Hit By Taxi - Legal Advice Needed

ryan_w-2

Sorry chaps, just a bit peeved off at the mo and in a fair bit of pain...

I'm more angry about the fact that I now won't be able to participate in the Lands End to John O'Groats charity bike ride I've been planning for quite some time. I know there's always next year, but I will potentially be living in Australia then.

I take onboard what you've both said, of course the insurers will fight the case and want to pay out the minimum amount.

The chap who opened the door lives at the end of my street. Very nice guy and I have all his details etc. He was / is so shook up about the whole event and has said he'll help in anyway possible.

He states that he paid the driver in the middle of the road, and then opened the door.
It's his fault I had the accident, but isn't it the taxi drivers duty of care to make sure he should have been able to get out in a safe place?

The guy could have been killed if I'd have hit him!

fenix

Not sure posting on here will get you any valid help. "But a bloke on the interwebs said...."

Leave it to the hands of your insurers. And the E2E could still be on - it's very early season yet ? Good luck with it.

the_hundredth_idiot

Rule 239 of the Highway Code:
Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside:
...
•you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic

When Chris Grayling did this a few weeks ago, I saw a lot of references to "RTA 1888 sect 42", but that in itself doesn't seem to cover this offence. (IANAL so I am probably missing how the legislation links together.)

"The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986" seems to have an explicit point around this:
Opening of doors
105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.

Which does read to me as if the person opening the door and the driver (who presumably permitted it) are both at fault. Who pays might depend on who has the deepest pockets and what happened in the car immediately before the door was opened.

Personally, I would say that it is the person opening the door (assuming an adult) who is most at fault. He might well be a nice guy, but he's the primary reason you have nasty injuries and a written-off bike. And I think you should bear that in mind when speaking to him - he might understandably be concerned that a claim is heading his way (and possibly even a criminal offence?) so you shouldn't do anything to jeopardise that.

BTW, I know it's not particularly relevant but ... a £5k bike to commute on!

Also, the "Dutch Reach" would go a long way towards reducing the number of dooring incidents in the UK.

The Rookie

You can only claim for negligence, if the driver was not negligent you have no claim on him. simply taking the money and allowing the passenger to open the door may be some level of negligence and it would be for a court to decide who was more negligent, the driver or the passenger and award accordingly, could be anywhere from 0:100 to 100:0.

As above expect any insurer to look at ways where they could claim contributory negligence, they will almost certainly try and claim that travelling that fast and close to stationary vehicles was in itself negligent, so be prepared for that fight, I wouldn't be that surprised if it got to court to have 10-20% knocked off any claim on that basis, a Judge will be somewhat persuaded by the fact that what 'could' have happened 'did' happen and its then down to how reasonably foreseeable it was.

Consider for example a situation where a pedestrian is hit after coming through a gap between queuing cars, drivers have been successfully sued for hitting pedestrians in that manner as having a contributory negligence, being in the right doesn't mean you aren't negligent.
Have a read of this as it contains some useful example of how contributory negligence can work.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cg ... 8/274.html You can see that the lower court granted compensation to the pedestrian despite the fact she was 'legally' in the wrong and the bus driver in the right due to contributory negligence, ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THIS CASE the appeal court decide there wasn't contributory negligence but could have decided to uphold it.

Sorry to here its messed up a potential LeJOG outing though, bummer.

fenix

Did you read the bit about him being IN A CYCLE LANE ?

(35kph is going some for the average rider - is there a bit of exaggeration there or is it downhill ?)

But the taxi didnt pull over to the side. The passenger didnt look. So I don't think speed matters much. If he was going 5 or 15 mph - you still aren't going to see if you dont look.

Passenger and driver are idiots. Cyclist is in the clear. Let the lawyers sort it.

ryan_w-2

Fenix wrote:

Did you read the bit about him being IN A CYCLE LANE ?

(35kph is going some for the average rider - is there a bit of exaggeration there or is it downhill ?)

But the taxi didnt pull over to the side. The passenger didnt look. So I don't think speed matters much. If he was going 5 or 15 mph - you still aren't going to see if you dont look.

Passenger and driver are idiots. Cyclist is in the clear. Let the lawyers sort it.

Just checked my Strava and I was travelling at 31.3kph / 19.4mph when I hit the car.

I class myself as a very safe cyclist and never take unnecessary risks, always stop at reds etc...

When cycling down a clear cycle lane, it's hard to try and predict the future! Lol

fenix

Yeah probs not best to exaggerate your speed in cases like this anyway. Save that for rides where no legal claims are being made...

;-)

ryan_w-2

In my defence, I did say 'about 35kph' Only 3.7kph out....

surrey_commuter

Fenix wrote:

Did you read the bit about him being IN A CYCLE LANE ?

(35kph is going some for the average rider - is there a bit of exaggeration there or is it downhill ?)

But the taxi didnt pull over to the side. The passenger didnt look. So I don't think speed matters much. If he was going 5 or 15 mph - you still aren't going to see if you dont look.

Passenger and driver are idiots. Cyclist is in the clear. Let the lawyers sort it.

I am guessing that The Rookie has some legal knowledge. Rather than aggressively questioning the validity of his postings you could thank him and use his knowledge to maximise any claims that you may have the misfortune to have in the future

fenix

Sorry - didnt mean to come across as rude - I apologise if that's the case - but the point about travelling fast and close to cars- well we have to travel close to cars- as that is where the cycle lane is. If you can't ride in the cycle lane without being somehow responsible for being doored - then I don't know what the point of them is. Fast seems to be less of an issue now - the speed's come down to under 20mph so its hardly fast.


It's not for us though - it's Ryan's legal people who need to kick ass on this.

apreading

Listen to the Rookie - he is not saying you are wrong but he has the legal knowledge and experience to offer the best advice here. If you take it the right way, you can use this advice to really help you get your sh*t together before communicating to the other side and can help you pre-empt things and present your case in as strong a case as possible.

I almost didnt post this, because I dont want to come across as being harsh. I started this convinced by what you said but in the spirit of playing 'devil's advocate' and based on the very helpful warnings from others here, could they argue that you could have predicted the future?

Was the taxi parked up stationary next to the cycle lane but in the middle of the road, with no other reason why they would have stopped other than to pick up/drop off a passenger? i.e. they obviously werent just stopped in traffic or at lights? If so, then maybe it could be argued that you could have predicted this future.

Just because its a cycle lane, doesnt mean others wont encroach on it. If someone had stopped before crossing the road with a pushchair in the cycle lane that you could clearly see and you had chosen to keep going and crash into it wouldnt put them at fault because it was a cycle lane.

For years, I road alongside parked cars and never thought anything of it, but then I kept reading on t'internet how people got doored by them and how we should ride further out. Didnt take it seriously until I nearly got doored and now I both ride further out and make more effort to see if there are people in the parked cars as I approach.

I emphasise - I am not saying you were contributory or are wrong in any way but I dont know the full circumstances.

If the taxi was stopped but in the middle of traffic or next to a set of lights then you would rightly have no expectation that it had stopped for a passenger to get out. But if that is not clear cut then they may try to exploit that.

I have been persuaded to think that the insurance will try to pass blame onto the passenger and/or you as the cyclist. If the driver was arguing with you at the scene and did not admit fault then they would need something iron clad to avoid at least a lively debate between them and your solicitor. The outcome may come down to the smallest of details so make sure you note everything down and analyse everything carefully - and do it now while it is still fresh.

For this and for future avoidance of other accidents, be as self critical as possible and ask yourself if there was anything you could have done differently or any way that you could have anticipated it or anything you could have done to minimise the outcome - the answers may all be no and then you can move on but you should search for the answers just to be sure.

The frustrating thing is that you probably wont know for a while what the outcome of liability is, never mind the values involved. It will take a short while to compile all the information and when it is submitted to the insurance company they have 14 days to respond I think - and they will keep you hanging for all 14 of those days in my experience. If they then contest liability it will take alot longer and it always seems a bit of a lottery...

Hopefully the legal people will look at all the details and agree that it is clear cut and even if there is an arguement will put up a robust case that sorts it easily.

the_hundredth_idiot

Ryan_W wrote:

Just checked my Strava and I was travelling at 31.3kph / 19.4mph when I hit the car.

I class myself as a very safe cyclist and never take unnecessary risks, always stop at reds etc...

When cycling down a clear cycle lane, it's hard to try and predict the future! Lol

I try to cycle safely as well - and I avoid the door zone as drivers/passengers opening their doors without looking happens far too often. While not suggesting that you are to blame for the incident, I think it is taking a risk to ride at 20mph in the door zone.

A quote from an article on the Cyclists Defence Fund website:
"Cyclists being injured by drivers opening their car doors is remarkably common, yet it seems to have received very little attention. Figures released by parliament showed that in 2011, 594 cyclists were injured by incidents involving car doors, which was up from 468 in 2009. I suspect that in reality the figure is higher as I am sure there are many cyclists who do not report the incident and continue on their way (particularly if they are not injured too severely). This figure may well have risen since 2011 due to the continuing increase in cycling."

The Rookie

Fenix wrote:

Did you read the bit about him being IN A CYCLE LANE ?

Yes, did you read the article I supplied explaining it - it sounds like you didn't bother and just jumped onto what I'd said without thought. Contributory negligence is a common issue

Perhaps this one will focus your mind
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cg ... 2/349.html
Contributory negligence for a car driver doing 30-35mph when the Judge decided that 26-27 was the appropriate and safe speed. He'd hit a cyclist with no lights who hopped off the pavement straight into his path.

bompington

FWIW - which may not be a lot - I was hit by a car which swerved into the cycle lane to get round queueing right-turn traffic ahead. I was riding up the lane, on the inside of stationary traffic, at a similar speed - 30-35kmh or so.

The driver's insurance co were as obstructive, awkward and stingy as they possibly could be - but they never made any attempt whatsoever to dispute or even try to share liability.

fenix

That is interesting Mr The Rookie. It's not quite the same though.

That car was travelling over the speed limit and driven by someone who had passed their test 12 days earlier.

As far as I know there's no speed limit for bikes - Ryan was only doing 19 on a road that has a limit of what - 30 ? Ryan's an experienced cyclist. The driver/passenger combination caused the crash.

THe posts above about 'not riding in the door zone' I just don't get. Sure on a normal road - yes - but not if you're in the bike lane. To get out of the door zone you'd need to ride along the pavement.

the_hundredth_idiot

Fenix wrote:

THe posts above about 'not riding in the door zone' I just don't get. Sure on a normal road - yes - but not if you're in the bike lane. To get out of the door zone you'd need to ride along the pavement.

Or out of the bike lane into the rest of the road where you are also entitled to ride. If you are in the usual bike lane which consists of a bit of paint at the side of the road, using the road proper seems more sensible than riding on the pavement. If you're "undertaking" stationary traffic, then you need to filter slowly.

apreading

I normally ride in the road, just outside the door zone - they put them in the worst place around reading anyway - right where all the potholes, storm drains and manhole covers etc are, as well as too close to the parked cars. The point everyone is trying to make above is that just because its a bike lane, you cant expect that there will never be anything other than bikes in it. Its actually probably irrelevant that the door was opened into a cycle lane as opposed to a road - either would be just as negligent an act but either can sometimes be anticipated (though maybe not in this case as we dont have enough info to judge that).

surrey_commuter

you are all getting distracted - apreading put it succinctly

Listen to the Rookie - he is not saying you are wrong but he has the legal knowledge and experience to offer the best advice here. If you take it the right way, you can use this advice to really help you get your sh*t together before communicating to the other side and can help you pre-empt things and present your case in as strong a case as possible.

fenix

I don't think Ryan is communicating to the other side ? He's got his legal people thru British Cycling I think ? Dealing directly with the other side isn't a thing I'd advise.

surrey_commuter

Fenix wrote:

I don't think Ryan is communicating to the other side ? He's got his legal people thru British Cycling I think ? Dealing directly with the other side isn't a thing I'd advise.

I would count the other side as everybody - including my own legal team and any medical practitioner you speak to

the_hundredth_idiot

Ryan said earlier that he is talking about it to the person who actually opened the door on him. I do think he needs to be very careful about that.

apreading

Need to be careful what you say to anyone. Its all to easy to say something which can be exploited to undermine you, just because you didnt phrase it well.

Look at this thread already for example - OP states he was going approx 35kmh - if you put that on paper to your solicitor, they send the information to the other side, the other side suggests that was too fast, then you go back to say "actually it was 31kmh". While this may all be perfectly reasonable and understandable, they will say that you lost credibility and maybe you were actually going more than 35kmh. You might then be down to how evidentially sound the records on your GPS are as proof - they can be doctored. All of this may be a big distraction and nothing to do with the real cause but they will use those distractions against you.

ryan_w-2

I understand that you have to play devils advocate in this and assume everyone out there is against you.

To answer a few questions.

The taxi was in stationary traffic, in the middle of the road.

No indicators, hazards, signalling, attempts to pull over to the kerb.

I was an analyst in the RAF for 9 years and have an embedded skill set that lets me analyze situations at a very fast pace. This comes in handy in many situations, especially on my bike.

There was nothing I could have done to change the outcome of the situation.

It was not my speed that caused the accident, it was the timing.

apreading

Ryan_W wrote:

The taxi was in stationary traffic, in the middle of the road.

No indicators, hazards, signalling, attempts to pull over to the kerb.

Excellent - be sure to mention these salient facts when you fill out your statement on the accident.

For those with more legal knowledge: does this shift more of the culpability back on to the driver, rather than the passenger? They obviously knew the passenger was going to get out because they had just taken payment but made no attempt to indicate that they were stationary or in the middle of performing some form of manoevre to the traffic around them either? Even if the passenger may (or may not) be responsible for opening the door, surely the driver is responsible for alerting other traffic as well as stopping in a place that it was safe for the passenger to get out?

I am wondering something though - if the taxi was still surrounded by stationary traffic, that suggests that the transaction of telling the passenger how much the fare was, handing the money over, possibly receiving change etc all took place extremely quickly? Is it possible that the passenger didnt want to wait in the traffic, threw a note and the driver and said "I will get out here, keep the change"? If so then that would presumably dramatically shift the blame onto the passenger for acting in a manner that the driver couldnt reasonably expect either?

surrey_commuter

apreading wrote:

Ryan_W wrote:

The taxi was in stationary traffic, in the middle of the road.

No indicators, hazards, signalling, attempts to pull over to the kerb.

Excellent - be sure to mention these salient facts when you fill out your statement on the accident.

For those with more legal knowledge: does this shift more of the culpability back on to the driver, rather than the passenger? They obviously knew the passenger was going to get out because they had just taken payment but made no attempt to indicate that they were stationary or in the middle of performing some form of manoevre to the traffic around them either? Even if the passenger may (or may not) be responsible for opening the door, surely the driver is responsible for alerting other traffic as well as stopping in a place that it was safe for the passenger to get out?

I am wondering something though - if the taxi was still surrounded by stationary traffic, that suggests that the transaction of telling the passenger how much the fare was, handing the money over, possibly receiving change etc all took place extremely quickly? Is it possible that the passenger didnt want to wait in the traffic, threw a note and the driver and said "I will get out here, keep the change"? If so then that would presumably dramatically shift the blame onto the passenger for acting in a manner that the driver couldnt reasonably expect either?

On modern taxis (if not all) the driver locks the doors

fenix

If the taxi passenger is reading this - aren't we giving ideas here ?

Mikey23

Pleased that you are reasonably ok. It could have been worse. See you on the health and fitness section real soon!

apreading

I assume you got a form from the Police after the accident? I would contact them and let them know of the change in your medical status. They will have noted it down as minor injury presumably and wont be that interested but as soon as there is a broken bone it becomes a major accident and if they feel blame is obvious will possibly prosecute or ask you if you want them to prosecute and/or offer the driver a course. If they do then this wont do any harm to your case as well as reinforcing to the guilty party that they did something wrong and need to learn from it.

ryan_w-2

apreading wrote:

I assume you got a form from the Police after the accident? I would contact them and let them know of the change in your medical status. They will have noted it down as minor injury presumably and wont be that interested but as soon as there is a broken bone it becomes a major accident and if they feel blame is obvious will possibly prosecute or ask you if you want them to prosecute and/or offer the driver a course. If they do then this wont do any harm to your case as well as reinforcing to the guilty party that they did something wrong and need to learn from it.

Top man, I will give them a call and let them know.

poweredbyidris

Just having a read through this thread and hoping to god I'm never in this situation.

Hope you heal OK Ryan and this all gets sorted for you.

Just want to say fair play to Rookie for patiently typing out everything and making sure the OP is supplied with as much knowledge as possible. Top work.