Cycling UK suggests Chris Grayling should be prosecuted for dooring incident

rollotommasi wrote:

Quote:

That seems a peculiar interpretation. It's like waving around a hammer and then complaining when people get hit that they shouldn't have been so close.

No.  It's like waving a hammer and then complaining when people get hit that a statutory code told them not to get so close.

You forgot to mention that the code merely advised them not to get so close, while the same code says the hammer holder is legally obliged to look where he is waving his hammer.

ktache wrote:

Filtering is not against the law.  Rule 160 states that road users should ‘be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic’  Rule 211 says that ‘it is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are filtering through traffic’.

And please look at the picture above, where is the "mandatory" cycle route?  On the inside of the big coach.  Do you mean that such wonderful infrastructure cannot be used unless the coach was indicating to turn right?

 

At worst the cyclist could be accused of contributory negligence. Irrespective of this Grayling showed a clear "failure in duty of care". Note that no harm or damage needs to have occurred, merely endangering somebody through opening a car door without due care is enough to land a dooring charge. The maximum fine however is only £1000.

rollotommasi wrote:

The cyclist was in the wrong.  

 

Rule 163 of the Highway Code states "Only overtake on the left is the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so".

 

Rule 163 applies to all road users.  It's about time it was enforced properly.

 

My point is not an anti-cyclist perspective.  Far from it, I want to encourage cycling.  But that requires safety-orientated behaviour by both drivers and cyclists.  Every time a cyclist passes a narrow gap on the inside of cars, it helps to legitimise the dangerous idea that a car need only give that same narrow space when overtaking a bike.  

 

 

overtaking relates to flowing traffic not passing queueing vehicles.

Or are you suggesting that a bus in the bus lane should not pass stationary traffic?

If the car was doing 20mph and the cyclist tried too ass on the inside that would clearly be overtaking on the left and at fault. But as the highway code expressly states that cyclists may pass stationary traffic on either side you can't say rule 163trups that, as there would be no circumstance where that statement would be true.

by your logic we can never pass lines of cars because they never give room to do so and certainly not leaving space on the right. So might as well get in our cars instead.

As to close passing, if I am stationary with feet on the floor I am quite happy for cars to pass within a few feet, but when moving less so. It's totally different. Without even considrink relative danger and protection issues.

Also worth pointing out that the cyclist did not hitthe open door, the door was opened into him.

As to buses/hgvs those signs are there due to poor visibility resulting in increased risk in doing so. If I wear a jersey that says drivers do not overtake me dies that make it law? Grayling has no poor visibility excuse in a regular car.

finally please explain why the ONLY legal access into the advanced stop bos is on the left of the vehicle that has stopped at the stop line? If filtering on the left is illegal this would be entrapment, no?

there is nothing in the video to suggest the cyclist was filtering recklessly. I'm more inclined to question whether he was deliberately bashed with the door.

rollotommasi wrote:

The cyclist was in the wrong.

Nope. The Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations
1986, SI 1986 No. 1078, reg 105,
which provides: ‘No person shall
open or cause or permit to be
opened any door of a motor vehicle
or trailer on a road so as to cause
injury or danger to any person.’
Section 42 of Road Traffic Act
1988 states that a person who fails
to comply with the Regulations is
guilty of an offence.

rollotommasi wrote:

The cyclist was in the wrong.  

Rule 163 of the Highway Code states "Only overtake on the left is the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so".

In the context of the Highway Code 'overtaking' means passing a moving vehicle.  It does not apply to filtering in and around stationary traffic, which is dealt with in other paragraphs.

Batchy wrote:

If the cyclist was trying to squeeze down the inside of the car then it's his own fault. Despite whatever you think of Chris Grayling !

While I tend to agree that the cyclist was partly to blame, that's not the way the law sees it. As far as the law goes, the onus is on the "door opener" to check that the way is clear rather than the overtaker. 

Argos74 wrote:

Failing to stop and report a traffic accident could in theory incur a prison sentence. Or community service. There's a happy thought for the weekend.

Edit. Drivers, not passengers. Still, it's a happy thought all the same. Burn the witch!

He did stop. He ensured the cyclist was OK. He apologised. Both went their seperate ways. That is as much as the law requires where there is no damage to person or property

"Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988 provides that the driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the identification marks of the vehicle. The duty to stop means to stop sufficiently long enough to exchange the particulars above: Lee v Knapp [1966] 3 All ER 961."

Griff500 wrote:

Argos74 wrote:

Failing to stop and report a traffic accident could in theory incur a prison sentence. Or community service. There's a happy thought for the weekend.

Edit. Drivers, not passengers. Still, it's a happy thought all the same. Burn the witch!

He did stop. He ensured the cyclist was OK. He apologised. Both went their seperate ways. That is as much as the law requires where there is no damage to person or property

"Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988 provides that the driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the identification marks of the vehicle. The duty to stop means to stop sufficiently long enough to exchange the particulars above: Lee v Knapp [1966] 3 All ER 961."

 

There may not have been initial signs of personal injury but there was damage to the cyclists property which would have been immediately apparent if investigated.

ClubSmed wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Argos74 wrote:

Failing to stop and report a traffic accident could in theory incur a prison sentence. Or community service. There's a happy thought for the weekend.

Edit. Drivers, not passengers. Still, it's a happy thought all the same. Burn the witch!

He did stop. He ensured the cyclist was OK. He apologised. Both went their seperate ways. That is as much as the law requires where there is no damage to person or property

"Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988 provides that the driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the identification marks of the vehicle. The duty to stop means to stop sufficiently long enough to exchange the particulars above: Lee v Knapp [1966] 3 All ER 961."

