Car Passenger Knocks of Cyclist - An Answer

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:40:06 +0100, judith
wrote:

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

snip


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



by "rare" - do you mean "impossible"?

He would be wrong if he did.

It clearly is not "impossible", or the police would not have said it
could happen.

But it will certainly be very rare.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm too smart to let my intelligence go to my head.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:18:44 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
wrote:


Err… could someone please explain to me why there’s an assumption of
blame here on anyone associated with the car.

Because it is the responsibility of anybody opening a car door to
ensure it is safe to do so.



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

I presume you have never checked then.

because that has never been the case in law.



I once saw a moped move up the inside of a stationary queue of cars
(traffic lights) only to go flying as a nearside car passenger opened
his door. A nearby policeman booked the unhurt moped driver much to
his surprise and great annoyance.


He would have been booked for driving without due care and attention.

And probably mainly because he was doing it too fast for safety.

Not for any specific offence of passing on the inside.

Actually, even the highway code says it is OK when passing a queue of
traffic.


Presumably, the car driver was then able to claim against the moped
driver's insurance as well.

I doubt it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm sure it's in the manual somewhere...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
wrote:


There was no cycle lane just a moped moving up the gap between the
cars and the kerb.

A car passenger is surely entitled to assume that any overtaking
manoeuvre would take place correctly offside not incorrectly on the
nearside.

Nope.

Why do think that is "surely"?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm sure it's in the manual somewhere...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:51:40 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 11, 9:23 am, judith wrote:
I submitted the following query to The Police National Legal Database
(PNLD)

----------------------------------------------
If a passenger in a car opens a door and knocks a cyclist off their
bike -
can the driver of the car be prosecuted for this action of the
passenger.
Who would be prosecuted - and with what offence?

(The passenger is an adult with full mental faculties)

---------------------------------------------------
They have replied as follows:

Judith

Regulation 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
1986 creates an offence of opening a vehicle door so as to injure or
endanger any person. 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.

The Police National Legal Database (PNLD)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NB If it could be "shown" that the driver "also initiated the opening
of the that door"

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.

What you have here is not a reply that proves your opinion but a reply
that reflects the opinion of the person who replied to your e-mail.
That person may/may not be either a police officer or a legal graduate
they may be a civilian employee. In any event the response is
incorrect, the driver is liable if he cause or permits IE: Permits -
fails to take action to prevent a door being opened to danger.

Any particular reason why you stated the response was incorrect, then
quoted material proving that it was correct in normal circumstances?

The second case was very much "the exception that proves the rule",
since it was clearly stated that the taxi driver was only found liable
only because he *both* had knowledge that the area was more unsafe
than normal,*and* he had the power to prevent opening the door (which
is quite exceptional).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you can't debug it, deplug it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:09:44 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

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.

Not really.

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.

But only because most insurance policies offer third party liability
cover for liabilities of the passengers.

Not because the driver would himself be liable.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you can't debug it, deplug it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:36:16 +0100, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:21:43 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:40:06 +0100, judith
wrote:

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

snip


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



by "rare" - do you mean "impossible"?

He would be wrong if he did.

It clearly is not "impossible", or the police would not have said it
could happen.

But it will certainly be very rare.


Probably being too pedantic here Alex (it has been known !)

What was stated was:

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.


Then the driver is actually being prosecuted for "initiating the
opening" - ie NOT for the opening action of the passenger.

I would still hold that "it would be impossible for a driver to be
found criminally negligent for the actions of a adult passenger."


--
I believe the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts of
passengers (Guy Chapman)

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:44:22 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:36:16 +0100, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:21:43 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:40:06 +0100, judith
wrote:

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

snip


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



by "rare" - do you mean "impossible"?

He would be wrong if he did.

It clearly is not "impossible", or the police would not have said it
could happen.

But it will certainly be very rare.


Probably being too pedantic here Alex (it has been known !)

What was stated was:

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.


Then the driver is actually being prosecuted for "initiating the
opening" - ie NOT for the opening action of the passenger.

I would still hold that "it would be impossible for a driver to be
found criminally negligent for the actions of a adult passenger."

What if the driver had a similar duty of care to the adult passenger
as he would to a child. Let's say for example a carer taking an adult
blind passenger to the local shops?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:44:22 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:36:16 +0100, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:21:43 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:40:06 +0100, judith
wrote:

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

snip


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



by "rare" - do you mean "impossible"?

He would be wrong if he did.

It clearly is not "impossible", or the police would not have said it
could happen.

But it will certainly be very rare.


Probably being too pedantic here Alex (it has been known !)

What was stated was:

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.


Then the driver is actually being prosecuted for "initiating the
opening" - ie NOT for the opening action of the passenger.

I would still hold that "it would be impossible for a driver to be
found criminally negligent for the actions of a adult passenger."


I think he could, in the scenario posted by Tom, where he pulled up
and actually told the passenger it was safe.

The passenger still bears the primary responsibility, but the driver
also bears some, and could in theory be prosecuted for it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
He's ALIVE, Jim. Where did I go wrong?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:16:52 +0100, Alex Heney
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.

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.

If a driver pulls up by the kerb at the end of a journey, a passenger
opening their door to disembark is not an unexpected event.

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).

I am not convinced.

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
What if the driver had a similar duty of care to the adult passenger
as he would to a child. Let's say for example a carer taking an adult
blind passenger to the local shops?

From the earlier response:

He might be prosecuted for telling the blind person to open the door

ie for his own action in initiating the opening by telling the blind person
to do so, not the action of the blind person in opening the door

If the logic were criminal responsibility for the actions of the passenger
and the driver said "do not open the door" but the passenger still did so,
the liability would, in logic, remain

pk