Is nobody talking about this? Grayling doors cyclist

bendertherobot

It is the week of miracles....

cooldad

I thought it was the responsibility of the driver to make sure it's safe for passengers to open doors etc.

veronese68

cooldad wrote:

I thought it was the responsibility of the driver to make sure it's safe for passengers to open doors etc.

I must admit I thought this too.
In my case I had a phone call from the police saying they wouldn't prosecute as they didn't think there was a lot of point given how upset the girls involved were they thought there was nothing to be gained. I agreed with them in my case. In this case with Grayling given his comments about cycle lanes and his position I think they should without a shadow of doubt.

bendertherobot

Rule 239 appears to be predicated towards drivers but it's not clear. The relevant offence talks about 'any person.'

Passengers are clearly covered there so Grayling won't get out that way. As it were.

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

Rule 239 appears to be predicated towards drivers but it's not clear. The relevant offence talks about 'any person.'

Passengers are clearly covered there so Grayling won't get out that way. As it were.

In my case the claim was made against the driver's insurance, no other choice I guess. I was passing traffic between two lanes and the passenger in the car in the right hand lane opened the door. I'm not sure who would have been prosecuted in that case had they decided to go ahead.

ForumNewbie

bendertherobot wrote:

I shall begin a mammoth epic piece for the blog on this.

Can someone give me the actual map position by the way? It isn't just a cycle path coming up, as I understand it it's one just finished as well so we have a silly no mans land which, according to some commentators, means you then have to join the traffic or, grudgingly, OVERtake.

Although he is after the end of one marked cycle path and before the start of another one, the stationary traffic have still left a space equivalent to a bike path width. As the road appears to be the same width as when the bike path starts, I don't know why that part of the road is not a marked bike path. Like a lot of bike paths it seems to be bad planning - the safest option for the cyclist to take was what he did, i.e. maintain his line.

bendertherobot

ForumNewbie wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

I shall begin a mammoth epic piece for the blog on this.

Can someone give me the actual map position by the way? It isn't just a cycle path coming up, as I understand it it's one just finished as well so we have a silly no mans land which, according to some commentators, means you then have to join the traffic or, grudgingly, OVERtake.

Although he is after the end of one marked cycle path and before the start of another one, the stationary traffic have still left a space equivalent to a bike path width. As the road appears to be the same width as when the bike path starts, I don't know why that part of the road is not a marked bike path. Like a lot of bike paths it seems to be bad planning - the safest option for the cyclist to take was what he did, i.e. maintain his line.

Totally, I'm guessing it's just poor design or the raft of security measures there taking up valuable space/resources.