Safe Speed Forums

I'm not sure you directly addressed one of my questions, so to confirm your response (please correct me if my interpretation of your response is incorrect):

Which motorist was at fault: the one who opened the door or the one who bashed into it?
The motorist who opened the door is at fault.

So was the cyclist at fault, yes or no?
The cyclist was not at fault.

I see a pattern here: the one who is already in the road is not at fault; the one who suddenly tries to enter that road space is at fault.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Listening to certain members admittetly valid points at times, it seems that no matter what happens, whatever set of circumstances, motorists are always always at fault, and peds, cyclists can never ever possibly be at fault no matter what happens, this is why road safety is not improving as certain sides are always trying to get the moral high ground rather than be responsible for their own actions.
if you as a pedestrian choose (no one else is making you do it) to step out into a road without looking out for danger then it is your own fault and thats that.

I though that we were discussing motorist/cyclist and motorist/pedestrian not motorist/motorist (I was) but HC 239 makes it absolutely clear that the motorist who opened the door is at fault in law. HC 239 is mandatory not advisory. You MUST ensure that you do not hit anyone when you open your door.



once again HC 239 (referencing CUR, RTA & RVLR) makes it absolutely clear that, in law, no blame attaches to the cyclist.


Nice try but that section of the code is aimed at motorists not pedestrians. Pedestrians are advised not suddenly to enter the road space but are not mandated against it.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Not really, pedestrians and cyclists are the more vunerable road users, sail before steam and all that.

The door opening conudrum is a good one though. I'd berate somebody on a cycle for hitting a ped that walked out in front of them, but I'd berate somebody who flung a door open in front of a cyclist, (although I'd reserve a little beration for the cyclist and the pedestrian in both cases).

What, even if the driver that struck them was looking the other way whilst using a mobile phone and travelling at 42mph in a 30?

You're shifting goal-posts again! Who said anything about being distracted by a mobile or exceeding the limit?

So what if the driver that struck them was looking in the rear view mirror (or speedo, or any other valid things which need to be checked), wasn't using a mobile, and was within the speed limit?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I expanded upon what you were discussing, it wasn't invalid is it?.


No, pedestrians are advised to look and ensure there are no approaching vehicles before entering a road space (regardless of how they entered it).

Anyway, you're glossing over my point:
- in terms of fault, what's the difference between the cyclist on the road and the motorist on the road, when another party enters that road space without first checking?
- in terms of fault, what's the difference between a pedestrian stepping out without checking the way is clear and a vehicle occupant opening a door without checking the way is clear?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

None (other than that the cyclist is more likely to be injured by the intruder). I don't recall there being any argument about that.



A vehicle driver (but not necessarily every occupant] is a trained person and , as such, has a greater degree of responsibility for his actions within the scope of that training. The driver is performing an illegal act whereas the pedestrian is merely foolish

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I think LD-01 has made the most valid point in this whole debate....road safety issues at the moment seem to be so "anti motorist" that the laws are becoming an ass, to the point that ones own safety if you are a "non motorist" is being dumbed down to the point whereby a "non motorist" cannot possibly do anything wrong because the motorist is invariably the "guilty party" and because of this, I believe "non motorists" are becoming less caeful and almost stupid in the lack of their own safety and well being. If we went back to the principles that I was taught in the early sixties, that the road is a dangerous place and it was MY responsibility to cross SAFELY and MY responsibility NOT TO GET RUN OVER and NOT TO HINDER MOTORISTS by crossing in front of them to the point of making them brake. It's certainly not caused me any problems in my fifty odd years of being a successful pedestrian/ cyclist/driver.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

How ridiculous, roads are not dangerous (well, some of them have quite large potholes that could trip you up), didn't you question this?

So what of that other occupant behind the driver (thank you for hinting at this), are they acting illegally or merely being foolish too?

And now to get to the crux of it: should pedestrians also be trained? Is that training happening to an adequate degree?
Or, if we're to go to the extreme (which I disagree with BTW), should we introduce a jaywalking law, thereby making the erroneous action of a pedestrian illegal?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yes. Pedestrians should be trained. By their parents. As you were and I was. And the punishment for jaywalking tends to be more severe in terms of injury than any law would prescribe.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Being foolish then!


