ambit of careless driving, and it was probably a technical error that the law is written to appear to exclude it, there is little doubt that this person would have been found guilty of causing death by careless driving. Which would have been appropriate, given that it is essentially the same as causing death by careless driving.

As a parallel with the famous saying about democracy, the jury system is, of course, the worst kind of justice, apart from all the other ones.

[Ant]

Short shrift is a bit like having no qualms. When do you have qualms exactly?

[Ant]

and apart from on commentary where else on earth do you hear the "aplomb" being used?

[thirdcrank]

Thanks to those concerned for the explanation of shrift. (Once I'd typed my comment, I checked my own dictionary, which I probably should have done years ago. )