Who is at fault?

Motorist put an obstacle in the way without due care.

If you opened the door in front of a passing truck would you be making the same argument that they should have stopped in time?

What if the cyclist didn't have hiviz, a helmet or a bell and weren't in the cycle lane.

BINGO

Not sure if serious. I would imagine in this situation the driver is opening his door onto a cycle lane or where there could be reasonable expectation a cyclist (or any other vehicle) could be travelling. What difference would a hiviz, helmet or a bell make in this situation?

Tbh a cyclist on the road at night without a light doesnt have too much respect for his own safety. Did it myself when I was young and it was suicidal

The situation would decide; a parked car with an open door, or a parked car's door being opened as a cyclist approached, further complicated by the 1m rule.

Motorists should learn the Dutch Reach to avoid hurting cyclists.

Very nice, 30 bags for less pain than someone gets playing Sunday morning football

Let’s do a test. You cycle, I’ll hit you with a car door, and we’ll assess the pain levels then?

I’m not sure. I’ll bring it up at next week’s meeting of all cyclists and see what the response is.

None of which are legal requirements of cyclists. Why are you bringing that into it, when the OP asked a question about legally required lights, except to derail the conversation?

If you pulled out in front of a speeding car which had no lights on at night, would they bear any responsibility for that collision?

Slightly different below, but clearly the court decided that disabling automatic lights (along with speeding) contributed so heavily to the crash, that the driver who pulled out in front was not convicted.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7913125/Carer-36-cleared-causing-death-dangerous-driving.html

I would say the 100mph speeds was more a factor than not having lights.

Probably yes, but the lights were contributory too. My point really is that a legitimate question by the OP is met with jokes to attempt to undermine them.

Most of the posts aren't jokes, they're legitimate answers. Anyway, the thread belongs in the Learning to Drive forum. Anybody that's passed a driving test knows the answer.

You failed to spot the sarcasm. Cyclists and motorcyclists often have a black sense of humour from bitter experience with clueless car drivers.

A motorcycle is not obliged to be lit up during the day so that is not a contributory factor in the collision. You might as well say that it was a contributory factor he was on a bike and not in a car instead 🙄

No I see it alright, (and as a cyclist I do get it), but it totally derails what is an otherwise fair question from the OP.

If a child was to run out from behind a parked car, a driver would be told that they should have "expect(ed) the unexpected".

Just because something is not legally required does not mean that it cannot be counted as a contributory factor in a collision.

It is legal to drive in the rain, and also to buy tyres which are rated F for wet braking, which take 18m longer to stop. All legal, but could very easily contribute to a collision.

The internet in general is black and white, but real life is shades of grey. Noone here can say who's fault a near miss is, it could very well be either the cyclist or driver/passenger.

In all honesty though, an insurance company probably wouldn't want to waste legal fees trying to apportion blame, so would probably pay out even if the cyclist hit a door which had been open for 10 minutes.

Sorry, I didn't actually see that you had posted that. Hopefully you weren't hurt too badly.

At first it was as clear cut as "anyone who'd done a driving test knows the answer". So I included time (which you mentioned it in the first line of your post - "no time to react".) as a key factor in apportioning blame, and now it's about road surface and conditions. Which is it?

For the sake of argument if the door has been open for 10 minutes and a cyclist hits it. Who is at fault? Would rain make a difference then?

Now how about 10 seconds? Should the cyclist have seen it?

And 1 second?

I didn't completely pull 2 seconds out of thin air. A 2s gap is usually what motorists are told to give to a car in front as a rule of thumb, which encompasses reaction time and braking distance across a multitude of scenarios like you describe above. It's 4s in the rain. If we give the same to cyclists, then absolutely the motorist is responsible below 2s, but above 4s is really past the point where you should be able to stop in time.

I live under 2km from Dublin city centre, so cycle and drive there pretty much daily, have never been in any collision, and have had precious few close calls too. That experience actually affects me when mountain biking though, I have terrible target fixation, as it's ingrained in me not to swerve to avoid something in case I went under a car in the city.

Exactly, you can't compare following another vehicle to a stationary object being flung into your path without warning.

nobody is saying that the motorist is at fault if the door was open for 10 minutes. stop being ridiculous.

In the situation where a bicycle runs into an opened door of a car the car driver is at fault Kirving, anyone who's done a driving test knows this is the case. You don't leave your door open for ten minutes in an active driving lane, anyone who's done their driving test knows this is the case.

You can go all rain man about it again, but you've been told what the case is, so I'd suggest you take it on board and move on.

Nope. That's not what I said. You've actually managed to have an argument with yourself. Don't know why you're quoting other people and myself.