Opening the door with the wrong hand?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
take care when passing parked vehicles, leaving enough room (a
door’s width or 1 metre) to avoid being hit if a car door is opened,
and watch out for pedestrians stepping into your path.


So when the cyclist fails to obey this rule of the highway code it's automatically the car drivers fault - £1000 fine and fix your own door !

My theory is that the car driver and the cyclist would both be fined!
 
For cyclists to avoid cars' door, they need to constantly be on the look out, while a passenger or a driver leaving their car will only need to focus once and for a brief moment, hence why it makes sense for the legal onus to be on the car's occupants.

Also, in London many cycle lanes are along parked cars. For the cyclist to ride 1m from the parked cars, they'll have to cycle outside the cycle lane. E.g.:

Screenshot-20220123-215329-Maps.jpg


In other places they moved the parking bays away from the pavement and squeezed the cycling lane between the parked cars and the pavement, not leaving cyclists any space at all to ride 1m from the parked cars:

Screenshot-20220123-215939-Maps.jpg
 
I have a 20cm scar across my chest where in 2013 I was cycling to work, past a row of stationary traffic. A woman in the passenger seat decided to get out and walk just as I was cycling past (in the cycle lane). The corner of the door hit my chest, the force of me hitting it bent the chassis so that the door wouldnt shut (Citroen C1). - writing the car off.

It wasnt possible for me to cycle "at least 1m from cars" due to location of the cycle lane.

I ended up in A&E and amazingly didnt break my ribs.
 
Last edited:
Was anyone else tempted to look up “Dutch Reach” in the Urban Dictionary?

I’ll get me coat
No need. I remember her too well.
 
Got a certain sympathy for the idea, but it's going to be another bit of useless legislation that the police won't be able to use.

Duty of care remains on both sides.

Cyclists do need to own the road, avoid cycling over drains and gulleys, keep the rubber side down, and assume every car user is an 18 year old new mother who hasn't had a proper night's sleep since she passed her driving test last week.

.
 
Duty of care remains on both sides.

True, for all traffic matters. Also when you drive through a junction where other cars should give you right of way, and even if you have a green light - just look left and right before crossing a junction, any junction. Etc etc. The legal justice system is not a substitute for common sense (and for your survival instinct).
 
Got a certain sympathy for the idea, but it's going to be another bit of useless legislation that the police won't be able to use.

Duty of care remains on both sides.
Quite. And, oddly enough, my primary duty of care extends to my own self preservation so while I owe a duty of care to others I will not compromise my own safety unnecessarily.

This is one of those "good ideas" that actually isn't once practical considerations are taken into account.

For example, while I always give priority to pedestrians who are actually crossing a road I'm turning into, if I'm riding my motorcycle I will absolutely not stop while turning into a road just on the off chance that a pedestrian standing on the pavement might be intending to cross when to do so would put me at risk of being rammed by a vehicle behind me.
 
I have a 20cm scar across my chest where in 2013 I was cycling to work, past a row of stationary traffic. A woman in the passenger seat decided to get out and walk just as I was cycling past (in the cycle lane). The corner of the door hit my chest, the force of me hitting it bent the chassis so that the door wouldnt shut (Citroen C1). - writing the car off.

It wasnt possible for me to cycle "at least 1m from cars" due to location of the cycle lane.

I ended up in A&E and amazingly didnt break my ribs.
Virtually the same thing happened to me; near side cycle lane, Citroen opening a door (C4 Picasso, not C1). I too have a scar on my chest and my right clavicle is displaced inward and down where it joins the sternum. Amazingly the clavicle didn't break.
 
It’ll be like most sensible rules. The ones who basically obeyed the rules in the first place will carry on doing so, the knackas who drove like they owned the roads anyway won’t change their driving standards.
One thing I fail to understand is why hasn’t it been made compulsory for cyclists to wear a crash helmet ?
 
Virtually the same thing happened to me; near side cycle lane, Citroen opening a door (C4 Picasso, not C1). I too have a scar on my chest and my right clavicle is displaced inward and down where it joins the sternum. Amazingly the clavicle didn't break.
And thene there was the cyclist that t-boned my friend’s brand new BMW and smashed the door in. Cyclist was going the wrong way up a one-way when she pulled out. The cyclist did the expected....jumped on his bike and rode off as quickly as possible.
 
There was a case in Leicester a year or two ago when a taxi stopped by the rail station to let a customer out the rear of the taxi, the customer opened her door onto an oncoming cyclist. The taxi driver got a big fine for allowing the customer to open the rear door! Madness in my view.
 
