# Case and Point - cyclists overtaking parked cars



## LLB (16 Jul 2007)

A website I moderate on has just had a thread posted up by a regular member after a car driver opened a door on him as he was cycling up the road this evening - he went over the bars, he is going to be sore in the morning (got a witness though  ). 

Anyway, the site has a couple of very knowledgeable people on there and this was the answer from the sites resident legal eagle. You may find it useful if faced with the same situation.

May be worthy of a sticky !



> There is the specific offence of negligent opening of a door, and it fits right in with this recent case involving the former Villa Goalkeeper John Burridge.
> 
> The cyclist, Mr John Burridge, the former Aston Villa, Wolves, Crystal Palace and QPR goalkeeper, was cycling along the road when a minibus overtook him. The road concerned was a busy road and Mr Burridge was keeping well over to the side of the road. The driver of the minibus apparently heard some noise and decided to pull over. It was suggested that a door might not be properly shut or that there might be some other problem that needed to be investigated. He pulled over and stopped. There was no suggestion that the minibus driver should not have pulled over. He did not cut up the cyclist, although he must have stopped and parked quite sharply after passing Mr Burridge. The cyclist continued and began to overtake the parked minibus. As he did so the driver opened his door. Mr Burridge was knocked from his cycle into the road and was then struck by another vehicle coming up from behind him.
> 
> ...


----------



## dondare (17 Jul 2007)

That's good but I doubt that we can rely on it. Is anyone aware of any specific cases where a cyclist has been doored and not received full compensation?


----------



## Nortones2 (17 Jul 2007)

If its a decision of the Court of Appeal, that decision is binding, where the facts are similar, on all courts except the H of Lords. IIRC, which I do


----------



## LLB (17 Jul 2007)

Here is the background to the story

http://archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2001/11/30/152801.html


----------



## Pete (17 Jul 2007)

Good result for Mr. Burridge, but I agree with Dondare, don't expect a favourable outcome every time! 'Dooring' is a grey area, legal-wise. Partly, I believe, because attributing liability is not straightforward. What if a passenger opens the door? What if the driver was not present at the time? What if the passenger is a child?

Far better to prepare for the worst and ride defensively to avoid such encounters. I appreciate that the case above was rather an exception, but, in general, if you have the space and traffic permits, ride well away from parked cars in primary position. Glance into every car as you pass it: can you see a human figure? Won't cover every possibility I know, but this sort of caution could save your life one day...


----------



## andy_wrx (17 Jul 2007)

Kinda agree with Pete

Given a choice, I'd rather avoid riding into an opened door, which looks like it'll have sharp edges and be harder than me.

Not too bothered about courts, liability, compenation, etc. - it's bound to hurt.


----------



## simon l& and a half (17 Jul 2007)

the Burridge case has stood the test of time. Claims have relied on it and won.


----------



## Pete (18 Jul 2007)

I suppose the 'special circumstances' of this case are the fact that the minibus pulled up on the left sharply, just after overtaking the cyclist. It is explicitly stated that the driver did not cut up the cyclist: I'm not so sure that this doesn't amount to 'cutting up'. Anyway this forced the cyclist, either to screech to a halt himself, or to make a sudden unplanned manoeuvre to overtake the minibus, in a short space. Hence he wouldn't have had a chance to position himself more safely for the overtake. Hence he couldn't be done for contributory negligence. Hence it's the minibus driver's fault.

In more normal cases the cyclist may have had plenty of time to see the parked vehicle ahead, and to plan his overtake accordingly. In such cases, he may yet be held to account.

Anyway, as Andy said, much rather not be doored at all, than be a cripple fighting it out in the courts!


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2007)

This is a difficult issue as it differs in definition and context.

The statement (more or less) is that getting out of a car after it has juststopped is logical and therefore should be considered as an outcome and allowed for.

Passing a line of stationary parked cars is another issue.


----------



## Nortones2 (18 Jul 2007)

The onus on the driver is to check before opening the door. 

From the current HC " stop as close as you can to the side
do not stop too close to a vehicle displaying a Blue Badge, remember, they may need more room to get in or out
you MUST switch off the engine, headlights and fog lights
you MUST apply the handbrake before leaving the vehicle
you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door
it is safer for your passengers (especially children) to get out of the vehicle on the side next to the kerb
lock your vehicle.
Laws CSDPA sect 21, CUR reg 98,105 & 107, RVLR reg 27 & RTA 1988 sect 42

It a legal requirement to check. "Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements,....Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT." Given that the court did not believe the drivers evidence, then there is no contributory negligence in this or similar cases of peremptory door opening. Taking this a little further, how far out would a cyclist have to deviate to avoid a flung-open door? My car door (drivers) fully opens to a distance 1 metre from the bodywork. This is a medium 5 seater. Add a margin for error: say 1.5 metres clearance required. Is this feasible in urban streets? I'd say the onus is fully on the driver to ensure the doors are not opened if unsafe to do so.


----------



## Tony (18 Jul 2007)

Two things here: responsibility for checking before opening doors, and self-preservation in not riding too close. I was nearly doored in Mallorca recently---I thought I was far enough out, but Merc sports cars have extremely wide doors. 
Missed it by a gnat's todger. I should know better.


----------



## spen666 (18 Jul 2007)

[quote name='dondare][b]That's good but I doubt that we can rely on it.[/b'] Is anyone aware of any specific cases where a cyclist has been doored and not received full compensation?[/quote]

why not?[/b]


----------



## spen666 (18 Jul 2007)

Pete said:


> Good result for Mr. Burridge, but I agree with Dondare, don't expect a favourable outcome every time! 'Dooring' is a grey area, legal-wise. Partly, I believe, because attributing liability is not straightforward. What if a passenger opens the door? What if the driver was not present at the time? What if the passenger is a child?
> ...




None of the situations you quote affects the basic liability.


The only question is whether there may be an issue of contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist IF he was riding too close to a parked car.


If it is a child, then the child is liable and the adult responsible for supervising the child may also be liable


----------



## Licramite (29 Aug 2012)

of course its not only cyclists who get doored.
in cardiff several years ago I was driving past parked cars, nobhead opens his drivers door and leans in to get his briefcase, which saved his life , or least his legs. - I took his door right off. I had no chance to even brake !
for insurance it was enterly his fault.


----------



## snorri (29 Aug 2012)

Thread revival after five years, is this a record?


----------



## Jefferson Meriwether (31 Aug 2012)

Internet forums, home of the thread necromancers


----------



## screenman (1 Sep 2012)

Does it matter how long since it was last opened?


----------



## SW19cam (5 Nov 2012)

A really interesting thread, if a little old 

I cycled in to the scene of a dooring a couple of months back. A laywer turned up and told the driver and passanger that it was not their fault (You can see his argument / logic here: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfTY0rV1nQ
) 
I was quite sure this was incorrect and so did some research. From what I found out - the offence is opening a door so as to pose danger to others. There could be any numbers of issues / 'mitigations' / blame or others offences occuring at that time which you could try to argue through, but if a door is opened so as to endanger another individual the offence has been committed. Most interesting is when I read: "_The Crown do not have to prove carelessness, nor that someone was struck or injured, only that the act caused danger."_

Of course regardless of this, I always try to ride outside of the door zone!


----------



## StuartG (7 Nov 2012)

Are we getting confused between the criminal offence and civil liability?

The criminal law is only interested in the danger caused by the driver. Not the consequences and not the cyclists unless he helped cause the opening of the door. Civil cases recognise two parties were involved and a wrong by one does not diminish lesser wrong by another.

Nevertheless a good result.


----------



## Drago (18 Nov 2012)

The "special circumstances" were solely that the insurer was trying to wriggle out of paying.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (18 Nov 2012)

"not practical bicycling"...hmm
OT - That would be a lovely phrase to be attached to any complaint about duff cycling facilites.


----------

