Legal ramifications of Dooring

Macy0161

eagle eye wrote: »

Stop like everybody else.

On my commute, the biggest potential areas for this are actually on grade separated cycle lanes, not even on road ones. Before and after the bus stop on the N11 opposite Foxrock Church, people getting dropped off routinely open the doors onto the cycle path without (apparently) looking. Or perhaps caring.

check_six

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i think it has to be on a case by case basis. who hit who. was the door open and the cyclist hit it or did the door hit the passing cyclist .
and balance up whether the cyclist had the right to pass on that side versus the vehicles right to pull in and open its door to elight its passenger.


its very hard to put blame all one way in all cases

I don't think it is useful to even begin to think in this manner. No one is going to run into an open door if they are given any opportunity to avoid it.
The doors are the responsibility of the driver solely. Do not open them if it is not clear. Always check before opening.

CramCycle

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I guess I'm just wondering what counts as "suddenly". You'd really need witnesses for a solid claim I'd think.

Here's a dashcam video I took of a close call.


Interesting too, on some new Hyundais and Audis, the rear facing radar will keep the door locked if it senses a car or bike coming.

Kudos on the quick reaction times there. An advertisement of why the 30kmph speed limit needs to be in place around estates, towns and villages. I have noticed a huge jump in people randomly swinging doors out into traffic. On three occasions this week alone I have seen people nearly smushed. The odd thing is, they don't even seem to realise it.

the_pen_turner

check_six wrote: »

I don't think it is useful to even begin to think in this manner. No one is going to run into an open door if they are given any opportunity to avoid it.
The doors are the responsibility of the driver solely. Do not open them if it is not clear. Always check before opening.

The law disagrees with you under some circumstances.

You cannot blame the person opening the door all the time. If the door is opened and the cyclist is 100 yards away how can it not be the cyclist fault for hitting a summary door.

If you open it when there is a cyclist passing or approaching then the door opener is at fault unless the cyclist shouldn't be passing at that point

check_six

the_pen_turner wrote: »

If you open it when there is a cyclist passing or approaching then the door opener is at fault unless the cyclist shouldn't be passing at that point

The driver is at fault in both circumstances. You cannot hit someone with a door because they "shouldn't be passing at that point". If someone (passenger or driver) opens a door in a cyclist's path it is the driver's responsibility no matter how the cyclist got there. You must check to see that it is clear before opening a door.

the_pen_turner

check_six wrote: »

The driver is at fault in both circumstances. You cannot hit someone with a door because they "shouldn't be passing at that point". If someone (passenger or driver) opens a door in a cyclist's path it is the driver's responsibility no matter how the cyclist got there. You must check to see that it is clear before opening a door.

I need to rephrase that a bit. I do t mean you can just throw open your door without looking. That would be stupid and dangerous.

What I mean is that if I pull in to let a passenger get out on a normal road and a cyclist is behind then they cannot legally pass me on the left. When the passenger checks and sees that the cyclist is a few cars back then they can open the door. The cyclist has to stop or go around.

Mc Love

Its because of dooring or the act of it, that I tend to cycle about a meter from parked cars, but in stopped traffic, I've started driving on the right of the driver as most pax tend to exit to the left. Much like the way motorbikes skip traffic jams.

Macy0161

the_pen_turner wrote: »

What I mean is that if I pull in to let a passenger get out on a normal road and a cyclist is behind then they cannot legally pass me on the left. When the passenger checks and sees that the cyclist is a few cars back then they can open the door. The cyclist has to stop or go around.

Well assuming pulled in to the curb, rather than just stopped (which is much more frequent), I would guess any award would be reduced. But it would still be the case that the driver should confirm it is safe to open the door. There could be someone on the pavement, and I've witnessed pedestrians hit before. Obviously consequences different from a cyclist, but the way doors are often just flung open injury to a pedestrian couldn't be ruled out.

Fian

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I need to rephrase that a bit. I do t mean you can just throw open your door without looking. That would be stupid and dangerous.

What I mean is that if I pull in to let a passenger get out on a normal road and a cyclist is behind then they cannot legally pass me on the left. When the passenger checks and sees that the cyclist is a few cars back then they can open the door. The cyclist has to stop or go around.

bottom line, leaving aside any academic or hypothetical arguments, drivers have compulsory insurance. That is partly why the law regards them as liable. If you were constructing the law based on pure logic as to who was behaving badly it is the passenger (or maybe in some circumstances the cyclist) who would be to blame if a passenger doors a cyclist.

But the driver is the one who will be legally liable.

Edit: oh and yes cyclists can legally pass cars on the left.

Macy0161

Fian wrote: »

bottom line, leaving aside any academic or hypothetical arguments, drivers have compulsory insurance. That is partly why the law regards them as liable. If you were constructing the law based on pure logic as to who was behaving badly it is the passenger (or maybe in some circumstances the cyclist) who would be to blame if a passenger doors a cyclist.

My understanding of the logic is that the Driver is in charge of the vehicle, rather than to do with insurance.

the_pen_turner

Fian wrote: »

bottom line, leaving aside any academic or hypothetical arguments, drivers have compulsory insurance. That is partly why the law regards them as liable. If you were constructing the law based on pure logic as to who was behaving badly it is the passenger (or maybe in some circumstances the cyclist) who would be to blame if a passenger doors a cyclist.

But the driver is the one who will be legally liable.

Edit: oh and yes cyclists can legally pass cars on the left.

Sadly it is usually the policy holder that is left to pay out rather than the person responsible

Cyclists can pass on the left some times but not every time.

magicbastarder

cyclists are explicitly allowed overtake on the left in slow moving traffic.

the_pen_turner

magicbastarder wrote: »

cyclists are explicitly allowed overtake on the left in slow moving traffic.

But not a vehicle indicting it's intention to turn left or a vehicle that is stopped to elight a passanger

Wishbone Ash

the_pen_turner wrote: »

...What I mean is that if I pull in to let a passenger get out on a normal road and a cyclist is behind then they cannot legally pass me on the left. When the passenger checks and sees that the cyclist is a few cars back then they can open the door. The cyclist has to stop or go around.

There are generally 2 problems with taxi drivers dropping off passengers:

1. The driver pulls over a bit but does not enter the cycle track. Inexperienced/dozy cyclists don't read the road ahead and proceed as normal. Much safer to pull over to the kerb and force cyclists to go around the taxi

2. Taxi is stuck in queued traffic. passenger decides that they'll continue on foot, pay driver and fling open the door.

In the second scenario, a cyclist would have no way of knowing that a passenger was about to exit.

Fian

Macy0161 wrote: »

My understanding of the logic is that the Driver is in charge of the vehicle, rather than to do with insurance.

That is the justification.

The reality is that this responsibility is assigned to teh driver because they are insured. If insurance was not part of teh picture this legal responsibility would probably be allocated differently.

ford2600

Fian wrote: »

The reality is that this responsibility is assigned to teh driver because they are insured. If insurance was not part of teh picture this legal responsibility would probably be allocated differently.

Thread would probably do better on Legal Discussion forum as it is not a simple matter.

In a simple dooring situation where cyclist impacts with driver's door opened suddenly it is a straight forward matter.


When it is a passenger, and one of means (or what legal folk like to call a "mark"), car Insurer might well look for indemnity or at least join to proceedings the passenger.


It does seem unfair to punish a driver for a dopey passenger in all circumstances. Is the legal basis for that the same where one Defendant can often carry the can where the other Defendants no longer exist/have gone bust/aren't insured? The "make sure everyone gets paid" principle?

Driver's who've doored cars have got paid to, although I would think that is quite rare but again follows the Insured party pays idea

CramCycle

I really though this was quite simple, the driver is in charge of the vehicle therefore they are responsible. Same as if someone refuses to put on a seatbelt in your car. You simply do not drive until they do or they get out.

The insurance company may follow after the passenger in a civil case (although cost wise probably no point) but that is not the discussion.

If however the door is open before the cyclist comes anywhere near the car and they proceed to cycle into it, this is a different offence, and one that can get the cyclist brought to court. Injuries and damage are a civil matter again.

ford2600

CramCycle wrote: »

I really though this was quite simple, the driver is in charge of the vehicle therefore they are responsible

The driver is not in charge of 3 door handles, unless you are suggesting a driver should keep all door locked until a passenger asks to leave?

If not, what is the legal basis (act, si or case law) for transferring that responsibility in all cases where an adult of sound mind performs it?

If an Insured, like a Statutory body, large rental company etc(who might have excesses in excess of 10k) why should they pay for the neglectful actions of a passenger in their vehicle if that person is of means?

The legal basis may well be there but I haven't seen it yet. As I said probably the wrong forum

Lumen

ford2600 wrote: »

The driver is not in charge of 3 door handles, unless you are suggesting a driver should keep all door locked until a passenger asks to leave?

If not, what is the legal basis (act, si or case law) for transferring that responsibility in all cases where an adult of sound mind performs it?

If an Insured, like a Statutory body, large rental company etc(who might have excesses in excess of 10k) why should they pay for the neglectful actions of a passenger in their vehicle if that person is of means?

The legal basis may well be there but I haven't seen it yet. As I said probably the wrong forum

Some hints for further research here:

https://www.morganmcmanus.com/index.php/2014/01/09/owner-of-car-held-not-responsible-for-eye-injury-caused-by-egg-thrown-by-passenger/

Owner of car held not responsible for eye injury caused by egg thrown by passenger

In the High Court case of Doody –v- Clarke delivered on the 13th November 2013 Mr Justice Kevin Cross dismissed a Claim made by a Pedestrian who lost her eye as a result of “egging” which occurred from the Defendant`s car.

...

The Judge noted that...the defendant’s insurers had repudiated liability and the defendant was defending the matter on his own.

The Judge stated that whereas the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle is vicariously liable for the actions of a driver under s. 118 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, he did not find that the owner or driver of the vehicle can as such be vicariously liable for the actions of his passengers.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

The Judge stated that whereas the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle is vicariously liable for the actions of a driver under s. 118 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, he did not find that the owner or driver of the vehicle can as such be vicariously liable for the actions of his passengers.

So as long as its the passenger who's launching the fireworks, you're probably in the clear?

Lumen

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

So as long as its the passenger who's launching the fireworks, you're probably in the clear?

I guess that depends on how much you like defending yourself in the High Court.

That judgement seemed quite balanced, in the sense that it pivoted on the exact handling of eggs purchased (amongst other goods, presumably) legally from a supermarket.

It's a bit like the offensive weapons thing....

"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place."

There really isn't any lawful authority for carrying fireworks in a car unless you happen to work for Awesome Firework Displays Limited and are on your way to a job at a public display, but in that case it's highly unlikely you have a bunch of skangers in the car firing them out the side windows.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I guess that depends on how much you like defending yourself in the High Court.

As long as our own Lionel Hutz is defending me, I fancy my chances.;)

AndrewJRenko

Close one this morning - I think the passenger saw me before I roared, fortunately

https://streamable.com/mrllk

DUBintheSTICKS

There have been a number of prosecutions for the offence - Dangerous Opening of a Vehicle Door, the legal text is below.


S.I. No. 190/1963 - Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations, 1963

92 (3) A person shall not in a public place cause or permit a door of a vehicle or trailer to be opened or remain open unnecessarily or passengers to alight where the opening, or the remaining open, of such door is liable to cause danger or obstruction.

Lumen

woohoo! The facts have arrived!

magicbastarder

would be interested to know what the word 'permit' does regarding the interpretation of the law - does it implicate a driver if s/he 'permits' a passenger to open a door? does pulling in to let someone out, without checking mirrors, imply permission?

Mint Sauce

eagle eye wrote: »

The driver will always be legally at fault but the cyclist is a fool for being that close to the car.

Erm, so just how far do you keep away in traffic? I have had a car door open on me in traffic. I was at the rear wing when door suddenly opened. Any faster or a spilt second later I was hitting them and the door, and dispite my 'oh sh1t, oh sh1t' They did not even see me or acknowledge their mistake.

the_pen_turner

DUBintheSTICKS wrote: »

There have been a number of prosecutions for the offence - Dangerous Opening of a Vehicle Door, the legal text is below.


S.I. No. 190/1963 - Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations, 1963

92 (3) A person shall not in a public place cause or permit a door of a vehicle or trailer to be opened or remain open unnecessarily or passengers to alight where the opening, or the remaining open, of such door is liable to cause danger or obstruction.

the word there is unneccessarily.
who desides that.
if i am puting stuff in and out of the vehicle then have to door open is a must.
going for a coffee not so much.




also surely if you hit a parked vehicle your at fault.

buffalo

the_pen_turner wrote: »

who desides that.

A Garda or a judge.

DUBintheSTICKS

magicbastarder wrote: »

would be interested to know what the word 'permit' does regarding the interpretation of the law - does it implicate a driver if s/he 'permits' a passenger to open a door? does pulling in to let someone out, without checking mirrors, imply permission?

I know of at least one case where the driver was prosecuted when his rear seat passenger open their door and doored a cyclist.