It’ll be like most sensible rules. The ones who basically obeyed the rules in the first place will carry on doing so, the knackas who drove like they owned the roads anyway won’t change their driving standards.
One thing I fail to understand is why hasn’t it been made compulsory for cyclists to wear a crash helmet ?
Its an interesting point and there have been a number of studies conducted around this. Part of the reason is that there is a concern the mandatory wearing of helmets will dissuade more people from cycling (when the strategy is to try to get more people out of cars and onto bikes). I also saw a study that showed car drivers had a tendency to pass more closely etc to cyclists wearing helmets. The inference there was that the car drivers view an unhelmeted rider as more vulnerable so modified their driving behaviour. Though ive not seen any research into this i also believe the same may be true from the cyclists perspective - an unhelmeted rider may feel more vulnerable so may modify their riding behaviour.

I always used to wear a helmet regardless, but now if im just going out for a pootle i usually just wear a casquette (cap). And if i find myself on a big descent without a helmet (granted quite unlikely) i will moderate my speed more. Mountain biking i always wear a helmet because in all probability im far more likely to come off.

The key thing is that a helmet is PPE, and PPE is always the last form of defence. I think these new rules are attempting to minimise the likelihood of incidents before the point where PPE comes into play.
 
The new Lexus models come with "Safe Exit Assist" E-latches, electronic door releases that work with the blind-spot sensors that will not release the doors if it detects cyclists etc approaching.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
The new S class gives a warning if it detects (by camera) a cyclist or other passing object when somebody reaches for the door latch.

I think I read also that it prevents the door from being opened if an obstacle is detected but could have dreamed it.
 
I think these new rules are attempting to minimise the likelihood of incidents before the point where PPE comes into play.
I agree that is the most likely rationale for them. The trouble is, I suspect they will have a largely opposite effect in practice - for a variety of "human factor" reasons.

@KillerHERTZ's incident with the car passenger opening a door is a good example of unintended consequences. Cycle lanes are painted on the road a few feet from the kerb to provide an element of segregation from motorised traffic. That's great and laudable. At least it is until someone parks adjacent to the cycle lane and the passenger opens a nearside door into the path of a cyclist because they're used to opening the door onto a pavement. Absent the cycle lane, the car would have parked next to the kerb, the cyclist would have passed it on the right - which is the convention for passing another vehicle - and the conflict wouldn't have happened.

The problem is that a huge proportion of our roads infrastructure (tending towards 100%) does not lend itself to segregating road space for different transport modes. That may be a disappointment to some, but it's a reality. Pretending that it isn't reality leads to conflicts that needn't exist, fuelled by those who are more concerned about exercising their "rights" than acting responsibly to coexist with other road users. And that goes for car drivers as well as cyclists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 190
And thene there was the cyclist that t-boned my friend’s brand new BMW and smashed the door in. Cyclist was going the wrong way up a one-way when she pulled out. The cyclist did the expected....jumped on his bike and rode off as quickly as possible.
So he "smashed the door in" then "Rode off as quickly as possible" Something doesn't tally there; when you say "smashed in" do you mean slightly dented. Speaking as someone who has "smashed in" a car door that was opened on me there is A) a damaged bike that is not rideable and B) a damaged human who is only leaving at the speed of the nearest ambulance.
I am not defending anyone riding the wrong way down a one way street, it's indefensible, but this narrative that you can have a significant accident with a car vs. cyclist and the chances are they will shrug it off and do a runner is not one that promotes careful driving.
 
Perhaps if cyclists could be persuaded to pass a parked car at a 1.5 m distance, neithe car or bike would be at risk.....
 
There was a case in Leicester a year or two ago when a taxi stopped by the rail station to let a customer out the rear of the taxi, the customer opened her door onto an oncoming cyclist. The taxi driver got a big fine for allowing the customer to open the rear door! Madness in my view.
Which part is madness. The taxi driver stopping on double yellow lines (and at the time a cycle lane but this has now moved onto the pavement) instead of the taxi rank that was available, the passenger throwing open her door without looking, the taxi driver releasing the door without checking it was safe to do so or Sam getting thrown under the wheels of a van (The driver of which drove off). Three of the four involved got away with fines or a suspended sentence, one of them wasn't so lucky.
 
Perhaps if cyclists could be persuaded to pass a parked car at a 1.5 m distance, neithe car or bike would be at risk.....
That’s not going to work in reality is it?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom