Pass a door's width away and do not undertake

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertakingand travelling at
a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear,
then crashes like this will not happen.

Still I expect his fridge freezer insurance will help him out.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...0-8610704.html

On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:24:47 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertakingand travelling at
a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear,
then crashes like this will not happen.

Motorists should of course follow the same advice and travel at 5mph
at least two car widths away from parked cars, to avoid fellow
motorists who don't use mirrors pulling out on them

Still I expect his fridge freezer insurance will help him out.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...0-8610704.html

It depends on the terms of the passengers fridge freezer insurance

Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:24:47 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertakingand
travelling at a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they
can see to be clear, then crashes like this will not happen.

Motorists should of course follow the same advice and travel at 5mph
at least two car widths away from parked cars, to avoid fellow
motorists who don't use mirrors pulling out on them

Why are you introducing cars and cars pulling out on other cars? This is
about cyclists undertaking and passing too close.
It is odd but cars don't suffer the same 'dooring' scenario, cars are much
easier to notice, so the incidence of doors being opened (which is the gist
of this thread) is much less in the first place, cars leave a larger gap
when passing (than a cyclist does) cars also seem able to brake and swerve
more effectively than bicycles can, car drivers use better anticipatory
skills than cyclists, and because of the lack of struggle in propelling the
car it leaves you with more attention for the road. and of course in the
event of a collision with a carelessly opened door, the chances of serious
injury to either of the car occupants is very slight (unlike the cyclist)
So really your idea is not really of any help to car drivers. Since this is
a cycling group I am at a loss as to why you brought it up. On a personal
anecdotal level I have driven on the road (bikes, motorbikes, outfits, cars,
vans, lorries) for close to fifty years with probably well over a million
miles covered, yet I have never hit a carelessly opened door although doors
have been opened up in front of me it has rarely been a surprise and
avoidance has been achieved.

On 12/05/2013 08:53, Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:24:47 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertaking and traveling at
a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear,
then crashes like this will not happen.

Motorists should of course follow the same advice and travel at 5mph
at least two car widths away from parked cars, to avoid fellow
motorists who don't use mirrors pulling out on them


First of all, he was undertaking;

"Kevin Fallon, 48, crashed into the passenger-side door in Dalston on
his way to work in the City in 2010".

A dangerous & foolish thing to do.

Secondly, motorists rarely hit opening doors, despite passing closer &
at higher speeds.

Had the cyclist used common sense, anticipation, observation & hazard
awareness skills - it wouldn't have happened.

I hope the driver is counter claiming for any damage to the door.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 12/05/2013 07:24, Mrcheerful wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertakingand travelling at
a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear,
then crashes like this will not happen.

Still I expect his fridge freezer insurance will help him out.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...0-8610704.html

QUOTE:
A cyclist seriously hurt when a car door was opened in his path is suing
the driver and his passenger in the High Court for £200,000.
Kevin Fallon, 48, crashed into the passenger-side door in Dalston on his
way to work in the City in 2010.
Mr Fallon, who was wearing a helmet, said he was admitted to hospital
with bleeding to the brain and still suffers headaches, mood changes,
and low energy, and has an increased risk of developing epilepsy. He
hopes his case will prompt a change in the law.

[What change is he thinking of? Causing a door to be opened in such
circumstances is already an offence as far as I recall.]

QUOTE:
“There are only a handful of countries in Europe which do not have a
policy of strict negligence and the UK is one of them,” said financial
analyst Mr Fallon, of Walthamstow. “It is a civil law, which would state
that the motorist has to prove that he did not cause the crash.”

[Ah... a "compensation sets in" law...]

QUOTE:
He said the car was moving slowly in a traffic jam. “The person in the
passenger side opened the door in my path.” Mr Fallon was in Homerton
University Hospital for a week before being moved to another hospital,
he then returned home to Brighton for two months. “I was very unwell,”
he said.
ENDQUOTE

I don't want to comment on an ongoing case and I don't want to be unkind
to anyone if they have been injured, but surely, in "traffic jam"
conditions" where traffic was "moving slowly", it's reasonable enough
for a passenger to perhaps want to get out and travel by other means?
And surely, that possibility should be uppermost in the mind of anyone
overtaking? They should overtake with extreme caution *because* of the
fact that a door may be opened and they should not overtake on the left
where passengers are more likely to be sitting. And they should be
moving at a speed which is compatible with the speed of other traffic,
especially if they are going to be passing too close (ie, within a car's
width, as apparently "recommended" by the Highway Code)?

On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:23:25 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:24:47 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertakingand
travelling at a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they
can see to be clear, then crashes like this will not happen.

Motorists should of course follow the same advice and travel at 5mph
at least two car widths away from parked cars, to avoid fellow
motorists who don't use mirrors pulling out on them

Why are you introducing cars and cars pulling out on other cars? This is
about cyclists undertaking and passing too close.


Because it was you who claimed cyclists should make allowances for
drivers not using their mirrors, but fail to explain why this doesn't
apply to motorists.

On 12/05/2013 14:39, Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:23:25 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:24:47 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertakingand
travelling at a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they
can see to be clear, then crashes like this will not happen.

Motorists should of course follow the same advice and travel at 5mph
at least two car widths away from parked cars, to avoid fellow
motorists who don't use mirrors pulling out on them

Why are you introducing cars and cars pulling out on other cars? This is
about cyclists undertaking and passing too close.


Because it was you who claimed cyclists should make allowances for
drivers not using their mirrors, but fail to explain why this doesn't
apply to motorists.


But it clearly does - because motorists don't hit doors regularly.

--
Dave - Cyclists VORP
"It is time for us to say to cyclists 'You want to join our gang, get
trained and pay up'. John Griffin, Addison Lee.

On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:02:04 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 12/05/2013 08:53, Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:24:47 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertaking and traveling at
a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear,
then crashes like this will not happen.

Motorists should of course follow the same advice and travel at 5mph
at least two car widths away from parked cars, to avoid fellow
motorists who don't use mirrors pulling out on them


First of all, he was undertaking;

"Kevin Fallon, 48, crashed into the passenger-side door in Dalston on
his way to work in the City in 2010".

A dangerous & foolish thing to do.


A perfectly reasonable and legal thing to do if your lane is moving
faster due to the right hand lane being congested.

Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:23:25 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:24:47 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertakingand
travelling at a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they
can see to be clear, then crashes like this will not happen.

Motorists should of course follow the same advice and travel at 5mph
at least two car widths away from parked cars, to avoid fellow
motorists who don't use mirrors pulling out on them

Why are you introducing cars and cars pulling out on other cars?
This is about cyclists undertaking and passing too close.


Because it was you who claimed cyclists should make allowances for
drivers not using their mirrors, but fail to explain why this doesn't
apply to motorists.

Mirrors ? Please point out where I mentioned mirrors.

However, since there is a massive difference in the size and trajectory of a
cyclist and a car, along with a massive difference in plain visibility
regarding colour, flashy bits, reflectors etc. It is easy for anyone to
understand that it is much easier to spot a car than a bicycle (when opening
a car door) whether you physically look or look in a mirror. A sensible
careful road using will take pains to integrate this knowledge into their
riding and will be able to avoid crashing into a large object that quite
predictably may appear in their path, they will not undertake for instance,
nor pass closely when inappropriate. They would travel at a speed suitable
for the speed differential and be able to stop or avoid the object.

In the case in point, if the cyclist had been travelling at a sensible speed
then he would have been able to stop in time, likewise a low speed collision
due to his poor road use (undertaking) would have been unlikely to cause
such serious injury.

Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:02:04 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 12/05/2013 08:53, Cassandra wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:24:47 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

If cyclists just used common sense, such as not undertaking and
traveling at a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they
can see to be clear, then crashes like this will not happen.

Motorists should of course follow the same advice and travel at 5mph
at least two car widths away from parked cars, to avoid fellow
motorists who don't use mirrors pulling out on them


First of all, he was undertaking;

"Kevin Fallon, 48, crashed into the passenger-side door in Dalston on
his way to work in the City in 2010".

A dangerous & foolish thing to do.


A perfectly reasonable and legal thing to do if your lane is moving
faster due to the right hand lane being congested.

very unlikely it was two lanes moving at different speeds in Dalston, and if
it was then why was the cyclist so close to the car he was undertaking?