# London cyclist may have hit door



## Deb13b (7 Aug 2011)

Bloody hell. Poor man. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14438520


----------



## coffeejo (7 Aug 2011)

Bloody hell indeed 

I used to work on Holloway Road. Just walking down it was "adventure" enough.


----------



## Ellis456 (7 Aug 2011)

Damm not another, r.i.p fella.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Aug 2011)

I shall word this carefully....

This is a tragic event, and we do not know the full details.

However if this is a case of the driver opening without looking it is a classic and all too common mistake, but the results never hit the papers or news.

IF this is the case then we could make some meaning of this tragic loss (providing relatives are happy) by highlighting just how dangerous the "door zone" really is.


----------



## gaz (7 Aug 2011)

Sounds similar to one which happened in new Zealand last year. In that case the driver got a jail sentence.

Rip!


----------



## smokeysmoo (7 Aug 2011)

R.I.P. fella


----------



## Red Light (7 Aug 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> However if this is a case of the driver opening without looking it is a classic and all too common mistake, but the results never hit the papers or news.



Indeed, doorings are one of the leading causes of cyclist serious injuries in London accounting for 8% of all serious injuries. It is also illegal to open a door so as to endanger or injure someone.


----------



## John90 (7 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Indeed, doorings are one of the leading causes of cyclist serious injuries in London accounting for 8% of all serious injuries. It is also illegal to open a door so as to endanger or injure someone.



It's the greatest fear I have on the road. I know one is supposed to cycle over a door's length away from parked cars but it is a practical impossibility on some streets. I've also been told that if confronted with an unexpectedly opened door one should ride into the open doorway while braking hard rather than swerve to avoid it but I suspect instinct would lead me to do the latter & head into the path of any following vehicles.

Rest in peace.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Aug 2011)

Thoughts go out to his family and friends. 
R.I.P


----------



## ianrauk (7 Aug 2011)

poor fellow


----------



## JamesAC (7 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> It's the greatest fear I have on the road. I know one is supposed to cycle over a door's length away from parked cars but it is a *practical impossibility on some streets.* I've also been told that if confronted with an unexpectedly opened door one should ride into the open doorway while braking hard rather than swerve to avoid it but I suspect instinct would lead me to do the latter & head into the path of any following vehicles.
> 
> Rest in peace.



Why is it impossible? I suppose if the street was narrower than two door widths, and there were cars parked on each side of the road? 

The riding into the doorway strategy only works if you're cycling the same way as the car is facing. If the car is facing towards you. then an opening door is bound to push you out into the path of either a following or approaching vehicle.

Sad news.


----------



## Norm (7 Aug 2011)

JamesAC said:


> Why is it impossible? I suppose if the street was narrower than two door widths, and there were cars parked on each side of the road?


 Indeed, I went down one like that with some other CCers this very afternoon.


----------



## John90 (8 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> Indeed, I went down one like that with some other CCers this very afternoon.



That, and also wider, busy streets where you have to keep moving into secondary to let traffic by. OK, maybe HAVE to isn't totally accurate, but advisable if you are to avoid serious road rage. Croxted Road in London going up to Crystal Palace is an example (the bit beyond the bridge in this link is typical of much of this road).


----------



## Sapper (8 Aug 2011)

RIP poor chap, deepest condolences to the bereaved...

On Friday evening as I cycled home, a woman stood out from between behind her car walked to the door and opened it.

Yes I foresaw and took evasive action and as I cycled past in a very sarcastic tone offered her a "thanks"

Her shocked reply was indicative that she had not seen me at all as she came out from behind her car. There wasn't another car behind her car to obscure her view.


----------



## Markymark (8 Aug 2011)

Years ago, long before I ever took up cycling, I parked up and open the door. A cyclist swevred, threw his bike to the florr and threatened to punch me.

Not advisbale action but never opened it again without looking. It wasn't that I didn't care, it just didn;t occur to me as there were far, far fewer cyclists and they weren;t sopmething you always looked out for.


----------



## gaz (8 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Years ago, long before I ever took up cycling, I parked up and open the door. A cyclist swevred, threw his bike to the florr and threatened to punch me.
> 
> Not advisbale action but never opened it again without looking. It wasn't that I didn't care, it just didn;t occur to me as there were far, far fewer cyclists and they weren;t sopmething you always looked out for.


Where there also few cars on the road back then?


----------



## Markymark (8 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Where there also few cars on the road back then?




The road was wide that the cars were a way away and were also stationary due to traffic.


----------



## The Horse's Mouth (8 Aug 2011)

Tragic 

RIP fella


----------



## Dronespace (8 Aug 2011)

RIP


----------



## roadrunner20 (8 Aug 2011)

RIP sad news indeed, did he have a helmet on out of interest?

About the door zone though i know many people have different views but when i cycle trying to cycle away from door zone is impossible on most of the roads due to the fact if you cycle away from the parked cars you are in essance cycling in the middle of the road.

With that in mind you going to slow up the traffic in in turn more likely to be overtaken badly or worse abused at/ GBH.

So its a hard call, is there a law that says where a cyclist should cycle in the road? if there is i have a bad feeling it says on the left hand side giving plenty of room for cars to move on his right. ie not in middle of road out of door zone..

sad news though to loose another biker


----------



## gaz (8 Aug 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> So its a hard call, is there a law that says where a cyclist should cycle in the road? if there is i have a bad feeling it says on the left hand side giving plenty of room for cars to move on his right. ie not in middle of road out of door zone..




That is total rubbish.

I would much rather cycle out of a door zone and get abuse from drivers/ close passes etc.. rather than cycle in the door zone and risk death if a door opens.
I rarely have an issue from drivers when i cycle out of the door zone. clear indications and thank you waves help.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> That is total rubbish.
> 
> I would much rather cycle out of a door zone and get abuse from drivers/ close passes etc.. rather than cycle in the door zone and risk death if a door opens.
> I rarely have an issue from drivers when i cycle out of the door zone. clear indications and thank you waves help.



+1


----------



## BentMikey (8 Aug 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> About the door zone though i know many people have different views but when i cycle trying to cycle away from door zone is impossible on most of the roads due to the fact if you cycle away from the parked cars you are in essance cycling in the middle of the road.



I've seen this posted quite a few times, and IMO it's rubbish. It's almost always possible to cycle out of the door zone, and given that it's one fo the big causes of KSIs (killed and seriously injured), it's not one you should ignore. You're perfectly entitled to ride in the road in the middle of the traffic. If you can't cycle out of the door zone, then I'd want to be going at less than 5mph.

Here's a hierarchy of road safety to follow:
My safety
Your safety
My convenience
Your convenience

My safety comes at the top for riding out of the door zone, and the drivers' convenience in waiting behind me comes at the bottom of the list. That said I'll often pull left as soon as it's safe to facilitate an overtake. Share the road after all.


----------



## Buddfox (8 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> That said I'll often pull left as soon as it's safe to facilitate an overtake. Share the road after all.



I do this too - usually in a somewhat exaggerated manner, so the driver realises I'm concious I may have been holding them up. They tend to appreciate the acknowledgement that I'm going slower but then they know why I'm doing it.


