Runner v Opening Car Door

galwayspur

I was out running last Monday and was coming to the end of my run, around 800m to go I picked up the pace and was feeling good when I was stopped suddenly in my tracks by a driver opening their car door. I couldn't avoid the collision and the end of the door hit me in the middle of my chest with the top 'pointed' end of the door grazing me and narrowly avoided my face, and went into my neck.

I was wearing full high viz jacket and running on the path along a well lit town center road, the car was parked beside footpath on double yellows opposite a busy junction. The driver got a shock at the time too, and she was nice enough about it, offering to get me water etc. saying she had checked her mirror. I couldn't speak for what felt like a good minute or so, and initially was ready to give out yards to her but calmed during my spell doubled over trying to catch my breath. I showed her my neck and chest by pulling down top asking to see if I was cut as it felt like it was, and she could see the graze. I actually asked was her car ok, and then like an eejit tried to run off and made it about 100m slowly before slowing to a walk by which time she had gone.

Have had bad pain across my right shoulder since, can't lie on it at night and mobility isn't great but is improving slightly over the past couple of days. Don't feel like there's any reason to warrant an x-ray, but reckon it might curtail running over Christmas

Not looking to pursue it or anything, just wondering if any others have had similar experience? I know it's a common thing for cyclists which often ends terribly. Will look out for drivers now, and am pretty observant in general, this time I couldn't move to get out the way. Ouch.

El CabaIIo

Have had very close calls getting doored on the bike. Running wise, the closest I've had to that was getting hit by a car before the Charleville half last year. I was warming up and a guy was stopped in the middle of the main road so went around the back of him when he decided to shove it into reverse and backed straight into me out of nowhere. He wasn't quite as nice as the woman you mentioned as he just drove away quickly and he definetely knew as it made a fair bang when he hit me and people were roaring at him going down the road.

I just take the approach of "don't trust anyone or try to predict what they will do" now whether I'm running, cycling or driving heavy machinery. I'll cross over to the otherside of the road if I hear a car coming towards me, will cycle in the middle of the lane on a bendy road so I don't get a close pass with oncoming traffic and give a wide berth to every car to avoid getting doored. Cars have a steel cage, I've a ribcage.

MY BAD

The owner of the car is responsible.

Skatedude

Got my nose and face badly scratched and bleeding when i was running pass a van parked on the footpath over double yellow lines when the passenger door was opened quickly . guy was apologetic and hopefully he learned to check properly in future . took about 2 weeks to heal up.

average_runner

Never got taken out by a car while running, but twice by a bike.

Once bike flew around the corner while on a footpath and straight into me and the other time the bike went through a red light and hit me but i had adjusted in time to avoid a direct hit.

Both times the cyclists were in more shock than me.

Seve OB

you mention hi vis
they are not any good unless there is light being shone at them

so in this instance, pointless.


however, yer one was a div opening the door like that

average_runner

Seve OB wrote: »

you mention hi vis
they are not any good unless there is light being shone at them

so in this instance, pointless.


however, yer one was a div opening the door like that

High Viz works grand on a street with street lighting, which the poster had.

Slow_Runner

From the Rules of the Road:

• 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. 

It's the responsibility of the person in the car to ensure that it is safe to do so, however like everything - always assume people are idiots and prepare for them to act like like idiots.

SligoBrewer

average_runner wrote: »

High Viz works grand on a street with street lighting, which the poster had.

Doesn't matter if the OP was wearing hivis or not, and this instance goes to the show the ineffectiveness of hivis. The cause of the accident was the driver not paying attention and was going to happen even if OP was running in the nip or dressed like a giant traffic cone.

walshb

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

The owner of the car is responsible.

No she's not....

You are in charge of your safety at times.....

Unless a thorough investigation is taken out then you cannot blame the driver here....

adrian522

The person opening the car door is 100% responsible, whether they are the driver/owner or whatever is irrelevant. Illegaly parked, swinging door open without looking, but yeah lets blame the victim here.

