Cyclists

chunkylover4

I saw an interesting problem over on the cycling forum and was wondering where liability would fall.
Basically the facts were that a car had stopped at a red light and the passenger opened the door to get out. A cyclist subsequently hit the car. There was a raised cycle lane beside road but the cyclist was on the road itself.
Is the liability placed on the driver or the passenger and since there was a cycle lane was it forseeable the cyclist would be within the door zone?

Peregrinus

Much depends on how long elapsed before the cyclist hit the door. If it was opened before he had time to see it or take (reasonable and safe) evasive action, the motorist is liable. The fact that the cyclist could have chosen to cycle on a different part of the road - the cycleway - is irrelevant.

shaneybaby

Curley v Mannion, is a good case for bike incidents.

"In Curley v Mannion,212 in 1965, the Supreme Court held that it might be negligence for the owner and driver of a car to permit his passenger to open a door without ensuring that other roadusers would thereby be endangered. "

can't find the actual judgment but didn't look very hard in fairness,
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rDamagecausedbyMinors.htm

schemingbohemia

What if it had been a motorcyclist travelling at significant speed? The passenger was careless therefore the motorist is liable.

shaneybaby

schemingbohemia wrote: »

What if it had been a motorcyclist travelling at significant speed? The passenger was careless therefore the motorist is liable.

I think the op is refering to a cyclist rather than a motor cyclist. I'm not sure a bike is a mechanically propelled vehicle for the purposes of the RTA (honestly i don't so open to correction)

galwaycyclist

shaneybaby wrote: »

I think the op is refering to a cyclist rather than a motor cyclist. I'm not sure a bike is a mechanically propelled vehicle for the purposes of the RTA (honestly i don't so open to correction)

Bicycle is defined as a vehicle in the Roads Acts and associated SIs. In the 1968? Roads Act Driving is defined as being cognate with Cycling

shaneybaby

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Bicycle is defined as a vehicle in the Roads Acts and associated SIs. In the 1968? Roads Act Driving is defined as being cognate with Cycling

Fair enough, still don't think anyone bar lance armstrong would be hitting significant speeds on a bike...

BostonB

I think the pertinent issue is the opening of the door. It will hinge on that.

If the cyclist ran into a stopped car, with no doors open, that would a different issue where normal driving laws/rules would apply.

BostonB

shaneybaby wrote: »

Fair enough, still don't think anyone bar lance armstrong would be hitting significant speeds on a bike...

Go head first into a door at 15~30 and I think most people would feel it was pretty significant. Then imagine on a decent hill or incline, you can go much faster.

Typical speeds for bicycles are 15 to 30 km/h (10 to 20 mph). On a fast racing bicycle, a reasonably fit rider can ride at 50 km/h

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Bicycle is defined as a vehicle in the Roads Acts and associated SIs. In the 1968? Roads Act Driving is defined as being cognate with Cycling

Sorry was 1961 Act as follows

Short title. 1.—This Act may be cited as the Road Traffic Act, 1961 . Commencement.

2.—This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed therefor by any order or orders of the Minister, either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so fixed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act. Interpretation.

3.—(1) In this Act, save where the context otherwise requires—

"driving" includes managing and controlling and, in relation to a bicycle or tricycle, riding, and "driver" and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly;

"footway" means that portion of any road which is provided primarily for the use of pedestrians;

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical, but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;


"pedal bicycle" means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon;

"pedal cycle" means a vehicle which is a pedal bicycle or pedal tricycle;

"pedal cyclist" means a person driving a pedal cycle;

"pedal tricycle" mean a tricycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon;

odds_on

BostonB wrote: »

I think the pertinent issue is the opening of the door. It will hinge on that.

If the cyclist ran into a stopped car, with no doors open, that would a different issue where normal driving laws/rules would apply.

Pun intended or not?? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

shaneybaby

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry was 1961 Act as follows

Short title. 1.—This Act may be cited as the Road Traffic Act, 1961 . Commencement.

2.—This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed therefor by any order or orders of the Minister, either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so fixed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act. Interpretation.

