Cyclist Doored ?

AmboMan

Sounds like counsellor Nial Ring opened his door in cyclists path yet blames cyclists and seems to be very anti cyclist:

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/councillor-describes-how-irresponsible-cyclist-knocked-me-unconscious-in-hitandrun-35209736.html

Lumen

I wouldn't get on a plane with him, must be the unluckiest man alive. I mean, as "an outspoken critic of cyclist behaviour on roads and paths" he's all primed and on the lookout for bad behaviour, and then BLAM, right out of the blue when he was most expecting it.

It's almost like he saw the salmon coming and thought his door would joust the miscreant off!

Still, salmon are annoying. Mostly to other cyclists, mind, since a salmon will generally just bounce off one's bonnet whereas a bicycle-salmon interaction will hurt.

stampydmonkey

He cant even drink for 2 to 3 weeks. My heart bleeds

07Lapierre

Niall is right! Cyclist was a numpty!

Effects

To be fair, if the cyclist is on the wrong side of the road then it's the cyclist's fault.

CramCycle

Nial being a person I would have nothing positive to say about does not validate the numpty heading against traffic.

I would question his ability to drive if he could not see an object heading towards him, and if he could see them, then I would question his mental state as he either aimed to injure the other party or himself, neither being what I want in a public representative.

ScouseMouse

Car drivers are told to position on the road in such a way as to have space in case a car door is opened. Surely cyclists should do the same?

On reviewing it again, if the fecking ejit was cycling the wrong way up the street, maybe the cops should do him.

Advbrd

AmboMan wrote: »

Sounds like counsellor Nial Ring opened his door in cyclists path yet blames cyclists and seems to be very anti cyclist:

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/councillor-describes-how-irresponsible-cyclist-knocked-me-unconscious-in-hitandrun-35209736.html

"He said a cyclist coming up the wrong side of the road hit the door of his parked car as he was getting out. The door slammed back, hitting him on the head and knocked him unconscious".

Taking this at face value, please explain why he would not blame the cyclist.

CramCycle

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Car drivers are told to position on the road in such a way as to have space in case a car door is opened. Surely cyclists should do the same?

On reviewing it again, if the fecking ejit was cycling the wrong way up the street, maybe the cops should do him.

You are of course completely right. The cyclist was a numpty. Should be charged. Nial probably should be too as assaulting someone for breaking the law is generally frowned upon (if of course it even happened).

On a side note about being a car door away. Cyclists of course should, unfortunately you often then find cars beeping or skimming you for appearing to be an inconvenience.

Long story short. There is a right thing to do but unfortunately it is not always the right option for some.

ted1

07Lapierre wrote: »

Niall is right! Cyclist was a numpty!

I would have some reservations about believing he m with regards the way things went down

Lemming

I find the details of this story puzzling and a bit hard to take at face value of the councillor; not to absolve the alleged cyclist of any blame, but it's not quite adding up.

monument

His over-the-top comments about cycling in general makes it hard for me to trust his claims about anything to do with cycling.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/03/councillor-objecting-to-cycle-route-on-mental-health-ground-is-a-serial-objector-to-cycle-paths/

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

I am a committee cyclist

you only cycle in large groups and have to deliberate on where you want to go?

CramCycle

Advbrd wrote: »

"He said a cyclist coming up the wrong side of the road hit the door of his parked car as he was getting out. The door slammed back, hitting him on the head and knocked him unconscious".

Taking this at face value, please explain why he would not blame the cyclist.

Of course he would, so would I but that said if I were getting out ofor my car and a vehicle was coming against traffic within a doors breadth of my vehicle, I wouldn't open my door because that would be stupid. The only reason I could see to do it would be to hit the law breaker and attempt to injure them or get a nice story for the papers.

CramCycle

Weepsie wrote: »

I cycle near enough Summerhill daily on my commute. It's an area where I do frequently enough see people cycling towards me on the wrong side of the road. It's a peculiar phenomenon to the area, as although I've seen it elsewhere, not nearly with the sort of frightening frequency.

I seen this as a kid in the country where parents would tell their kids too as they were seen as pedestrians. Most of us cycled with traffic as it made us feel more road user like when younger.
Guess we were right.

