Knocked off, by car door

Mickb

Just looking for advice.

Cycling home yesterday. Filtering by stationary traffic. Car door opens and down I go.

Driver pulls car over and damage is assessed, it was the passenger getting out of a taxi. I called the Garda, they came quick enough and took everyones details.
I've the contact details of the person who open the door on me.
The bike has been left into LBS for repairs etc. I will be presenting the bill to the person who opened the door on me.

I don't appear to have and major injuries, only bruises.

So anything else I should do to cover myself?

Cheers.

MiCk B. :-)

Cookie_Monster

Mickb wrote: »

The bike has been left into LBS for repairs etc. I will be presenting the bill to the person who opened the door on me.

should be presenting it to the taxi driver (or rather their insurance co). They are responsible for their passengers and should have been able to check and tell them the way was not clear.

Caroline_ie

That's interesting. The person responsible is the person opening the door, not the cab's owner?

trad

The taxi will have insurance, the passenger most likely won't. Present the bill to the taxi driver, and if her tells you to PFO, go to his insurance.

You were knocked over by the door of the taxi, not the passenger. You don't know at this stage if you might have some underlying injury that might present it's self at a later stage.

vektarman

Good to hear you weren't too badly hurt, hopefully the passenger will cover the cost but they're not obliged to, as CM said the drivers insurance will have to cover the cost if the passenger doesn't cough up.

Beasty

Presumably only the Taxi driver can be expected to have insurance to cover this sort of thing, and hence they would have primary responsibility.

Kintarō Hattori

Good to hear you're not hurt OP but I do have a question for folk more knowledgeable than me. Would the fact that the OP was filtering on the left not go against him? Could the insurance company deny payment on grounds of that?

Cookie_Monster

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Good to hear you're not hurt OP but I do have a question for folk more knowledgeable than me. Would the fact that the OP was filtering on the left not go against him? Could the insurance company deny payment on grounds of that?

I wouldn't think so, undertaking in slow moving or stationary traffic

Plus there may well have been a cycle lane...

Turner

As i always say in these situations, the cyclist cycled into the door.

The taxi did not reverse down the road with an open door knocking the cyclist off.

Both parties are to blame in my opinion. The % of blame on each party could be worked out in court or on the steps before court.

Id advise the OP to contact a solicitor.

Mr. Presentable

OP says "filtering". Does that not specifically mean travelling between lanes of traffic?

Otherwise he/she'd just say undertaking.

Alanstrainor

Opening a car door while the car is still in traffic is the issue here.

I had the same happen to me. Passing stopped/slow moving traffic on the left (in a cycle lane) and had a door opened. Ended up getting in A&E and with numerous stitches.

The car was an off duty garda car. Claimed, and won, they admitted liability immediately. Still took an age to claim though.

aujopimur

What's an off duty garda car ?.

BostonB

aujopimur wrote: »

What's an off duty garda car ?.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/450640129_2a128dcc88.jpg

?

Shane732

I've a question:

If this had happened whereby there were two lanes of traffic, say traffic stopped in the right lane and moving very slowly in the left lane.

A passenger in the right lane open their door and I (driving in the left lane) crash into it. Is there an argument that I didn't react quick enough? The car door was clearly opened before I got to it (otherwise I wouldn't have hit it!) and I didn't react to it.

I suspect that there isn't an argument but just wondering.

In relation to the OP's question where you in a cycle lane or a between traffic etc...?

If I was the driver I'd be presenting you with the bill for repairing the door as opposed to accepting a bill from you!

I don't cycle so I must admit that I'm slightly bias towards drivers.

Alanstrainor

aujopimur wrote: »

What's an off duty garda car ?.

Unmarked garda mondeo. The gard was dropping his kids to school.

pmcd22

Turner wrote: »

As i always say in these situations, the cyclist cycled into the door.

The taxi did not reverse down the road with an open door knocking the cyclist off.

Both parties are to blame in my opinion. The % of blame on each party could be worked out in court or on the steps before court.

