Cycling UK suggests Chris Grayling should be prosecuted for dooring incident

Griff500 wrote:

Too many amateur lawyers on here!  The non law graduates here would be better off looking at how real lawyers and judges have interpreted the law in the past, instead of trying to interpret it themselves. The Google archives are littered with examples of previous verdicts, mainly involving motorcyclists rather than cycles, filtering through traffic, being involved in accidents of various types. Contributory negligence is the usual verdict, which serves only to reduce the sentence against the other party.

Reduce the damages won by the injured party Or, in some, to find against the motorcyclist altogether. 

Thing is, motorcycles are still massive great fast chunks of dangerous metal, hence those outcomes. Very few cases still decided in relation to cyclists at all. I suspect, if the cyclist in the above were to bring a case, he'd be very likely to have no finding of con neg at all. In addition, in the criminal law, there's no defence of 'but he was on the passenger side doing nefarious cycling.'

Griff500 wrote:

Too many amateur lawyers on here!  The non law graduates here would be better off looking at how real lawyers and judges have interpreted the law in the past, instead of trying to interpret it themselves. The Google archives are littered with examples of previous verdicts, mainly involving motorcyclists rather than cycles, filtering through traffic, being involved in accidents of various types. Contributory negligence is the usual verdict, which serves only to reduce the sentence against the other party.

If I claim that you haven't really resolved the fact that neither Grayling, not his driver, gave his details to the cyclist, or the police, following the dooring, will you charge me an exorbitant fee to address that?

Weren't you an expert engineer in another thread? The thread where you referred to yourself in the third person?* Wasn't that you? I love meeting polymaths in the internet.

I suppose I might refer to myself in the third person if, whenever a topic got technical, I was already an expert in it. Or one of my other logins was...

* either that or got caught talking to yourself via different road.cc accounts.

davel wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Too many amateur lawyers on here!  The non law graduates here would be better off looking at how real lawyers and judges have interpreted the law in the past, instead of trying to interpret it themselves. The Google archives are littered with examples of previous verdicts, mainly involving motorcyclists rather than cycles, filtering through traffic, being involved in accidents of various types. Contributory negligence is the usual verdict, which serves only to reduce the sentence against the other party.

If I claim that you haven't really resolved the fact that neither Grayling, not his driver, gave his details to the cyclist, or the police, following the dooring, will you charge me an exorbitant fee to address that? Weren't you an expert engineer in another thread? The thread where you referred to yourself in the third person?* Wasn't that you? I love meeting polymaths in the internet. I suppose I might refer to myself in the third person if, whenever a topic got technical, I was already an expert in it. Or one of my other logins was... * either that or got caught talking to yourself via different road.cc accounts.

I am not claiming to be an expert in law. I am merely pointing out that those of us who are not, me included, might get closer to how a legal judgement would be made by looking at past cases. I have done that. I don't see hoards of people being prosecuted for filtering through traffic, which some here seem to suggest is illegal.

Griff500 wrote:

davel wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Too many amateur lawyers on here!  The non law graduates here would be better off looking at how real lawyers and judges have interpreted the law in the past, instead of trying to interpret it themselves. The Google archives are littered with examples of previous verdicts, mainly involving motorcyclists rather than cycles, filtering through traffic, being involved in accidents of various types. Contributory negligence is the usual verdict, which serves only to reduce the sentence against the other party.

If I claim that you haven't really resolved the fact that neither Grayling, not his driver, gave his details to the cyclist, or the police, following the dooring, will you charge me an exorbitant fee to address that? Weren't you an expert engineer in another thread? The thread where you referred to yourself in the third person?* Wasn't that you? I love meeting polymaths in the internet. I suppose I might refer to myself in the third person if, whenever a topic got technical, I was already an expert in it. Or one of my other logins was... * either that or got caught talking to yourself via different road.cc accounts.

I am not claiming to be an expert in law. I am merely pointing out that those of us who are not, me included, might get closer to how a legal judgement would be made by looking at past cases. I have done that. I don't see hoards of people being prosecuted for filtering through traffic, which some here seem to suggest is illegal.

I'd wager that no-one was ever prosecuted for it, at least on a cycle and, most probably, on a motorcycle. There may be cases where filtering was charged, following an accident, as careless or dangerous driving (but not cyclists).

But the cases cited are CIVIL, they are not prosecutions. They are cases where the motorcyclist claims compensation and the court has to address whose fault it was. In some of the report cases the motorcyclist is found to have contributed to the accident (and/or injury) and had their overall damages reduced by the extent of that percentage finding. 

ktache wrote:

It aint Willo, I read a lot of WIllo, and no matter how much I  disagreed with him, he occasionally had a point and contributed somewhat to the discussion.  

