Minster of Transport doors a cyclist

rick_chasey

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Fairly self explanatory.

Maybe it might persuade him to look at how the Dutch legislate avoid dooring.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-27/e ... g-cyclists

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/chris-grayling-sent-cyclist-flying-with-his-car-door-video-shows?CMP=share_btn_tw

Fairly self explanatory.

Maybe it might persuade him to look at how the Dutch legislate avoid dooring.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-27/e ... g-cyclists

Doubtful, considering this happened before he made comments about how difficult cycle lanes make life for 'road users'.

mtb-idle

looks like driving without due care and attention to me (and yes, I realise it wasn't him driving but it's still the same thing).

asprilla

MTB-Idle wrote:

looks like driving without due care and attention to me (and yes, I realise it wasn't him driving but it's still the same thing).

It's not driving without due care, it's a specific offence called out in Rule 239 of the HC and S42 of the RTA 1988. It's not limited to the driver of the vehicle either, but anyone who opens the door (driver is responsible for those below the age of legal responsibility).

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/t ... icle-doors

graeme_s-2

Maybe we should start a petition for the child locks to be activated on ministerial vehicles?

surrey_commuter

I am sure Grayling will consider the cyclist to have been in the wrong place - with a name like Jaiqi Liu they clearly should not have been there.

graeme_s-2

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am sure Grayling will consider the cyclist to have been in the wrong place - with a name like Jaiqi Liu they clearly should not have been there.

He apparently accused the cyclist of riding too quickly. Which sort of implies that he saw him, assessed his speed as "too fast" and then opened the door anyway. I'm sure the reality is that he just didn't bother to look and then immediately tried to blame the victim.

kingstongraham

If the cyclist had been going quicker, there would have been no problem

itboffin

I do hope they reported the accident to the police within 24 or 48 hours I forget which

wolfsbane2k

itboffin wrote:

I do hope they reported the accident to the police within 24 or 48 hours I forget which

24

amack

The BBC website quotes someone from the motoring press on the story, just for a balanced telling of the incident you would imagine :shock:

But motoring journalist Steve Berry told the programme: "Why are you saying that he knocked the cyclist off his bike? ... That man cycled into the door of a car that was being opened so somebody could step onto the pavement."
"Motorcyclists would never dream of undertaking on the left hand side because ... somebody is going to open a car door and you are going to be knocked off.
"The transport secretary is clearly on the back seat of that vehicle. How on earth is he supposed to use the rear view mirror which is set up for the driver, who is sat on the other side and on the front seat?"
"The highway code is clear ... it tells you, with relation to trucks and buses: Do not attempt to pass between the vehicle and the kerb - there is no confusion."
The Highway Code "rules for cyclists" states that, at road junctions when passing long vehicles: "Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb."

mtb-idle

"The highway code is clear ... it tells you, with relation to trucks and buses: Do not attempt to pass between the vehicle and the kerb - there is no confusion."

As he is being pedantic then we can also be pedantic. There was no truck or bus involved.

kingstongraham

It's quite simple to answer some questions there:
"Why are you saying that he knocked the cyclist off his bike?" - Because he knocked a cyclist off his bike.
"Motorcyclists would never dream of undertaking on the left hand side because ..." Because there's not normally enough room. Otherwise they would be straight through there in London.
How on earth is he supposed to use the rear view mirror which is set up for the driver, who is sat on the other side and on the front seat?" He doesn't have to use the mirror as he has a functioning neck.

rick_chasey

amack wrote:

The BBC website quotes someone from the motoring press on the story, just for a balanced telling of the incident you would imagine :shock:

But motoring journalist Steve Berry told the programme: "Why are you saying that he knocked the cyclist off his bike? ... That man cycled into the door of a car that was being opened so somebody could step onto the pavement."

Who the f*ck is this guy, Arnold Schwarzenegger?

awavey

amack wrote:

The BBC website quotes someone from the motoring press on the story, just for a balanced telling of the incident you would imagine :shock:

But motoring journalist Steve Berry told the programme: "Why are you saying that he knocked the cyclist off his bike? ... That man cycled into the door of a car that was being opened so somebody could step onto the pavement."
"Motorcyclists would never dream of undertaking on the left hand side because ... somebody is going to open a car door and you are going to be knocked off.
"The transport secretary is clearly on the back seat of that vehicle. How on earth is he supposed to use the rear view mirror which is set up for the driver, who is sat on the other side and on the front seat?"
"The highway code is clear ... it tells you, with relation to trucks and buses: Do not attempt to pass between the vehicle and the kerb - there is no confusion."
The Highway Code "rules for cyclists" states that, at road junctions when passing long vehicles: "Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb."

Steve Berry, didnt he used to be on Top Gear ? the original Top Gear when they used to do occasional motorbike bits,BBC clearly went aha a two wheeled rider so can pass comment on riding a bicycle

Im guessing no-one on the programme said so if the HC applies like that to trucks and buses, the correct way to approach a Land Rover Discovery in a no parking zone with loading restrictions is... (actually Im surprised its not a red zone outside parliament thesedays)

itboffin

to be fair though when I saw that video my first thought was i wouldnt have ridden through that gap on that bit of road, in fact these days more than ever I'm riding on the outside with the motorbikes and scooters, every even coming home across Bank junction towards London bridge the inside cycle lane is an accident waiting to happen.

rick_chasey

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... s-cyclist/

roger_merriman

itboffin wrote:

to be fair though when I saw that video my first thought was i wouldnt have ridden through that gap on that bit of road, in fact these days more than ever I'm riding on the outside with the motorbikes and scooters, every even coming home across Bank junction towards London bridge the inside cycle lane is an accident waiting to happen.

Any side if your filtering there is a risk, people should check mirrors/blind spot but they don't.

I do filter but tends to be motorbike style and quite often just wait. Doesn't loose that much time to be honest.

For Clarity the bike should of been safe, and monster should of checked.

mrfpb

It looks like the typical "vanishing cycle lane" - it magically reappears about 20yds in front of the accident - so cyclists are guided to that side of the road if they intend to use the cycle lane. and of course the driver stopped on double yellows to let his passenger out, without pulling in to make it obvious he was parking.

So a combination of poor infrastructure and bad driving as well as the lack of care by the passenger (Grayling). Of course, it must be the cyclist's fault.

rick_chasey

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 24061.html

jamesco

What's the cyclist moaning about? He's not a "road user" and therefore not entitled to be on the road in the first place...

Crazyjenkins01

What a crock of sh1t.
So let me get this straight... a Tory MP, Secretary of State for transport and previously LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS gets off scott free from this?
1. The car stopped on double yellows. If somebody gets out of the car, by definition it must be parked.
2. He didn't check before opening the door.
3. He didn't stop at the scene of an accident.
4. He didn't provide any identification or details to the other party.
5. Hasn't paid for damages to property due to his negligence.

Also has the balls to blame the cyclist

Sounds like a stereotypical Tory to me!

andcp

I would encourage anyone who is a bit miffed about this to go here https://www.theyworkforyou.com and drop your MP a note. Seriously, do it, let them know you're p*ss*d off, you should get a reply.

vimfuego

He's my MP - I'll egg him next time I see him in Epsom (everything the man touches turns to sh!t - he's not called Failing Grayling for nothing)

mick_cornick

Just asked Cycling UK to campaign for Chris Graylings removal from Transport Secretary. I might also write to my (useless) MP.

kurako

Brexit supporting, Heathrow expanding, cyclist hating Chris Grayling is giving London a lot of reasons to dislike him...

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news ... __comment/

kingstongraham

So the full exchange was:

Hansard wrote:

Daniel Zeichner

I thank the Secretary of State; let us hope that we are well prepared. Taking him back to the time just before Christmas, given that soon after his visit to Cambridge he told the Evening Standard that cycle lanes cause problems for road users, will he clarify exactly who he thinks road users are? While he is thinking about cyclists—a helpful clue—could he explain why it is taking such an extraordinarily long time to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy?


Chris Grayling

Cyclists use cycle lanes, and motorists and other road users use the roads alongside them. That is fairly straightforward, to be honest. If the hon. Gentleman is eagerly anticipating our cycling and walking strategy, he does not have long to wait.

https://goo.gl/gk6518

So it sounds like he specifically excludes cyclists. "Motorists and other road users" would include who in addition to those in/on motor vehicles? Horse riders?

Crazyjenkins01

He's just a pr1ck.
The only roads designed exclusively for motorists are MOTORways there's a pretty good clue in the name.
Not that he cares as he obviously doesn't drive himself anymore.

kurako

... and not to mention the railways. How could I forget to add that to his list of crimes against London?

kingstongraham

Perhaps when he says "Cyclists use cycle lanes, and motorists and other road users use the roads alongside them." the other road users also includes cyclists.

This would have the benefit of being true, as not all cyclists use the cycle lanes, but the drawback of being meaningless. "Road users means road users."

vimfuego

KingstonGraham wrote:

"Road users means road users."

Is that Red, White & Blue road users?