# Doored by Police Car



## Trickedem (7 Apr 2016)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...fter-being-doored-by-police-car-a3220591.html
@ianrauk is this near where you were knocked over by the Police? I hope they don't try to wriggle out of this one.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Apr 2016)

Yep, not far. More Catford then Bellingham though. That's a fast bit of road for cyclists. Can really get some speed up there. I hope he's ok.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Apr 2016)

From the article

"It is believed he crashed with one of the squad car's doors."

Why did HE (the cyclist) crash with a door. As if there was no other action by another person.

"Traffic officers are investigating whether it happened as the door was being opened by someone in the car."
How else could it have happened? I am wondering if they are suggesting it was somebody in the back of the car that opened the door.

If so, I'm not sure how, as from experience, the back doors can't be opened from the inside.


----------



## dfthe1 (8 Apr 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> From the article
> 
> "It is believed he crashed with one of the squad car's doors."
> 
> ...



I think what they mean is that they are determining if the door was opened into the cyclist's path or if the door was already open before the cyclist appeared and collided with it.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Apr 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> From the article
> 
> "It is believed he crashed with one of the squad car's doors."
> 
> ...



You cannot blame the police for inaccurate or misleading reporting by the press.

The report does not say if the car was stationary or was moving when the door and cyclist came into contact. Technically, the door could have collided with the cyclist, if the car was moving. 

The report does not suggest the back door was opened. But they can be opened from the Inside if the safety lock isnt activated. They can also be opened from the Inside by prisoners opening the window and using the handle. Yes, it does happen.

The likely event is that the police officer did not look and opened the door on the cyclist. The cyclist for whatever reason was not out of the door area and got hit by the door.

Its very difficult to know the exact circumstances with so little information.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Apr 2016)

lucky he wasn't tazered and arrested as a terrorist


----------



## Jody (8 Apr 2016)

Where does the fault lay? Is it the officer for not looking or the rider for being too close?


----------



## jefmcg (8 Apr 2016)

User said:


> The law is clear - the liability is always with the person opening the door and the driver of the vehicle.


And cyclists try to stay out of the door zone because being right isn't much comfort if you are dead


----------



## jefmcg (8 Apr 2016)

User said:


> No-one is suggesting otherwise.


Hence my use of "And"


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Apr 2016)

dfthe1 said:


> I think what they mean is that they are determining if the door was opened into the cyclist's path or if the door was already open before the cyclist appeared and collided with it.



If they don't know which it is. I'd have a good guess they opened it into the cyclist


----------



## jefmcg (8 Apr 2016)

I think Doorings usually involves the cyclist hitting a door that has suddenly opened in front of them. Still the driver's fault, though


----------



## dfthe1 (8 Apr 2016)

As usual, there just isn't enough information in the article to know what happened and to start getting worked up about it. The quotes in the headline are important as they signify that a dooring isn't necessarily what happened -- just what someone said. And we don't know who this person is, what their involvement is and whether they even saw the incident. The main article makes this clear -- it isn't known exactly what happened and the events are being investigated. That's all there is to it at the moment.

It's probably more likely the someone opened the door into the path of the cyclist, but no-one can say that is what happened from reading the article.


----------



## Inertia (8 Apr 2016)

dfthe1 said:


> It's probably more likely the someone opened the door into the path of the cyclist, but no-one can say that is what happened from reading the article.


It does seem most likely, the alternatives are that he was going that fast that he didnt see it till it was too late or that he wasnt paying attention and cycled into a stationary object. If either of those happened to me Id consider its time to give up the bike.


----------



## Jody (8 Apr 2016)

User said:


> The law is clear - the liability is always with the person opening the door and the driver of the vehicle.



Thanks. Genuinely didn't know who was at fault.


----------



## sidevalve (8 Apr 2016)

No clear info = no clear conclusion possible.
Statement 'cyclist was in collision with door' is 100% correct, he didn't hit anything else. It is a statement of fact - the two objects collided nothing more to gained by this. Nether which was moving or which [or who] was at fault. Another waste of time until [or more likely if] proper details become available. Guessing is simply an attempt at 'trial by media'. We know nothing - for all the report states the cyclist may have been a drug runner trying to avoid the car and capture.