 

There may not have been initial signs of personal injury but there was damage to the cyclists property which would have been immediately apparent if investigated.

Indeed - and if the video and subsequent account is anything to go by, the rider was still seeing stars when Grayling buggered off.

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Argos74 wrote:

Failing to stop and report a traffic accident could in theory incur a prison sentence. Or community service. There's a happy thought for the weekend.

Edit. Drivers, not passengers. Still, it's a happy thought all the same. Burn the witch!

He did stop. He ensured the cyclist was OK. He apologised. Both went their seperate ways. That is as much as the law requires where there is no damage to person or property

"Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988 provides that the driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the identification marks of the vehicle. The duty to stop means to stop sufficiently long enough to exchange the particulars above: Lee v Knapp [1966] 3 All ER 961."

 

There may not have been initial signs of personal injury but there was damage to the cyclists property which would have been immediately apparent if investigated.

Indeed - and if the video and subsequent account is anything to go by, the rider was still seeing stars when Grayling buggered off.

I think if you watch the video gain, you will see that Grayling is still standing there as the cyclist wanders off, followed by the guy with the camera! We don't see Grayling "bugger off " anywhere. 

Grayling is undoubtedly liable for £1000 for dooring. But nobody can serioysly watch the video and say he did not give the cyclist opportunity to request details as per section 170.

Griff500 wrote:

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Argos74 wrote:

Failing to stop and report a traffic accident could in theory incur a prison sentence. Or community service. There's a happy thought for the weekend.

Edit. Drivers, not passengers. Still, it's a happy thought all the same. Burn the witch!

He did stop. He ensured the cyclist was OK. He apologised. Both went their seperate ways. That is as much as the law requires where there is no damage to person or property

"Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988 provides that the driver of the motor vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the identification marks of the vehicle. The duty to stop means to stop sufficiently long enough to exchange the particulars above: Lee v Knapp [1966] 3 All ER 961."

 

There may not have been initial signs of personal injury but there was damage to the cyclists property which would have been immediately apparent if investigated.

Indeed - and if the video and subsequent account is anything to go by, the rider was still seeing stars when Grayling buggered off.

I think if you watch the video gain, you will see that Grayling is still standing there as the cyclist wanders off, followed by the guy with the camera! We don't see Grayling "bugger off " anywhere. 

Grayling is undoubtedly liable for £1000 for dooring. But nobody can serioysly watch the video and say he did not give the cyclist opportunity to request details as per section 170.

The video I've seen (embedded in the road.cc and guardian articles) doesn't show the cyclist wander off. He doesn't go to get on his bike or even have chance to check it over before the footage finishes. You might have seen an extended version or the director's cut, but the cyclist doesn't wander off in the version I've seen. He still appears woozy as he goes to his bike.

The cyclist actually says "Definitely he should stay a bit longer to check on me. But maybe he had something more important than this to rush to.”

We don't have Grayling's version, other than a spokesman saying they shook hands and left.

My point is that the cyclist was shaken up - quite possibly injured - and in those circumstances the onus has to be on the pillock who caused the collision and injury to make sure correct procedure is followed, not on the victim whose head is still spinning. You'd hope the transport secretary would have a clue what that procedure is.

Are you suggesting that the onus should be on the cyclist, in the 60 or so seconds following a car dooring, to ensure details are exchanged?

davel wrote:

Are you suggesting that the onus should be on the cyclist, in the 60 or so seconds following a car dooring, to ensure details are exchanged?

Rightly or wrongly, that is precisely what the law (Section 170) says. That is also precisely what a motorist would have done, because every motorist has it drummed into him to get details no matter what (just in case he decisdes to likely to slap in a whiplash claim later).

How long is long enough to satisfy Section 170, and/or any moral obligations? I assume in your version of the video there was also the protracted handshake, during which there appeared to be a conversation taking place. In the absence of audio, we have no idea what was said, and what indication was given of the cyclist's state of mind, or whether he was OK or not. Furthermore, how much of this has been fired up two months after the event (at which point the cyclist had no intention of pressing charges)  by the Guardian and others.

Griff500 wrote:

davel wrote:

Are you suggesting that the onus should be on the cyclist, in the 60 or so seconds following a car dooring, to ensure details are exchanged?

Rightly or wrongly, that is precisely what the law (Section 170) says. That is also precisely what a motorist would have done, because every motorist has it drummed into him to get details no matter what (just in case he decisdes to likely to slap in a whiplash claim later).

How long is long enough to satisfy Section 170, and/or any moral obligations? I assume in your version of the video there was also the protracted handshake, during which there appeared to be a conversation taking place. In the absence of audio, we have no idea what was said, and what indication was given of the cyclist's state of mind, or whether he was OK or not. Furthermore, how much of this has been fired up two months after the event (at which point the cyclist had no intention of pressing charges)  by the Guardian and others.

....precisely states that the injured party has to request details? I don't see it like that.

I think it places the obligation on the driver (or doorer, Grayling, in this case?) to provide details at the time or to the police, should there be a need. Injury/damage suggests a need, so the driver should have provided details - that's how I'm interpreting it, and I think is the point of the Graun article.

Argos74 wrote:

Failing to stop and report a traffic accident could in theory incur a prison sentence. Or community service. There's a happy thought for the weekend.

Edit. Drivers, not passengers. Still, it's a happy thought all the same. Burn the witch!

burning's too good for them, nail them up I say, nail some sense into them!