Car Passenger Knocks of Cyclist - An Answer

"nully" wrote in message ...
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:25:44 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:36:36 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:11:46 +0100, "PK" wrote:

but in terms of the offence that ti
passenger alone
Again I doubt this is the case.

If a driver pulls to a stop at the end of a journey with a car load of
passengers I expect that the driver has a responsibility to check that
it is safe for his passengers to open their doors, and if it is not
safe to warn his passengers not to open their doors.

However, if a driver could not reasonably forsee a car door opening
event, and a passenger opens their door unexpectedly into a cyclist or
pedestrian, I would be surprised if the driver could be held
responsible.

It is hard to envisage an unexpected car door opening event, so in
most cases I expect a driver could be held responsible for most cases
of injury to third parties.

See the response:
This would lend that individual who opened the
door being prosecuted at court. If it could be shown that the driver
also initiated the opening of that door s/he too could be prosecuted
for the same offence.

How does the driver "initiate" the opening of the door (unless all
doors are locked and they take off the central locking to let someone
out).

Stopping at the curb - or anywhere else does not "initiate" the
opening of the door.

Stopping at a kerb to allow a passenger to disembark could, IMO, be
interpreted as initiating the opening of a door.

Yeah. And I think its time we started prosecuting parents who give their
kids toy guns if they later turn out to be terrorists. I mean,
'sobvious, innit? Stopping a car means "you can get out whenever you
want", and giving kids a Mattel machine gun means "get yerself into a
clocktower, son"

The driver is not legally responsible for the action of the passenger.

That does not mean that a driver does not have a responsibility to
warn a passenger of a potential hazard.

*Should I tell them about practicing safe sex too, or can I leave that to
their own discretion?*

I suppose it depends on whether they'll be having sex in your car or not ....
--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

On 11/08/2008 16:18, allan tracy said,
Err… could someone please explain to me why there’s an assumption of
blame here on anyone associated with the car.

Last I checked, overtaking on the inside isn’t allowed and that
includes cyclists.

Wrong - cyclists, mopeds, other cars are all allowed to pass stationary
traffic on the inside. As the passenger door was opened, it's reasonable
to assume the car was stationary. Having said that, experienced
cyclists don't pass on the inside for exactly that reason, amongst others.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Colin Nelson wrote:
"nully" wrote in message ...
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:25:44 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:36:36 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:11:46 +0100, "PK" wrote:

but in terms of the offence that ti
passenger alone
Again I doubt this is the case.

If a driver pulls to a stop at the end of a journey with a car load of
passengers I expect that the driver has a responsibility to check that
it is safe for his passengers to open their doors, and if it is not
safe to warn his passengers not to open their doors.

However, if a driver could not reasonably forsee a car door opening
event, and a passenger opens their door unexpectedly into a cyclist or
pedestrian, I would be surprised if the driver could be held
responsible.

It is hard to envisage an unexpected car door opening event, so in
most cases I expect a driver could be held responsible for most cases
of injury to third parties.
See the response:
This would lend that individual who opened the
door being prosecuted at court. If it could be shown that the driver
also initiated the opening of that door s/he too could be prosecuted
for the same offence.

How does the driver "initiate" the opening of the door (unless all
doors are locked and they take off the central locking to let someone
out).

Stopping at the curb - or anywhere else does not "initiate" the
opening of the door.
Stopping at a kerb to allow a passenger to disembark could, IMO, be
interpreted as initiating the opening of a door.

Yeah. And I think its time we started prosecuting parents who give their
kids toy guns if they later turn out to be terrorists. I mean,
'sobvious, innit? Stopping a car means "you can get out whenever you
want", and giving kids a Mattel machine gun means "get yerself into a
clocktower, son"

The driver is not legally responsible for the action of the passenger.
That does not mean that a driver does not have a responsibility to
warn a passenger of a potential hazard.
*Should I tell them about practicing safe sex too, or can I leave that to
their own discretion?*

I suppose it depends on whether they'll be having sex in your car or not ...

Of course they are, otherwise why did I let them in? What do you think
this is, a sodding taxi or something? Hmmmmm, hang on. A taxi driver
held accountable when a ****ed-up passenger opens his door? That'll be a
laugh if it comes to pass - imagine the queue of punters at the cabrank
at 1am on Saturday mornings with drivers refusing to let them in! And
hang on, how about BUS drivers too? What naturally exempts them from
this justice? Maybe we can get Robertson off the road after all )

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:36:47 +0100, judith
wrote:

I am not being rude - but I am more inclined to believe an answer
from a Police department whose purpose is to provide such answers than
I am from your memory of a case some years ago.

I am no more inclined to belive the word of an individual police
officer than from the population as a whole.

Once cycling along the Greenway in Newham I came across a section
cordoned off by the police. I asked the officer standing guard why it
was closed. He explained that because of the *official secret's act*
he couldn't tell me. I couldn't contain my laughter at this blatent
lie. I later learnt from another officer at another point that there
had been a stabbing.

However, as it turns out, Sniper's memory is broadly correct. It
seems that a driver's insurance can usually be claimed against in the
event of a passenger's negligence causing injury to a passing cyclist.

He is probably incorrect if he was asserting that the driver could
usually be found guilty of criminal negligence following the actions
of a passenger. But I don't think that that was what he was saying.

judith wrote:
On 11 Aug 2008 12:32:50 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, judith wrote:

As expected no mention of the driver being held responsible for the
action of the passenger unless the driver was also to blame
Or to put it another way:
the driver is not responsible unless the driver is responsible.


