Crash - whose fault.

[Red Light]

It was an offence under s105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 to open the door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist:

"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 question will be whether the opening of the door caused the accident or whether you were riding too fast and that caused it. Cycling up the inside has been going on for more than a century without legal objection so can be considered to be allowable. However you need to do it with care such that the passenger would have the opportunity to see you if they checked. It sounds from the damage to the door and the bike as if that may not have been the case and it may not have been reasonable for the passenger to have been able to see you before they opened the door even if they checked very carefully. Only you can answer that.

 

[apollo179]

Thanks for the good wishes reluctant cyclist. Good luck with your case. Interestingly one of the first things the passenger said to me was that they (the car) had indicated left with the intention to stop (ie - my fault). Probably untrue as the car was not kerbside it was normal mid-traffic which was why i approached not suspecting a potential hazard. I am surprised even the passenger would answer in such an arsecoveringly aware way , my own instant reaction would be to ask the injured party if they were ok and go on to the bickering later. I was largely unhurt although today i am developing an impressive bruise diagonally across my torso presumably where i contacted with the top of the door. Combined with my apparent lack of injury, lack of apparent damage to my bike (later found forks were bent) , my natural disinclination towards litigation and the other parties unsypathetic , combative attitude i did not consider taking any action. It occured to me but the above factors ruled against it. If the other party had been sympathetic and apologetic etc etc then maybe i would have been more inclined but my guys looked like hard work , you could say their defensive attitude worked. A scooter cyclist was on the scene and asked me if i was ok so i had a potential witness as well. Anyway all in all i am just glad it was just the forks that needed replacing.

 

[apollo179]

Red Light - yes maybe a sense of my own possible liability also served to steer me away from any considerations of going down the legal claim route.
The first thing the passenger said was that he had looked and hadnt seen me. I responded with well i was obviously there cos seconds later i smashed up your door. Maybe he had looked . Probably he hadnt looked and was reckless in opening of the door and i was going a bit to fast / reckless with my speed.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

+1

we're guessing.

for my money you were riding foolishly - if you're so close to the left hand side of a car, and travelling at such a speed that you damage the car, let alone your bike, then you stand to get splattered. Get yourself 3rd party insurance, because next time you're going to need it.

but, as others say, it's an odd thing that the driver departed.

 

[Andy_R]

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

You're going to have to stop shouting it mate, rule 163: "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

It's like a game of Top Trumps in here sometimes

 

[Mad at urage]

I trump your rule 163 with errr ... Rule 163 "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"

Since rule 151 acknowledges that cycles and motorcycles form narrow lanes of their own in slow moving traffic " be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side", it is simply a matter of being able to put two seperately-expressed ideas together coherently. Cyclists and motorcyclists can legally and (separate point) with the backing of the HC, pass on either side. Drivers (of all vehicles) should therefore expect them to do so and are in the wrong if they fail to anticipate the possibility.

 

[Andy_R]

I trump your rule 163 with errr ... Rule 163 "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"

Since rule 151 acknowledges that cycles and motorcycles form narrow lanes of their own in slow moving traffic " be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side", it is simply a matter of being able to put two seperately-expressed ideas together coherently. Cyclists and motorcyclists can legally and (separate point) with the backing of the HC, pass on either side. Drivers (of all vehicles) should therefore expect them to do so and are in the wrong if they fail to anticipate the possibility.

If there are two lanes of traffic then this applies. If there is only one lane then you are in the queue and must overtake on the right. "Stay in your lane if traffic is moving in queues" - notice the plural

And whilst rule 151 implies that cyclists may be overtaking on either side, it does not at any point say that they should. Point me in the right direction, where does it actually say cyclists are allowed to overtake on the left if they are in the same lane as the vehicle they are overtaking apart from right turners?