UKC

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/16/chris-grayling-could-face-...

cyclist is in the wrong here

In reply to iusedtoclimb:




How can you possibly say from that video? Regardless, Grayling leaving without giving a name or details is poor (illegal??) behaviour.

In reply to MG:

Somewhat differing report on the beeb website; on balance seems to be a bit of a 50/50. Passenger opens door without checking, hits cyclist illegally passing on the inside. Both at fault. Apologies made, life carries on. All the talk of fighting funds / prosecutions appears a bit excessive. Perhaps the cycling organisation should save their efforts for a case where the cyclist is not culpable in such an obvious way? I'm sure there will be plenty of choice of such incidents.

In reply to MG:


It's pretty much impossible to pass any judgement based on the video.

But I'm sure that won't stop both cyclists and drivers from trying

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

I've just checked the Highway Code.

There's no prohibition that I can find on cyclists undertaking. There is an instruction (rule 72) that "when approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left."

So it seems that undertaking on a bike is acceptable because otherwise a) they would have said it wasn't and b) they wouldn't have needed to specify a specific time when you _shouldn't_ do it.

Conversely, item 239 says:
"If you have to stop on the roadside [...] you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic."

In reply to Ian W:

"Whilst neither the law, nor the Highway Code definitively state whether or not filtering by cyclists is legal, it can be inferred from the text of the Highway Code that it is acceptable practice," from cyclelaw.co.uk

"Filtering means moving past queues of stationary or slow-moving traffic. Go to any town or city and you'll see cyclists and motorcyclists doing this. It's quite legal and it enables you to make progress when wider vehicles cannot." from cyclescheme.co.uk

In reply to Hat Dude:

As a motorcyclist, filtering is deemed acceptable, but any "adverse outcome" is likely to be deemed at your own risk........
If this is deemed filtering, then filtering between the kerb and a car would be seen as a bit stupid, as the chances of a car door opening onto the kerb is much greater than between lanes 1 and 2 (for eg). Maybe why the cyclist wasnt expecting action to be taken; they were both a bit in the wrong, and its live and learn time. Also, if as is reported, he was still dazed and injured after some 90 seconds, the impact must have been significant (either with the car door or the pavement), so what speed was he doing at the time? I could watch the video again, but am not going to .

In reply to Ramblin dave:



There are various catch-all "don't be stupid rules". You can't see anything about the victim from that video, but the cyclist with the camera appears rather rash to me going at that speed up the inside of busses (or at all when they are that close to pavement).

In reply to MG:

I found it interesting that Grayling was able to say to the bloke "you were going too fast", which sort of suggests he saw him. Odd that.

There's also a cycle lane starting in a matter of yards from there, that takes you up the inside - short of filtering up the middle then cutting across the traffic to get to it, it'd seem sensible to me to filter up the inside, as long as the traffic's pretty much stationary and you keep an eye out for buses turning left.

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

there was an interview with the cyclist who filmed it . he said there was a cycle lane that had just ended and there was a cycle lane ahead . another example of the useless cycle lanes the councils build . why end a cycle lane to start again just down the road .

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

It looks like the jury is out on the technical legal interpretation of the incident. What I would say from a practical standpoint is that filtering on the inside is the accepted praxis in this case. I go that exact route during rush hour every day and there is a continuous stream of bikers on the inside of the cars. That is encouraged by the dedicated bike lane that appears on the left just 10 meters beyond the scene of the accident. You can see the bike lane at 0:18 next to the yellow bus. Biking in London is definitely a high-risk activity. Maybe now that our Transport Secretary is acutely aware of that, we can get some improvements for bikers. But I'm not holding my breath.

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

I think if you are undertaking on a bike you need to be very careful.

As for my opinions on Chris Grayling as a politician......

In reply to Phil1919:

Well, for a start he is reported as expressing the view, recently, that cyclists in London are an awful nuisance to road users. Absence of the word "other" is significant. Grayling shows himself more of an armhole every time he opens his mouth.
Interesting to see how long the handshake lasts - Grayling seems to want to hang on as long as possible, no doubt hoping lots of photos will be taken while the seriousness of the offence is being thereby minimised. What a cynic I am!

In reply to tim000:


Usually because the road gets narrower and there isn't room for a cycle lane anymore. Quite logical in an Alice-in-Wonderland kind of way.

In reply to HakanT:


Very wise of you.

In reply to Ian W:


Far too much common sense in that reply for the cyclists on UKC

In reply to Andrew Lodge:


Hmmmm. And you got two dislikes for that (so far). I'd be honoured to share them.

Two thoughts..
Is it not illegal to stop where there are two yellow lines - even for someone to get out?
If you're involved in an accident involving a person (or even a dog!), is it not a legal requirement to report the incident to the police?

In reply to Ian W:
It isn't illegal for a cyclist to pass on the inside, in this case it was a short section of road without a cycle lane between two sections of cycle lane, so passing on the inside would be the expected behaviour.

I often prefer to ignore the cycle land for the very reason, the point at which the cycle lane ends is always governed by the needs of drivers rather than cyclists and so can be extremely dangerous.

It seems the guy who took the film only supplied it to the press after Grayling had claimed that there was too much cycling infrastructure in London and that London drivers had got very good at looking out for cyclists, although it seems in his case passengers haven't.

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252

Rule 239

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

In reply to elsewhere:




does the code also apply to passengers?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


I'm pretty sure it does in any circumstances they have control over, wearing a seatbelt, opening doors etc.

In reply to iusedtoclimb: because?

In reply to Ian W:
As a passenger/motorist who regularly travels across London, Grayling would have been fully aware of the fact that cyclists could be traveling on the inside. He should have checked.

In reply to iusedtoclimb:



Why?

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

I assume Grayling wasn't driving. My understanding - I may be wrong - is that the car driver is responsible for all the car doors; after all they can use their mirrors to see if anyone is passing legally (albeit dangerously), rear seat passengers can't.

So I'm surprised the CTC are considering action against Greyling alone and not the driver as well.

The one time I got car doored I skulked off in pain and took it as a valuable life lesson, wouldn't have wanted action against the passenger who did it. Fast moving close cyclists are not clear to rear seat passengers. When you're driving do you insist all passengers request clearance to open their doors when you park?

In reply to wintertree:


There seems no indication that the car was parked, just stopped in an active line of traffic. If I was getting out of a car while still in traffic of course I would see it as up to me to make sure I wasn't entering the path of a moving vehicle, just like if I was crossing the road at that point (which is effectively what he was doing). Cars have rear and side windows for that kind of thing. If I was driving and a child was getting out in such a situation I would see it as my responsibility to inform them when it was safe to do so, but adults should be responsible for their own behaviour.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


The MUSTs in the code are summary versions of key points of laws. You'd have to look into each individual law - linked to in the code - to see if each law applies to passengers.

Opening of doors 105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.

That to me suggests both the passenger and the driver are at fault.

In reply to iusedtoclimb


You're quite right.......


if you're talking about the cyclist with the helmet cam who ran to the press when he realised who was on his video.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I think we have similar views on Chris Grayling! I really don't find him an inspiring politician.

In reply to wintertree:


Publicity stunt.

In reply to Indy:

^^^^ I've called Grayling similar.

In reply to Ian W:


My knowledge of the human body tells me that people can be dazed and injured just from falling over while walking along, or sustain brain damage from hitting their head on the curb when falling over.

Perhaps he was cycling at 'walking along' speed?

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

I find myself thinking that with a cycle path approximately six meters ahead of the cyclist - on the passanger side of cars, cyclists are rather caught between a car door and a hard place.

If they take to using the cycle paths, they could understandably get into the habit of cycling along that part of the road, and then have doors opened onto them by inattentive people where there isn't one, and be blamed for undertaking by people who don't quite know what they're talking about - ie the highway code talking about filtering, or be told off by a minority of drivers for not using the cycle paths.

In reply to timjones:

I know what you mean, but I think the important point is that Grayling had just been making some negative comments about the need for more cycling infrastructure (as Transport Minister) , so I think the release of the video was more about timing than identification.

Grayling was clearly at fault for not looking, he did the decent think in making sure the guy was ok, maybe he should've passed on his details - I don't know. I don't undertake on a bike as I think it's asking for trouble, but I don't know the legal position and I don't cycle in London.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I don't think anybody would struggle to know who Chris Grayling is, I suppose, re passing on his details.

In reply to john arran:

^ This.

