Jefferson Meriwether
Veteran
- Location
- Worthing
Internet forums, home of the thread necromancers 
Case and Point - cyclists overtaking parked cars
- Thread starter LLB
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
A really interesting thread, if a little old 
I cycled in to the scene of a dooring a couple of months back. A laywer turned up and told the driver and passanger that it was not their fault (You can see his argument / logic here:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfTY0rV1nQ
)
I was quite sure this was incorrect and so did some research. From what I found out - the offence is opening a door so as to pose danger to others. There could be any numbers of issues / 'mitigations' / blame or others offences occuring at that time which you could try to argue through, but if a door is opened so as to endanger another individual the offence has been committed. Most interesting is when I read: "The Crown do not have to prove carelessness, nor that someone was struck or injured, only that the act caused danger."
Of course regardless of this, I always try to ride outside of the door zone!
I cycled in to the scene of a dooring a couple of months back. A laywer turned up and told the driver and passanger that it was not their fault (You can see his argument / logic here:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfTY0rV1nQ
)
I was quite sure this was incorrect and so did some research. From what I found out - the offence is opening a door so as to pose danger to others. There could be any numbers of issues / 'mitigations' / blame or others offences occuring at that time which you could try to argue through, but if a door is opened so as to endanger another individual the offence has been committed. Most interesting is when I read: "The Crown do not have to prove carelessness, nor that someone was struck or injured, only that the act caused danger."
Of course regardless of this, I always try to ride outside of the door zone!
Are we getting confused between the criminal offence and civil liability?
The criminal law is only interested in the danger caused by the driver. Not the consequences and not the cyclists unless he helped cause the opening of the door. Civil cases recognise two parties were involved and a wrong by one does not diminish lesser wrong by another.
Nevertheless a good result.
The criminal law is only interested in the danger caused by the driver. Not the consequences and not the cyclists unless he helped cause the opening of the door. Civil cases recognise two parties were involved and a wrong by one does not diminish lesser wrong by another.
Nevertheless a good result.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
The "special circumstances" were solely that the insurer was trying to wriggle out of paying.
Nigel-YZ1
Guru
- Location
- Somewhere else... maybe soon.
"not practical bicycling"...hmm
OT - That would be a lovely phrase to be attached to any complaint about duff cycling facilites.
OT - That would be a lovely phrase to be attached to any complaint about duff cycling facilites.
Similar threads