----------



## gaz (8 Aug 2011)

This video explains the dangers of the door zone and shows just how far out you should be cycling.
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TQ7aID1jHs[/media]


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I've seen this posted quite a few times, and IMO it's rubbish. It's almost always possible to cycle out of the door zone, and given that it's one fo the big causes of KSIs (killed and seriously injured), it's not one you should ignore. You're perfectly entitled to ride in the road in the middle of the traffic. If you can't cycle out of the door zone, then I'd want to be going at less than 5mph.
> 
> Here's a hierarchy of road safety to follow:
> My safety
> ...



Manners dear boy...

My safety
Your safety
Your convenience
My convenience

surely?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Aug 2011)

No, not at all. If you do that, you'll be pulling over for every single motorist that comes up behind you, and you'll always cede your priority to other vehicles even when they are behind a give-way line.


----------



## Markymark (8 Aug 2011)

I believe there's a difference between
"That cyclist is holding me up" and
"That cyclist is holding me up and doesn't care"
I am very new to cycling but have learnt a quick thumbs up is always appreciated. 

I had no idea how dangerous the door zone was and this site has helped me greatly in things to look out for I did not know. 

The horrible, horrible sad thing is that it takes a death to do this.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> RIP sad news indeed, did he have a helmet on out of interest?



Do they ward off buses then?


----------



## Norm (8 Aug 2011)

Enough of the helmet stuff!

Please start a separate thread in the helmet forum if you want to ponder the relevance of such things.


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

I find it disappointing that the discussion here is mainly about the cyclist doing things wrong as if he's the one to blame - even the title of the thread is that he hit the door. We tend to kick up enough of a fuss about the way the media report being hit by a car as "a cyclist collided with a car" yet here we are being much worse. By all reports a driver illegally opened his car door and knocked him into the path of a bus that killed him. The driver has been arrested. We should not be victim blaming like this


----------



## BentMikey (8 Aug 2011)

Perhaps it's slightly less victim blaming and more seeing what sort of things we could change were we in the same situation? I don't think anyone feels this is the cyclist's fault. The dooring driver is the problem here, and perhaps also the bus for overtaking too closely.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> Enough of the helmet stuff!
> 
> Please start a separate thread in the helmet forum if you want to ponder the relevance of such things.



+1


----------



## Norm (8 Aug 2011)

I agree with BM. 

On the available info, the blame is with the driver but that doesn't stop me pondering on what I would do in the same situation.


----------



## Mad at urage (8 Aug 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> RIP sad news indeed, did he have a helmet on out of interest?
> 
> About the door zone though i know many people have different views but when i cycle trying to cycle away from door zone is impossible on most of the roads due to the fact if you cycle away from the parked cars you are in essance cycling in the middle of the road.
> 
> ...


Roadrunner20, please, please get some cycle training, before you too become a statistic. I've seen far too many cyclists with your views pushed off by overtaking traffic (and usually end up apologizing for holding up the people behind).


Red Light said:


> I find it disappointing that the discussion here is mainly about the cyclist doing things wrong as if he's the one to blame - even the title of the thread is that he hit the door. We tend to kick up enough of a fuss about the way the media report being hit by a car as "a cyclist collided with a car" yet here we are being much worse. _By all reports a driver illegally opened his car door and knocked him into the path of a bus that killed him. The driver has been arrested._ We should not be victim blaming like this


_Allegedly._ A driver has been arrested in connection but is innocent until proven guilty.


BentMikey said:


> Perhaps it's slightly less victim blaming and more seeing what sort of things we could change were we in the same situation? I don't think anyone feels this is the cyclist's fault. The dooring driver is the problem here, and perhaps also the bus for overtaking too closely.


+1 (and allegedly etc).


----------



## Origamist (8 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Perhaps it's slightly less victim blaming and more seeing what sort of things we could change were we in the same situation? I don't think anyone feels this is the cyclist's fault. The dooring driver is the problem here, and perhaps also the bus for overtaking too closely.



RL and Reg are right - we do not have enough information regarding the road layout, positions, speeds etc of the vehicles involved to make an informed decision as to what we would have done differently (if anything) in the "same situation".


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> +1



I note that your and Norm didn't complain when the original post was made, only when I pointed out it was a silly question. No surprise there then.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I note that your and Norm didn't complain when the original post was made, only when I pointed out it was a silly question. No surprise there then.


So no possibility that you simply replied fist. My god you are an arogant man.
Also congratulations on slinging mud in a thread about a dead cyclist. Hope you are very proud.


----------



## d87heaven (8 Aug 2011)

I wonder what the stats are for being injured by car doors in Holland. Plenty of compulsory(?) cycle lanes that put you in the door zone there, but they do have greater awareness of cyclist.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Aug 2011)

Origamist said:


> RL and Reg are right - we do not have enough information regarding the road layout, positions, speeds etc of the vehicles involved to make an informed decision as to what we would have done differently (if anything) in the "same situation".



Do you think I meant *exactly* the same situation?


----------



## Red Light (8 Aug 2011)

d87heaven said:


> I wonder what the stats are for being injured by car doors in Holland. Plenty of compulsory(?) cycle lanes that put you in the door zone there, but they do have greater awareness of cyclist.



I read somewhere recently (was it on here) that Dutch drivers are trained to open the car door with their hand furthest from the door which automatically twists their bodies round to look out the window. Sounds like a very simple improvement to me and when I tried it yesterday it seemed to work.


----------



## Origamist (8 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Do you think I meant *exactly* the same situation?



If you want to talk about various scenarios, generalisations and the door zone, you would be better advised to do it on this thread: 

*How to avoid getting hit by a door *
https://www.cyclechat.net/


----------



## BentMikey (8 Aug 2011)

*Reaches for O's pedantry remote control*


----------



## Origamist (8 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> *Reaches for O's pedantry remote control*



It's about exhibiting some restraint and respect on RIP threads. 

At the moment, "seeing what sort of things we could change were we in the same situation" is a waste of time when very little detail is known about the incident.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Aug 2011)

Origamist said:


> It's about exhibiting some restraint and respect on RIP threads.
> 
> At the moment, "seeing what sort of things we could change were we in the same situation" is a waste of time when very little detail is known about the incident.



If just one CC'er ends up staying out the door zone more often due to a topic like this, then some good has been done. That seems quite possible by the fact that two people so far have wrongly suggested how riding in the door zone is often necessary and unavoidable, rather than riding in the lane. Going by other topics on the same crash elsewhere, it seems this is a common perception.

It's not about victim blaming here - it's about avoiding a crash by correcting for mistakes by drivers. I don't see anyone being disrespectful or wasting time here. Well, no wasting time apart from our little sub-conversation.


----------



## Norm (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I note that your and Norm didn't complain when the original post was made, only when I pointed out it was a silly question. No surprise there then.


What may surprise you is that I agree with what you were saying, but I didn't think it appropriate to give the tired and irrelevant (IMO) debate any oxygen on a thread which marks someone's passing.


----------



## Markymark (8 Aug 2011)

I'm new to this forum. Not gone through the thousands of previous threads but am an avid reader of the new threads since joining. I find the debates on here (when they don't get personal) really helpful. As mentioned earlier, it is horrible that a person has died to gain this, but I never reaslied how dangerous the door-zone was until this forum and it has certainly helped me.

I undertstand that it the forum is not and shouyld not be a school for noobs like me, but the to and fro of the debates is really helpful as it gives many more opinions and advice than I would ever get from reading a dry prose about what not to do.

I am sure everyone here is repectful of the poor cyclist and thier family, but the debate (again, when not personal) is good.


----------



## Tinuts (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Indeed, doorings are one of the leading causes of cyclist serious injuries in London accounting for 8% of all serious injuries. It is also illegal to open a door so as to endanger or injure someone.