Moflojo

Councillor Ring has vehemently and consistently opposed cycling infrastructure projects that have come before Dublin City Council, and he currently opposes the new Liffey Cycleway and College Green plaza projects.

His position is that cyclists (and cycling itself) are the problem, yet he refuses to entertain any infrastructural projects for cyclists.

I'm struggling to remain diplomatic with this post.

[Ends]

cdaly_

Weepsie wrote: »

(b) frequently park facing oncoming traffic. Wonder if this is a story where that is what he may have done and the cyclist is with traffic, though I'll take his word for it.

If car was parked facing oncoming traffic then driver's door would be on the footpath side.

benneca1

Some near do well in Summerhill cycles the wrong way down a street and clatters into a grumpy local representative and it is national news. Its not like it is a quiet news period me thinks there is a lot of lazy journalism in the indo.

Skatedude

Seems like a tosser and a complete Muppet.
The Muppet parked his car and carelessly opened his car door into traffic without checking properly and caused an accident.

And the complete tosser now involved in an accident fled the scene leaving an injured party behind.

Macy0161

Advbrd wrote: »

Taking this at face value, please explain why he would not blame the cyclist.

Because he should've been looking before opening the door? Wouldn't even have to turn his head, check his mirrors or check his blind spot, which is the usual excuse for dooring. Or maybe he did see him coming, and decided to make a point.

The cyclist shouldn't have been going against the traffic flow - for me that doesn't excuse someone from not using their eyes and properly observing before opening their door. But no press release/ story in seeing someone doing something illegal...

Lemming

Macy0161 wrote: »

The cyclist shouldn't have been going against the traffic flow - for me that doesn't excuse someone from not using their eyes and properly observing before opening their door. But no press release/ story in seeing someone doing something illegal...

That does assume that the cyclist was indeed cycling against the traffic as opposed to the good councillor parking into oncoming traffic and opening his door kerbside. I'm not going to suggest that's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but it is another possibility. In any case we don't know enough of the details and what the good councillor has stated has a certain ... smell to it. As I said earlier, I'm having difficulty accepting the events at face value as the good councillor has described them.

Sleeper12

AmboMan wrote:

Sounds like counsellor Nial Ring opened his door in cyclists path yet blames cyclists and seems to be very anti cyclist:

I don't cycle but I'm not anti cyclists either. But I read the article and I didn't couldn't find where it says Ring opened in cyclists path. Personally I think comments like yours hurts the cause when cyclists genuinely gets doored.
We need to accept that there are some really bad cyclists out there and some great ones. It's wrong to say all cyclists are bad law breakers but likewise I don't think the cycling community is doing itself any favours defending the cyclist in this case.
Just saying like

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote:

I would have some reservations about believing he m with regards the way things went down

Well as the cyclist broke the law by leaving the scene of an accident we can only hear one side.

ted1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Well as the cyclist broke the law by leaving the scene of an accident we can only hear one side.

What law is that? Genuinely interested in, not condoning it , but would like to see what the law says.

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote:

What law is that? Genuinely interested in, not condoning it , but would like to see what the law says.

Law says that you can't leave the scene of an accident. People have gone to jail for this. Same law for motorists,cyclists and pedestrians

ted1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Law says that you can't leave the scene of an accident. People have gone to jail for this. Same law for motorists,cyclists and pedestrians

Which SI is that ? Anyone I've seen refers to driver and vehicle which exclude bicycles

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote:

Which SI is that ? Anyone I've seen refers to driver and vehicle which exclude bicycles

Information

If you are involved in a motor accident, whether with another motor vehicle, another user of the road or with an object along the road, there are certain things you are required by law to do. There are also things which it is advisable to do for safety reasons and to help reduce any possible financial loss to yourself.

What should I do if I am involved in a motor accident?

If the accident is serious the cars should not be moved. If the accident is minor and the cars are blocking the road or are a danger to other road users, the road should be marked and the cars moved. Take care when moving damaged cars and be alert to the danger from leaking fuel.

You should try to warn oncoming traffic of the accident. You can warn them by using your hazard lights. If you have a reflective advance-warning triangle, place it on the road far enough from the scene of the accident to give enough warning to approaching traffic. If the accident happens near a bend in the road, make sure you give warning to traffic on both sides of the bend.