El CabaIIo

walshb wrote: »

No she's not....

You are in charge of your safety at times.....

Unless a thorough investigation is taken out then you cannot blame the driver here....

walshb

adrian522 wrote: »

The person opening the car door is 100% responsible, whether they are the driver/owner or whatever is irrelevant. Illegaly parked, swinging door open without looking, but yeah lets blame the victim here.

Yes, because the "victim" has no responsibility for themselves..?

Did the driver swing door open without looking? Did you interview her or something......?

" saying she had checked her mirror." So, maybe she did look.....huh?

Maybe she did look, and said runner was not as visible as they should have been.

Like the ads on tv ask, when overtaking leave room for the unexpected. Simple as......if you don't , then there is a chance that an accident occurs...

Anyway, before being so certain here one should hear both sides of the story, and even after that, it doesn't change the fact that not leaving room as you ruin past a parked car can lead to accidents for yourself...

Just me: But if I was running I would be absolutely thinking of things like running close to parked cars....I would be absolutely leaving myself enough room, and if I didn't, it's my fault. That is called taking responsibility.

walshb

El CabaIIo wrote: »

Nothing to do with bait......

I just disagree with this oh so certain blaming the driver....

walshb

BTW, OP; I hope you have recovered....my opinion is nothing personal.

MY BAD

walshb wrote: »

No she's not....

You are in charge of your safety at times.....

Unless a thorough investigation is taken out then you cannot blame the driver here....

If it went to court the owner of the car or person who the car is insured to would pay 99% of the time in an accident like mentioned above. It should go without saying particularly on a runners forum not to put yourself in danger! You can be dead right in terms of the law but thats no good to you or your family if you're six feet under.

walshb

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

It should go without saying particularly on a runners forum not to put yourself in danger! You can be dead right in terms of the law but thats no good to you or your family if you're six feet under.

Exactly my thinking.....

But before these payouts there should be a thorough investigation....

El CabaIIo

walshb wrote: »

Yes, because the "victim" has no responsibility for themselves..?

Did the driver swing door open without looking? Did you interview her or something......?

" saying she had checked her mirror." So, maybe she did look.....huh?

Maybe she did look, and said runner was not as visible as they should have been.

Like the ads on tv ask, when overtaking leave room for the unexpected. Simple as......if you don't , then there is a chance that an accident occurs...

Anyway, before being so certain here one should hear both sides of the story, and even after that, it doesn't change the fact that not leaving room as you ruin past a parked car can lead to accidents for yourself...

Just me: But if I was running I would be absolutely thinking of things like running close to parked cars....I would be absolutely leaving myself enough room, and if I didn't, it's my fault. That is called taking responsibility.

robinph

The person getting out of the car is the one who is blocking the passage of the runner without checking the way is clear for them to do so first, they are 100% at fault.

Yes, there are things that you can do as a pedestrian to try and minimise the risk of such things happening, but that doesn't take any responsibility for the incident away from the person opening the car door for not checking properly or opening the door more cautiously.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

The person getting out of the car is the one who is blocking the passage of the runner without checking the way is clear for them to do so first, they are 100% at fault.

.

You clearly didn't read the OP

The lady said she did check.....

So, let's say a person in dark clothing (or not lit up enough) not lit up ran past, would the diver(s) still be in the wrong?

average_runner

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the OP was wearing hivis or not, and this instance goes to the show the ineffectiveness of hivis. The cause of the accident was the driver not paying attention and was going to happen even if OP was running in the nip or dressed like a giant traffic cone.

Well everything is ineffective if the person doesn't look even a big sign flashing in red lights!!!!

MY BAD

walshb wrote: »

You clearly didn't read the OP

The lady said she did check.....

So, let's say a person in dark clothing (or not lit up enough) not lit up ran past, would the diver(s) still be in the wrong?

In terms of the law, yes.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

You clearly didn't read the OP

The lady said she did check.....

So, let's say a person in dark clothing (or not lit up enough) not lit up ran past, would the diver(s) still be in the wrong?

But its up to the driver and the person exiting to take due care. This wasn't done as it was a double yellow line and secondly, the person of the car didn't spot the runner who was in a high viz on a well lit up street. You shouldn't exit the car until you know its safe.

Now we all make mistakes and that's life.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

You clearly didn't read the OP

The lady said she did check.....

Yes, because they opened the door into the path of a pedestrian therefore proving that they didn't check properly.

They could have opened the door more slowly, opened it part way and had a better look, not parked on double yellows, not opened the door onto a dark footpath, presumably the car was driving along the road a few seconds earlier so they could have paid attention to the fact there was someone running along the path before they parked. It was entirely within the power of the driver to prevent the incident happening, or at least reducing it to the runner having time to hop out of the way.

walshb wrote: »

So, let's say a person in dark clothing (or not lit up enough) not lit up ran past, would the diver(s) still be in the wrong?

There is no requirement for pedestrians to wear hi-viz or lights.

These are things that we do in order to minimise the risks to ourselves, but the lack of using them doesn't take away any responsibility for the actions of the car driver.

Bruthal

average_runner wrote: »

But its up to the driver and the person exiting to take due care. This wasn't done as it was a double yellow line and secondly, the person of the car didn't spot the runner who was in a high viz on a well lit up street. You shouldn't exit the car until you know its safe.

Now we all make mistakes and that's life.

The double yellow probably has little bearing. Presumably the car was still visible. Would we run past it more cautiously if it was parked in a parking spot?

average_runner

Bruthal wrote: »

The double yellow probably has little bearing. Presumably the car was still visible. Would we run past it more cautiously if it was parked in a parking spot?

It means the driver wasn't taking due care, as they shouldn't of parked there.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

There is no requirement for pedestrians to wear hi-viz or lights.

These are things that we do in order to minimise the risks to ourselves, but the lack of using them doesn't take away any responsibility for the actions of the car driver.

So, how would anyone open a door then? Can't open the door because some runner, who has not given themselves safe room, and who is not lit up effectively might just get hit by my opening my door of my stationary vehicle...

Where is the requirement for someone opening a car door to 100 percent make sure someone doesn't run into said door?

It's all about give and take, and common sense...

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

It means the driver wasn't taking due care, as they shouldn't of parked there.

Shouldn't have parked there is a separate issue.....it's still a stationary car, and runners should be aware that they need to be careful whilst running past it...

walshb

blame is not solely on the driver here.....

walshb

Bruthal wrote: »

The double yellow probably has little bearing. Presumably the car was still visible. Would we run past it more cautiously if it was parked in a parking spot?

Or, let's say no door was opened. And he ran into it.....blame the driver here as well?

Give yourself room.....

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Shouldn't have parked there is a separate issue.....it's still a stationary car, and runners should be aware that they need to be careful whilst running past it...

The runner needs to aware, but the person exiting the car needs to be 100% sure its clear before opening the door

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Or, let's say no door was opened. And he ran into it.....blame the driver here as well?

Give yourself room.....

As you did already, we can only go by the OP post and they clearly said the door was opened into them

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

As you did already, we can only go by the OP post and they clearly said the door was opened into them

I know this.....

We only have one side....

Doesn't matter IMO; the runner should have given himself room.....no matter what the driver did with her car/door.......

In a perfect world these accidents would not happen. Driver would be extra extra careful, runner would be extra extra careful.....no problems...

The car was stationary. The runner ran into a part of it.......it's that simple...

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

I know this.....

We only have one side....

Doesn't matter IMO; the runner should have given himself room.....no matter what the driver did with her car/door.......

In a perfect world these accidents would not happen. Driver would be extra extra careful, runner would be extra extra careful.....no problems...

The car was stationary. The runner ran into a part of it.......it's that simple...

But the door wasn't stationary, it was moving to an open state.

This wouldn't make court as it would be paid out by the insurance company before it as no matter what, the person of the car cannot prove they took due care opening the door.

com1

walshb wrote: »

I know this.....

We only have one side....

Doesn't matter IMO; the runner should have given himself room.....no matter what the driver did with her car/door.......

In a perfect world these accidents would not happen. Driver would be extra extra careful, runner would be extra extra careful.....no problems...

The car was stationary. The runner ran into a part of it.......it's that simple...

The runner ran into part of it that wasn't stationary though... its that simple... according to the OP
(Average_Runner got there before me)
By the way, OP, you may have cracked one or more ribs in the collision - I would suggest you at least pay a visit to your GP

walshb

I am aware that the door was in movement.....

Runners should be aware that doors can open, by careful people in cars or not so careful.....instead of passing the blame onto the drivers, take responsibility for ensuring your best chance so keep safe; give yourself room...

Over and out...

robinph

walshb wrote: »

I am aware that the door was in movement.....

Runners should be aware that doors can open, by careful people in cars or not so careful.....instead of passing the blame onto the drivers, take responsibility for ensuring your best chance so keep safe; give yourself room...

Over and out...

There is no passing the blame onto the driver, the blame is all theirs to start with.

The runner/ pedestrian can do things to minimise their risks of being hit, but that has absolutely zero impact on where the blame for the incident lies and at no point is the pedestrian/ runner at fault in this. They are moving along the footpath, on foot, and the car diver blocks the footpath without warning or looking to check the way was clear first.

Bruthal

average_runner wrote: »

It means the driver wasn't taking due care, as they shouldn't of parked there.

Car was there though. How legally parked won't be the deciding factor on how alert a driver is. Driver should be watching. But I wouldn't be running hard along parked cars within range of doors. Not for legal reasons, but for safety.

galwayspur

Thanks for the replies and tales of near misses and similar scrapes alike. I'm improving with each day and will be running before this week is out in an effort to make the Fields of Athenry 10k on 26th Dec. Great local race if anyone looking for one.

A little more context, I had just rounded a corner and the car, a VW Golf, was parked around 8 - 10 metres along the road. I was along side the car when the door opened pretty quickly, and that in combination with my phenomenal kick for home led to the big bang.

I'd accept that I could have been paying more attention, but then if alongside a parked car and the door swings open there's not much you can do to avoid it even going at a fairly modest pace. As said in the OP I'll be keeping a closer eye out for drivers opening doors onto footpaths, but as a driver myself will double checking for runners/pedestrians as well. I don't think that happened this time.

Happy Christmas.

Butterbeans

Great you're improving OP! Luckily I haven't had a similar experience but I witnessed it happening to another runner on Coningham Rd about this time last year. They were just ahead of me (outside the Garda Boat Club) and passing a parked car (there was a good few cars parked on the path, some 2 abreast). The force (no pun intended:) of the door being opened threw the runner out into the bus lane. Luckily there was no traffic at the time. In terms of injury, a grazed arm was the height of it but he was well shook after it.

SligoBrewer

average_runner wrote: »

Well everything is ineffective if the person doesn't look even a big sign flashing in red lights!!!!

The only thing hi-vis is 100% effective at is passing the blame onto vulnerable road users and making them responsible for being hurt by others.

As for walshb, must be impossible for you to move down the streets as you check every single car you pass by on the footpath for someone opening their car door.

average_runner

SligoBrewer wrote: »

The only thing hi-vis is 100% effective at is passing the blame onto vulnerable road users and making them responsible for being hurt by others.

That's bull and just an excuse not to wear them. Every little helps to protect us runners.

Once came across a runner in all black running at night time on the side of the road, I had my high viz on, had a right go at the idiot.

SligoBrewer

average_runner wrote: »

That's bull and just an excuse not to wear them. Every little helps to protect us runners.

Once came across a runner in all black running at night time on the side of the road, I had my high viz on, had a right go at the idiot.

I wear mine. It’s more important for drivers to pay attention to the world outside of their metal box.

Djoucer

average_runner wrote: »

That's bull and just an excuse not to wear them. Every little helps to protect us runners.

Once came across a runner in all black running at night time on the side of the road, I had my high viz on, had a right go at the idiot.

Every little helps is nonsense. You’ll see runners lit up like Christmas trees these days just to run on footpaths.

Wear where appropriate but the every little helps passes the blame from motorists to pedestrians/cyclists.

With that mentality, it won’t be long till we arrive at the ****show that is cycling safety in Ireland. Anytime a cyclist is hit, regardless of time of day, you’ll get the hi viz nonsense.

It’s remarkable how hi viz is absent in most other countries. Yet in Ireland, we dressed kids head to toe in the stuff.

average_runner

Djoucer wrote: »

Every little helps is nonsense. You’ll see runners lit up like Christmas trees these days just to run on footpaths.

Wear where appropriate but the every little helps passes the blame from motorists to pedestrians/cyclists.

With that mentality, it won’t be long till we arrive at the ****show that is cycling safety in Ireland. Anytime a cyclist is hit, regardless of time of day, you’ll get the hi viz nonsense.

It’s remarkable how hi viz is absent in most other countries. Yet in Ireland, we dressed kids head to toe in the stuff.

What I meant was having something on you instead of nothing bright or reflective will help.

SligoBrewer

average_runner wrote: »

What I meant was having something on you instead of nothing bright or reflective will help.

Drivers copping on would save 100% of traffic collisions.

average_runner

average_runner wrote: »

High Viz works grand on a street with street lighting, which the poster had.

I'm open to correction in what I'm about to post, but I'm a photographer who photographs/ed emergency vehicles a fair bit, and found that I could only get a decent photo of them, if the flash wasn't firing from the same point of view as that of the camera (Garda cars, etc. are clad in reflective decals).



My experience of hi-vis and light (photographing emergency vehicles) tells me that hi-vis isn't actually hi-vis unless the light is coming from the same place the person is viewing it from.




In other words, If I am standing in the middle of a crossroads in hi-vis, and you drive towards me with your lights on, you'll see me. However, if you turn your lights off, and the car coming from the right has his lights on, because his lights are at a 90 degree angle to your point of view, you won't benefit from the hi-vis. In other words; it won't illuminate for you.


So if the OP is running along the path in hi-vis, under street lights (which are pointing down, from above) and the woman getting out of her car looks in her mirror, her view of you may well have no 'hi vis' effect/benefit at all.

Feisar

It comes down to who has the money to pay, the insured. Same as car and bicycle incidents. Right and wrong don't come into it.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

So if the OP is running along the path in hi-vis, under street lights (which are pointing down, from above) and the woman getting out of her car looks in her mirror, her view of you may well have no 'hi vis' effect/benefit at all.

People also seem to use the term hi-viz to mean everything from reflectives to just bright yellow. You need to use a combination of light reflective surfaces, ideally on moving body parts if nothing else, and bright colours and some flashing lights wouldn't do any harm either. Apparently fluorescent pink is the best colour for being seen in the dark in low light.

MY BAD

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

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Drivers copping on would save 100% of traffic collisions.

I think everyone would agree with that but no point putting your life on the line over a principle. I was reading on the cycling forum here when discussing high viz, many cyclist believed they were more likely to be involved in an accident if wearing a high viz. I'm not sure if I'd agree with them and would put a high vix on when cycling or running in the darker months.


https://twitter.com/SligoRunners/status/1039813865700241408?s=09

robinph

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

... many cyclist believed they were more likely to be involved in an accident if wearing a high viz.

There have been studies showing that if wearing a helmet then cars will pass you a lot more closely so therefore more likely to hit you whilst doing so. Wouldn't surprise me if the same were true of someone lit up like a christmas tree v someone just wearing regular clothes on a bike.