Yes, indeed, but I wonder how many times Police have actually prosecuted this offence. I doubt this is what happened in the above mentioned accident, but I've lost count of the times when a moton has gone to their car door, looked straight at me approaching and then opened it in front of me anyway.


----------



## growingvegetables (8 Aug 2011)

RIP


----------



## Origamist (8 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> If just one CC'er ends up staying out the door zone more often due to a topic like this, then some good has been done. That seems quite possible by the fact that two people so far have wrongly suggested how riding in the door zone is often necessary and unavoidable, rather than riding in the lane. Going by other topics on the same crash elsewhere, it seems this is a common perception.
> 
> It's not about victim blaming here - it's about avoiding a crash by correcting for mistakes by drivers. I don't see anyone being disrespectful or wasting time here. Well, no wasting time apart from our little sub-conversation.



If people want to post about the dangers of the door zone on a RIP thread, that's their prerogative. I think you and a few others genuinely mean well, but I maintain that it is inappropriate. However, what I objected to was the suggestion that we can learn lessons from this tragic event at this very early stage when scant information relating to the circumstances are known. 

Cyclists adapting their behaviour to take into account the errors of others is understandable, but it does not tackle the problem of "doorings" at source. A campaign targeted at drivers and passengers on the dangers of opening vehicle doors without checking would be a good start (as would better enforcement), but limiting on street parking would be even better.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I read somewhere recently (was it on here) that Dutch drivers are trained to open the car door with their hand furthest from the door which automatically twists their bodies round to look out the window. Sounds like a very simple improvement to me and when I tried it yesterday it seemed to work.



That's all very good. OTOH I should imagine that doorings still happen in the Netherlands, and some of my friends there have made comments suggesting it's a risk they think about too. More driving training is a good thing, but I fear it'll never eliminate doorings entirely.


----------



## Origamist (10 Aug 2011)

> Cyclist who died in Holloway Road named
> by Tom Marshall
> Tuesday, August 9, 2011
> 7:07 PM
> ...



http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/cyclist_who_died_in_holloway_road_named_1_989302


----------



## gaz (10 Aug 2011)

That road looks pretty horrible. Door zone for quite some time and too avoid it you have to cycle in the middle of the bus lane. That can be daunting.


----------



## gaz (10 Aug 2011)

If you are new to cycling and not very powerful then it is daunting. It's easy if you are confident and fast.

I've had plenty of bus and taxi drivers not overtake my safely when in the bus lane.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Aug 2011)

Lots of cyclists don't realise how important it is or are too nervous to own the bus lane in the way we on here mostly all do.


----------



## John90 (10 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> If you are new to cycling and not very powerful then it is daunting. It's easy if you are confident and fast.
> 
> I've had plenty of bus and taxi drivers not overtake my safely when in the bus lane.



It is a dilemma. I totally accept what everyone says about staying out of the door zone. It's the right thing to do in all circumstances. But a lot of drivers won't see it that way. They expect you to pull in for them, and then you have to stay in for the several cars that are following them. We all want to avoid aggravating drivers and whilst that is secondary to safety, it's the case that on some roads, busy residential ones with street parking for example, I would say most of the cyclists I see will ride in the door zone rather than hold up the traffic.


----------



## gaz (10 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> I would say most of the cyclists I see will ride in the door zone rather than hold up the traffic.



I think they all ride in the door zone because they aren't aware of the danger.


----------



## fimm (11 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> We all want to avoid aggravating drivers ...



Do we? I just want to get from A to B safely. If someone else becomes aggravated by my legitimate use of the road, that is their problem, not mine.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I think they all ride in the door zone because they aren't aware of the danger.



I agree. Until it is pointed out to you it is not one of the most obvious dangers on the roads.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I agree. Until it is pointed out to you it is not one of the most obvious dangers on the roads.



Or they are encouraged to cycle in the door zone.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Or they are encouraged to cycle in the door zone.



Which is one and the same in my eyes.


----------



## Tommi (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Which is one and the same in my eyes.


I see that as hostile infrastructure betraying you. It's supposed to keep you safe (along the lines of "stay on your lane and you'll be fine") - you don't see many car lanes where you're supposed to *not* stay on them, do you?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> I see that as hostile infrastructure betraying you. It's supposed to keep you safe (along the lines of "stay on your lane and you'll be fine") - you don't see many car lanes where you're supposed to *not* stay on them, do you?



This is what I am saying. Until you know the dangers on the door zone you may well presume that a cycle lane in safe.


----------



## Origamist (11 Aug 2011)

Taken from YACF and written by CotterPin (also of this parish): 



> I am an irregular correspondent on these pages but I thought people may like to know that around seventy people including close family and friends of the cyclist turned out for an emotional gathering last night. The young man's father made a short but excellent speech about his son. A minute's silence was observed. The event had been organised by the Islington Cyclists' Action Group (we have done this on each, thankfully rare, occasion a cyclist has died on the borough roads) and we were thanked by family and friends for our efforts.
> Stephen



http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=50481.0


----------



## Origamist (12 Aug 2011)

Cyclist killed in Holloway remembered by family and friends


http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_killed_in_holloway_remembered_by_family_and_friends_1_991906


----------



## Red Light (12 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> I see that as hostile infrastructure betraying you. It's supposed to keep you safe (along the lines of "stay on your lane and you'll be fine") - you don't see many car lanes where you're supposed to *not* stay on them, do you?



More than that, if you try to cycle there and ignore the red cycle lane to stay out of the door zone, drivers get really upset with you and start to present a different sort of danger to you. Its a question of either finding the right balance between being doored or being hit or find another route (which in this case if difficult).


----------



## Origamist (1 Feb 2012)

*Man charged with manslaughter of cyclist Sam Harding in Holloway*

*http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/new..._of_cyclist_sam_harding_in_holloway_1_1195136*


----------



## 400bhp (2 Feb 2012)

> Kenan Aydogdu, 32, of *no fixed abode*, appeared at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court yesterday (Tuesday.)
> Mr Harding, 25, died after being *in collision with a 153 bus* in Holloway Road, Holloway, as he cycled to his girlfriend’s house on August 6 last year. He worked for an online travel firm and had been living in Stroud Green Road, Finsbury Park.
> Mr Aydogdu, who had been arrested at the scene, was remanded on bail to appear at the Old Bailey in June.


I haven't read this thread but just clicked on your link. So the accused was the bus driver? Seems odd he has no fixed address?

Always sobering reading these stories.


----------



## 2Loose (2 Feb 2012)

400bhp said:


> I haven't read this thread but just clicked on your link. So the accused was the bus driver? Seems odd he has no fixed address?
> 
> Always sobering reading these stories.


 
The accused is the door opener, not the bus driver. Which is correct, I think.


----------



## Watt-O (2 Feb 2012)

I note that "someone of no fixed abode" was the driver. Wonder what his address was on his driving license/insurance certificate/log book if indeed he possessed any of the aforementioned documents.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (2 Feb 2012)

Manslaughter! I suppose if the car was parked, causing death by dangerous _driving _and _driving _without due care and attention weren't available offences. Just as well because driving without due care and attention (the usual offence the CPS tend to pick becuase of the lower burden of proof) attracts such pathetic penalties when loss of life is involved. If the guy goes down for dooring, hopefully that will gradually seep into motorists' consciousness and tragic incidents like this will diminish.

