Legal ramifications of Dooring

riemann

I've seen a few close calls over the past while,and it is one of my great fears while cycling around Dublin.

My question is who is liable for damage potentially caused to either ones bike or God forbid potential physical injuries?

Is it the car owner? Driver? Individual who opened the door?

If someone was getting out of a taxi for example, it would be harsh to blame the taxi driver for someone else's oversight?

Stay safe out there folks.

Lumen

It's the driver.

They have mirrors. They have a license obtained by formal training. They're operating the vehicle of which the door is a part. They decided to pull over. They have insurance to cover it. In the taxi case, they're a professional who deals with these hazards routinely.

Maybe the insurance company in turn would pursue the passenger (who perhaps had legal cover on their house insurance), but probably not. Since this is Ireland it'd probably be the same company underwriting both policies. :pac:

11 pages if you're interested....

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057459274

Wishbone Ash

The driver.

I was hospitalised after being brought down by a passenger suddenly opening a taxi door in stopped traffic. The passenger stepped over me and continued on his way while the driver accepted liability on the spot.

eagle eye

The driver will always be legally at fault but the cyclist is a fool for being that close to the car.

Captain Red Beard

eagle eye wrote: »

The driver will always be legally at fault but the cyclist is a fool for being that close to the car.

Try harder.

Wishbone Ash

eagle eye wrote: »

The driver will always be legally at fault but the cyclist is a fool for being that close to the car.

So where there is a long line of stopped vehicles, you think cyclists shouldn't utilise an empty cycle track to the left of those vehicles but wait with all the motor vehicles?

I take it you don't cycle.

eagle eye

Wishbone Ash wrote:

So where there is a long line of stopped vehicles, you think cyclists shouldn't utilise an empty cycle track to the left of those vehicles but wait with all the motor vehicles?

Stop like everybody else.

Lumen

Nobody said which side the passenger is getting out.

Wheety

eagle eye wrote: »

Stop like everybody else.

Thanks for confirming you're trolling.

Amirani

skrrob wrote: »

Genuine question:

Not winding up anyone.

If driving a car or motorbike, you are expected to pass parked vehicles with a doors width.

Why is the same not expected of cyclists? Why are they not held to the same rule?

I cycle 10 km to and from work everyday btw, and I'm bolloxed. (New cyclist).

Doesn't apply to cycle lanes, would be completely impractical.

gctest50

Why don't slc do the Dutch Reach ?

Samuel T. Cogley

It's the driver/passenger but there can be contributory negligence on the side of the cyclist depending on various factors which might reduce the award.

RobertFoster

eagle eye wrote: »

Stop like everybody else.

I've often wondered what city traffic would be like if filtering was banned for (motor)bikes. I'm sure roads without segregated cycle lanes would be interesting. Reports of RLJ would probably go down, but sketchy overtakes would increase too.

skrrob

skrrob wrote: »

How so? Again, new cyclist here. No different to a motorcyclist?

Similarly, if a cyclist passed too closely and clipped a mirror what would happpen?

I'm nervous as **** cycling, there's awful maniacs out there. People driving on their phones etc.

On a cycle lane you are on the left of the car and may have a kerb on your left , you wouldn't have the space to stay a doors width away from them.

EDIT: Weepsie ninja'd me

Chips Lovell

I don’t think there’s any law obliging cyclists or any other vechicle to pass a certain distance away from parked cars. It’s just good practice to cycle more than door’s width out.

the_pen_turner

i think it has to be on a case by case basis. who hit who. was the door open and the cyclist hit it or did the door hit the passing cyclist .
and balance up whether the cyclist had the right to pass on that side versus the vehicles right to pull in and open its door to elight its passenger.


its very hard to put blame all one way in all cases

Fighting Tao

skrrob wrote: »

Genuine question:

Not winding up anyone.

If driving a car or motorbike, you are expected to pass parked vehicles with a doors width.

Why is the same not expected of cyclists? Why are they not held to the same rule?

I cycle 10 km to and from work everyday btw, and I'm bolloxed. (New cyclist).

If a parked car door is opened when another car is passing and it’s hit then it is the driver of the parked car that is at fault and their insurance pays up. Being expected to do something is not the law.

gctest50

The slc need to open the car door like a normal person :

some attack the inside of the door like a badger

wench

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i think it has to be on a case by case basis. who hit who. was the door open and the cyclist hit it or did the door hit the passing cyclist .
and balance up whether the cyclist had the right to pass on that side versus the vehicles right to pull in and open its door to elight its passenger.


its very hard to put blame all one way in all cases

The ones who pull in properly aren't the problem.
It is when the passenger just hops out while stopped in traffic that you can't anticipate.

riemann

Can anybody quote any official source, or even refer to a particular incident in the news?

