One day this week found us sitting in the car after the morning school run. The road was still busy with school traffic so we were waiting for a few minutes while it became less frantic.
Just in front of our car was another car which had just arrived and parked by the kerb. The driver opened her door and as she did so, a cyclist came careering off the pavement behind her car straight into the road, just missing her open car door by swerving further out into the road.
Nothing was coming the other way so no harm was done, but we did wonder whose fault an accident would have been. The car driver did not appear to look behind her properly when she opened the door, but the cyclist rode like a loon. There was virtually no time to see him anyway.
Yet if there had been an accident and the cycle loon lied about his own behaviour, then the Highway Code hierarchy may well have worked against the car driver. Responsibility for the accident could have been loaded onto her.
6 comments:
I think someone opening a car door onto a cyclist or pedestrian would normally be held responsible. The problem with swerving from behind the car is that even the "Dutch reach" wouldn't allow you to see a cyclist in time.
Main thing would've been in your scenario that a twat cyclist would've been stone dead.
Well how's this for loonishness. Some years back in London, a heavy lorry was waiting at traffic lights signalling to turn left. A cyclist comes up from behind and hops up onto the pavement to round the bend then bumps back onto the nearside road. Unfortunately, the lights have turned green whilst he has been doing this and the unknowing lorry has turned left to be suddenly confronted with a bicycle crossing out in front of his bumper seemingly from nowhere.
The cyclist is run over and killed; his sister blames the lorry driver; her friend (my brother), also a cyclist, points out that tragic though the death was it was entirely her brother's fault. The friendship dissolves.
There must be a moral here somewhere?
Now that cyclists have all these new legal rights shouldn't there also be responsibilities included? Perhaps they could codify the Cycling Proficiency Test to make it a condition to be on the road. Also taxing cyclists would be a handy way to pay for all the new infrastructure involved in cycle paths. How about insurance as well?
Hang on a sec, am I asking for more taxes and regulations? Time for a lie down I think.
Insurance for cyclists might help restore the balance between road users. But it's easy to identify (& be ready to avoid) the irresponsible and unpredictable cyclists - they all have tight Lycra-clad bum-cracks!
Sam - I'm sure you are right and even in this case the driver would have been held responsible. Although of course she did have two witnesses.
Anon - I hope he realises that he could have been. It's a fairly busy road.
Tammly - a tragic case - yes there must be a moral there somewhere. Many cyclists don't seem to understand how vulnerable they are and how much responsibility for their own safety they pile onto motorists. From what I see they make too many assumptions.
Andy - that's a problem isn't it? So easy to be drawn into proposals which involve more taxes and regulations.
Ed - Mrs H thinks the tight Lycra is part of the attraction for some male cyclists. We've seen them in one of our favourite cafes where Mrs H has pointed out those who obviously like strutting around in the Lycra.
Post a Comment