Best advice, of course - as has been said above, is not to ride in the door zone in the first place.

mj


----------



## mr_cellophane (2 Feb 2012)

mumbo jumbo said:


> If the guy goes down for dooring, hopefully that will gradually seep into motorists' consciousness and tragic incidents like this will diminish.
> 
> Best advice, of course - as has been said above, is not to ride in the door zone in the first place.
> 
> mj


Those two things are only likely to happen if this tragic case is reported on the TV news instead of a minor local rag.


----------



## arallsopp (3 Feb 2012)

Rest in Peace. Tragic tale.


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (3 Feb 2012)

I don't know how but I missed this thread when it first appeared. What a terrible story. I wish it would be highlighted to try and educate people as to the dangers of opening the door without looking.

I got doored three years ago and was seriously injured - and then about a year ago I had a terrible near miss where I was overtaking a parked car as another car was trying to overtake me - the parked car opened the door and it was only my ear piercing scream that alerted her to my presence - she (miraculously) pulled the door and I missed it by a whisper.

I have to say though that I find it very very difficult to cycle really far out from the parked cars - I do try but I often end up with a very angry driver behind me and I find this intimidating.

I try to not ride too fast and keep a real eye out for cars that have somebody in them. 

I don't know what the answer is - I wish I did - it puts me off cycling sometimes and I always feel aware that I may not come home one day which is a terrible way to think. 

I do agree with an earlier poster though that hand signals do really help - recently I have adopted a "back off" hand signal when going around parked cars with a big clear thumbs up when I have been given room and time to make my maneouver.

My husband thinks that these sorts of hand signals are useful becuase a lot of drivers umm and ahh about whether to overtake or pull out and your hand signal will make their minds up for them - makes sense to me!


----------



## atbman (3 Feb 2012)

d87heaven said:


> I wonder what the stats are for being injured by car doors in Holland. Plenty of compulsory(?) cycle lanes that put you in the door zone there, but they do have greater awareness of cyclist.


 
Dutch drivers are taught/required to open their car doors with their right hand, i.e. the hand furthest away from the door. This puts them in a position where they pretty much automatically look back up the road as they have to twist their body to do so.

Translate that into left hand for our roads and the same thing would apply.


----------



## kishan (4 Feb 2012)

sad way to go rip  the government really need to sort things out for cyclists how many more riders need to die before action is taken? surely if the government got ride of that shitty law of cyclists must use the road and created split pavements or allowed us to ride on pavements again like we used to when little more and more people will do cycling which means people wil lget fitter,save more cash and the enviornment wont be effected and road deaths will drop.


----------



## downfader (4 Feb 2012)

Origamist said:


> *Man charged with manslaughter of cyclist Sam Harding in Holloway*
> 
> *http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/new..._of_cyclist_sam_harding_in_holloway_1_1195136*


 
Reminds me of the time I apparently "upset" a driver back last Feb. He shot past me at speed giving me an inch his missus would be unhappy to receive. I sat behind him at the lights 25 metres away, followed him through green and up a road until he pulled over to park. I took it wide just incase and sure enough he threw his car door open as I drew level.

I asked, rather politely "more space next time please!" His response was unprintable and I'm left in no uncertain terms that his car door was being used as some kind of weapon against me. It was like a petulant child in rage.

Stories like that remind me of that driver and why I try to go wide


----------



## gambatte (10 Dec 2012)

It's hit court
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20669294


----------



## mr_cellophane (11 Dec 2012)

> Mr Aydogdu had bought his Audi a month before and had its windows coated with a dark plastic film which reduced visibility in and out of the car to 17%


Does anyone know what the legal minimum is ?

Wasn't the bus driver partly to blame as well for driving too close behind ?


----------



## subaqua (11 Dec 2012)

mr_cellophane said:


> Does anyone know what the legal minimum is ?
> 
> Wasn't the bus driver partly to blame as well for driving too close behind ?


 it must let through 75% of available light if first used on or after 1 April 1985. or 70% if first used before that date.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...requirements-for-glazing-in-road-vehicles.pdf


----------



## Hawk (11 Dec 2012)

mr_cellophane said:


> Wasn't the bus driver partly to blame as well for driving too close behind ?


 
I guess the driver was an easier target for CPS in this case


----------



## Scruffmonster (11 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Where there also few cars on the road back then?


 
Don't be so glib.

You can SEE a car. You have to LOOK for a cyclist. Massive difference.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Dec 2012)

Not really, no. For both you have to look. There isn't a massive difference.

What there is is a difference in danger each presents to you. This is why drivers so easily pull out in front of cyclists (SMIDGAF), and require rather a lot more room before pulling out in front of an HGV.


----------



## Scruffmonster (11 Dec 2012)

You can glance at a door mirror and see a car.
You need to pause and look at a door mirror to see a cyclist.
(Same applies for a shoulder glance)

There needs to be a mass education in the practice of LOOKING for any and all other road users. I know it should already be happening, but it's not.

The current culture is (and this you pointed out) that you check your mirror and window for danger to yourself as a car driver. Too few drivers are aware of the danger that a door poses to cyclists. They believe the check is a one way system, when it's so obviously not.


----------



## Andrew_P (11 Dec 2012)

Why are the CPS and Police so inconsistent on these things? I was quite shocked at the linked crash to being recorded as accidental death.


----------



## GrasB (11 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> You can glance at a door mirror and see a car.
> You need to pause and look at a door mirror to see a cyclist.


Incorrect! You can glance & see a large shape you ASSUME is a car. You need to pause & look at the door mirror to *actually see* any vehicle. Drive a car on the road with a lot of sponsorship decals or a painted design on the front & you realise the typical standard of observation on the roads is non-existent.


----------



## Scruffmonster (11 Dec 2012)

GrasB said:


> Incorrect! You can glance & see a large shape you ASSUME is a car. You need to pause & look at the door mirror to *actually see* any vehicle. Drive a car on the road with a lot of sponsorship decals or a painted design on the front & you realise the typical standard of observation on the roads is non-existent.


 
Why does the internet demand that people narrow their point down to such an exact level of reasoning before anyone will accept it? You've expanded my point and clarified it, you haven't rendered it incorrect.

Our brain will process many things on auto pilot. Noticing things that we expect to be there is one of these instances. There's no relevant, quotable science here but I think most would agree that given 100 glances at a door mirror you'd expect to spot an object that you expect to see, close to 100% of the time*. Asked 100 times 'Was there a car there' or 'What colour was the car' we'd all be spot on. Asked 'What colour was the pram crossing the road' I'm sure we'd all fail.

The problem is that most people are pre-conditioned to automatically see large shapes as they represent danger. Currently, there is no visible campaign to highlight the danger that doors pose to cyclists, in the way that there has been for say, properly looking at junctions for motorcycles, for example.

There should be a campaign to highlight the dangers. It's an extra 5 seconds to properly look. It should happen. Every single time.

* = I know the 'most of the time' opens the door to accidents, but that's always going to be the case. Infallibility in any human based system is impossible.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Dec 2012)

Wrong. You just need to look and you'll see all that's required. Cyclists are not camouflaged, they are easily visible road users.

Your use of the word glance is what is wrong - it's a meatware problem. Glancing won't let you identify cars either, much less judge their vector and speed.


----------



## Arjimlad (11 Dec 2012)

I hope Mr Ay Dog Doo gets convicted. 17% visibility indeed. We've all seen cars like that and know how they are driven. Sorry that's such an indefensible generalisation but...


----------



## Scruffmonster (11 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Wrong. You just need to look and you'll see all that's required. Cyclists are not camouflaged, they are easily visible road users.
> 
> Your use of the word glance is what is wrong - it's a meatware problem. Glancing won't let you identify cars either, much less judge their vector and speed.


 
Do we really need to debate the meaning of the word 'Look'?

As I've said, people are looking/peeking/scanning/glancing for danger to themselves.

They are lot looking/peeking/scanning/glancing for dangers that they may pose to others by opening the door. They're not conditioned that way.

You will only see what you are looking for. It's how we work. People need to be educated to look for cyclists when they open a door.

I know that's wrong, but it's the way that it is.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Dec 2012)

That's not what I understood you to say originally. What I thought was that you said cyclists are too hard to see, which is clearly b0ll0x.


----------



## Lurker (11 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> You can glance at a door mirror and see a car.
> You need to pause and look at a door mirror to see a cyclist.
> (Same applies for a shoulder glance)
> 
> ...


 
Agreed. The 'danger' to the driver could be increased if the police were simply to enforce the law:

From Section 105 of the The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986:

"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."


----------



## Scruffmonster (11 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> That's not what I understood you to say originally. What I thought was that you said cyclists are too hard to see, which is clearly b0ll0x.


 
Fair play.

I'm sure that most have seen (something like) this... but as the best example of the point I was making.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY


----------



## GrasB (11 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Why does the internet demand that people narrow their point down to such an exact level of reasoning before anyone will accept it? You've expanded my point and clarified it, you haven't rendered it incorrect.


Actually, I have shown it to be be incorrect & you've had to correct your self & say that people aren't seeing but assuming.



> Our brain will process many things on auto pilot. Noticing things that we expect to be there is one of these instances. There's no relevant, quotable science here but I think most would agree that given 100 glances at a door mirror you'd expect to spot an object that you expect to see, close to 100% of the time*. Asked 100 times 'Was there a car there' or 'What colour was the car' we'd all be spot on. Asked 'What colour was the pram crossing the road' I'm sure we'd all fail...


Most people can't even tell you if a car is there or not after a quick glance when actually asked. VERY scary stuff.


----------



## Scruffmonster (11 Dec 2012)

GrasB said:


> Actually, I have shown it to be be incorrect & you've had to correct your self & say that people aren't seeing but assuming.
> 
> 
> Most people can't even tell you if a car is there or not after a quick glance when actually asked. VERY scary stuff.


 
I haven't corrected myself. I clarified for anyone that found it ambiguously written.

If you believe that's what happened, cool.


----------



## Boris Bajic (11 Dec 2012)

This is a dreadful tale. I feel for the loved ones of the victim and despise the mindless and pointless fashion for darkening glass.

Nonetheless, as a motorist, cyclist and (at one time) motorcyclist of many years' experience and the victim more than once of what is these days called a SMIDSY, I find this to be the case:

Occasionally, road users will fail to spot cyclists or motorcyclists. I have failed to spot both - although I have yet to wallop one.

I have seen drivers who appeared to look straight at me and then pulled out anyway. I am a big fan of eye contact, so these stick in my mind.

I drive far more miles than I cycle and I spend far longer in a car than on a bicycle. 

Yet other road users fail to see me far more frequently on a bicycle than when I'm in a car.

Similarly, I have been surprised by the 'sudden appearence' of a bicycle or motorcycle far more times than I have by the same situation with a car.

To my mind, whether one is looking carefully or not, bicycles and motorcycles are more likely to go unseen for longer by other road users during the critical stages of (and leading up to) a traffic manoeuvre. 

One can develop a complex about this and blame it on mindless, physically isolated Motons not engaging fully with their environment or simply having a vindictive dislike of cyclists.... But that does not fit my experience.

I find it harder to locate an 8mm nut dropped on the floor than a QR skewer. One is larger.

I cycle; my children cycle. I do not have a side in the debate. Sometimes bicycles are jolly hard to spot.


----------



## Scruffmonster (11 Dec 2012)

Beano1 said:


> Nah, sorry, you are glossing over the finer points of ''seeing and not looking''
> 
> Can to expand on the bit in bold please?


 
Crickey, if you need anything more categoric than what Boris has written I fear for you.


----------



## Boris Bajic (11 Dec 2012)

Beano1 said:


> Nah, sorry, you are glossing over the finer points of ''seeing and not looking''
> 
> Can to expand on the bit in bold please?


 
Umm... In a word, no.

But a word is never enough for me. I fear that when you say I'm glossing over something there may be an alternative reading of "You wrote something I don't agree with". This might happen in life; it can be galling but doesn't signify the end of all that we hold dear. It's just a little sand in the gears. 

You may be right. I may be wrong.

But unless you and a couple of major investment banks have made a conclusive corporate raid on the holdings of *Truth & Enlightenment* *plc*, then I fear we may just be left disagreeing respectfully with one another.

The situation as I described it is one that I see daily. It may be entirely wrong, but I'm pretty sure it will be the same tomorrow and the next day.

However, I am wrong about so many things that one more will barely draw blood. From the tone of your post I get the impression that you are never wrong. I envy that.


----------



## tonyhalsall (11 Dec 2012)

The human eye-brain messaging system is far better at noticing relative movement than it is at observing seemingly stationary images getting larger. The sheer size of almost any motor vehicle that is moving relative to you will immediately register as motion. Take a car driver that is waiting at a give way and who has pulled right up to the lines. A kerb hugging cyclist will appear as a stationary object against the landscape until the very last moments because it appears to be moving directly towards the viewer and without any relative movement - ie just getting bigger as opposed to being detached from the background. The car driver is even less likely to see the cyclist if the eye-brain messaging system is processing lots of other moving traffic because it can't perceive the threat from something that just appears to be part of the background.
The greatest threat to you on a bicycle or motorcycle is to be approaching a driver at a very narrow angle particularly if there is a great deal of other traffic around but even on an empty road the brain just does not pick up an object getting bigger like it does movement. Think about it yourself... We are all amazed that drivers don't see cyclist / motorcyclists but how often in daily life do you see something "out of the corner of your eye." It is relative movement that your peripheral vision catches and how you can easily notice even tiny moving objects.

What can be learned from this?...... As a two wheeled user be particularly alert when approaching a vehicle "head on" - particularly small cars with very little bonnet space that are right up against give way / stop signs and you are kerb hugging. If you can, move out to a more central road position when the driver is looking your way so that you detach yourself from the scenery. If you can't do that - just ride defensively. On a motorcycle I always perform a little "s" manoevre when I approach junctions where vehicles are waiting to pull out or if a car is waiting to turn right from the opposite lane.

It is easy to blame drivers for looking and not seeing and without doubt, education plays a big part in observation skills because you have to be looking for the two wheeled user. Notwithstanding that, human performance considerations relating to eye-brain messaging is something that we two wheel users can be aware of and adapt our riding styles accordingly. No point in being in the right and dead/injured so until drivers become more educated do your best to detach yourself from the background scenery when approaching head on cars waiting to turn right across you or cars waiting to pull out.

Happy cycling.


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is a dreadful tale. I feel for the loved ones of the victim and despise the mindless and pointless fashion for darkening glass.
> 
> Nonetheless, as a motorist, cyclist and (at one time) motorcyclist of many years' experience and the victim more than once of what is these days called a SMIDSY, I find this to be the case:
> 
> ...