If you need to ask for another road user’s help to warn traffic, do so right away.

If someone is injured the Gardaí should be contacted (telephone 999 or 112) and, if necessary, ambulance services.

Further information on what to do at the scene of an accident is available in the Rules of the Road (pdf).

What are my legal obligations?

Your legal obligations, if you are involved in a motor accident, are contained in Section 106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended. You must stop your car and remain at the scene of the accident for a reasonable time.

The above is from citizens advice bureau.

In this case the car caused the injury as described in section 106. Both parties should stay at the scene for a reasonable period.

Sleeper12

Weepsie wrote:

Nobody is defending the cyclist from I can see. People are questioning the credibility of the story considering its source is vehemently anticycling

That's not what op saying in opening comment

ted1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Information

If you are involved in a motor accident, whether with another motor vehicle, another user of the road or with an object along the road, there are certain things you are required by law to do. There are also things which it is advisable to do for safety reasons and to help reduce any possible financial loss to yourself.

What should I do if I am involved in a motor accident?

If the accident is serious the cars should not be moved. If the accident is minor and the cars are blocking the road or are a danger to other road users, the road should be marked and the cars moved. Take care when moving damaged cars and be alert to the danger from leaking fuel.

You should try to warn oncoming traffic of the accident. You can warn them by using your hazard lights. If you have a reflective advance-warning triangle, place it on the road far enough from the scene of the accident to give enough warning to approaching traffic. If the accident happens near a bend in the road, make sure you give warning to traffic on both sides of the bend.

If you need to ask for another road user’s help to warn traffic, do so right away.

If someone is injured the Gardaí should be contacted (telephone 999 or 112) and, if necessary, ambulance services.

Further information on what to do at the scene of an accident is available in the Rules of the Road (pdf).

What are my legal obligations?

Your legal obligations, if you are involved in a motor accident, are contained in Section 106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended. You must stop your car and remain at the scene of the accident for a reasonable time.

The above is from citizens advice bureau.

In this case the car caused the injury as described in section 106. Both parties should stay at the scene for a reasonable period.

The SI keeps reference to th driver or person in charge of vehicles. I don't think it actually covers cyclists.

cython

ted1 wrote: »

The SI keeps reference to th driver or person in charge of vehicles. I don't think it actually covers cyclists.

Can you please link to the SI? Generally unless it is specified as a mechanically propelled vehicle, pedal cycles are also included by most SIs as being a vehicle.

ted1

cython wrote: »

Can you please link to the SI? Generally unless it is specified as a mechanically propelled vehicle, pedal cycles are also included by most SIs as being a vehicle.

" vehicle " means a mechanically propelled vehicle;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/si/269/made/en/print

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote:

The SI keeps reference to th driver or person in charge of vehicles. I don't think it actually covers cyclists.

Under Irish law a bicycle is a vehicle. If it wasn't it wouldn't be entitled to share the road. I'm pretty sure a horse drawn carriage is a vehicle. The carriage obviously not the horse.

cython

ted1 wrote: »

" vehicle " means a mechanically propelled vehicle;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/si/269/made/en/print

Is that the SI governing the obligation to remain at the scene? The title kind of suggests otherwise (or at least it would not intuitively govern same), and the definition of vehicle you have quoted (as is usual in these things) is in the context of the order, not the entire book of law. Other acts distinguish between vehicles and mechanically-propelled vehicles where necessary but in the context of an article titled to refer to "Mechanically Propelled Vehicles" using vehicle as shorthand for same is probably more convenient.

Sleeper12

Lighting of bicycles in Ireland

InformationRulesRatesHow to apply

Information

If you wish to use a bicycle on a public road in Ireland, your bicycle must be fitted with certain reflectors and lamps to ensure that other road users will see you. All bicycles used on public roads are required to comply with the Road Traffic (Lighting of Vehicles) Regulations 1963 as amended. This law sets down the type of reflectors and lamps that your bicycle must be fitted with and when you must use your bicycle lamps. Every year in Ireland, many cyclists are hurt, seriously injured or killed as a result of improper lighting on their bicycles.

Again citizens advice bureau

Bicycle must have lighting because it is a vehicle


Legislation

What is the legal position of cyclists in Ireland?

In both Irish and International law (1967 UN Convention of Road Traffic, Vienna),the pedal cycle is a vehicle and therefore the rider is a driver of a vehicle fully entitled to be on public roads (except for motorways where there is a legal exclusion). It also follows that the rider is not a pedestrian on wheels. By extension this means you are not entitled to ride on a footway unless it is expressly declared as a shared facility (path) by appropriate signage and markings. Your legal and natural riding place is on-road.

This is from Dublin cycling.ie

LionelNashe

If the councilor is telling it as it happened, then it sounds like he's partly to blame for opening his door without checking. If it was the driver's door, and the cyclist was going against the traffic, then the cyclist would have been coming towards the front of his car and have been very hard to not see.

Chuchote

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't cycle but I'm not anti cyclists either. But I read the article and I didn't couldn't find where it says Ring opened in cyclists path.

What the article says:

He said a cyclist coming up the wrong side of the road hit the door of his parked car as he was getting out. The door slammed back, hitting him on the head and knocked him unconscious.

"I was getting out of my car outside Summerhill Post Office when a cyclist, coming down the wrong side of the road, hit the door of my car as I was about to get out," the north inner city Independent councillor said of Wednesday's incident.

"The door slammed back into me and I lost consciousness for a few moments."

Now, unless he was somehow getting out without opening the door…

If Cllr Ring is correct and the cyclist came, against the traffic, at his car door from the front, then of course the cyclist was in the wrong. Not great that the journalist didn't find witnesses to quote, though.

Skatedude

Lemming wrote: »

That does assume that the cyclist was indeed cycling against the traffic as opposed to the good councillor parking into oncoming traffic and opening his door kerbside. I'm not going to suggest that's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but it is another possibility. In any case we don't know enough of the details and what the good councillor has stated has a certain ... smell to it. As I said earlier, I'm having difficulty accepting the events at face value as the good councillor has described them.

Actually, there are a number of cycle ways near me that are bi- directional,. The markings are often counter trafic. But you still dont ever open a car door without checking? That was basic common sense,

Chuchote

Cllr Ring identifies the exact place - ""I was getting out of my car outside Summerhill Post Office".

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Summerhill+Post+Office,+Summerhill+Parade,+Ballybough,+Dublin+1/@53.3574256,-6.248878,43a,45.5y,1.69t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670e61e69df7f5:0xbf51c9325768179f!8m2!3d53.3573797!4d-6.2486515

Those who travel there regularly will be able to say if there's a contraflow cycle lane there. On the Google Maps image it appears not, but of course one may have been painted in since.

Sleeper12

Chuchote wrote:

If Cllr Ring is correct and the cyclist came, against the traffic, at his car door from the front, then of course the cyclist was in the wrong. Not great that the journalist didn't find witnesses to quote, though.

Difficult thing to do when the cyclist leaves the scene of the accident.
The whole story is made up or it is true & the cyclist is at fault. Unless the cyclist comes forward to give a statement then the law believes Ring.
My point was the article was the total opposite of the ops opening statement. Inmo this isn't helpful for the cycling community at all. There seems to be plenty of genuine cases of cyclists getting doored here on boards on a daily basis

Chuchote

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Difficult thing to do when the cyclist leaves the scene of the accident.
The whole story is made up or it is true & the cyclist is at fault. Unless the cyclist comes forward to give a statement then the law believes Ring.
My point was the article was the total opposite of the ops opening statement. Inmo this isn't helpful for the cycling community at all. There seems to be plenty of genuine cases of cyclists getting doored here on boards on a daily basis

The cyclist and the driver were scarcely the only people present on Summerhill that day!

CramCycle

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Difficult thing to do when the cyclist leaves the scene of the accident.

if the cyclist thought this person had assaulted them and was likely to do so again, it is not a terrible response. It is outside a post office apparently, not sure why there is no CCTV of the incident.

