Cycling UK Forum

too many cyclists in London ride without looking ahead and identifying hazards - basic training for motor cyclists

The cyclist seems injured, however slightly. That's a reportable accident under the RTA for Mr Grayling's driver. 'If owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on the road an accident occurs...' http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198 ... 70/enacted

landsurfer wrote:I don't overtake on the left ... ever .... i choose life .....

In London, you'd often find it quicker to get off your bike and walk than strictly adopt such a strategy. And what else are you supposed to do when there is an unsegregated cycle lane and queuing traffic? And when there are multiple lanes of traffic going in the same direction, then cars overtake on the inside too.

bovlomov wrote:The problem in London - and I guess all cities - is that cyclists are passing on both sides. Car drivers complain about this, but there isn't any easy alternative, or any consistent logic to the drivers' or cyclists' position.

Is the cyclist on the inside effectively occupying a lane (of whatever width)? Most car drivers don't treat cyclists as if they are, for that would entail indicating as they pulled out to pass, and indicating to pull back in. Cyclists occupy a virtual box, 2 metres long, that travels along with them, and the status of this box is never very clear.

How about if, in slow traffic, drivers kept to the left, so that they can hit the opening doors, while the cyclists travel in the outside? That way drivers will know where to look for cyclists, and cyclists will not be at as much risk from oncoming motorists. It makes me cringe to see cyclists and motorcyclists passing on the outside, on the wrong half of the road, with oncoming traffic having to take evasive action.

Apart from being a bit surprised you don't favour this element of anarchy, I'm unclear about the new rules you are proposing in your final paragraph, particularly as in stop/start traffic, passengers have a tendency to bail out on either side if they realise continued progress might be faster on foot.

The only way to avoid doors with absolute certainty is to ride a door's width from any vehicle you are passing, but that's more easily said than done. I've had a couple of occasions when I just managed to stop in time as a door was opening and shared a few words with the opener, but I only remember coming into contact with a door once and although it was painful, I didn't come off. I was filtering passed a stationary queue on the nearside at traffic lights when a lorry passenger opened the door which I hit with my shoulder - a very high cab. Half a second later and he would have been jumping out on top of me. I've no real answer, but I've suggested before that a line in the HC to explain to drivers that cyclists are advised to pass parked vehicles leaving plenty of room might help.

It would be tricky to spot movement in a lorry but often you can see movement in a vehicle before the door is opened. So now you are only in danger from descending lorry passengers, dwarves and small children. Not perfect but it improves the odds.

cotswolds wrote:

gaz wrote:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made

Any any idea whether it's the passenger or the driver who would be held responsible for this offence? The wording 'permit to be opened' suggests it would be the driver, who also probably stayed around for longer than 2 minutes.

when I got doored by the passenger of a taxi (opening into the road side not the kerb side) the insurance held the driver responsible, didn't care who the passenger was they just wanted the driver's detailed and he was found to be wholly responsible and I got a full payout to cover my written off car.

Mick F wrote:At no time did I "undertake" any vehicle, and I had no intention of doing it either.

Congratulations - you've been doubly co-opted by the motoring lobby! Firstly, by calling it their prejudiced term "undertaking" and secondly, by refusing to overtake motorists stuck in jams of their own making unless there's some oft-ignored paint marking a lane that's usually narrower than safe.

kwackers wrote:

squeaker wrote:

Mick F wrote:I didn't like the cyclist riding up the left hand side past the traffic.

Me neither, but it does seem to be de rigueur in London

It's like any other manoeuvre, just needs a bit of care.

I overtake on the inside often, I also overtake on the outside. My choice depends on the road, the traffic and the conditions.

THIS^^.

And I'm sure that you also change your approach depending upon said conditions. For instance I would overtake on the inside if I deemed it safe and it gave me an advantage versus overtaking on the outside, but I would also curtail my speed greatly and would be looking for doors to open, peds to jump off the pavement or from between cars, I would be looking for the the traffic to start moving so I could jump back into the flow, I would be looking for cars moving left so I was ready to stop behind them, etc etc.

This is not to say that I suggest that someone shooting down the inside absolves the door opener from blame....(apologies for cross posting)...my analogy would be that it is a good idea to duck if someone is about to punch you in the face, but if you don't duck it isn't your fault that you get hit....still a good idea to duck though.

Si wrote:

cotswolds wrote:

gaz wrote:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made

Any any idea whether it's the passenger or the driver who would be held responsible for this offence? The wording 'permit to be opened' suggests it would be the driver, who also probably stayed around for longer than 2 minutes.

when I got doored by the passenger of a taxi (opening into the road side not the kerb side) the insurance held the driver responsible, didn't care who the passenger was they just wanted the driver's detailed and he was found to be wholly responsible and I got a full payout to cover my written off car.

if it was in London the driver controls the doorlocks.

landsurfer wrote:I don't overtake on the left ... ever .... i choose life .....

I'll admit that since leaving London I don't filter left often either. I did in London because, before congestion charging, the traffic was 'parked up' most of the time anyway.

I was doored on the A13. Having competed in a lot of contact sports, and being an expert in broken bones (8 or 9), I've got to say I was wholly unsatisfied with the level of pain. The pattern of bruising wasn't to my liking either.

My usual preferred gap to filter down is to the right of the rightmost lane of traffic for the direction I want to go (and yes up the middle into oncoming traffic if I'm turning right)

I particularly avoid inside the leftmost lane due to a combination that I feel very uneasy and trapped there and also I'm not a fan of punctures from all the detritus in the gutter.

If the cyclist had been going slower, as recommended by Mr Grayling, he would presumably have hit the open door (or Mr Grayling himself). Hitting an open car door would probably produced more severe injuries, it's a very sudden stop.

Hitting Mr Grayling might have been quite satisfactory however and made the stop somewhat less sudden, you can be sure he'd probably never open a door without looking again as well.

nez dans le guidon wrote:

Si wrote:

cotswolds wrote:
Any any idea whether it's the passenger or the driver who would be held responsible for this offence? The wording 'permit to be opened' suggests it would be the driver, who also probably stayed around for longer than 2 minutes.

when I got doored by the passenger of a taxi (opening into the road side not the kerb side) the insurance held the driver responsible, didn't care who the passenger was they just wanted the driver's detailed and he was found to be wholly responsible and I got a full payout to cover my written off car.

if it was in London the driver controls the doorlocks.

It wasn't and he didn't, but still seen as responsible for his passenger's behaviour..

.

cotswolds wrote:

gaz wrote:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made

Any any idea whether it's the passenger or the driver who would be held responsible for this offence? The wording 'permit to be opened' suggests it would be the driver, who also probably stayed around for longer than 2 minutes.

If the cyclist had been going slower, as recommended by Mr Grayling, he would presumably have hit the open door (or Mr Grayling himself). Hitting an open car door would probably produced more severe injuries, it's a very sudden stop.

It's the person who opens the door who would be charged, unless a child. The cause or permit would be to cover the driver in some circumstances ie not preventing a child from being able to open the door. That is why the law states "No Person" whereas most RTA laws refer to the driver.

As to blame - I'd also place some blame on the driver if this was a planned stop. He should have stopped right at the kerb to prevent undertakes. This doesn't apply if the car was stopped by traffic and the passenger decided to get out on the spur of the moment.

THe guy who took the film on Radio 2 right now

Off tangent, but maybe the right direction: If you get pulled up for a passenger not wearing a seat belt: Doesn't the driver get the ticket?