Opinions and anecdotes, while amusing, aren't what I was hoping for.

It does appear logical for the fault to lie with the driver, although it's not something I was personally aware of as a driver until now. Im almost certain it wasnt covered when I was taking the driving test.

archer22

A few weeks ago I saw an extremely obese driver kick open the door of his car which narrowly missed a passing cyclist who was lucky to be about an inch or two out of it's range.

There would have been no way in hell of ever avoiding that door the speed it shot out into the road at.

riemann

Weepsie wrote: »

Can't find any court cases or rulings, but I doubt very many cases have actually gone to court. I know of one for sure that the insurance company paid out.

It's also one of the very first things your told when learning to drive is to be checking around you, including when getting out of the car. If the way isn't clear, don't open the door and exit.

Yes being told to look around sounds like something that was covered.

What wasn't covered was complete responsibility for any passenger's behaviour regarding doors.

kirving

I'm honestly not trying to wind anyone up here, but is the parked car with door open always liable?

If the door has been open for 2 minutes for example, who is at fault?

Wishbone Ash

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'm honestly not trying to wind anyone up here, but is the parked car with door open always liable?

If the door has been open for 2 minutes for example, who is at fault?

That's a totally different scenario and the onus would be on a cyclist or any other road user to read the road ahead. Same where a driver has indicated their intention to pull in (regardless if it's on a cycle track).

We're talking about a scenario where the door is suddenly opened in a line of traffic at point blank range.

ravima

Maybe the insurance company in turn would pursue the passenger (who perhaps had legal cover on their house insurance), but probably not. Since this is Ireland it'd probably be the same company underwriting both policies.

Home insurance policies EXCLUDE liability arising from motor vehicles. In your case, the passenger and owner are liable and perhaps also the driver. The motor insurance policy covers passenger negligence as well as driver negligence.

kirving

I guess I'm just wondering what counts as "suddenly". You'd really need witnesses for a solid claim I'd think.

Here's a dashcam video I took of a close call.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTwjKgRwV10

Interesting too, on some new Hyundais and Audis, the rear facing radar will keep the door locked if it senses a car or bike coming.

Macy0161

eagle eye wrote: »

Stop like everybody else.

On my commute, the biggest potential areas for this are actually on grade separated cycle lanes, not even on road ones. Before and after the bus stop on the N11 opposite Foxrock Church, people getting dropped off routinely open the doors onto the cycle path without (apparently) looking. Or perhaps caring.

check_six

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i think it has to be on a case by case basis. who hit who. was the door open and the cyclist hit it or did the door hit the passing cyclist .
and balance up whether the cyclist had the right to pass on that side versus the vehicles right to pull in and open its door to elight its passenger.


its very hard to put blame all one way in all cases

I don't think it is useful to even begin to think in this manner. No one is going to run into an open door if they are given any opportunity to avoid it.
The doors are the responsibility of the driver solely. Do not open them if it is not clear. Always check before opening.

CramCycle

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I guess I'm just wondering what counts as "suddenly". You'd really need witnesses for a solid claim I'd think.

Here's a dashcam video I took of a close call.


Interesting too, on some new Hyundais and Audis, the rear facing radar will keep the door locked if it senses a car or bike coming.

Kudos on the quick reaction times there. An advertisement of why the 30kmph speed limit needs to be in place around estates, towns and villages. I have noticed a huge jump in people randomly swinging doors out into traffic. On three occasions this week alone I have seen people nearly smushed. The odd thing is, they don't even seem to realise it.

the_pen_turner

check_six wrote: »

I don't think it is useful to even begin to think in this manner. No one is going to run into an open door if they are given any opportunity to avoid it.
The doors are the responsibility of the driver solely. Do not open them if it is not clear. Always check before opening.

The law disagrees with you under some circumstances.

You cannot blame the person opening the door all the time. If the door is opened and the cyclist is 100 yards away how can it not be the cyclist fault for hitting a summary door.

If you open it when there is a cyclist passing or approaching then the door opener is at fault unless the cyclist shouldn't be passing at that point

check_six

the_pen_turner wrote: »

If you open it when there is a cyclist passing or approaching then the door opener is at fault unless the cyclist shouldn't be passing at that point

The driver is at fault in both circumstances. You cannot hit someone with a door because they "shouldn't be passing at that point". If someone (passenger or driver) opens a door in a cyclist's path it is the driver's responsibility no matter how the cyclist got there. You must check to see that it is clear before opening a door.

the_pen_turner

check_six wrote: »

The driver is at fault in both circumstances. You cannot hit someone with a door because they "shouldn't be passing at that point". If someone (passenger or driver) opens a door in a cyclist's path it is the driver's responsibility no matter how the cyclist got there. You must check to see that it is clear before opening a door.

I need to rephrase that a bit. I do t mean you can just throw open your door without looking. That would be stupid and dangerous.

What I mean is that if I pull in to let a passenger get out on a normal road and a cyclist is behind then they cannot legally pass me on the left. When the passenger checks and sees that the cyclist is a few cars back then they can open the door. The cyclist has to stop or go around.

Mc Love

Its because of dooring or the act of it, that I tend to cycle about a meter from parked cars, but in stopped traffic, I've started driving on the right of the driver as most pax tend to exit to the left. Much like the way motorbikes skip traffic jams.

Macy0161

the_pen_turner wrote: »

What I mean is that if I pull in to let a passenger get out on a normal road and a cyclist is behind then they cannot legally pass me on the left. When the passenger checks and sees that the cyclist is a few cars back then they can open the door. The cyclist has to stop or go around.

Well assuming pulled in to the curb, rather than just stopped (which is much more frequent), I would guess any award would be reduced. But it would still be the case that the driver should confirm it is safe to open the door. There could be someone on the pavement, and I've witnessed pedestrians hit before. Obviously consequences different from a cyclist, but the way doors are often just flung open injury to a pedestrian couldn't be ruled out.

Fian

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I need to rephrase that a bit. I do t mean you can just throw open your door without looking. That would be stupid and dangerous.

What I mean is that if I pull in to let a passenger get out on a normal road and a cyclist is behind then they cannot legally pass me on the left. When the passenger checks and sees that the cyclist is a few cars back then they can open the door. The cyclist has to stop or go around.

bottom line, leaving aside any academic or hypothetical arguments, drivers have compulsory insurance. That is partly why the law regards them as liable. If you were constructing the law based on pure logic as to who was behaving badly it is the passenger (or maybe in some circumstances the cyclist) who would be to blame if a passenger doors a cyclist.

But the driver is the one who will be legally liable.

Edit: oh and yes cyclists can legally pass cars on the left.

Macy0161

Fian wrote: »

bottom line, leaving aside any academic or hypothetical arguments, drivers have compulsory insurance. That is partly why the law regards them as liable. If you were constructing the law based on pure logic as to who was behaving badly it is the passenger (or maybe in some circumstances the cyclist) who would be to blame if a passenger doors a cyclist.

My understanding of the logic is that the Driver is in charge of the vehicle, rather than to do with insurance.

the_pen_turner

Fian wrote: »

bottom line, leaving aside any academic or hypothetical arguments, drivers have compulsory insurance. That is partly why the law regards them as liable. If you were constructing the law based on pure logic as to who was behaving badly it is the passenger (or maybe in some circumstances the cyclist) who would be to blame if a passenger doors a cyclist.

But the driver is the one who will be legally liable.

Edit: oh and yes cyclists can legally pass cars on the left.

Sadly it is usually the policy holder that is left to pay out rather than the person responsible

Cyclists can pass on the left some times but not every time.

magicbastarder

cyclists are explicitly allowed overtake on the left in slow moving traffic.

the_pen_turner

magicbastarder wrote: »

cyclists are explicitly allowed overtake on the left in slow moving traffic.

But not a vehicle indicting it's intention to turn left or a vehicle that is stopped to elight a passanger

Wishbone Ash

the_pen_turner wrote: »

...What I mean is that if I pull in to let a passenger get out on a normal road and a cyclist is behind then they cannot legally pass me on the left. When the passenger checks and sees that the cyclist is a few cars back then they can open the door. The cyclist has to stop or go around.

There are generally 2 problems with taxi drivers dropping off passengers:

1. The driver pulls over a bit but does not enter the cycle track. Inexperienced/dozy cyclists don't read the road ahead and proceed as normal. Much safer to pull over to the kerb and force cyclists to go around the taxi

2. Taxi is stuck in queued traffic. passenger decides that they'll continue on foot, pay driver and fling open the door.

In the second scenario, a cyclist would have no way of knowing that a passenger was about to exit.

Fian

Macy0161 wrote: »

My understanding of the logic is that the Driver is in charge of the vehicle, rather than to do with insurance.

That is the justification.

The reality is that this responsibility is assigned to teh driver because they are insured. If insurance was not part of teh picture this legal responsibility would probably be allocated differently.

ford2600

Fian wrote: »

The reality is that this responsibility is assigned to teh driver because they are insured. If insurance was not part of teh picture this legal responsibility would probably be allocated differently.