----------



## Markymark (8 Apr 2016)

sidevalve said:


> No clear info = no clear conclusion possible.
> Statement 'cyclist was in collision with door' is 100% correct, he didn't hit anything else. It is a statement of fact - the two objects collided nothing more to gained by this. Nether which was moving or which [or who] was at fault. Another waste of time until [or more likely if] proper details become available. Guessing is simply an attempt at 'trial by media'. We know nothing - for all the report states the cyclist may have been a drug runner trying to avoid the car and capture.


The initial story claimed the cyclist crashed into stationary police car. Then followed large number of comments about stupid cyclists, he should be charged with being drunk. sued for criminal damage. Was it crappy reporting or was it a half-truth by the police?

The car wasn't stationary, the door was moving....into the path of the cyclist.


----------



## wheresthetorch (8 Apr 2016)

I think the police will conclude that the cyclist opened the door himself, shortly before riding into it and also falling down the stairs.


----------



## Tin Pot (9 Apr 2016)

What is it with people and blame?


----------



## Jody (9 Apr 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> What is it with people and blame?



Where there's blame........


----------



## Pete Owens (17 Apr 2016)

Looks like it is a red route - so the car should not have stopped, let alone opened a door.


----------



## Andy Roadie (21 Apr 2016)

I'm interested in the statement "The law is clear - the liability is always with the person opening the door and the driver of the vehicle."
If I am the driver and the passenger opens a door (I cannot prevent this) and causes harm. In what way am I negligent?


----------



## Markymark (21 Apr 2016)

Andy Roadie said:


> I'm interested in the statement "The law is clear - the liability is always with the person opening the door and the driver of the vehicle."
> If I am the driver and the passenger opens a door (I cannot prevent this) and causes harm. In what way am I negligent?


I think your insurance would pay out.


----------



## midlife (21 Apr 2016)

Andy Roadie said:


> I'm interested in the statement "The law is clear - the liability is always with the person opening the door and the driver of the vehicle."
> If I am the driver and the passenger opens a door (I cannot prevent this) and causes harm. In what way am I negligent?



Vicarious liability as the driver in charge of the vehicle.

Shaun


----------



## jarlrmai (21 Apr 2016)

The same way that you are responsible for ensuring everyone is wearing seatbelts


----------



## Andy Roadie (21 Apr 2016)

No. My insurance would not pay out as I am not negligent.
No. I am not responsible for ensuring everyone is wearing seatbelt. Only passengers under 14 years of age.
Frankly I find the notion that I am responsible for the actions of other Adults laughable.


----------



## jefmcg (21 Apr 2016)

Andy Roadie said:


> No. My insurance would not pay out as I am not negligent.
> No. I am not responsible for ensuring everyone is wearing seatbelt. Only passengers under 14 years of age.
> Frankly I find the notion that I am responsible for the actions of other Adults laughable.


It's usually the car that's insured, isn't it? You might pay for it, but it insurance against damaged caused by your car while you (or another driver that's acceptable to your insurer) is behind the wheel.

Whether you could be charged with a traffic offence due to the actions of a passenger, I'm not sure.


----------



## Markymark (21 Apr 2016)

Andy Roadie said:


> No. My insurance would not pay out as I am not negligent.
> No. I am not responsible for ensuring everyone is wearing seatbelt. Only passengers under 14 years of age.
> Frankly I find the notion that I am responsible for the actions of other Adults laughable.


Your insurance is responsible for claims. Read this.

You don't have to be at fault to be claimed against. If your car drive over a pebble which shoots out and snashes a window your insurance can be claimed against even if you did nothing wrong.


----------



## Andy Roadie (21 Apr 2016)

No it isn't the car that's insured for liability claims.
The person opening the door could be charged with an offence.
A person can try to claim against me for any reason but again negligence would have to be proved. RE The pebble scenario. I doubt I would be paying.


----------



## Markymark (21 Apr 2016)

Andy Roadie said:


> No it isn't the car that's insured for liability claims.
> The person opening the door could be charged with an offence.
> A person can try to claim against me for any reason but again negligence would have to be proved. RE The pebble scenario. I doubt I would be paying.


The passenger could be charged with an offence. Your car insurance can be claimed against for either the passenger hurting someone with a door or a stone that causes damage.


----------



## User33236 (21 Apr 2016)

A former colleague was hit by a door opened by a passenger a number of years ago resulting in damage to his bike and significant soft tissue damage to his shoulder . He received a payout for damages and injury from the car's insurers. 

