Crash - whose fault.

[Night Train]

As an aside, when I open a car door I check what's coming, pop the door and then pause a moment before opening and getting out. If I've missed seeing someone coming for whatever reason then it'll give them a clue a door is going to open and prepare them. I've always done this since I started driving, not sure why entirely. Good idea, or am I being a nob?

That's what I do. I look and and if it looks clear, holding the door tight in case the wind catches it, I pop it open and then look again to check it is still safe to open it all the way. I reckon the door popping open is a good indication to anyone coming along that I might have missed.

I think the car in the OP sounds dodgy if the driver wasn't even interested in the damage. Unless they didn't know there was any damage.

Passing on the left is always risky and one should be aware that all sorts of things could happen, rightly or wrongly, and progress accordingly.

 

[APK]

I suspect the driver was not aware of the damage done to the car until he got home, he probably just looked at the door from his seat, saw no visible damage, and did not think the door would be pushed back on the hinges as the passenger did not say anything.

Not sure the legality of "undertaking" like this, although I think the car would have been at fault anyway for opening the door?

 

[Norm]

IMO and ignoring the legal complexities, the cyclist was at fault for riding at speed up the left side. It is very difficult for a passenger to see what is coming up the inside of the car, the mirrors are in the wrong place and orientation for the passenger. Also, if you were riding fast enough to bend a Merc, the passenger would have had to look straight behind the car to see you in time, a view which just isn't available to a passenger.

Get insurance cover and get out of the gutter and into the traffic.

 

[ian turner]

Ahem rule 239 of the highway code includes

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

Mind you it's your word against theirs as to whether they opened their door into you or you rode into their door unless you have an independent witness apparently

 

[apollo179]

Dellzegg - i guess i was riding foolishly if we set the bar at the ability to be able to stop to avoid any possible hazard - including mid stream car doors opening without warning. I suspect when judged to such high standards we all ride foolishly. However there dosnt seem to be any definitive consensus regarding the technical legality of this incident. Incidentally the passenger was a 6 foot white male , maybe 30ish, clearly gonna stand his ground. i suspect the driver hung about long enough to watch his associates back and when it was clear there wasnt going to be any trouble made a swift exit.

 

[Norm]

Dellzegg - i guess i was riding foolishly if we set the bar at the ability to be able to stop to avoid any possible hazard - including mid stream car doors opening without warning. I suspect when judged to such high standards we all ride foolishly.

There's a non-too-subtle difference between your straw man there and riding fast enough to bend the door of a Merc into the wing.

Be grateful, though. It sounds like things wouldn't have needed to be very different for you to have connected with the top corner of the door.

 

[apollo179]

Point taken and to be fair i do realise that i got off lightly and with hindsight had become a bit complacent and was maybe erring slightly towards reckless.

 

[Adasta]

Filtering on the right-hand side can be a better option. Drivers do not usually (and I say usually) make manoeuvres into oncoming traffic.

 

[Norm]

Point taken and to be fair i do realise that i got off lightly and with hindsight had become a bit complacent and was maybe erring slightly towards reckless.

To drag up a cliché, it's only a "mistake" if you do it again.

I know that I've done the same, and had similar (whether pedestrians walking through the traffic or stepping off the pavement, or even a damaged drain cover) issues. All other things being equal, I am now much happier in the middle of the traffic or over-taking on the right if the cars are stationary.

 

[wiggydiggy]

What makes you think that - assuming the passengers weren't kids?

Because I dont throw my passengers out my car at 70 on the M1 (unless they change the radio station lol!)

Sensibly though is this not right, I mean surely if you are carrying passengers you are responsible for making sure its safe for them to get out?

 

[jethro10]

Ahem rule 239 of the highway code includes


Mind you it's your word against theirs as to whether they opened their door into you or you rode into their door unless you have an independent witness apparently

common sense applies though does it not?
Unless you were in a separate traffic lane, or a cycle lane, the cyclist is undertaking a car in the same lane and this is wrong.
Rule 239 and any other of these rules are for normal people doing normal things and the rule relates to overtaking saying "use the passenger side it's safer to exit the car" Well it is safer, unless someone is trying to cut time off the journey and is cheating by undertaking in the same lane it seems.
A cyclist does not have a god given right to pass vehicles like this, he should have taken his place in the flow of traffic like anyone else and passed correctly on the right if there was space to do so.
J

 

[lulubel]

A cyclist does not have a god given right to pass vehicles like this, he should have taken his place in the flow of traffic like anyone else and passed correctly on the right if there was space to do so.

A lot of people are going to hate me for saying this, but when I drove buses, if I saw a cyclist who I thought was likely to filter on the left in a traffic queue, I positioned the bus right against the kerb so he/she couldn't do it. I probably annoyed a lot of cyclists as well, but my reasoning (as a cyclist myself) was that I was protecting them against putting themselves in a dangerous position down the left side of the bus where they were hidden in a huge blind spot.

As a cyclist, I never filter on the kerb side (although I will filter carefully on the other side if there's room). My life, or a stay in hospital, isn't worth the amount of time it might save me.

 

[JustT]

Though you might find this helpfull....................he was at fault, did you gt his reg? sue him, he must be hiding something or he would have sued you!!!

quote from bikehub.co.uk on the highway code....


LANE SPLITTING
In some US States, so called ‘lane splitting’ by cyclists is illegal. Lane splitting is where a cyclist under- or over-takes in a stream of traffic.

In Australia and in the UK, lane splitting is legal, although requires rapt attention because motorists can switch lanes suddenly. Many motorists fail to look out for cyclists when switching lanes but it’s also important for cyclists to recognise that they may be riding in a motorist’s ‘blind’ zone.

According to CTC’s Roger Geffen, there used to be an element of doubt about whether or not lane splitting was contrary to the UK Highway Code and hence whether cyclists who did it could potentially be prosecuted for a general offence such as “careless” or “inconsiderate” cycling. But this has now been cleared up in the latest version of the Highway Code.

The old Highway Code (1998 version) had two rules which, in different ways, told drivers not to change lanes to overtake on the left. The old Rule 129 (which was about driving in slow-moving traffic) said:
129. You should

• […]

• not change lanes to the left to overtake
And old rule 139 (which was about overtaking) said:
139. Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should

• […]

• only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so

• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
The problem was that it was never really clear how this last bullet-point applied to a cyclist. The traffic on his/her right might be moving more slowly, but the cyclist him/herself wouldn’t be moving slowly in a queue, nor was there a lane that they should stay in (unless there was a marked cycle lane).

The new Highway Code has cleared up the uncertainty. Old rule 129 has been replaced by new rule 151, which has a new bullet-point on the end:
151 In slow-moving traffic. You should

• […]

• be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
So cyclists and motorcyclists overtaking slow-moving traffic on either the left or the right can now say that this is sanctioned by the Highway Code, as it alerts drivers to both possibilities.

I repeatedly yell out "highway code rule 151 you moron" to drivers cussing me for undertaking them

 

[HLaB]

A lot of people are going to hate me for saying this, but when I drove buses, if I saw a cyclist who I thought was likely to filter on the left in a traffic queue, I positioned the bus right against the kerb so he/she couldn't do it. I probably annoyed a lot of cyclists as well, but my reasoning (as a cyclist myself) was that I was protecting them against putting themselves in a dangerous position down the left side of the bus where they were hidden in a huge blind spot.

As a cyclist, I never filter on the kerb side (although I will filter carefully on the other side if there's room). My life, or a stay in hospital, isn't worth the amount of time it might save me.

Perfectly understandable IMO, but the scary thing is judging from youtube plenty still try I can't remember who posted it but there one of a cyclists getting stuck!

 

[the reluctant cyclist]

First post. After a recent incident i was curious if anybody could enlighten me re the rights and wrongs of the following incident. Wallingford in south london cycling overtaking on the inside along a long line of slow / non moving traffic. Out of the blue a near side (passenger) door opens and innevetably i hit the door. I luckily am unscathed and get up to exchange accusatory remarks with the passenger. The car passenger door is badly damaged , bent right back into also damaging the n/s front wing. The car after a brief period drives off without the driver emerging. The passenger volunteers to straighten my front wheel which has been bent out of alignment. After cycling a short way i am aware of a problem with my front brakes rubbing. It turns out that the collision has bent my forks back to the extent that the passenger naturally realligned the wheel back to front but due to the damage looking visibly correct but as a consequence of the brake callipers now being backwards of the forks the cable was pulling causing them to rub. I tried realigning the front wheel to its "correct" original alignment but it was so far back the wheel almost hit the frame and riding it would have been impossible as the wheel would constantly be hitting the pedals. I reversed the wheel to its new polarity and cycled home with front brake cable detached. Other than the lack of front brake it cycled surprisingly well - almost like the impact had created an exact mirror image of the forks but going in the other direction.
Curious how the driver did not even get out of the car after half his car (Mercedes if i remember correctly) had been wiped out (i was going quite fast).
Purely for adademic purposes - legally whose at fault.

Hi there - only just seen this.

So glad you are okay.

The EXACT same thing happened to me - three years ago today. I say EXACT - right down to the driver not getting out.

I sued and the case is still ongoing.

I can tell you that instantly the insurance company for the DRIVER admitted 50% liability. They pretty quickly moved up to 85% liability.

The reason that they will not admit full liability is because they say that they were indicating left at the time and the highway code states that you should not pass on the left hand side of a car that is indicating to turn left.

For the record they were not indicating left - NO WAY and my Solicitor is very confident that she will get them to admit full liability. (The three year delay is not about this by the way).

So legally I am taking this to mean that the driver is the one at fault. It was the passenger who opened the door on me but it is the driver's insurance company that are taking the blame.

Nobody has ever accused me of breaking the law by "undertaking" - as I say the only thing they are trying to pin on me is that I "undertook" whilst the driver was indicating.

Lots of people thought I would be suing the passenger and not the driver but it is indeed the driver who I sue as they are the one responsible for the car. I can't remember the exact rule but there is one that says they need to check around them to see if there is anyone about before letting people out of the car etc.

As I say, so glad you are okay - dooring can be really nasty - especially if you go over the door! I too damaged the car but have never been asked to offset that damage against my own claim.

(I only put a claim in at all because I damaged my hand and I type for a living and play the piano for a hobby so it badly affected me!).

Don't know whether my post has added any clarity to this?