Id advise the OP to contact a solicitor.

you say the cyclist cycled into the door or you could say the door opened straight infront of the cyclist. Cyclists are not ghosts, can't cycle through a door

Its the taxi's responsibility to let passengers off at a safe area.

serendip

Sorry to go against the flow, but surely you're the one who hit them? It's up to you to cycle in a manner such that you're able to stop before or avoid any obstacles that may come into your way.

That's not to say that people should be getting out of cars without looking first. But there are two wrongs here, and I'd be surprised if it's as clear cut as most of the posters seem to be presuming.

skerry

serendip wrote: »

Sorry to go against the flow, but surely you're the one who hit them? It's up to you to cycle in a manner such that you're able to stop before or avoid any obstacles that may come into your way.

That's not to say that people should be getting out of cars without looking first. But there are two wrongs here, and I'd be surprised if it's as clear cut as most of the posters seem to be presuming.

By that logic you would literally have to get off the bike and walk every time you encounter some traffic for fear that any one driver/ passenger out of an entire line of traffic might unexpectedly open a door. Cyclists can't account/ react to everything single thing a car does and the same applies the other way around.

Lumen

skerry wrote: »

By that logic you would literally have to get off the bike and walk every time you encounter some traffic for fear that any one driver/ passenger out of an entire line of traffic might unexpectedly open a door.

How does the liability issue affect your cycling decisions?

Do you filter at speed, happy in the knowledge that should someone open a door and send you under the wheels of a bus your next of kin will get an insurance payout?

cL0h

Turner wrote: »

As i always say in these situations, the cyclist cycled into the door.

Wow! That's a stunning lack of understanding of how liability is assessed. The cyclist had no intention of cycling into the door until it was pushed into his path.
This is almost certainly a case of "strict liability" i.e liability without negligence. You would be advised to attempt to come to an agreement with any possible defendent first or else you may end up paying you own legal costs when a judge makes a summary judgement. Remember a solicitor will never advise you that you don't need a solicitor.

seamus

serendip wrote: »

Sorry to go against the flow, but surely you're the one who hit them? It's up to you to cycle in a manner such that you're able to stop before or avoid any obstacles that may come into your way.

You could use the same argument when a car pulls across you into your lane, that "you're the one who hit them" and it's the cyclist's fault for not expecting them to do that.

In reality it's about balance. You will fail a driving test for not giving enough room when overtaking parked cars in case a door opens. So likewise on a bike you have a duty of care when overtaking/filtering to expect that someone may open a door or suddenly change lanes, and cycle at an appropriate speed.

There are plenty of scenarios where someone quite literally would open a door right in front of you, but in the strictest sense it would need to be weighed up whether the cyclist was moving excessively fast. You see it all the time in the city - couriers especially swerving in and out of traffic as fast as they can, without a hope in hell of stopping in time if someone was to make a sudden move.

Expectations are also important. If you are overtaking a parked vehicle, you should reasonably expect that a door may open for someone to get out.
If you are filtering past a vehicle stopped in traffic, you would not reasonably expect a car door to open. Primary responsibility in this case would lie with the person who opened the door to ensure that it was safe to do so.

Malari

It happened to me once before when a post van indicated left, presumbly to pull into an entrance. Traffic was slow-moving, so I indicated and moved around him. Then he just stopped and opened the door in the same movement. I stopped but still fell off the bike. He got a massive fright, but there was no damage or injuries.

Now I frequently have to cycle down a one-way street with cars and taxis parked all along the left side. I always leave enough room for a car door to open, despite the frequent beeping from traffic behind (the hold-up is never more than about 5 seconds because it's downhill.) You just have to use cues as well, like did the car just pull in, do they have the wing mirror pushed in/out, are the lights on, etc.

I saw a door blown off a parked car on the same road when the driver just opened it without looking, right in front of a car coming down the hill. I'm not risking that happening to me on a bike, no matter who's actually at fault.

mikemac

Happened to me, young son of the driver opened the passenger door and down I went.
It all got sorted anyway.

OP, you go to the taximans insurance, not the passenger

BostonB

Lumen wrote: »

...Do you filter at speed, ...

I know that was rhetorical. But my answer is no. They may not even just open the door. I've had plenty just suddenly pull to the curb, or do a 180. No warning.

kenmc

serendip wrote: »

Sorry to go against the flow, but surely you're the one who hit them? It's up to you to cycle in a manner such that you're able to stop before or avoid any obstacles that may come into your way.