It can and does happen so choose your passengers carefully .


----------



## Karlt (21 Apr 2016)

Don't confuse civil law, where you are alleging negligence, with criminal law, where a person is accuse of an offence (in this case opening the door). The criminal offence of permitting to be opened does not in and of itself create a duty of care under the civil law, although it might strongly indicate that one may exist. Damages are claimed under civil law, not as a result of a criminal conviction.


----------



## Andy Roadie (22 Apr 2016)

A google of the stone scenario suggests the driver is not liable.
In a standard Car I cannot prevent the passenger opening the door i.e I don't have remote locks. So I can't really permit to be opened.
As a Private Hire driver I don't really have the option of choosing my passengers. Many are completely addled by Drugs or Alcohol.
I guess I will find out when it happens then.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Apr 2016)

Andy Roadie said:


> A google of the stone scenario suggests the driver is not liable.
> *In a standard Car I cannot prevent the passenger opening the door i.e I don't have remote locks. So I can't really permit to be opened.*
> As a Private Hire driver I don't really have the option of choosing my passengers. Many are completely addled by Drugs or Alcohol.
> I guess I will find out when it happens then.


Merely asserting a thing over and over again does not make that thing necessarily so. Nor overturn statue and case law.


----------



## Markymark (22 Apr 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Merely asserting a thing over and over again does not make that thing necessarily so. Nor overturn statue and case law.


Indeed. Saying it louder doesn't make it more true.


----------



## Andy Roadie (22 Apr 2016)

Can you give a link to these cases? All I can find is conjecture. 
For example, I find old news stories about a cyclist is suing for £200,000 for being doored but not what the actual result was.
You give examples of when a driver has control of the door locks. So I explained that I don't have this control.


----------



## benb (22 Apr 2016)

If a passenger opens their door into a cyclist, the insurance company will certainly pay out. They may then decide to try and reclaim their losses from the passenger.


----------



## Karlt (22 Apr 2016)

User said:


> I'm not confusing the two. But thanks for the mini-lecture.... takes me back to my law school days (although my lecturers were better at it).



You might not confuse the two, but lots of people do. And why the attitude?


----------



## T4tomo (22 Apr 2016)

Andy Roadie said:


> Can you give a link to these cases? All I can find is conjecture.
> For example, I find old news stories about a cyclist is suing for £200,000 for being doored but not what the actual result was.
> You give examples of when a driver has control of the door locks. So I explained that I don't have this control.


A couple of reasons why driver may be responsible for passenger opening the door:
- As the driver you have 3 mirrors all adjusted for you to look at. It's not unreasonable as you stop for you to check those mirrors and if you see a cyclist approaching warn your passenger not to open the door.
- As the driver you have stopped the car in an unsafe place to exit your passengers, as they are, as a matter of fact, putting third parties in danger by the act of opening the door.


----------



## mjr (22 Apr 2016)

Andy Roadie said:


> Can you give a link to these cases? All I can find is conjecture.


You might find something on http://www.bailii.org but I didn't spot it among all the motorists arguing about liability for damaging their passenger doors in other ways 

I did find an Irish case (and we still share similar laws in many things, originally from UK rule and now from membership of the EU and - relevantly for traffic law - the UN) [2013] IEHC 505 where a driver was held not to be liable for the passengers egging nearby people, but would have been "Had there been any evidence of a discussion of “egging” pedestrians." "This may well be selective amnesia but there is no evidence that the driver was warned or ought to have known that this was a likelihood. I am of the view that it would be unreasonable to import upon him the knowledge that an egg was going to be thrown or might be thrown in the direction of the plaintiff from his car." "Therefore, I with regret I must dismiss this action."

ETA: Earlier in the same: "In Curley v. Mannion [1965] I.R. 543, the defendant who was the owner and driver of a motor vehicle which was parked on its correct side of the road was held liable to a cyclist pedestrian who suddenly without warning was hit by the passenger door being opened by a passenger child of the defendant who did not look to see the coast was clear."

I would be surprised if an English driver wasn't held liable for not warning their passenger about what is visible in the driver's mirrors, but I can't find cases of it. It may be so widely accepted that no-one has disputed it for so long that there are no easily-searchable cases.


----------