Is it my imagination, or has it become normal now for the drivers of cars (minicabs & taxis) to make little or no effort to pull in to drop passengers? Even in the middle of a junction sometimes. I'd have thought if you're properly positioned to drop a passenger off there shouldn't be room for a bike to fit between the vehicle and the kerb.

I was once doored on my motorbike by the passenger of a taxi jumping out and doing a runner in stationary traffic. I got a broken brake lever, a scuffed boot and a couple of bruises. The taxi got a crease in its door.

The driver & I argued about it for a bit but eventually decided neither of us wanted to involve our insurance, so we each fixed our vehicle as cheaply as we could, added up the cost and split it down the middle. (Impressively cheap repair from a little local bodyshop in his case, ten quid for a pattern brake lever for me.)
It was all quite life-affirming in the end - possibly the most amicable agreement ever reached by the driver of a black London taxi and the rider of a CX-500.

In reply to Timmd:
No, but only if they watch the news. Interestingly in the middle of the video you see one of the aides clearly and deliberately hide his ID in his pocket (previously hanging in plain view round his neck).

In reply to Timmd:



Help me with this then.

Cyclists are often saying (as witnessed here many, many times) that drivers should wait to pass and that A FEW SECONDS OF WAITING WONT HURT YOU.

So why shouldn't a cyclist adopt the same principle? Why squeeze down the narrow gap just to save a few seconds before reaching the cycle lane rather than just waiting for traffic to get moving again?

As far as I was aware, the cyclist did nothing illegal, so the fault lies with the driver/passenger. Blaming the cyclist for the accident is just wrong. However, it feels unwise to go squeezing up the narrow gap when any number of dangerous outcomes are possible. Increased risk should lead to different behaviour.

My basic question is really - "should those who expect to be given wide clearance when being overtaken adopt the same principle when overtaking themselves for all the same reasons?"

And yes, the driver/passenger should have taken more care. The need for a restless lynch mob is over the top.

In reply to Rampikino:
have to agree . if the cyclist was stopped and the car passed him that close would he be happy . I never go on the inside of traffic . I either wait in line or get off and walk . BUT , according to the cyclist following he had just left a cycle lane and was about to join another . so tricky one . passengers fault though . should always check before opening a door .

In reply to tim000:

I agree, it is tricky and perhaps it underlines just how challenging it is in this country - we are not set up well enough to encourage and support cyclists, especially in cities.

In reply to Rampikino:

I agree with you, but to explain why I think cyclists won't always practise what they preach, it can be because they don't want to lose the momentum they've gained as it can be a proper ball ache to get the speed back if they're knackered. And of course, we're all human and therefore prone to hypocrisy and a lack of rational thought.

The big difference of course is that on a bike you tend to be putting only yourself at risk.

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

There does seem to be a strong case for activating the child locks on ministerial cars.

In reply to Rampikino:


Do you mean drivers who also ride bikes (as many do)? Grouping people is not generally helpful for reasoned debate because it can lead to 'othering'. Every cycle commuter I know also drives a car too.


In practical terms, what is the difference between cycling where there is, and where there isn't a cycle lane - when somebody could be equally bad at not looking when opening their door?

If the highway code says to be aware of filtering, too.

In reply to Timmd:

Forgive any generalisations - they are meant to group points of argument, not people.

Not sure on your second point. Is it something in law?

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

Sounds like a 50/50 accident to me. The car passenger should have looked and the cyclist should have taken more care with his filtering - hazard awareness and going slow enough to stop if needs be.
As for 'Cycling UK' taking out a private prosecution, why now bother? They've already achieved their aim of highlighting 'Dooring' as a safety issue and it would be hoped that both cyclists and people opening doors will change their behaviour accordingly.

In reply to Rampikino:

My point is that the highway code warns to be aware of filtering down either side of the car, which means that if somebody opens their door onto a person cycling along, that doesn't make it the cyclist fault for not waiting, it makes it the passenger's.

If a driver is being impatient, and in being so endangers somebody cycling along, that is the fault of the person driving, too, and not the person cycling.

There's no obligation to use a cycle lane, which to my mind at least, puts cycling down the side of traffic where there is and isn't a cycle lane on an equal footing, given the warnings in the Highway Code to be aware of motor/cyclists passing down on either side.

