RESIGN!

[Zipperhead]

I wouldn't say he's wrong but filtering comes with all the hazards of zombies, drunks, flying ciggies, dooring etc. Personally I prefer to filter up the middle as it's much less likely for a door to open that side.

On that section there's a double white line along the middle and it's often difficult to filter along the outside without crossing it.

[rower40]

I think you'll find he is technically Minister for Verbiage Relating to Grandiose Projects.

Minister Undertaking Pet Projects Especially Transport.  I wonder what the acronym should be?

[Gattopardo]

Ah, the cycle must have been speeding as it wasn't there when I supposedly looked....or in reality no looking or paying attention to the surroundings was done so the yclist must have been speeding.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

As a driver who has driven c. 0.5million miles I would say that I am very careful about where my passengers alight*.  In that instance I would check my mirrors carefully, indicate and if all was clear for a reasonable distance I would pull over to the kerb. 

I'd suggest

a. the driver didn't want to lose his place in the traffic.
b. the passenger didn't ask the driver if he could alight but told him he would. 

The other point is that the cyclist did not appear to be going fast and the door was flung open in a hurry right in front of him in a moment of total lack of care.  It's not as if cyclists are rare in that area - I wonder how many are taking the bikes out because of the rail strike? 

*this morning I took a Toyota mechanic out for a test ride, when he wanted to transfer to the back of the car to listen to a noise I made sure I was off the road before he got out. 

[Diver300]

https://twitter.com/twitmericks/status/809825856361263104

[Jaded]

According to the BBC website report a spokesperson close to the Transport Secretary said that it was an official government car and it is the drivers responsibility to swap insurance details if requested, and no request was made.

So, is that right?

[Jurek]

Would the government not be self insured?

[benborp]

According to the BBC website report a spokesperson close to the Transport Secretary said that it was an official government car and it is the drivers responsibility to swap insurance details if requested, and no request was made.

So, is that right?

No, that's not right. The obligation is to provide details in incidents causing damage or injury, not to rely upon an injured person requesting those details.

Rule 286
If you are involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle, animal or property, you MUST

stop
give your own and the vehicle owner’s name and address, and the registration number of the vehicle, to anyone having reasonable grounds for requiring them
if you do not give your name and address at the time of the collision, report it to the police as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours.
Law RTA 1988 sect 170

Rule 287
If another person is injured and you do not produce your insurance certificate at the time of the crash to a police officer or to anyone having reasonable grounds to request it, you MUST

report it to the police as soon as possible and in any case within 24 hours
produce your insurance certificate for the police within seven days.
Law RTA 1988 sect 170

[Pickled Onion]

According to the BBC website report a spokesperson close to the Transport Secretary said that it was an official government car and it is the drivers responsibility to swap insurance details if requested, and no request was made.

So, is that right?

No, that's not right. The obligation is to provide details in incidents causing damage or injury, not to rely upon an injured person requesting those details.

It looks like the spokesperson is being economical with the truth. There may not be an obligation to swap insurance details at the scene, but some kind of contact details should have been given. Given that the man is clearly injured (he can be seen rubbing his arm just before the handshake) and no-one checked whether his property was damaged, contact details should have been offered.

Also in the quoted text it should have been reported within 24 hours. And the very first point is "stop" - which I'm fairly sure means turn off the engine and put on hazard lights. So quite clearly several offences have been committed, beyond actually knocking him over.

Beyond what the law says, surely it's common decency to offer your contact details after injuring someone accidentally?

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Would the government not be self insured?

..probably by the taxpayer, like banks.

Beyond what the law says, surely it's common decency to offer your contact details after injuring someone accidentally?

Not at cabinet level.

[bikepacker]

According to the reports I have read, this stretch of road did not have a designated cycle path. Therefore if the cyclists were overtaking on the nearside of the car, wasn’t he using his vehicle (the bike) illegally? Clearly putting him at fault.

As far as I am aware there have never been any guidelines putting the onus on a nearside car passenger to avoid a collision with an illegally overtaking vehicle.

Much as I don’t like jumping to the defence of a cycling disliking cabinet minister, I don’t think he did anything wrong. In fact had I have been that cyclist I would have done exactly as this one, exchanged apologies and handshakes and left the scene.

[Jurek]

^
See post 3 of this thread.

[red marley]

According to the reports I have read, this stretch of road did not have a designated cycle path. Therefore if the cyclists were overtaking on the nearside of the car, wasn’t he using his vehicle (the bike) illegally?
[...]
I don’t think [Grayling/driver] did anything wrong.

Things that are not illegal:

• Cycling on the nearside of stationary traffic. The presence or otherwise of a cycle lane makes no difference to the legality of doing this.

Things that are illegal (indicated by a 'MUST' in the highway code):

• Not checking for cyclists and other traffic before opening car door (Rule 239)
• Exiting vehicle with engine running (Rule 239)
• Hitting anyone when opening vehicle door (Rule 239)
• Not providing your own and vehicle owner's details after causing damage or injury to another (Rule 286)

Thinks that make one a colossal donut:

• Telling someone you have just illegally injured that they were riding too fast when you evidently didn't even see them.
• Not anticipating the possibility of people riding bicycles on a stretch of central London road between sections of designated cycle lanes.
• Not knowing transport-related law / highway code when you're The Transport Secretary.
• Objecting to the installation of protected cycle lanes before injuring someone because they were not in a protected cycle lane.