3.—(1) In this Act, save where the context otherwise requires—

"driving" includes managing and controlling and, in relation to a bicycle or tricycle, riding, and "driver" and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly;

"footway" means that portion of any road which is provided primarily for the use of pedestrians;

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical, but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;


"pedal bicycle" means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon;

"pedal cycle" means a vehicle which is a pedal bicycle or pedal tricycle;

"pedal cyclist" means a person driving a pedal cycle;

"pedal tricycle" mean a tricycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon;

Thanks for that.

But would this not show that a bicycle (as in the type that is the dublin bikes or such) is NOT a mechanically propelled vehicle but a pedal cycle.

It's early and my brain hasn't started yet but i think a pedal bicycle is specifically excluded (once it has no propulsion attachment).

I'll try and find if speed limits apply to biclcyles (kind of off point perhaps)

Peregrinus

A bicycle is not an m.p.v. for purposes of the Road Traffic Act.

But it doesn't matter. The duty of care is not owed only to the drivers of, or passengers in, other MPVs, but to anyone who might foreseeably be injured by his negligence. That certainly includes cyclists, since it is reasonably foreseeable that they will be on the carriageway.

Even a lowish-speed collision involving a cyclist can do very serious damage. Running into an opened car door is very dangerous - projecting edges, overbalancing, fall into the carriageway; the works.

seamus

I imagine you could bring about a certain amount of tort law into this as well. It would seem to be common sense that allowing passengers to get out of the car;

1. Without pulling over to the side of the road first
2. On the right-hand side of the vehicle

Would be negligent.

RangeR

Could it also not be shown that the cyclist, maybe, intended to break the red light? Should have been almost to a stop before getting to said light?

shaneybaby

RangeR wrote: »

Could it also not be shown that the cyclist, maybe, intended to break the red light? Should have been almost to a stop before getting to said light?

Contributory negligence at best. Would be pretty difficult to prove that they were going to act in a certain way. Lots of junctions in dublin have a cyclist space in front of the line where cars are supposed to stop so just because they were still travelling past the first car when the lights went red would not necessarily mean they were to break the lights.

Peregrinus

RangeR wrote: »

Could it also not be shown that the cyclist, maybe, intended to break the red light? Should have been almost to a stop before getting to said light?

Tricky. In order to say that the cyclist was going too fast, or faster than he should have been in that place and at that time, you have to first of all say that you saw the cyclist. (If you didn't see him, how can you give evidence about what speed he was going at?) But if you acknowledge that you saw him, and you still opened the door in his path, you've pretty much made the case of negligence against yourself.

RangeR

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tricky. In order to say that the cyclist was going too fast, or faster than he should have been in that place and at that time, you have to first of all say that you saw the cyclist. (If you didn't see him, how can you give evidence about what speed he was going at?) But if you acknowledge that you saw him, and you still opened the door in his path, you've pretty much made the case of negligence against yourself.

I was more thinking along the lines of.. Driver stopped AT red lights. ON the line. Cycle box in front or not, they are not that big. Now, if a cyclist hit the passenger door while open, at sufficient force, it's hard to argue that he/she didn't intend on stopping. Otherwise they would have been going slower. Or at most intended to hard brake at the light which might be construed as dangerous road use.

BostonB

A bicycle is not a HGV. It doesn't take much space or effort to stop quickly.

Thats a lot of effort to flip the blame on the cyclist, when the real issue is people should check before they open doors. Not to mention you shouldn't be letting people out at the lights and possibly blocking the lane when the lights turn green. Taxi's love to do this, and its a right PITA.

Ms Minnie Mouse

could the cyclist reasonably expect that the car door would open in front of them?

BostonB

Usually cars pull to the kerb to let people out, and make sure its clear before exiting.

Ms Minnie Mouse

BostonB wrote: »

Usually cars pull to the kerb to let people out, and make sure its clear before exiting.

USUALLY

I have a set of lights just before I turn into my estate.

Regularly, cyclists are on the left hand side of cars.

Regularly, motorists let out passengers without being correctly positioned.

I'm surprised I've not seen the originally proposed scenario happen myself. As I'm supposed to start cycling to work soon, I'm very concerned!

BostonB

That might be a question for the cycling forum rather than here. In general though don't trust any car, take your time. No point rushing on a bike.