It's really good when a ****wit snips something out of context and
tries to show someone up isn't it.

It's even better when question ends in a question mark!

On 11 Aug 2008 12:32:50 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, judith wrote:

As expected no mention of the driver being held responsible for the
action of the passenger unless the driver was also to blame

Or to put it another way:
the driver is not responsible unless the driver is responsible.

I'm glad we've got judith here to share these blinding insights with
us. How diminished my life would have been without her searing
intellect on hand to explain that to me. Maybe I should take her out
of the killfile.

Maybe not.


Probably not, if that is an example of your "thought" processes.

But then I would hope you have every reasonably intelligent person
from this group in your killfile.

Oh, BTW, your sheer stupidity in attempting to redirect replies
elsewhere has also been noted and repaired (and by others too from
glancing down the thread).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Four minus two is one and the same.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:38:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:23:20 +0100, judith
said in :

As expected no mention of the driver being held responsible for the
action of the passenger unless the driver was also to blame and this
could be shown.

As expected, judith gets a reply which says she is wrong (i.e. that
the driver /may/ be held responsible), and uses it to pretend she is
right.

Are you really as stupid as that ridiculous post makes you look?

Why is it that some people seem to hate judith so much that they will
twist anything to try and make her look bad?

And why are they all so stupid they think we can't see what they are
doing?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Man who run behind car get exhausted.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:36:36 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:11:46 +0100, "PK" wrote:

but in terms of the offence that ti
passenger alone

Again I doubt this is the case.

If a driver pulls to a stop at the end of a journey with a car load of
passengers I expect that the driver has a responsibility to check that
it is safe for his passengers to open their doors, and if it is not
safe to warn his passengers not to open their doors.

However, if a driver could not reasonably forsee a car door opening
event, and a passenger opens their door unexpectedly into a cyclist or
pedestrian, I would be surprised if the driver could be held
responsible.

It is hard to envisage an unexpected car door opening event, so in
most cases I expect a driver could be held responsible for most cases
of injury to third parties.

How the hell can you stand to live around people, with such incredible
mind reading capabilities?

For the rest of us, who *can't* read minds, it is *extremely* easy to
imagine an "unexpected" door opening event.

I would suggest that at least 9 times out of 10 when a passenger opens
a door (even on the "traffic" side) they do so without the driver
having said it is OK.

Which is plenty to be "unexpected" in this context.

I accept that the police don't always get it right, but in this case,
it does seem very obvious. Failure to warn will not be enough. The
driver will have to be shown to have taken an active part in the
opening of the door (which may of course include just saying It's OK
or similar).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
He who places head in sand, will get kicked in the end!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:54:57 -0700 (PDT), aquachimp
wrote:

On Aug 11, 4:36*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:11:46 +0100, "PK" wrote:
but in terms of the offence that ti
passenger alone

Again I doubt this is the case.

If a driver pulls to a stop at the end of a journey with a car load of
passengers I expect that the driver has a responsibility to check that
it is safe for his passengers to open their doors, and if it is not
safe to warn his passengers not to open their doors.

However, if a driver could not reasonably forsee a car door opening
event, and a passenger opens their door unexpectedly into a cyclist or
pedestrian, I would be surprised if the driver could be held
responsible.

It is hard to envisage an unexpected car door opening event, so in
most cases I expect a driver could be held responsible for most cases
of injury to third parties.

I'm inclined to see your point of view. However, it depends on how one
might interpret "initiated the opening of that door".
In your corner, that is implicit in the driver's failure to warn
passengers.
Though I'm inclined to agree, I don't know if that a legal standing.

It wouldn't be.

If he actively told them it was OK, that probably would be IMO, but
failure to warn (unless they asked him) would not be him "initiating"
the door opening.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I don't care who you are, Fatso. Get the reindeer off my roof!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:33:26 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:54:57 -0700 (PDT), aquachimp
wrote:

On Aug 11, 4:36*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:11:46 +0100, "PK" wrote:
but in terms of the offence that ti
passenger alone

Again I doubt this is the case.

If a driver pulls to a stop at the end of a journey with a car load of
passengers I expect that the driver has a responsibility to check that
it is safe for his passengers to open their doors, and if it is not
safe to warn his passengers not to open their doors.

However, if a driver could not reasonably forsee a car door opening
event, and a passenger opens their door unexpectedly into a cyclist or
pedestrian, I would be surprised if the driver could be held
responsible.

It is hard to envisage an unexpected car door opening event, so in
most cases I expect a driver could be held responsible for most cases
of injury to third parties.

I'm inclined to see your point of view. However, it depends on how one
might interpret "initiated the opening of that door".
In your corner, that is implicit in the driver's failure to warn
passengers.
Though I'm inclined to agree, I don't know if that a legal standing.

I'd be surprised if there isn't a legal precedent.

From http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmon...motorinsurance
========
Third party - As well as covering the insured when driving on public
roads, this type of policy applies on private property. It covers
third party claims and provides protection against other legal
liabilities. For example passenger indemnity, covering the possibility
that a passenger in the car may cause an accident perhaps by
carelessly opening the door and knocking a cyclist over. It also
provides cover against certain legal costs.
========

In other words, a driver's third party insurance will cover a
passenger's actions.

This does little to resolve the issue of criminal negligence.

It does nothing whatsoever to resolve that. Or even to resolve civil
liability.

I
suspect that it would be rare for a driver to be found criminally
negligent for the actions of a adult passenger.

Which is exactly the point judith (via the police response) was
making.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm too smart to let my intelligence go to my head.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom