- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Transport Secretary caught on camera dooring cyclist
Footage has emerged of the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, dooring a cyclist. The Guardian reports that while he immediately went to check on the shaken cyclist, he left soon afterwards without leaving his name or details.
The incident occurred just before 6pm on October 12. The cyclist, Jaiqi Liu, said he reported it to the Metropolitan police, but at that point did not know who had been in the car.
The video was shot by another cyclist, Laurence de Hoest, outside the Palace of Westminster. It shows Grayling swinging open the door of his ministerial car as it sat in traffic. Liu is hit as he cycles by and is thrown off his bike. The bike appears to hit a lamppost and the rider is left sprawled on the pavement.
Grayling approaches him and puts a hand on his shoulder. Liu said that after asking if he was all right, the minister watched him get to his feet, offered a protracted handshake and then left.
Liu also said that Grayling had implied the incident was the cyclist’s fault.
“One thing he did say was that I was cycling too fast, which was not true. That made me really upset. He made out it was my fault.”
Liu said that Grayling ignored the state of the bike, which he later had to check in for repairs. He said it had sustained a damaged wheel, brakes and mudguard and had lost its lights.
He said he had contacted police because he wanted the incident to be logged in case his injuries proved more serious. “Also,” he said, “I think it’s important to report all these incidents to the police so they are recorded, and they can make the roads safer.”
De Hoest said: “I ride into London every day and I’ve had a couple of close calls, so I record everything. This is the minister of transport and here he is swinging his door out.”
He said the incident took place on a stretch of road 20 metres before a cycle lane and added that, “your cycle lane is only as good as your weakest link. We need to make sure they are properly connected”.
Earlier this month, in an interview with the London Evening Standard, Grayling claimed that cycle lanes in the capital were poorly designed on the grounds that, “there are places where they perhaps cause too much of a problem for road users.”
“Motorists in London have got to be immensely careful of cyclists,” he said. “At the same time, cyclists in London are too often unwilling to obey the road signs. I’ve seen regular examples of people who just bolt through red lights. The growth of cycling is a good thing. But good cycling is responsible cycling.”
Liu, having learned of this, told the Guardian: “And he says cycle lanes are the problem, which makes me angry. If he is still in the position to make cities safer for cyclists, he needs to do something.”
A spokesperson for Grayling said: “This was an unfortunate accident. Mr Grayling got out of the car, checked the cyclist was OK and waited until he was back on his feet. Mr Grayling spoke to the cyclist and apologised; they shook hands before he left.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- redimp 15 min 28 sec ago
Maybe a clickbait title will drag in a few anti-cyclist trolls and then ply them with facts. But most anti-cycling trolls probably do not know what...
- chrisonabike 20 min 52 sec ago
But how on earth do you expect people to know that's not allowed?...
- wycombewheeler 43 min 40 sec ago
eradicating Hamas is a laudibale goal. Achieving this goal by killing or driving out every palestinian in Gaza, is either genocide or doomed to...
- David9694 48 min 48 sec ago
Man flees after crashing into grade II listed Dorset home https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24263845.man-flees-crashing-grade...
- wycombewheeler 1 hour 2 min ago
If plod can't get through their in their cars, then criminals will use it to evade them because heaven forbid the police should patrol on foot or...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 5 min ago
The questions would be "who / what do the rules serve? What are we willing to pay / accept to maintain or enforce them?"...
- Rapha Nadal 1 hour 38 min ago
I once had an Explosif in Reynolds 853 with their Project 2 fork and it was one of the best mountain bikes I've ever owned. I still think about it...
- MattieKempy 1 hour 52 min ago
It sounds very much as if this is an argument about land rights and access, not about bikes or cars. It feels a bit like the Daily Fail whipping up...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 37 min ago
Am I right in thinking that this has been the case in NL for over half a century (or 30 years nationally)? With a brief interruption from 2003 -...
Add new comment
27 comments
Cycle lanes are a problem for road users? SO.... people on bicycles aren't road users then?
That's the plan. At least two groups are working on it:
1) motorists that want to remove us
2) "cyclists" that are afraid of the road and want "protected lanes"
I've complained to the Met police via twitter that Grayling should be prosecuted under s42 Road Traffic Act (basically dooring a cyclist) and the driver is also guilty of failing to report because injury occurred to the cyclist and damage occurred to his bike yet there were no details exchanged at scene.
These scumbag government ministers are not above the law but nothing will get done unless enough people complain to the Met police.
Griff, I think with vunerable road users injury should always be presumed, especially if big bits of the car are involved and hitting tarmac. I clip a tree or a fence when I'm riding, I might not really notice, but there will be a bruise there in a day or so. I fell off when riding like a mad thing on the ridgeway, but that was soft grass. Any contact with tarmac is going to be big bruises. Any bruise is an injury. You seem to me to be more talking about insurance and fender benders, please forgive me if I'm wrong, but this one is more about a direct contravention of the highway code and a criminal matter. One that had involvement with a not very junior member of Her Maj's government, and a probable contravention of the ministerial code of conduct. It's all the drivers responsibilty, but we have no idea who that is, and they should have reported it to the police. But it Grayling who opened the door.
It does somewhat put into context the comments he made in that Standard interview.
Was that interview (which was also reported and dissected on this very site) made before or after the minister doored this cyclist?
Not clear whether made before or after but certainly aired after. The bloke who took this said the incident happened before he made that speech and, as a consequence, felt he needed to release this.
If only some cycling solicitor would offer pro bono support to Mr. Liu we could all enjoy the show, sorry case....
As far as the law is concerned, if there is damage to the bike or personal injury to the cyclist then the duty falls on the driver of the vehicle (not the passenger) to provide the 3rd party with his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the registration mark. Also where there is personal injury he must also provide his insurance details at the scene. Otherwise he must report the accident to the police or he commits an offence. If there is no damage or injury then strictly speaking there is no onus to provide any further information but given the fact injuries may not be immediately noticeable at the scene then that wouldn't be a particularly wise decision!
The guy filming appears to pick up a still flashing white light that has probably come off the bike when it got doored. I'd say that's a quite good indication that damage had occured.
Nope. Under section 170, the onus is on the each party to judge whether he/she has suffered harm and request details if required. This is very clear. Only in the case of an unmanned vehicle, (eg damage to a parked car), does the driver need to volunteer information without request. Legally, yes, the driver should have remained, but in practice there is no way a failure to stop charge would stick here, as two passengers remained behind. This wasn't a hit and run!
If there is one man in a position to encourage the teaching of the "Dutch Reach" it's the Secratary of State for Transport.
The number of people who must have speed cameras up their arses, because they seem to have intimate knowledge of your precise speed without being aware of your presence has always surprised me.
Well now the cyclist has been offered help in suing The Right Honourable Grayling - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/16/chris-grayling-could-face-private-prosecution-for-dooring-cyclist
Jaiqi Liu and Laurence de Hoest.
I can see the Mail headlines now "Transport Minister saved from Immigrant lycra lout cyclists by car door."
As much as it pains me to say it, filtering through a gap that small between cars and the pavement is dangerous. The safest place in these circumstances is to overtake on the right.
Driver are more observant turining right and passengers don't have mirrors.
Clearly he should have looked and the car should have indicated however, cyclists need to assume this will happen. In motorcycling it's called defensive riding which distills down to one simple thing - assume everyone is trying to kill you.
I ride in London most days on my own bikes and Borris bikes and people do all sorts of daft things. The only time I have been knocked off was by a runner who ran straight off the pavement (in a quiet side street) into me.
Dumb driver and dumb passenger but cyclists need remember the roads are full of dumb people and they are vunerable.
I though that as well but The Guardian explains in detail how the cycle lane on the road disappears for a small section then reappears.
I only looked to see that the lane does indeed reappear a few metres up the road on the left so I completely understand why the cyclists stay on the left.
In addition as a driver if you are dropping passengers off it is your responsibilty to indicate to other road users that you are going to stop. You can't just let people out of your vehicle with no warning.
Regardless even if you do indicate you are stopping, if a passenger still doors/injures someone or damages another vehicle the injured party can sue the passenger, if they can get their details, or the driver.
This is one reason why bus drivers are not allowed to let people out of their buses except at bus stops. It has also come up on motoring parts of forums a few times over the years because drivers are suprised they are liable when their adult passenger causes injury/damage by opening the door.
The vehicle is not at the kerb.
The vehicle is not indicating.
The driver, whose vehicle is involved in a accident leaves the scene.
Prosecution should follow. If only for case law clarification on filtering and liability.
Grayling was being let out of his (entirely city-sensible Discovery) on a double yellow line, where the sign on the post says "No stopping at any time". One rule them, one rule for us?
I saw this on BBC breakfast. It was covered but really dismissed with a remark that, well accidents happen.
Well of course they do but when they are caused by avoidable negligence by someone there's often legal action or at least proper compensation.
Shaking someone's hand when they're still recovering from an accident and then buggering off isn't showing the victim of your negligence due respect.
I think Lui conducted himself very well under the circumstances. The minister on the otherhand displayed nearly every negative trait you'd expect from a politician.
So an unemployed motorist in Burnley, gets a fine for failing to report a crash, even though he had checked with the cyclist after the collision and was told he was fine
http://road.cc/content/news/212905-red-light-jumping-cyclist-causes-crash-driver-court-failing-report-it
A Minister does the same thing and he doesn't end up before the Magistrates? - although I assume the responsibility lay with the driver to report the incident?
danthomascyclist, such a good comment that you had to say it twice
Double post
Spot on - if he saw him, why the chuff did he open the door?
If he didn't see him, he can't possibly blame the cyclist in any way.
We have a transport minister who struggles with transport. Hasn't got a clue about trains and previously wrote a letter about not taking the Southern franchise into TfL control to potentially keep them out of the hands of a Labour mayor. Has admittied he can't really do anything about the Southern farce.
He's already revealed some bias against cyclists.
If this cyclist's story is accurate, he struggles with logic, too.
In a modern, sane country, we wouldn't be waiting for him to resign.
What is the recourse when a minister is an incompetent fucknut?
Presumably by stating that he was cycling "too fast" (sic) he must have seen the cyclist? Otherwise, how can he make that statement? So I can only assume this was a purposeful punishment?
“Motorists in London have got to be immensely careful of cyclists,” he said.
"Passengers, on the other hand, are free to door the feckers at will. Amen."
A very literal meatphor for how much the transport secretary thinks about cycling, even at a moment when he is legally obliged to.
Given the widespread coverage this has received, we now have a situation where he will likely make a nice victim blaming public announcement that condems the cyclist involved.
Cycling too fast? What, so I wasn't there when you looked in the mirror then?
Oooooh, you didn't look - shocked.
Twat.
This happened 12th October. The Tory press kept that quiet.