"RJH" wrote
On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote:
On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening,
failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its
condition, fell off and died. Viable transport?

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908


Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: "I consider myself to be a
careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist died
but don't think there's anything I could have done different to avoid
this accident."

Who doesn't consider themselves to be careful and competent? It is amazing
to consider the difference between the tiny errors that have to be avoided
in the test to get a licence and the massive errors that can be made
afterwards without losing that licence.

How about looking before opening her door?
She *obviously* caused the accident by her
carelessness.

Quite - and hence the finding of the court.

I've just bought a new to me car, with swish electric folding mirrors. But
they only work off a switch inside the car, so I have to check without
mirrors. Hardly a great hardship, but irritating.

Mine works off the locks. That other manufacturers do differently seems
curious.

But there is a simple technique for opening a door that reduces the
unreliabilty of a visual from inside the car: it can also apply kerb side
for pedestrians. Release the catch so the door moves out slightly to give
those about to pass a signal of intention. Wait a couple of seconds before
opening further. Opening is a two action process of release and push,
anyway, so it's just a matter of including the time separation.