Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Markjay]

My plumber had a mishap this morning, as he parked his car (legally) in front of our flat and opened the driver's door, a cyclist passing by at some speed crashed into the open door and flew of his bike.

The cyclist was in pain and was taken to hospital by ambulance, but it does not seem that he was seriously injured (hopefully).

1. From the legal/insurance point of view, does anyone know who's fault it is...?


2. There is a cyclist lane marked on the road between the parked cars and the main part of the road, does this make a difference to the legal responsibility?

3. The plumber was parked with the engine switched-off while this happened, if it is found to be his fault will this be considered a driving offence, i.e. something you can get points on your license for (and potentially even a ban in serious cases), of is it just a 'simple' case of causing damage or harm which is not driving-related? I would think the latter, after all this could happened to a passenger...

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Iwould say it was the fault of your plumber. It looks like he was not paying due care and attention when he opened his car door.
No end of drivers have had their car doors ripped of by a passing lorry when they open their doors while parked on the hard shoulder.

[JamesV6CDX]

Legal questions thread?

On the scenario, I would imagine the following will apply:

1) Although the Road Traffic Act doesn't recognise a bicycle as a "vehicle" The cyclist is still a road user and he's entitled to be where he was.

2) The accident was caused by the plumber, and the plumber is fully responsible.

3) I don't know the legal position here, but I would consider it is more of a non driving related offence - if he pulled out and then knocked off the cyclist, I suspect it will be more serious.

Either way, I suspect the cyclist will want to claim damages to his bike and quite likely personal injury costs against the drivers insurer?

Note - I don't know the above for facts, just my thoughts...

[SteveD]

Your plumbers fault. My dad did exactly the same outside his house! Two road users, both entitled to be there (using cycle lane is optional) & plumber caused the other to have an accident. I'll ask my dad tonight but I'm sure his house insurance covered the accident rather than his motor insurance.

My dad got done for due care & attention.

[Mr Skrunts]

Some interesting questions there.  Maybe actually better posted in the legal section.

I would also like to know where he stands legally.

I was allways told to check before opening my door on a road, coz if a car ripped it off as I opened it then it would be my fault.

But I would also raise annother question, which may or may not be relevent to this query.

Horses and cyclists.  We have to have road tax, MOT and insurance to be able to use the road, we are not allowed to drive on the pavement.  now if there is a cycle lane, then that is a designated area for cyclists, as a pavement is for a pedestrian.  Both of which dont need any of the legal documents mentioned.

Our licences, insurance etc are at risk to many factors on the road, I feel that anything travelling between the pavemnts should be treated equally, if we can have claims againt us on our insurance then it should work both ways

[JamesV6CDX]

Markjay - PM sent, mate.

[Markjay]

...My dad got done for due care & attention.

..what did he get then?

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

How long after the door was opened did the cyclist hit it.?
If it had been open for a long time ,then perhaps the cyclist was not paying due care and attention.
Just a thought.

[Markjay]

How long after the door was opened did the cyclist hit it.?
If it had been open for a long time ,then perhaps the cyclist was not paying due care and attention.
Just a thought.

Good point. don't know, though I suspect it was instantaneous...

[Kevin Wood]

In my experience as a (very, these days) occasional cyclist is that cycle lanes are put where it suits the council so they can "tick boxes" rather than where cyclists actually want to go. They also require you to stop every time there's a junction where they cross the road, etc. Much easier just to ride on the road, IMHO.

The fact that the government doesn't choose to extort money from cyclists and horse riders doesn't take away their right to use the road.

I'm guessing the lack of any compulsory insurance for cyclists boils down to the relatively limited damage they are likely to do, other than to themselves, and I'm sure it doesn't prevent you from claiming against them if they are found to be at fault, although you'd probably have to do so through the court system.

Kevin

[Markjay]

Some interesting questions there.  Maybe actually better posted in the legal section.

I would also like to know where he stands legally.

I was allways told to check before opening my door on a road, coz if a car ripped it off as I opened it then it would be my fault.

But I would also raise annother question, which may or may not be relevent to this query.

Horses and cyclists.  We have to have road tax, MOT and insurance to be able to use the road, we are not allowed to drive on the pavement.  now if there is a cycle lane, then that is a designated area for cyclists, as a pavement is for a pedestrian.  Both of which dont need any of the legal documents mentioned.

Our licences, insurance etc are at risk to many factors on the road, I feel that anything travelling between the pavemnts should be treated equally, if we can have claims againt us on our insurance then it should work both ways

Cyclist are NOT above the law, though many choose to ignore road signs because they can. Simply put the law is not enforceable in the case of cyclists, and they know it. They jump red lights and go in one way streets, and cameras don't work because the bikes are not registered. The only way to enforce traffic laws on cyclists is by physically stopping them there and then, which is near impossible and at any rate the police are not likely to commit resources to that (yes there were a few highly-publicised police 'crack-downs', but with thousands of cyclists going through London every day this is a drop in the ocean).

But this is a political issue. Any crack-down on cyclists e.g. making them register the bikes or have some sort of formal training or permit (cyclists may not have a drivers license and not even know the highway code!) will end up in a dramatic reduction in cycling, not to mention increase the cost of cycling, and this is counter-productive from the congestion point of view.

Our leaders know that they are being judged by the congestion on our roads, not by the number of cyclists getting injured, and will always prefer to have more people using bicycles even if they are unregistered, uninsured, and untrained.

 



,

[Entwood]

I agree with Kevin .... some years back a cyclist T-boned the Granada, doing quite a bit of damage to a door panel - and a lot more to his front wheel ! - I assumed that I would take the insurance "hit" under a fully comp policy and lose my NCB, however the Insurance company sued the cyclist in the small claims court. As they recovered all the costs, my NCB was unaffected.

Not a lot of help in this case I know .. but usefull background knowledge

[Gaffers]

Some interesting questions there.  Maybe actually better posted in the legal section.

I would also like to know where he stands legally.

I was allways told to check before opening my door on a road, coz if a car ripped it off as I opened it then it would be my fault.

Plumbers fault, will be lucky not to be done for due care and attention as the cyclist was injured.

Horses and cyclists.  We have to have road tax, MOT and insurance to be able to use the road, we are not allowed to drive on the pavement.  now if there is a cycle lane, then that is a designated area for cyclists, as a pavement is for a pedestrian.  Both of which dont need any of the legal documents mentioned.

Our licences, insurance etc are at risk to many factors on the road, I feel that anything travelling between the pavemnts should be trated equally, if we can have claims againt us on our insurance then it should work both ways

Cyclists of any age are not allowed to use the pavement by law, discretion comes in when young children are concerned.  They should be either on the road or cyclepath with a legal bike following the highway code.  Now I know many flawt the rules running red lights, not signalling, etc, but many of us do pay attention and act responsibly.  The use of cycle lanes is optional because they are very badly designed and conceived (I think by someone who has never used a bike!)  Often they are downright dangerous!  Many roundabouts with a cycle lane require a cyclist to go around the outside getting off everytime you have to cross a junction, how tedious is that!?  Sometimes lanes are on the other side of a busy road which is more dangerous to cross than to just use the road!

One thing I have noticed here in Germany is that the road/cycle/relationship is much more harmoneous.  Paths are shared with cyclists and at a junction you have to let any cyclists go first before you negociate it.  In turn the cyclist is more sedate, understanding and forgiving.

Cyclists in the UK feel they are being squeezed off the road and quite rightly their reply is to dig their heels in.  Lets shoot the councils and road planners for lack of forethought rather than the cyclist from trying to be green and healthy!  

Rant over  

[JamesV6CDX]

Further PM sent

[SteveD]

...My dad got done for due care & attention.

..what did he get then?

He got a fine but no points. It was about 6 years ago & I think it was £150 but will confirm the details when I see him tonight.