 
What I find interesting is that my wife has a tiny car, a Kia Picanto. It often, I'll say optimistically, goes unnoticed compared to larger vehicles. There's also the black car insurance issue, whereby black cars are hit more: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...4PQ3-h&sig=AHIEtbR_PRTEAF5ZqQUkMcpVD2crw3qk-A


----------



## gambatte (11 Dec 2012)

Damn, can't find it. There was a recent report carried out by an RAF instructor about how we actually observe as drivers and riders. Made interesting reading.


----------



## Hawk (11 Dec 2012)

gambatte said:


> Damn, can't find it. There was a recent report carried out by an RAF instructor about how we actually observe as drivers and riders. Made interesting reading.


 
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Dec 2012)

gambatte said:


> Damn, can't find it. There was a recent report carried out by an RAF instructor about how we actually observe as drivers and riders. Made interesting reading.


 
Those RAF jet jockeys he teaches must be brighter than me because I couldn't understand the report.


----------



## marafi (11 Dec 2012)

How terrible and very unfortunately. More needs to be done in the safety of CYCLISTS!


----------



## paulw1969 (11 Dec 2012)

RIP


----------



## Scruffmonster (11 Dec 2012)

Hawk said:


> http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/


 
That's required reading. EVERYONE should read it.

Someone copy/paste and make it a sticky thread or add it to n existing one.

Thank you Hawk.


----------



## Hawk (11 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> That's required reading. EVERYONE should read it.
> 
> Someone copy/paste and make it a sticky thread or add it to n existing one.
> 
> Thank you Hawk.


 
I agree, superb reading for anyone who uses the roads. I think it should be tagged on to the "essential guide for new commuters" maybe?


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Dec 2012)

Hawk said:


> http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/


 
You want the original, and then take note of how subjective and biased the original is: http://www.verulamcc.org.uk/Uploads/pdfs/2012/How we see - impact on cyclists.pdf



Scruffmonster said:


> That's required reading. EVERYONE should read it.
> 
> Someone copy/paste and make it a sticky thread or add it to n existing one.
> 
> Thank you Hawk.


 
No, it isn't. If you have to you should just read the original, not the piece about it. It is opinion masquerading as science.


To show you the unscientific opinion from the PDF:


> While it is generally understood that a low sun can make it difficult to see, it is probably not generally understood why: driving into sun reduces contrast, especially when vehicles and pedestrians fall into the shadow of larger, up-sun objects. You must beware that even large vehicles, and especially motorbikes, cyclists and pedestrians, can become completely impossible to see under these circumstances, and you must moderate your driving accordingly. This is why fighter pilots attack from out of the sun!



Yes the contrast between objects may have reduced contrast, but against the sun the contrast is massive. Fighter jets don't attack from out of the sun for the light, that doesn't affect the radar which will let you know the aircraft is there, they do to try and avoid long range missile lock: http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page31.php.


----------



## Hawk (11 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> You want the original, and then take note of how subjective and biased the original is: http://www.verulamcc.org.uk/Uploads/pdfs/2012/How we see - impact on cyclists.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. If you have to you should just read the original, not the piece about it. It is opinion masquerading as science.


 
I did read the original. I'm surprised you found it biased or subjective?

Looking at the "piece about it" it seems to say very much the same stuff, at times word-for-word.

What was any of it biased in favour of? I don't see it at all...


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Dec 2012)

Hawk said:


> I did read the original. I'm surprised you found it biased or subjective?
> 
> Looking at the "piece about it" it seems to say very much the same stuff, at times word-for-word.
> 
> What was any of it biased in favour of? I don't see it at all...


 
I was updating the above, and things like the following are meaningless:



> "Clinically, you are blind in your peripheral vision."


----------



## Hawk (11 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> I was updating the above, and things like the following are meaningless:


 
Can see what you mean, yeah. Don't think it's biased or subjective, just a bit technically inaccurate in its phrasing...


----------



## tonyhalsall (11 Dec 2012)

Clinically you are NOT blind in your peripheral vision and it is your peripheral vision that best detects movement albeit not definition.


----------



## Scruffmonster (12 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> I was updating the above, and things like the following are meaningless:


 
When I read something I don't have to find every single line to be perfectly written to understand the concept. Some parts were wordy, some presumptuous, others I just thought 'That can't possibly be accurate'.

Yet as an insight, to me, there is enough in there to recommend it to others.


----------



## mr_cellophane (14 Dec 2012)

He got off - *WTF*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

I hope he at least got some punishment for the blacked out windows.


----------



## andytheflyer (14 Dec 2012)

I trust that there are some lawyers on here who can explain how this verdict came about? I'd be most interested to hear it.


----------



## Hacienda71 (14 Dec 2012)

It does seem a bit odd, although we are not privvy to everything from a press report. Just very sad a cyclist passed away in this manner.


----------



## Graham (14 Dec 2012)

I can't believe that no-one is to be held accountable for this guy's death. So he just fell off his bike under a bus for no reason?

See it was a jury decision though, not a judge on his own. Presumably the jury felt that, based on the facts, the legal requirements for a manslaughter conviction were not met.


----------



## asterix (14 Dec 2012)

Well I am amazed and disappointed. My own dooring incident was held to be the door opener's fault and I was awarded very significant compensation. Police never found the culrpit, only civil action taken.

I trust the culprit will be pursued by the victim's family in the civil courts at least.


----------



## Beebo (14 Dec 2012)

asterix said:


> Well I am amazed and disappointed. My own dooring incident was held to be the door opener's fault and I was awarded very significant compensation. Police never found the culrpit, only civil action taken.
> 
> I trust the culprit will be pursued by the victim's family in the civil courts at least.


 
The difference between a criminal and civil case is huge. You need to convict on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt, I am sure that there will be a civil case and insurers will pay out.

as the judge said, no one is a winner in this case. It does seem that Death by dangerous driving or some other similar crime could have been considered.


----------



## Buddfox (14 Dec 2012)

The judge is wrong - the accused is a winner, he directly caused the death of another human being by his own (admitted) failure to act in accordance with the law, and is getting away with it. It's so depressing.


----------



## sabian92 (14 Dec 2012)

Buddfox said:


> The judge is wrong - the accused is a winner, he directly caused the death of another human being by his own (admitted) failure to act in accordance with the law, and is getting away with it. It's so depressing.


 
Although in prison he'd have gotten a pool table, xbox and a free gym....

Bad ruling though. I feel awful for the cyclist's family.


----------



## Graham (14 Dec 2012)

sabian92 said:


> Although in prison he'd have gotten a pool table, xbox and a free gym....
> 
> Bad ruling though. I feel awful for the cyclist's family.


 
Its not a Judge ruling though - A jury of 12 decided it wasn't manslaughter.


----------



## albion (14 Dec 2012)

http://www.london24.com/news/sam_ha..._was_due_to_move_in_with_girlfriend_1_1737081

“Sam Harding collided with the open door and he was flung under the bus coming after him."

Another small fine for a 'careless fatality' then?


