Doored by Police Car

[Trickedem]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...fter-being-doored-by-police-car-a3220591.html
@ianrauk is this near where you were knocked over by the Police? I hope they don't try to wriggle out of this one.

 

[ianrauk]

Yep, not far. More Catford then Bellingham though. That's a fast bit of road for cyclists. Can really get some speed up there. I hope he's ok.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

From the article

"It is believed he crashed with one of the squad car's doors."

Why did HE (the cyclist) crash with a door. As if there was no other action by another person.

"Traffic officers are investigating whether it happened as the door was being opened by someone in the car."
How else could it have happened? I am wondering if they are suggesting it was somebody in the back of the car that opened the door.

If so, I'm not sure how, as from experience, the back doors can't be opened from the inside.

 

[dfthe1]

From the article

"It is believed he crashed with one of the squad car's doors."

Why did HE (the cyclist) crash with a door. As if there was no other action by another person.

"Traffic officers are investigating whether it happened as the door was being opened by someone in the car."
How else could it have happened? I am wondering if they are suggesting it was somebody in the back of the car that opened the door.

If so, I'm not sure how, as from experience, the back doors can't be opened from the inside.

I think what they mean is that they are determining if the door was opened into the cyclist's path or if the door was already open before the cyclist appeared and collided with it.

 

[steveindenmark]

From the article

"It is believed he crashed with one of the squad car's doors."

Why did HE (the cyclist) crash with a door. As if there was no other action by another person.

"Traffic officers are investigating whether it happened as the door was being opened by someone in the car."
How else could it have happened? I am wondering if they are suggesting it was somebody in the back of the car that opened the door.

If so, I'm not sure how, as from experience, the back doors can't be opened from the inside.

You cannot blame the police for inaccurate or misleading reporting by the press.

The report does not say if the car was stationary or was moving when the door and cyclist came into contact. Technically, the door could have collided with the cyclist, if the car was moving.

The report does not suggest the back door was opened. But they can be opened from the Inside if the safety lock isnt activated. They can also be opened from the Inside by prisoners opening the window and using the handle. Yes, it does happen.

The likely event is that the police officer did not look and opened the door on the cyclist. The cyclist for whatever reason was not out of the door area and got hit by the door.

Its very difficult to know the exact circumstances with so little information.

 

[Profpointy]

lucky he wasn't tazered and arrested as a terrorist

 

[Jody]

Where does the fault lay? Is it the officer for not looking or the rider for being too close?

 

[jefmcg]

The law is clear - the liability is always with the person opening the door and the driver of the vehicle.

And cyclists try to stay out of the door zone because being right isn't much comfort if you are dead

 

[jefmcg]

No-one is suggesting otherwise.

Hence my use of "And"

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I think what they mean is that they are determining if the door was opened into the cyclist's path or if the door was already open before the cyclist appeared and collided with it.

If they don't know which it is. I'd have a good guess they opened it into the cyclist

 

[jefmcg]

I think Doorings usually involves the cyclist hitting a door that has suddenly opened in front of them. Still the driver's fault, though

 

[dfthe1]

As usual, there just isn't enough information in the article to know what happened and to start getting worked up about it. The quotes in the headline are important as they signify that a dooring isn't necessarily what happened -- just what someone said. And we don't know who this person is, what their involvement is and whether they even saw the incident. The main article makes this clear -- it isn't known exactly what happened and the events are being investigated. That's all there is to it at the moment.

It's probably more likely the someone opened the door into the path of the cyclist, but no-one can say that is what happened from reading the article.

 

[Inertia]

It's probably more likely the someone opened the door into the path of the cyclist, but no-one can say that is what happened from reading the article.

It does seem most likely, the alternatives are that he was going that fast that he didnt see it till it was too late or that he wasnt paying attention and cycled into a stationary object. If either of those happened to me Id consider its time to give up the bike.

 

[Jody]

The law is clear - the liability is always with the person opening the door and the driver of the vehicle.

Thanks. Genuinely didn't know who was at fault.

 

[sidevalve]

No clear info = no clear conclusion possible.
Statement 'cyclist was in collision with door' is 100% correct, he didn't hit anything else. It is a statement of fact - the two objects collided nothing more to gained by this. Nether which was moving or which [or who] was at fault. Another waste of time until [or more likely if] proper details become available. Guessing is simply an attempt at 'trial by media'. We know nothing - for all the report states the cyclist may have been a drug runner trying to avoid the car and capture.