That's not to say that people should be getting out of cars without looking first. But there are two wrongs here, and I'd be surprised if it's as clear cut as most of the posters seem to be presuming.

Absolute LOL. How can you deduce from the OP that he cycled into the door? Did you not for one millisecond just consider the possibility the door was opened as the cyclist was right beside it. If the cyclist was stationary beside the taxi and the door was opened would they still have been the party who hit the other? :rolleyes:
Troll,

Jawgap

I don't see it mentioned, so I'll mention it - you should go for a check up with your GP. It sounds like you are alright, which is great, but it's still no harm to get the once over in case anything develops.

skerry

Lumen wrote: »

How does the liability issue affect your cycling decisions?

Do you filter at speed, happy in the knowledge that should someone open a door and send you under the wheels of a bus your next of kin will get an insurance payout?

I'm not on about the speed the OP filtered/ undertook at. Cyclists are as responsible as any other road user to read the situation and adjust accordingly, probably more so seeing as they will most likely be the one to end up coming out the worst off. You can't just assume that because there is an accident such as the OP mentioned that the cyclist was going at a speed too great to react to the door opening. Accidents can happen regardless of how much care you take, that's why their called accidents. And in answer to your question , no I don't filter at speed.

Lumen

skerry wrote: »

Accidents can happen regardless of how much care you take, that's why their called accidents.

No, accidents are accidental because they are unintentional, not unavoidable.

Almost all accidents are avoidable.

BostonB

If you cycle in traffic you are going to be close to cars at some point. Anything faster than walking pace, its going to almost impossible to stop to doors opening or cars moving across you, as you pass them. But there's a balance to be struck being going too fast and making decent progress. Otherwise you might aswell walk.

BostonB

Lumen wrote: »

No, accidents are accidental because they are unintentional, not unavoidable.

Almost all accidents are avoidable.

Only if they are predictable.

skerry

Lumen wrote: »

No, accidents are accidental because they are unintentional, not unavoidable.

Almost all accidents are avoidable.

Wow you just agreed and disagreed with me within two sentences. As you say yourself 'almost all accidents are avoidable'. How do you account for the small percentage of accidents that are unavoidable then?? I think its a thing called human error. Unless of course your some sort of cyborg ninja cyclist, in which case I retract my comment.

Undercover Elephant

Beasty wrote: »

Presumably only the Taxi driver can be expected to have insurance to cover this sort of thing, and hence they would have primary responsibility.

It doesn't work like that. The taxi driver is only responsible if he has failed to take reasonable care to avoid cyclists being injured. He isn't responsible just because the passenger does something stupid. If the passenger says, "right, I'm getting out now", the driver should warn him/her to wait until they're in a safe place, but if it's just a case of click -> bang, there's not a lot he can do about that.

OP should still go after the taxi driver, though - likely to be much easier than going after the passenger, and if the insurers won't play ball you still have that option.

Lumen

BostonB wrote: »

Only if they are predictable.

Accidents are avoidable if they are foreseeable, this does not require them to be predictable.

07Lapierre

Lumen wrote: »

Accidents are avoidable if they are foreseeable, this does not require them to be predictable.

+1 This might Help

stevemac

was there a cycle lane?

if there was no cycle lane, and you moving up in the queue of traffic on the left of the left hand lane, you would be undertaking, and the person in the car wouldn't necessary have a responsibility to check for cyclists undertaking and I think it could go against you if it went to court. A passenger would have no mirrors to look properly for anything coming up on the inside of the car.

If you were in a cycle lane then there would be a responsibility on the passenger to either know or have been told about the cycle lane.

BostonB

Lumen wrote: »

Accidents are avoidable if they are foreseeable, this does not require them to be predictable.

I think it does.

Adj. 1. foreseeable - capable of being anticipated; "foreseeable costs were well within the budget"
predictable - capable of being foretold

07Lapierre wrote: »

+1 This might Help

-1 Your reply clarify's nothing (for me - but I'm tired and hungry).

BostonB

stevemac wrote: »

was there a cycle lane?

if there was no cycle lane, and you moving up in the queue of traffic on the left of the left hand lane, you would be undertaking, and the person in the car wouldn't necessary have a responsibility to check for cyclists undertaking and I think it could go against you if it went to court. A passenger would have no mirrors to look properly for anything coming up on the inside of the car.

If you were in a cycle lane then there would be a responsibility on the passenger to either know or have been told about the cycle lane.

Opening and closing vehicle doors. No person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2010/10/28/dont-door-cyclists-its-the-law

Dunno if theres something similar here or not. Found this though...

Opening car doors

It turns out that it’s an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”. If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). (RVCUR r. 105; RTA s. 42; RTOA Sch 2)

There are a few details which are worth bearing in mind:

There doesn’t have to be a crash for the offence to be committed – it’s an offence to injure someone who is riding past by opening a car door, but it’s also an offence simply to endanger them (for example if they have to swerve to avoid a crash).
The offence isn’t limited to drivers - so a passenger who opens a car door so as to injure or endanger a cyclist could commit the offence.
It also isn’t limited to cars, but seems to apply to any vehicle which is on a road and which has a door.

http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/01/18/the-laws-of-car-doors/

stevemac

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/good-driving-practice/overtaking.html

You may overtake on the left when

1:You want to go straight ahead when the driver in front of you has moved out and signalled that they intend to turn right.
2:You have signalled that you intend to turn left.
3:Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane.[


this would be my main argument on it. I don't think it was one or two. And 3 is there to allow the traffic in the left lane to overtake slow moving traffic in the right lane. Not to overtake traffic in the left lane.

BostonB

Unless you want cyclists to take up an entire lane. Then I think you have to consider the cyclist space constitutes another lane. Be it marked or not. In which case 3 applies.

stevemac

BostonB wrote: »

Unless you want cyclists to take up an entire lane. Then I think you have to consider the cyclist space constitutes another lane. Be it marked or not. In which case 3 applies.

basically cyclist's should. If there is only two lanes and there is two vehicles there already, then a third can't be created.
And cyclists are supposed to obey all the rules of the road, not just some of them.

Turner

Ok if a child had walked out from the front of the taxi and the cyclist hit the child who would be at fault?

If a motorcyclist who was filtering had crashed into the taxi door or who hit the child, who would be at fault?

If a motorcyclist doing his driving test with an instructor following behind had done either of the above what do you think the instructor would have said to the Gardai or the Judge in the civil case in court?

I presume he would have said that "The motorcyclist did not leave enough room while passing the hazard (taxi) resulting in a collision, and that he subsequently failed his driving test for doing so. (as well as being involved in a collision)

Now is there any difference between a motorcyclist and cyclist when it comes down to who crashed into who.

Don't get me wrong, the child who walked out or passenger in the taxi is also at fault, along with psv driver. But to what % of blame for each is a matter for a Judge.

The cyclist is not 100% in the right, far from it.

The psv driver is supposed to park in a manner that cyclists cannot undertake or overtake placing his passengers at risk. Buses parking very close to the kerb and taxi drivers indicating which side to get out of the taxi etc

Harpz

Happened to me circa 2002. Passenger of a taxi opened his door and knocked me off my bike on Dame street just past the Olympia Theatre.
The front wheel was buckled beyond repair.
Luckily I wasn't going fast (you can pick up a fair bit of speed coming from christchurch but I suspect I caught the lights by city hall).
The Taxi driver checked I was ok, asked me what my local bike shop was, put the bike in his boot and brought it to the shop and paid for the repairs.
Everybody was happy.

Lawr

serendip wrote: »

Sorry to go against the flow, but surely you're the one who hit them? It's up to you to cycle in a manner such that you're able to stop before or avoid any obstacles that may come into your way.

Surely, there must be rules regulating how one enters into the flow of traffic. Pedestrians at pelican crossings, for instance, signal their intent by putting a foot down in the crossing. Cars await an opening then signal that they are merging into a faster or slower lane. It cannot be legal (never mind intelligent) to enter into traffic without looking first to see that it is safe to do so, then signalling your intent. If it were legal to just plop yourself into the flow with complete disregard for the conditions, then surely it can't be legal to deny blind people their opportunity to fail the drivers test 15 times like everyone else before eventually being granted a licence.

desertcircus

Turner wrote: »

Ok if a child had walked out from the front of the taxi and the cyclist hit the child who would be at fault?

If a motorcyclist who was filtering had crashed into the taxi door or who hit the child, who would be at fault?

If a motorcyclist doing his driving test with an instructor following behind had done either of the above what do you think the instructor would have said to the Gardai or the Judge in the civil case in court?

I presume he would have said that "The motorcyclist did not leave enough room while passing the hazard (taxi) resulting in a collision, and that he subsequently failed his driving test for doing so. (as well as being involved in a collision)

Now is there any difference between a motorcyclist and cyclist when it comes down to who crashed into who.

Don't get me wrong, the child who walked out or passenger in the taxi is also at fault, along with psv driver. But to what % of blame for each is a matter for a Judge.

The cyclist is not 100% in the right, far from it.

The psv driver is supposed to park in a manner that cyclists cannot undertake or overtake placing his passengers at risk. Buses parking very close to the kerb and taxi drivers indicating which side to get out of the taxi etc

Well, if a child was walking unsupervised across busy traffic and stepped into the path of an oncoming vehicle of any kind, I'd be inclined to say their guardian was at fault. This is ludicrous. If a car is in traffic, then you don't open the door without looking - that's the end of it. The taxi was not parked; it was in a line of stationary traffic. It's utterly unreasonable to blame a cyclist for a passenger in a car doing something in traffic that's massively dangerous.

CramCycle

stevemac wrote: »

the person in the car wouldn't necessary have a responsibility to check for cyclists undertaking and I think it could go against you if it went to court.

The driver would have a responsibility, the same way the driver gets penalty points if passengers aren't wearing seat belts. The driver has rear view mirrors, they should have been checked. If it was a case that the person was told and they jumped out anyway then I'm not sure what the story is.

This was learned when I was taking driving lessons, there maybe a more technical way to phrase this though.

Cookie_Monster

CramCycle wrote: »

This was learned when I was taking driving lessons, there maybe a more technical way to phrase this though.

it's a pity more people have not learned this...

cython

CramCycle wrote: »

The driver would have a responsibility, the same way the driver gets penalty points if passengers aren't wearing seat belts. The driver has rear view mirrors, they should have been checked. If it was a case that the person was told and they jumped out anyway then I'm not sure what the story is.

This was learned when I was taking driving lessons, there maybe a more technical way to phrase this though.

The bolded is only true for younger passengers (under 17). And I would be slower to put absolute responsibility on the driver for something like this than passengers not wearing seat belts for the same reason as already mentioned - it can potentially be outside of their control if their passenger decides to open the door suddenly, whereas they can simply refuse to carry someone who doesn't wear a seat belt.

This is not to say that the driver has no responsibility here, rather I'm pointing out that one is less cut and dried than the other, and that the belt responsibility is not absolute.

kenmc

great to see friday coming early after the clocks go back. either that or the trolls are out more often in the dark.

NamelessPhil

The Rules of the Road state that:

"# Before opening any doors, check for other road users nearby, in particular motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.
# Open your doors only when you need to and keep them open only for as long as necessary.
# Get out of your vehicle only when it is safe and you and your passengers are not blocking other road users.
# Passengers should exit on the kerbside."

The emphasis is mine.

BostonB

stevemac wrote: »

basically cyclist's should. If there is only two lanes and there is two vehicles there already, then a third can't be created.
And cyclists are supposed to obey all the rules of the road, not just some of them.

Ditto drivers. This would mean drivers couldn't overtake cyclists in the same lane. Not very practical.

What you're talking about is lane splitting and Wiki suggests it legal in Ireland. Also the Rules of the road imply that cyclists can cycle alongside traffic stopped in line.

rp

Taxi nearly got me with the old one-two this morning: taxi pulls in ahead just as the customer steps into the on-road cycle lane, as I swerve right to avoid him, the driver reaches over and opens the passenger door. Close thing, but when I wanted to go back and discuss it, the taxi U-turned and drove off.