I hope that's clear.

PS: No worries.

In reply to Timmd:
Very clear, but none of that relates to my question. I already said the fault was not with the cyclist.

My question was more related to the wisdom of "filtering" down a very narrow space even if it is legal. If the space is narrow, should the cyclist just wait a little and move with the traffic instead?

P.S. thanks!

In reply to Timmd:





Surely the Highway Code doesn't dictate where liability for an accident lies?

The fact that you can filter and that the Highway Code says that drivers should look out for people filtering doesn't mean that it always safe to filter or that everyone does so in a safe manner.

We can't see much of the person who did get doored to judge what they were doing but it strikes me that the person with the helmet cam is travelling at a higher speed than I would be happy with if executing a similar move in a car.

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

meh,

IMO there's no obvious fault here, just an accident (and a dull story too for that matter)

It could possibly have been avoided if the driver was signalling left, but then we don't know how much notice Mr. G gave before jumping out of the vehicle.

In reply to Rampikino:


I get what you mean, but unless the gap is wider than a door length - which almost never going to happen, people are still going to get knocked off by inattentive passengers it seems to me.

Which starts to suggest that people shouldn't filter down the insides of cars. I plan on learning to drive and trying to pass again, but I've always taken being able to filter as one of the perks of cycling during busy times, given that one is in effect surrounded by mobile walls piloted by fallible humans, scooting through the busy traffic and into quieter stretches is a desirable thing to do, as well as being kind of satisfying.

I seem to filter on either side, but not in a zig zag style, but depending on what seems best at the time. I'm not sure it's not partly dependant on my mood, ie not fully related to what seems safest. Perhaps some introspection could be good to make me a safer cyclist.

In reply to timjones:

No.


That's a fair point.


I was almost thinking the same, definitely at a 'making progress' kind of pace rather than 'pottering along' at least.

Possibly the context of knowing somebody is going to be car doored makes it seem faster? I'm sure I've come across that kind of phenomenon being talked about somewhere.

In reply to redscotti:


No; unless there are specific restrictions in place, you can stop briefly to pick up/set down, provided you don't have to wait to do so:

http://www.drivingtesttips.biz/double-yellow-lines.html

In reply to Jimbo C:

>"IMO there's no obvious fault here, just an accident"

Poppycock. The late running Minister, stuck in traffic, decided that it would be quicker to walk. In his haste, he neither gave the driver time to pullover to the kerb or allowed himself time to look out for legally filtering cyclists. Either would have prevented the incident. What with him working in London and being Transport Minister and all, you'd expect him to be semi-aware there are cyclists on London's road and perhaps even that filtering cyclists are not uncommon when motorised vehicles grind to a halt. The Minister is 100% at fault. The cyclist can only be criticised for not anticipating some idiot was about to try and kill him.

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

I think this is the obvious solution to the problem and should be included in both the theory and practical sections of the driving test:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-27/easy-maneuver-borrowed-dutch-could-be...

In reply to Timmd:



I strongly suspect he wasnt trickling along at walking speed; if he was, he could have stopped easily and avoided the door.
And even better, could have seen the door opening, held back just long enough, and then smacked into Grayling as he got out of the car........we'd have all been happy then, even hardened petrol heads and the lycra mafia united in joy!!

In reply to Ian W:


I've looked a bit more closely at the video and the car door is opened onto the cyclist rather than in front of the cyclist - no chance of stopping in time whatever speed he was going, but possibly not quite as painful as cycling into the leading edge of the door.

I also spotted that the minister got out just before the end of the urban clearway and the start of the double yellows and so I relent slightly on my earlier point that it was nobody's fault. In an urban clearway, cyclists would not be expecting doors to open as no loading is allowed in them.

In reply to Jimbo C:

In an urban clearway, cyclists would not be expecting doors to open as no loading is allowed in them.

You're allowed to drop off and pick up passengers in an Urban Clearway.

In reply to iusedtoclimb:

The 17 mile commute into work clearly makes him too tired to look out for cyclists. He should claim for a flat in Pimlico again so that he doesn't have to make the massive journey twice a day.

In reply to timjones:



In what way were his actions wrong?

In reply to timjones:



Why?

Edit: 'Why the fuck is he?' more accurately expresses my bewilderment...