[rob]

Having been decked in a remarkably similar situation a few weeks back the information in this thread has been very illuminating.

[mattc]

According to the reports I have read, this stretch of road did not have a designated cycle path. Therefore if the cyclists were overtaking on the nearside of the car, wasn’t he using his vehicle (the bike) illegally? Clearly putting him at fault.

Are you in favour of shooting litter louts?

Even if another road-user were breaking a law - and it looks like this cyclist wasn't - you have a duty of care to avoid injuring other road-users.

It's this attitude of "I had the right to injure that person" that leads to much of the dangerous selfish behaviour on our roads. Please don't add to it.

[Whitedown Man]

Are you in favour of shooting litter louts?

The manner in which you ask the question suggests - I can only assume mistakenly - that you think shooting litter louts would in some unimaginable way be a bad thing. 

[mattc]

Are you in favour of shooting litter louts?

The manner in which you ask the question suggests - I can only assume mistakenly - that you think shooting litter louts would in some unimaginable way be a bad thing. 

I think there are pros and cons. The balance would depend on the individual circumstances.

[bikepacker]

Even if another road-user were breaking a law - and it looks like this cyclist wasn't - you have a duty of care to avoid injuring other road-users.

Doesn't the cyclist also have a duty of care? Especially when overtaking on the near side of a vehicle.

[jsabine]

Even if another road-user were breaking a law - and it looks like this cyclist wasn't - you have a duty of care to avoid injuring other road-users.

Doesn't the cyclist also have a duty of care? Especially when overtaking on the near side of a vehicle.

Aye, one you might argue is sufficiently discharged by riding at a speed modest enough to ensure no significant injury or damage is caused when someone opens a car door in such a way as to knock you off - an action which, it should be noted, is a specific offence under the Construction and Use regs.

[Kim]

Aye, one you might argue is sufficiently discharged by riding at a speed modest enough to ensure no significant injury or damage is caused when someone opens a car door in such a way as to knock you off - an action which, it should be noted, is a specific offence under the Construction and Use regs.

What speed would that be?  Most of us aren't in the habit of cycling into solid objects, so we'd probably overestimate it.  I note that I've come off my bike at 5mph and required hospital treatment and some quality time with an allen key, and that while that sort of speed would reduce your stopping distance to something appropriate, that won't help if they open the door as you pass.  Also, by the time most bikes are down to walking pace, they're too wobbly to ride through that kind of gap.


I work on the just-because-it's-legal-doesn't-mean-it's-a-good-idea principle with filtering, but that's easy as I rarely encounter situations where a queue of traffic isn't going to dissipate with the next cycle of the lights.

[toestrap]

Accidently walking into a brick wall is pretty painful - and that's slow.

A door opening on you is likley to make you lose your balance - in which case it's an uncrontrolled fall onto the road/pavement on top of a bike which has pointy things like brake levers etc. Broken fingers/wrists/collarbones wouldn't be surprising in such circumstances (I'm not saying it would happen every time), and not everyone cycling is a young and supple and able to bounce back up.

[spindrift]

Or if you have flat bars the car door could slice your hand open, the corner could hit your chest, bust a rib.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

..

Doesn't the cyclist also have a duty of care? Especially when overtaking on the near side of a vehicle.

..

Was knocked off in 2005 - head injury, large compo.  Then recently I was doored again by a women getting out of an official vehicle in York.  I was going very slowly and so did not strike the door very hard but i was still knocked over.  The passenger who opened the door did not try to blame me in the slightest but was extremely apologetic.  Since my first accident I am very careful in such situations, but you don't have to be going fast to be knocked over.

..

In the 2nd incident

1. the vehicle had just overtaken me
2. if I'd been going slower I'd have been walking
3. the door edge did cut my hand, for which the culprit provided sticking plaster from her handbag!

It's a fact that a door can be flung open instantly and if Grayling's behaviour was common us cyclists would need alertness and reflexes that none of us have.

[Kim]

And of course if you overtake on the outside you're probably less likely to get doored (and it's generally easier to avoid the door zone), but if you are, you get all this plus the effect of being bounced into oncoming traffic.

[Socks]

A foreign minister who spends his time insulting and annoying foreign types; a health secretary who is privatising the Health Service; an energy minister who has cut investment in green energy but provides a massive subsidy for the Chinese to build power stations; an education minister who thinks that sending a small minority of children to private schools will help to provide equality of opportunity; a prime minister who says that she wants to look after the families that are just about managing but has just made another cut in support for poor working families, the disabled and disadvantaged.  A finance minister who cuts taxes for the rich and for big companies, but has done nothing about the crisis in social care.  Oh - and a transport minister who invests in roads for motor vehicles and injures cyclists.  Is it just me or is there a bit of a pattern here?