I think I'm beginning to miss him...

I'm not sure how much he rode, though. He knew his way round a bike, definitely. But his 'defer to everything' approach was completely impractical and smacked, to me, as theory over practice.

beezus fufoon wrote:

I can't memorise 200+ odd rules - only one - if you go up the inside,  YOU WILL DIE

So why are cycle lanes in that position?

hawkinspeter wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

I can't memorise 200+ odd rules - only one - if you go up the inside,  YOU WILL DIE

So why are cycle lanes in that position?

One of Vine's listeners was pushed on that point as to whether it was legal to filter in a cycle lane where traffic to the right was stationary. She claimed it to be a grey area. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

I can't memorise 200+ odd rules - only one - if you go up the inside,  YOU WILL DIE

So why are cycle lanes in that position?

Because too many of the people responsible for building/painting them don't ride bicycles...?

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

I can't memorise 200+ odd rules - only one - if you go up the inside,  YOU WILL DIE

So why are cycle lanes in that position?

Because too many of the people responsible for building/painting them don't ride bicycles...?

I reckon it's a conspiracy with inner tube manufacturers to make sure we get plenty of punctures

beezus fufoon wrote:

I can't memorise 200+ odd rules - only one - if you go up the inside,  YOU WILL DIE

Unfortunately most people memorise an even simpler rule - if you cycle on the road, you will die. Not sure why your over-simplification is any more valid than the more popular one.

rollotommasi wrote:

I'm perfectly happy about my understanding of terminology, thank you.

Terms like "anti-cycling troll" and "anti-English troll" are not critiques about my argument.  They're ad hominem attacks on me.  

Where you have actually bothered to make an argument on the issue rather than label me, I've responded in a responsible way (including acknowledging points I think have merit).

 

You be as happy as you like. It's Christmas. Don't be surprised when people pull you up for being wrong, though.

Your behaviour is very similar to trolling. Nothing ad hommy there.

rollotommasi wrote:

So, for example, when hawkinspeter says that he interprets Rule 163 as referring to lane-splitting, there's nothing in the Rule which refers to that.  Indeed, the passage in question is clearly about what you should do in your lane next to traffic in another lane (which is why it starts "stay in your lane....").

Fluffykitten's claims that drivers often ignore "should" rules is not an excuse - in the same way as it shouldn't be an excuse for a driver to claim they should be able to ignore "should" rules because many cyclists do.  As a general rule, ALL road users should adhere to "should" rules.  And they should be enforced, particularly in order to keep roads safe.

And the claims that "should" rules in the Highway Code are advisory only are misleading.  Should rules aren't voluntary.  The start of the Highway Code makes clear that failure to comply with "should/should not" or "do/do not" rules may be used in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability.

Interestingly, West Midlands Police are now threatening to prosecute drivers who fail to give sufficient space when overtaking cyclists.  That's something I hope we can all support.  But giving sufficient space is another "should" rule in Rule 163.

On which point, I found hawkinspeter's comments on the symmetry of cyclists undertaking drivers and drivers overtaking cyclists thoughtful and interesting.  I accept that we might not expect exactly the same gap to be left.

Fair points, but there is plenty of grey in the Highway Code, which is why the Musts are used as a fall-back.

I don't see many parallels between cyclists filtering slowly in traffic, with maybe 20cm to spare, and being close-passed by a car.

1. if the cyclist makes a mistake in either scenario, it could be game over, so they're much more motivated to be careful, and 2. they're likely to be doing what, 10mph ish? I don't have a problem with being close-passed in similar circumstances (if I'm stationary and a car passes at 10mph). At 50mph it's blatant disregard for my life.

davel wrote:

Fair points, but there is plenty of grey in the Highway Code, which is why the Musts are used as a fall-back. I don't see many parallels between cyclists filtering slowly in traffic, with maybe 20cm to spare, and being close-passed by a car. 1. if the cyclist makes a mistake in either scenario, it could be game over, so they're much more motivated to be careful, and 2. they're likely to be doing what, 10mph ish? I don't have a problem with being close-passed in similar circumstances (if I'm stationary and a car passes at 10mph). At 50mph it's blatant disregard for my life.

Okay, more reasonable tone of argument here, so due credit for that.

I respect your views here.  But I also stand by the point that reasons for the need for a gap apply whether a cyclist is undertaking or being overtaken, and regardless of speed. And that's the need to take evasive action at short notice to avoid hazards - e.g. poor road surfaces, drain covers, other road users encroaching (e.g. pedestrians stepping onto the road).

rollotommasi wrote:

So, for example, when hawkinspeter says that he interprets Rule 163 as referring to lane-splitting, there's nothing in the Rule which refers to that.  Indeed, the passage in question is clearly about what you should do in your lane next to traffic in another lane (which is why it starts "stay in your lane....").

• 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

That refers to both multi-lane roads and lane splitting. It explicitly mentions a queue of traffic on your right and that you may pass on the left which is exactly what the unfortunate cyclist was attempting to do. You stated that the cyclist was to blame as he wasn't following rule 163, whereas he most clearly was following it (despite it being instructions for motor vehicles).

You MUST ensure that it is safe to open your door, and that clearly did not happen - I just don't understand how you can blame the cyclist for this incident.

rollotommasi wrote:

My whole premise for contributing is that, if we're serious about encouraging cycling in this country, we need to focus on safe conditions for cycling.  If we're serious about that, then that requires a range of things:

• better cycling infrastructure (so I'm sympathetic to the argument that the gap between cycle routes in this case should be filled)
• consistently high standards of care from drivers, and clear enforcement where that doesnt happen
• and yes, consistently standards of care from cyclists, and taking reasonable steps to be responsible for their own safety.

So, while others may argue that what I argue for isn't so important, neither ktache nor anyone else has any right to simply dismiss me as some kind of anti-cycling troll.

Unfortunately, too many comments on this thread are all about:

• we want to be safe when cycling on roads
• but only through good infrastructure and making other road users responsible for our safety
• we shouldn't be made responsible for our own safety in any ways that might inconvenience us (e.g. if it stops us from undertaking).

Which is why some posters are desperate to justify undertaking under the Highway Code through tenuous interpretations which try to minimise what it requires of cyclists, even though undertaking against both the letter and the spirit of the Code.

Ah... The spirit.

Ok, if you're not an anti-cyclist troll, you're an anti-English troll. You claim to understand the difference between Should and Must, and I think I believe you. The thing is, you then set about demonstrating that you don't understand the difference - or are choosing not to in this particular context.

There's word no.3 for you to look up this weekend: 'trolling'.

davel wrote:

Ah... The spirit. Ok, if you're not an anti-cyclist troll, you're an anti-English troll. You claim to understand the difference between Should and Must, and I think I believe you. The thing is, you then set about demonstrating that you don't understand the difference - or are choosing not to in this particular context. There's word no.3 for you to look up this weekend: 'trolling'.

Wow, straight into ad hominem attacks there. How very reasonable of you.

As for your comment about the difference between "should" and "must',  I suggest you read my last post, including that:

• courts will take failure to comply with a "should" rule into account to establish liability under Road Traffic legislation
• West Midlands police threatening to prosecute drivers for failing to adhere to a "should" rule.

Your comments are simply apologies for reckless cycling, on grounds that "I can do anything, unles the law or Highway Code states I must not".

rollotommasi wrote:

davel wrote:

Ah... The spirit. Ok, if you're not an anti-cyclist troll, you're an anti-English troll. You claim to understand the difference between Should and Must, and I think I believe you. The thing is, you then set about demonstrating that you don't understand the difference - or are choosing not to in this particular context. There's word no.3 for you to look up this weekend: 'trolling'.

Wow, straight into ad hominem attacks there. How very reasonable of you.

As for your comment about the difference between "should" and "must',  I suggest you read my last post, including that:

• courts will take failure to comply with a "should" rule into account to establish liability under Road Traffic legislation
• West Midlands police threatening to prosecute drivers for failing to adhere to a "should" rule.

Your comments are simply apologies for reckless cycling, on grounds that "I can do anything, unles the law or Highway Code states I must not".

It's not ad hominem if it's about your argument. There's no.4 for you to look up

rollotommasi wrote:

Unfortunately, too many comments on this thread are all about:

• we want to be safe when cycling on roads
• but only through good infrastructure and making other road users responsible for our safety
• we shouldn't be made responsible for our own safety in any ways that might inconvenience us (e.g. if it stops us from undertaking).

Which is why some posters are desperate to justify undertaking under the Highway Code through tenuous interpretations which try to minimise what it requires of cyclists, even though undertaking against both the letter and the spirit of the Code.

You seem to be creating a strawman argument there. Lane splitting is definitely legal and it's expected behaviour for cyclists to undertake when safe to do so. Rule 72 mentions:

• Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists.

 There's other mentions of checking for (motor)cyclists overtaking on either side.

I think you're positing that undertaking isn't allowed just for the sake of arguing. It would be highly dangerous in that particular road for a cyclist to go from the cycle lane on the inside, cross between cars to then overtake on the outside, then cross between cars again to go back to the cycle lane on the inside.

I also notice that your blaming of the cyclist (if he wasn't there, it wouldn't have happened) doesn't mention the double yellow lines - no stopping at any time. There was also no indication from the car and thus Mr Grayling should NOT have been exiting the car at that position even if he had looked. It's so clearly Mr Grayling's fault that I'm beginning to think that you're L. Willo.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Lane splitting is definitely legal and it's expected behaviour for cyclists to undertake when safe to do so.

There's nothing in the Highway Code that legitimises lane splitting.  You've weaved in your own imagined provisions.  And undertaking is not "expected". It's become tolerated, because there's so little enforcement.  The fact that buses have to have notices reminding cyclists not to pass on the inside, which too many cyclists still choose to ignore, illustrates this.

Quote:

Rule 72 mentions:

• Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists.

 There's other mentions of checking for (motor)cyclists overtaking on either side.

As I've already said, that doesn't justify undertaking.  In the same way as, when the Highway Code warns cyclists to be aware of vehicles pulling out of junctions in front of them, it doesn't mean it's acceptable for a driver to pull out.

Quote:

It would be highly dangerous in that particular road for a cyclist to go from the cycle lane on the inside, cross between cars to then overtake on the outside, then cross between cars again to go back to the cycle lane on the inside.

That's a false argument, as again I've already explained.  The cyclist doesn't have to cross to overtake on the outside.  S/he can do that, or they can hold their place in the line of traffic (including in the primary position if they so choose).  And the situation is no justification for potentially dangerous undertaking manouevres.

Quote:

I also notice that your blaming of the cyclist (if he wasn't there, it wouldn't have happened) doesn't mention the double yellow lines - no stopping at any time.

No actually.  Double yellow lines prohibit waiting, not stopping.  And, as far as I can tell, the car had stopped because it was in a stationary queue.

Quote:

I'm beginning to think that you're L. Willo.

I've no idea what you're on about.  But whatever it is, you're well off the mark.

[/quote]

rollotommasi wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Lane splitting is definitely legal and it's expected behaviour for cyclists to undertake when safe to do so.

There's nothing in the Highway Code that legitimises lane splitting.  You've weaved in your own imagined provisions.  And undertaking is not "expected". It's become tolerated, because there's so little enforcement.  The fact that buses have to have notices reminding cyclists not to pass on the inside, which too many cyclists still choose to ignore, illustrates this.

Quote:

Rule 72 mentions:

• Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists.

 There's other mentions of checking for (motor)cyclists overtaking on either side.

As I've already said, that doesn't justify undertaking.  In the same way as, when the Highway Code warns cyclists to be aware of vehicles pulling out of junctions in front of them, it doesn't mean it's acceptable for a driver to pull out.

Quote:

It would be highly dangerous in that particular road for a cyclist to go from the cycle lane on the inside, cross between cars to then overtake on the outside, then cross between cars again to go back to the cycle lane on the inside.

That's a false argument, as again I've already explained.  The cyclist doesn't have to cross to overtake on the outside.  S/he can do that, or they can hold their place in the line of traffic (including in the primary position if they so choose).  And the situation is no justification for potentially dangerous undertaking manouevres.

Quote:

I also notice that your blaming of the cyclist (if he wasn't there, it wouldn't have happened) doesn't mention the double yellow lines - no stopping at any time.

No actually.  Double yellow lines prohibit waiting, not stopping.  And, as far as I can tell, the car had stopped because it was in a stationary queue.

Quote:

I'm beginning to think that you're L. Willo.

I've no idea what you're on about.  But whatever it is, you're well off the mark.

 

 

[/quote]

You stated 'the cyclist is primarily to blame'. Making such an absolute statement, with no attempt to justify it (other than citing a point about "_may_ be used to attempt to show partial liabilty "- a sentence that doesn't in any way justify your comment), is the mark of a troll.

Actualy I think this is more about you doing that usual 'complete terror of feeling vulnerable' thing that causes some people to desperately search for a way to blame the victim when anything bad happens. The psychological motivation is pretty obvious. Once you've done that you can escape that fear of being vulnerable to other people's mistakes and feel 'safe' again. (Something that occurs in many domains, not just road traffic collisions)

Also its impossible to take seriously your insistence that where a cycle lane has a break in it, the 'correct' thing to do is to make a 90 degree turn, squeeze between cars in the adjoining lane of slow-moving or stationary traffic, travel on the outside for the length of a couple of cars, then make another 90degree turn and squeeze between cars again, before resuming on the left. In what world is that safer than continuing in the space on the left?