Fian

cython wrote: »

Is that the SI governing the obligation to remain at the scene? The title kind of suggests otherwise (or at least it would not intuitively govern same), and the definition of vehicle you have quoted (as is usual in these things) is in the context of the order, not the entire book of law. Other acts distinguish between vehicles and mechanically-propelled vehicles where necessary but in the context of an article titled to refer to "Mechanically Propelled Vehicles" using vehicle as shorthand for same is probably more convenient.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/106/enacted/en/html

It is not an SI that governs the obligation it is primary legislation.

A bicycle is a vehicle for the purposes of the act but it is expressly not a mechanically propelled vehicle. Many offences refer to MPVs, this one does not because it also captures vehicles which are not MPVs.

By way of contrast see drunk driving which refers to a mechanically propelled vehicle rather than simply a vehicle:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/50/enacted/en/html#sec50

By the way both of these are the versions originally enacted, I am not capturing amendments, there is no need to for this purpose.

ThisRegard

CramCycle wrote: »

I seen this as a kid in the country where parents would tell their kids too as they were seen as pedestrians. Most of us cycled with traffic as it made us feel more road user like when younger.
Guess we were right.

When we were kids myself and a mate were cycling down a windy rural road outside of Saggart. I had this point in the back of my head, cycle against the flow of traffic. This bloke came around a corner, crapped himself, and ate the head off us, rightly so.

So yeah, I realise that while you walk against traffic, don't cycle against it, particularly if you're a carefree kid and dithering around country lanes.

Chuchote

CramCycle wrote: »

if the cyclist thought this person had assaulted them and was likely to do so again, it is not a terrible response. It is outside a post office apparently, not sure why there is no CCTV of the incident.

Why should the cyclist think the person had assaulted them? Surely all car-door-opening is put down to foolish incaution, not to deliberate assault?

tomasrojo

The walking against traffic advice doesn't or at least shouldn't apply to blind corners. If you're walking into a blind corner that's veering to the right, you should walk on the left side of the road. The rationale for walking against traffic is that oncoming drivers can see you and you them, which doesn't apply at all in that scenario. If you walk on the left in that scenario, you've much less to fear from oncoming drivers, and drivers coming from behind have a reasonable chance of seeing you (if they're not speeding and can be bothered to look).

tomasrojo

I haven't cycle down Summerhill in a while, but I don't remember a contraflow cycle track there.

As said already by others, I have to imagine that Ring opened the door without looking around fully. He might have looked in the wing mirror for traffic coming from behind and neglected to look ahead.

I'd very largely blame the guy salmoning on the bike though (obviously). Some blame (wrong word? contributory negligence?) accrues to Ring for the aforesaid, and especially for not wearing his driving helmet.

ThisRegard

tomasrojo wrote: »

The walking against traffic advice doesn't or at least shouldn't apply to blind corners.

I was a kid!

tomasrojo

Oh yeah, that wasn't aimed at you. It's just repeated all the time as if it's a nice, simple, universal rule.

cython

Fian wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/106/enacted/en/html

It is not an SI that governs the obligation it is primary legislation.

A bicycle is a vehicle for the purposes of the act but it is expressly not a mechanically propelled vehicle. Many offences refer to MPVs, this one does not because it also captures vehicles which are not MPVs.

By way of contrast see drunk driving which refers to a mechanically propelled vehicle rather than simply a vehicle:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/50/enacted/en/html#sec50

By the way both of these are the versions originally enacted, I am not capturing amendments, there is no need to for this purpose.

Thanks for that, and it confirms my thoughts, i.e. a cyclist and driver have similar duties not to flee the scene of an accident. The other poster was trying to advocate that a bicycle would not be a vehicle because some other SI vehicle in place of MPV as it suited the context/was shorter, but I would have been surprised if that were the case here. My referring to it as an SI was simply because of that poster having linked to an SI rather than primary legislation.

monument

ted1 wrote: »

The SI keeps reference to th driver or person in charge of vehicles. I don't think it actually covers cyclists.

Under Irish law cyclists = a driver of a pedal cycle. The term "driver" includes cyclists unless the legislation states driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle; or unless it states in the definitions section of the legislation that "vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle;

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

Why should the cyclist think the person had assaulted them? Surely all car-door-opening is put down to foolish incaution, not to deliberate assault?

Having witnessed attempted doorings, on purpose, and it would not be the norm, it is not unrealistic to think a similar situation could be seen as premeditated assault.