----------



## teekay421 (14 Dec 2012)

I feel sick also. See this attitude so often and typical of the type who darken their windows just flinging doors open. Total arrogance I see regularly and with this kind of system who cares? Irresponsible self important inconsiderate sorry venting


----------



## benborp (14 Dec 2012)

It happens again and again and again. Juries seem to be hugely reluctant to convict motorists of any offence that establishes any culpability for causing death. This is despite the creation of new offences that were supposed to plug the gaps that forced the CPS to prosecute on lesser charges as the likes of manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving were perceived by juries as carrying too harsh a penalty. This has led to several cases where juries have refused to find drivers guilty of causing death by careless driving but then found them guilty of a reduced charge of careless driving. This despite the only fact being relevant as to which offence was committed being whether their victim is dead or not. It is perverse.
In this case, after the presentation of the prosecution evidence, the defendant had little choice but to retract his previous statement and pretty much admit and apologise for his direct, illegal action causing the death of Sam Harding. The jury still found him not guilty.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Dec 2012)

I think in these cases many jurors take the view that "there but for the grace of God..." and don't want to judge others on a mistake they'd easily have made themselves. It's a perverse judgement if there was evidence to support a conviction.


GC


----------



## Sore Thumb (14 Dec 2012)

I don't think it matters what evidence there was.

Most people dislike cyclists. Simple


----------



## albion (14 Dec 2012)

Are the jury looking after number one?

Maybe they ensure they have 6 driving and non driving households.


----------



## gavintc (14 Dec 2012)

'Beyond reasonable doubt' makes conviction a real challenge when there is any doubt. I have sat on trials on the jury and can guarantee you that during deliberations it is very difficult to claim that the decision you make is beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> I don't think it matters what evidence there was.
> 
> Most people dislike cyclists. Simple


 
It is deeply sad that a cyclist died this way. I know the road well and it can be challenging at any time of day or night.

The verdict may seem eccentric to those of us who are unaware of all the circumstances. It may be eccentric even to those who know all the details.

But to post as you do here, Sore Thumb, may not be helpful and may not add constuctively to the debate.

As a driver and cyclist of some decades' enjoyment, I am pretty sure that most drivers do not hate cyclists.

To think that such a mindset is widespread and would affect a verdict in a court case may be fanciful.


----------



## Oldspice (14 Dec 2012)

On the radio i heard that, because the vehicle was parked it is not a driving offense, due to a loop hole in the law.


----------



## benborp (14 Dec 2012)

Oldspice said:


> On the radio i heard that, because the vehicle was parked it is not a driving offense, due to a loop hole in the law.


 
There is no loophole in the law.


> The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
> 
> *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.


 
The Construction and Use regulations cover many offences. Offences such as driving with worn tyres, defective steering or brakes are covered by this legislation. So is driving with excessively tinted windows.


----------



## Oldspice (14 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> There is no loophole in the law.
> 
> 
> The Construction and Use regulations cover many offences. Offences such as driving with worn tyres, defective steering or brakes are covered by this legislation. So is driving with excessively tinted windows.


 
I did write. On the radio i heard that etc. Have a word with the BBC


----------



## Davidsw8 (14 Dec 2012)

Looks like you can literally get away with murder in the UK. What with this and those two yobs being cleared of mugging that lad in the London riots (caught on camera) recently, I have no confidence that justice will be served by the courts here 

By opening his car door in to oncoming traffic, this man caused another human being to be dead, that sounds like manslaughter to me, but maybe I just don't understand the concept clearly enough...

Why does someone need heavily tinted windows on a car anyway? I guess maybe James Bond on a secret mission??


----------



## Markymark (14 Dec 2012)

I don't know why you guys are getting upset, it's not like he drew on a picture which gets you 2 years........


----------



## growingvegetables (14 Dec 2012)

Sickening. Feeling absolutely gutted for the cyclist's family.


----------



## Kins (14 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> There is no loophole in the law.
> 
> 
> The Construction and Use regulations cover many offences. Offences such as driving with worn tyres, defective steering or brakes are covered by this legislation. So is driving with excessively tinted windows.


 
But the Met have said previously they don't deem this a serious offence and some get a warning and some get a few points. It seems from the verdict that the Jurors thought the same, a misdeameanor that was unfortunate to cause the death of this poor bloke. So, as usual, it certain contexts, the laws an ass. The same for death by dangerous driving. Very few heavy convictions and families of victims have been campaigning for years with no effect.

What ever peoples views they aren't gonna change the laws and they are very rarely going to get high tarriff convictions. Poor family, hope they pursue it through the civil courts and get somewhere.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (14 Dec 2012)

gavintc said:


> 'Beyond reasonable doubt' makes conviction a real challenge when there is any doubt. I have sat on trials on the jury and can guarantee you that during deliberations it is very difficult to claim that the decision you make is beyond reasonable doubt.


I think this ^^^ is important. 

We (as cyclists) may feel strongly about this but have to remember to distance ourselves from emotional judgement. 
IMO it is a very hard, to judge, situation. Could be a one off mistake. Could be the driver has done it 100's of times. Without being on the jury and hearing the evidence then it's too hard to judge. 

With the law as it is - two separate incidents, that are similar, could end up with entirely different verdicts based on the outcome.
If the cyclist dies should the driver suffer a worse fate than if the cyclist lives? This eventuality is surely out of the hands of the accused. If the cyclist merely falls over and gets nasty road rash then the crime is still the same. 
I think intent should be far more serious. Like a driver swerving to hit a cyclist. Such a manoeuvre could kill and should be punished no matter the outcome. Attempted murder should carry the same sentence as murder IMO. It just means the attempt was unsuccessful. 

One could argue the same for the car driver. It was not intended. It was an accident. I don't contest that it should go unpunished but i do not think the driver should end up with a guilty sentence for manslaughter. 

The law, IMO, is not exactly fair justice.


----------



## PK99 (14 Dec 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> , but maybe I just don't understand the concept clearly enough...
> 
> ?


 
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#manslaughter


----------



## teekay421 (15 Dec 2012)

Still a don't give a fck about anyone else looking typical ar sebag to me and all too common I'm sick of riding around/allowing for/anticipating these fools and excuses let off lightly ignorance, irresponsibility I'm no doubt out of line but sickened at the general attitude we've got to deal with as cyclists what feels like survival against if not callous vindictive actions here just idiotic vacant disregard.


----------



## benborp (15 Dec 2012)

Kins said:


> The same for death by dangerous driving. Very few heavy convictions and families of victims have been campaigning for years with no effect.
> 
> What ever peoples views they aren't gonna change the laws and they are very rarely going to get high tarriff convictions.


 
But people have been campaigning for a change in the law over road death and this resulted in the introduction of the offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and causing death while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.
These offences were introduced because juries were not convicting where a causing death by dangerous driving charge should have been proven and also a recognition that there was no appropriate sanction for drivers causing death in less extreme circumstances. Juries though have continued to avoid finding drivers guilty of 'causing death' charges.
As in many other areas the law has been developed to quite a high degree to deal with the intricacies of modern life. The trouble is the jury system is doing exactly what it is supposed to and judging people by the standards of our society. Not too long ago it would have been unthinkable to challenge the jury system, that isn't the case now.


----------



## benborp (15 Dec 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> It was not intended. It was an accident. I don't contest that it should go unpunished but i do not think the driver should end up with a guilty sentence for manslaughter.


But the charge of manslaughter exists exactly for these circumstances. If someone performs an illegal act that results in someone else's death, even if they didn't mean any harm, they have committed manslaughter.


----------



## veloevol (15 Dec 2012)

Red Light said:


> More than that, if you try to cycle there and ignore the red cycle lane to stay out of the door zone, drivers get really upset with you and start to present a different sort of danger to you. Its a question of either finding the right balance between being doored or being hit or find another route (which in this case if difficult).