That could well be fair enough, but I expand upon that by saying the parents/guardians should be held responsible if their child runs out onto a road without looking. TBH, I think that's very fair! Would you agree?


And how do we ensure the proper training has been given? If not should the parents be held liable? If not then who should be?
I ask again: in order to maximise road safety, should the erroneous action of a pedestrian be made illegal?


Ah, but the frequency of the penalty would be vastly increased for jaywalking; hence still creating a significantly increased deterrence. We have drink drive limits even though drivers know the penalty for exceeding it could also be
"more severe in terms of injury than any law would prescribe"; has that not helped reduce the occurence of it?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I don't think it's ridiculous to teach a 4-5 year old that roads/fire/pools are all dangerous places. Maybe you would like to encourage your grandchildren that roads are safe places to wander/play but then that sums up your attitude to road safety/ blame culture....it will always be the motorists fault if a 4 year old is allowed to wander aimlessly or dash across the road.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Well, this is progressing pretty much as I imagined it might. I must say I'm very disappointed to see it even enshrined in the HC but I guess that in these anti-motorist times, I shouldn't be surprised! It's odd though that you should say:


For a start, the cyclist has the advantage of a superbly uncluttered field of view AND will (hopefully) be looking ahead of himself whereas the driver needs to look behind himself to see the cyclist and is doing so from INSIDE a car, with all its associated blind spots. OK, that doesn't compensate for the fact that the motorist knows when the door is going to open, but I think it evens up the balance somewhat.

If the cyclist were (for the purposes of my argument) instantaneously turned into a motorist, I'd expect a big chorus of "he ought to be driving at a speed in which he can stop in the distance he can see to be clear..." etc. from Weepej - maybe others. Somehow, though, it's unreasonable to expect a cyclist to be able to do that! If, instead of a car door shooting out in front of you, it's a pedestrian from between two parked cars, what then? It just seems like when the unexpected happens and something "enters the space" right under your nose, then if that "something" happens to be a car door opening in front of a cyclist, then clearly it's the evil, planet-destroying, child-eating, resource-gulping car occupant's fault. Whereas, if it's a pedestrian that emerges into the space, well, clearly it's the evil, planet-destroying, child-eating, resource-gulping car occupant's fault!

Of course, Weepej, I expect you to chime in now about the motorist being "in charge of a ton of metal" (or whatever it is you normally say at these times) but to be honest, I'd have thought the average bike & rider combination weighed about the same as the average car door...

I've split the topic from here and renamed this one appropriately.

You're fond of that one! I think we've discussed it before but it's possible that it was someone else...

The regulations from which that quote is taken actually go on to say words to the effect of "UNLESS..."

The maritime regs are actually a lot fairer than the motoring ones. They go on to (quite rightly) acknowledge that the "Steamer" might (for example) have thousands of lives on board, and for it to be endangered by the idiotic actions of a small sail or oar-driven vessel "asserting its right" would land the idiot in such a small vessel in DEEP trouble!

Basically, I'd be wary of selectively quoting the bits from the "ColRegs" that suit your purpose without also quoting the rest of the relevant paragraph! Basically, being "small" / "light" / "vunerable" / whatever other emotive adjective you want to use, does NOT automatically absolve you of all responsibilities!

The cyclist can't see into the mind of the driver, who usually has a mirror to enable him to see passing cyclists. I don't think that it is "anti-motorist" to suggest that they shouldn't open doors without looking. No more is it pro-motorist to suggest that pedestrians should look where they are going. Ultimately road safety depends on the sensible actions of all parties and their willingness to make allowance for the mistakes of others

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

"Sail before steam" is based on the fact that sailing vessels are less manoeuvrable than powered vessels, not on their greater vulnerability. On that basis the more nimble pedestrians should give way to the highly constrained motor cars

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The other occupant behind the driver doesn't have a mirror!


No it's not, it is even-handed; in fact a motorist can be prosecuted for careless/wreckless/dangerous driving yet a pedestrian cannot be done for careless/reckless/dangerous walking, so it still could be argued that it is anti-motorist.


Yes, but within reason. Do you expect people to crawl along at 5mph to make allowance for the mistakes of others?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign