Cyclist vs Motorist: Court find Both At Fault

rickster wrote:
*snip*
As you said, you don't know the full circumstances, so HTF

why the bad language?

can you say
"the cyclist is partly to blame". I pass about 1000 stationary cars
on the left every day, every time they are not moving in peak hour
traffic. The only time, by law, you can't pass on the left is when
the car has an indicator to turn left on.

I didn't say it was illegal, just hazardous, and therefore the cyclist
has a responsibility to themself to keep a lookout ie. not ride faster
than you can stop.


If a door flies open, the passenger is 100% at fault as they must
ensure safe disembarkment from the vehicle. I know, 'cos I've had
them charged and pay for repairs.


As you said Rickster, we don't know the full circumstances, so why are
you assuming the door flew open?
As the ads say, "the road is there to share", and whilst you may have
certain legal rights regarding overtaking cars on the left, it doesn't
absolve you from taking precautions.

- UM

In article , (rickster) wrote:

Resound wrote in message
K.A. Moylan wrote:
Summary of a court report that appeared in the Canberra Times,
9/6/2004:
A cyclist ran into a left hand passenger door of a stationary car, as a
15 year old passenger was getting out (at a high school). The cyclist
sued ... for about $60,000 damages.
The court (ACT Supreme Court) ...
The cyclist's damages were halved because she
was '50 per cent to blame' ... 'for overtaking the car on the left and,
therefore, failing to take reasonable care for her own safety.'
My comments: ...
Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of
a stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? ...
--
K.A. Moylan

... Having said that,
to run into an opening door on the LEFT suggests that they were passing
between a stationary car and a footpath. Outside a school. While kids
were being dropped off. That's pretty dumb, and I'd call that negligent.
In the face of all that, I'd say 50/50 is fair, if not generous to the
cyclist. Now if they'd been doored on the RIGHT hand side, then that's
something completely different.


Bull**** it's completely different. A person in a car must ensure
safe disembarkment, does not matter which side they are getting out
of.

If there was room to pass on the left then the car could have been
illegaly parked, i.e too far from the curb. Unless the cyclist was
foolish enough to attempt to ride through a 10 cm gap. Which one was
it ? We should all hold judgement until we know the full facts.

One part of the report had I left out (for brevity):
'The cyclist's version was that the car pulled up in a line of traffic
at a traffic light, 1.5m or more from the kerb, and the door suddenly
opened as she was passing. the driver said she had pulled over to the
left, after using her indicator and checking her mirrors. She said she
pulled up 30-40cm from the kerb.' ...
[The judge] 'accepted that all involved were truthful witnesses, but did
not accept their estimates of the distance between the car and kerb. He
thought 80cm was more probable.'

More of my comments:
30-40cm from the kerb! It's a pretty desperate or skilled cyclist who
can ride that gap. My shoulders are almost 60cm wide, so I'd be scraping
something if I tried that trick.
1.5m is pretty far from the kerb - almost the normal width I like around
my self when riding on the roads (2m space feels good for me).
The judge might be right with his estimate of 80cm. I wonder if the
court visited the site to see for themselves?
---

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au

"K.A. Moylan" wrote in message
...

One part of the report had I left out (for brevity):
'The cyclist's version was that the car pulled up in a line of traffic
at a traffic light, 1.5m or more from the kerb, and the door suddenly
opened as she was passing. the driver said she had pulled over to the
left, after using her indicator and checking her mirrors. She said she
pulled up 30-40cm from the kerb.' ...
[The judge] 'accepted that all involved were truthful witnesses, but did
not accept their estimates of the distance between the car and kerb. He
thought 80cm was more probable.'

In that case the finding should have clearly been in the cyclist's favour.
In order to set down passengers you are required to park the car as close as
possible to the kerb. Try parking your car 80cms from the kerb in the city
and leave it to do your shopping. You'll come back to find a nice ticket on
it.

From Victorian Road Rules Part 12
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_12.pdf

"the driver must position the vehicle parallel and as near as practical, to
the far left or far right side of the road..."
and
"The driver must position the vehicle so that the vehicle does not
unreasonably obstruct the path of other vehicles or pedestrians"

This driver loses on both counts! Well away from the left side of the road
and obstructing the cyclist (with her door) and probably other motor
vehicles on the roadway. Meanwhile the cyclist was taking a quite reasonable
action in passing to the left of a car stopped in traffic with an 80cm
(close to a metre) gap between car and kerb. I wouldn't ride it too quickly,
but 15 kmh would be quite OK. Experienced cyclists will watch out for doors,
but not everyone has that experience. That's why there is a requirenment for
the driver to PARK the car. The judgement of this civil case shows up that
the judge has probably no experience of city cycling.

Cheers
Peter




More of my comments:
30-40cm from the kerb! It's a pretty desperate or skilled cyclist who
can ride that gap. My shoulders are almost 60cm wide, so I'd be scraping
something if I tried that trick.
1.5m is pretty far from the kerb - almost the normal width I like around
my self when riding on the roads (2m space feels good for me).
The judge might be right with his estimate of 80cm. I wonder if the
court visited the site to see for themselves?
---

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au

K.A. Moylan wrote:
In article , (rickster) wrote:
Resound wrote in message
K.A. Moylan wrote:
snip
One part of the report had I left out (for brevity): 'The cyclist's
version was that the car pulled up in a line of traffic at a traffic
light, 1.5m or more from the kerb, and the door suddenly opened as she
was passing. the driver said she had pulled over to the left, after
using her indicator and checking her mirrors. She said she pulled up 30-
40cm from the kerb.' ... [The judge] 'accepted that all involved were
truthful witnesses, but did not accept their estimates of the distance
between the car and kerb. He thought 80cm was more probable.'
More of my comments: 30-40cm from the kerb! It's a pretty desperate or
skilled cyclist who can ride that gap. My shoulders are almost 60cm
wide, so I'd be scraping something if I tried that trick.
1.5m is pretty far from the kerb - almost the normal width I like around
my self when riding on the roads (2m space feels good for me). The
judge might be right with his estimate of 80cm. I wonder if the court
visited the site to see for themselves?
---
--
K.A. Moylan Canberra, Australia Ski Club:
http://www.cccsc.asn.au/http://www.cccsc.asn.au kamoylan at ozemail
dot com dot au


This is the tricky part, and I must admit that I assumed that someon
dropping their kids off at school would do so quite close to th
footpath. If it was a narrow gap, then the cyclist shouldn't have gon
by on the left, as it would most likely have been pretty obvious tha
kids were being dropped off in the area. If, on the other hand, the ca
was 1½ metres, or so from the gutter, then the person opening the doo
is at fault for not looking (or their legal guardian in the case of
minor). Again, with an 80cm gap, I'd be inclined to split blame to som
extent (depends on the speed the cyclist was riding at, how quickly an
carelessly the door was opened, the phase of the moon, bubblegum price
in Algeria, etc). Personally, I wouldn't shoot an 80cm gap in
schoolzone at that time of day for that very reason. Not on the left
anyway (driver's side is another matter). Granted, the passenger of th
car should have checked, but who expects someone to come howling i
between a car and the footpath? This, I think, falls under the headin
of Things that have No Clear Cut Answer. Similarly, this response i
largely off the top of my head, and I'm prepared to be shown the erro
of my thinking. Just remember that while we have a perfect right to us
the road and be treated as equals and with courtesy, doesn't mean tha
we're always in the right. I'm just glad I'm not a judge...damn hard jo
if you're doing it right


-

K.A. Moylan wrote:
Summary of a court report that appeared in the Canberra Times, 9/6/2004:
A cyclist ran into a left hand passenger door of a stationary car, as a
15 year old passenger was getting out (at a high school). The cyclist
sued the driver (the only adult in the car) for about $60,000 damages.
The insurance company claimed the cyclist was at fault because she
'should have been using the nearby footpath, rather than a busy and
dangerous suburban road.' [The report's words, not mine.] The court (ACT
Supreme Court) 'said that if the cyclist was held to be partly to blame
because of this, all cyclists who used the road instead of the footpath
would be guilty of contributory negligence if involved in an accident.'
... 'while the cyclist could have used the footpath ... she was equally
entitled to use the road.' The cyclist's damages were halved because she
was '50 per cent to blame' ... 'for overtaking the car on the left and,
therefore, failing to take reasonable care for her own safety.'
My comments: What cheek by the insurance company! I'm glad the judge
dismissed that nonsense. Imagine if cyclists *had* to use footpaths.
Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian
road rules said it was legal to do such a thing. (Correct me if I
remember wrongly.) This court ruling seems to make that new road rule
somewhat worthless.
What do you think?
--
K.A. Moylan Canberra, Australia Ski Club:
http://www.cccsc.asn.au/http://www.cccsc.asn.au kamoylan at ozemail
dot com dot au



By the sound of this I suspect the vehicle was stationary sort of parked
probably near a school to. So the cyclist appeared to show a complete
lack of any ability in indentifying a hazard from the description of
what she did.

The relevant sections of the Australian Road Rules Act in this
matter a


"141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle
to the left of the vehicle unless:
(a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be
safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle; or
(b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U–turn from the centre of
the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal. Offence
provision.

Note Bicycle, centre of the road, marked lane, multi-lane road,
overtake, right change of direction signal and U–turn are defined in the
dictionary.

(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left
of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of
direction signal. Offence provision.

140 No overtaking unless safe to do so A driver must not overtake a
vehicle unless:
(a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and
(b) the driver can safely overtake the vehicle. Offence provision."

Looks like a bicycle can pass on the left as in the above senario but at
their own peril (see section 140). Looks like the judge brought section
140 into play, in particular 140(b), hence apportionment.

Tend to agree with the judiciary on this.

Cheers, Ian



--