Thread would probably do better on Legal Discussion forum as it is not a simple matter.

In a simple dooring situation where cyclist impacts with driver's door opened suddenly it is a straight forward matter.


When it is a passenger, and one of means (or what legal folk like to call a "mark"), car Insurer might well look for indemnity or at least join to proceedings the passenger.


It does seem unfair to punish a driver for a dopey passenger in all circumstances. Is the legal basis for that the same where one Defendant can often carry the can where the other Defendants no longer exist/have gone bust/aren't insured? The "make sure everyone gets paid" principle?

Driver's who've doored cars have got paid to, although I would think that is quite rare but again follows the Insured party pays idea

CramCycle

I really though this was quite simple, the driver is in charge of the vehicle therefore they are responsible. Same as if someone refuses to put on a seatbelt in your car. You simply do not drive until they do or they get out.

The insurance company may follow after the passenger in a civil case (although cost wise probably no point) but that is not the discussion.

If however the door is open before the cyclist comes anywhere near the car and they proceed to cycle into it, this is a different offence, and one that can get the cyclist brought to court. Injuries and damage are a civil matter again.

ford2600

CramCycle wrote: »

I really though this was quite simple, the driver is in charge of the vehicle therefore they are responsible

The driver is not in charge of 3 door handles, unless you are suggesting a driver should keep all door locked until a passenger asks to leave?

If not, what is the legal basis (act, si or case law) for transferring that responsibility in all cases where an adult of sound mind performs it?

If an Insured, like a Statutory body, large rental company etc(who might have excesses in excess of 10k) why should they pay for the neglectful actions of a passenger in their vehicle if that person is of means?

The legal basis may well be there but I haven't seen it yet. As I said probably the wrong forum

Lumen

ford2600 wrote: »

The driver is not in charge of 3 door handles, unless you are suggesting a driver should keep all door locked until a passenger asks to leave?

If not, what is the legal basis (act, si or case law) for transferring that responsibility in all cases where an adult of sound mind performs it?

If an Insured, like a Statutory body, large rental company etc(who might have excesses in excess of 10k) why should they pay for the neglectful actions of a passenger in their vehicle if that person is of means?

The legal basis may well be there but I haven't seen it yet. As I said probably the wrong forum

Some hints for further research here:

https://www.morganmcmanus.com/index.php/2014/01/09/owner-of-car-held-not-responsible-for-eye-injury-caused-by-egg-thrown-by-passenger/

Owner of car held not responsible for eye injury caused by egg thrown by passenger

In the High Court case of Doody –v- Clarke delivered on the 13th November 2013 Mr Justice Kevin Cross dismissed a Claim made by a Pedestrian who lost her eye as a result of “egging” which occurred from the Defendant`s car.

...

The Judge noted that...the defendant’s insurers had repudiated liability and the defendant was defending the matter on his own.

The Judge stated that whereas the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle is vicariously liable for the actions of a driver under s. 118 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, he did not find that the owner or driver of the vehicle can as such be vicariously liable for the actions of his passengers.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

The Judge stated that whereas the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle is vicariously liable for the actions of a driver under s. 118 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, he did not find that the owner or driver of the vehicle can as such be vicariously liable for the actions of his passengers.

So as long as its the passenger who's launching the fireworks, you're probably in the clear?

Lumen

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

So as long as its the passenger who's launching the fireworks, you're probably in the clear?

I guess that depends on how much you like defending yourself in the High Court.

That judgement seemed quite balanced, in the sense that it pivoted on the exact handling of eggs purchased (amongst other goods, presumably) legally from a supermarket.

It's a bit like the offensive weapons thing....

"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place."

There really isn't any lawful authority for carrying fireworks in a car unless you happen to work for Awesome Firework Displays Limited and are on your way to a job at a public display, but in that case it's highly unlikely you have a bunch of skangers in the car firing them out the side windows.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I guess that depends on how much you like defending yourself in the High Court.

As long as our own Lionel Hutz is defending me, I fancy my chances.;)

AndrewJRenko

Close one this morning - I think the passenger saw me before I roared, fortunately

https://streamable.com/mrllk

DUBintheSTICKS

There have been a number of prosecutions for the offence - Dangerous Opening of a Vehicle Door, the legal text is below.


S.I. No. 190/1963 - Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations, 1963

92 (3) A person shall not in a public place cause or permit a door of a vehicle or trailer to be opened or remain open unnecessarily or passengers to alight where the opening, or the remaining open, of such door is liable to cause danger or obstruction.

Lumen

woohoo! The facts have arrived!