What do you really fear from taking up primary position? You're over blowing the threat from behind. Yes a vehicle from behind could take your life but only once you've been thrown to the floor.


----------



## Trickedem (15 Dec 2012)

Having sat on a jury, I think it is very unfair to blame them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if thee wasn't some strong direction given by the judge as to what conditions should be met for a guilt verdict.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (15 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> But the charge of manslaughter exists exactly for these circumstances. If someone performs an illegal act that results in someone else's death, even if they didn't mean any harm, they have committed manslaughter.


Yes of course, and in this case involuntary manslaughter through reckless behaviour. It is though very unlikely that the accused would ever be convicted of manslaughter in these circumstances. 
If the drivers door had caused the death, directly - blunt trauma etc, then a charge of involuntary manslaughter would hold more weight. The door opening was the start of a series of events leading, indirectly, to the cyclists death.


----------



## Pale Rider (15 Dec 2012)

I suspect the chain of events was too long for the jury to hold the car driver responsible.

A conviction would have been more likely had the cyclist died solely from injuries sustained by hitting the door.

And I bet the bus driver is keeping his head down.


----------



## Boris Bajic (15 Dec 2012)

User said:


> You've been watching too much TV. No judge would give instruction to a jury using the words "beyond reasonable doubt".


 
I sat on four juries during a single brief stint of jury service.

In one we were directed to give a Not Guilty. In the other three the judge was explicit (as were the defence counsels) in outlining the necessity for a guilty verdict to be reached only if the evidence presented supported that view *beyond reasonable doubt*. The phrase was used several times by the judge and its meaning was explained. The meanings of other expressions were explained too, as was the exact nature of what we were being asked to decide. 

This was in 1990. Have things changed since then?


----------



## gavintc (15 Dec 2012)

User said:


> You've been watching too much TV. No judge would give instruction to a jury using the words "beyond reasonable doubt".


 
I take it you have been in a jury and can speak with detailed knowledge.


----------



## Pale Rider (15 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I sat on four juries during a single brief stint of jury service.
> 
> In one we were directed to give a Not Guilty. In the other three the judge was explicit (as were the defence counsels) in outlining the necessity for a guilty verdict to be reached only if the evidence presented supported that view *beyond reasonable doubt*. The phrase was used several times by the judge and its meaning was explained. The meanings of other expressions were explained too, as was the exact nature of what we were being asked to decide.
> 
> This was in 1990. Have things changed since then?


 
No.

In my professional capacity I have heard dozens of summings-up in criminal trials.

Each judge has his or her own style, but most will give the jury some some explanation of the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'satisfied so that you are sure'.

One I recall was: "You must be certain of your decision in the same way you are a certain of a major decision in your own lives, such as buying a house or changing your job."


----------



## benborp (15 Dec 2012)

I've just read a BBC article on this case and one of the judge's rulings during the trial is mentioned.



> At an earlier stage in the trial, the judge ruled that the jury could not consider a charge of manslaughter by an unlawful act - but said the driver should still face a charge of manslaughter caused by gross negligence.


 
Does anyone have any background on how this decision might have been made?


----------



## Bromptonaut (15 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> You want the original, and then take note of how subjective and biased the original is: http://www.verulamcc.org.uk/Uploads/pdfs/2012/How we see - impact on cyclists.pdf
> Yes the contrast between objects may have reduced contrast, but against the sun the contrast is massive. Fighter jets don't attack from out of the sun for the light, that doesn't affect the radar which will let you know the aircraft is there, they do to try and avoid long range missile lock: http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page31.php.


 
Fighters used the sun extensively in WW2. Attack from up sun was what was expected. The tiny manoueverable fighter was easily lost against a bright sun, still more one dispersed by haze. I suspect the technique is still relevant today notwithstanding the fantasy world of flightsimming.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (15 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> I've just read a BBC article on this case and one of the judge's rulings during the trial is mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any background on how this decision might have been made?


 
As i understand it.....

Opening the door onto the road was not breaking the law, it was reckless or negligent.
Running a red light, for example, and hitting a pedestrian may bring a charge of "manslaughter by an unlawful act".


----------



## Sandra6 (15 Dec 2012)

While this is indeed tragic, and my heart goes out to the cyclist's family, surely there was fault on all three sides? 
The cyclist shouldn't have been in the door zone, the driver shouldn't have opened his car door, and the bus should've been at a safe stopping distance. 
I'm not sure what would be achieved by charging the driver with manslaughter, but to let him walk free seems ludicrous. 
Is impairing your visibility in a vehicle to such an extent not an offence?? Seems mad that he can drive around like that in the first place. 
I tend to think I'm fairly aware of the door zone, but the other day somebody opened a car door - not directly in front of me, I had plenty of time to avoid them, but it surprised me just how far out on the road I had to go to do so - almost onto the other side in fact.


----------



## postman (15 Dec 2012)

I am sure the film put on front door windows is illegal.And drivers can be made to peel it off before being allowed to continue their journey.Why has no one picked this up.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (15 Dec 2012)

postman said:


> I am sure the film put on front door windows is illegal.And drivers can be made to peel it off before being allowed to continue their journey.Why has no one picked this up.


https://www.gov.uk/tinted-vehicle-window-rules


----------



## P_Dalen (15 Dec 2012)

Why wasn't the bus driver prosecuted? When you drive a car (or bus) and see a cyclist riding in the door zone of parked cars in front of you, you should be prepared that the cyclist may have to move quickly out of his position, or even crash.


----------



## sabian92 (15 Dec 2012)

Graham said:


> Its not a Judge ruling though - A jury of 12 decided it wasn't manslaughter.


 
Yeah, I know, it does sort of feel like regardless of who made the decision, it will never be enough. A noncustodial sentence for killing somebody is insane. If the driver had pushed him under the bus he'd have gone to jail so for this to be as lax as it is screams of ridiculousness.


----------



## jarlrmai (15 Dec 2012)

its about intent though, the law judges intent to harm differently to accidentally harming someone, still not harsh enough IMO.


----------



## albion (16 Dec 2012)

Involuntary manslaughter has no intent. Voluntary includes intent though I;m not sure how the UK uses those definitions.


Found a link
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely: 
that caused by the defendant's gross negligence; and 
that caused by his unlawful or dangerous act.

Gross negligence was obvious. Open a car door even a few inches and its near impossible to miss seeing a hurtling a cyclist.
And obviously using those windows is gross negligence


----------



## campbellab (17 Dec 2012)

Think this is about to come up on Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2. (Started at 13:08 if you want to listen again).


----------



## Ste T. (17 Dec 2012)

I heard the vine show. What struck me was the missed opportunity to talk about the door zone and how many cyclists feel pressurised to ride in it by other vehicles, even though it is probably the most dangerous part of any journey.


----------



## benb (18 Dec 2012)

Not helped when councils put crap like this in.
Only an experienced cyclist will have the confidence to ride outside the door zone here.


----------



## veloevol (18 Dec 2012)

Ste T. said:


> I heard the vine show. What struck me was the missed opportunity to talk about the door zone and how many cyclists feel pressurised to ride in it by other vehicles, even though it is probably the most dangerous part of any journey.



These new fangled concepts such as door zone and taking the lane don't bode well with old media. A populist audience get fed a regurgitated diet of cliches such as RLJ's, helmets and hi viz.


----------

