Why only now........?

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

It's legal to ride either side of the car.

It's hard to see on my phone and that video, but the car was not indicating it had stopped and neither had it pulled in.
The driver should have looked to see if it was safe and so should the person opening the door (harder as passenger as you have no mirrors).

Hence an accident, but cyclist was legal and it is the drivers responsibility (I think since they are in control of the car).

 

[02gf74]

I had a quick look in the highway code online and could not see any law about this so am not disputing the legality.

The point I made is that a cyclist cannot rely on the law and other road users for his/her safety but must take some responsibility for protecting themselves.

When passing on the inside, a cyclist needs to ask "what to I do if a door is opened in front of me"?

Rule 60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). <--- so retrobikes are exempt ::

 

[FluffyChicken]

yes, in the same way as a pedestrian shouldn't just cross a zebra crossing and assume the car has seen them and will stop in time.

and rule 60 has no relevance, it's not night time. Sky is clearly bright and there is no street lighting on.

On my big screen I can see better.
The rider is slowly going up the inside of the vehicles and the door suddenly opens while he's alongside that door hence pushed sideways and not in the door itself.
Given the gap is as wide as the marked cycleway in front, what else could the cyclist have done ? There was no time to brake at the slow speed e was going.

 

[dyna-ti]

Just because the gap is narrow, and the bicycle narrow too, doesnt mean you're allowed to use that gap to filter up through traffic, just because you can.
So say you were tucked in to the inside, but had left enough of a gap that a motorbike could fit through and filter up, overtaking you.
Would you be happy about that ? ,to have a motorbike roar up the inside of you, appearing suddenly no doubt.

I'd expect a thread of that, possibly a you tube link if youve a camera along with a raft of comments showing support for such a ridiculous bit of driving., and also highly likely the police would want to have a word or three with the motorbike rider.

Would you not agree all of the above likely ?. So why claim its the right of a cyclist to do also ?.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

Meh..

I am slightly ambivalent on this one. Some fault on both sides.

Ultimately you are approaching from behind in this scenario, so fault should be presumed to lie with you.

..but it should not be if logic is involved.

It is one of those 'just don't do it' things for me, and I used to do it all the time.

I am super careful when opening doors, but I see others not even checking in any way.

Guess we all ought to be more aware. Not necessarily necessary to apportion blame in order to do that.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Just because the gap is narrow, and the bicycle narrow too, doesnt mean you're allowed to use that gap to filter up through traffic, just because you can.
So say you were tucked in to the inside, but had left enough of a gap that a motorbike could fit through and filter up, overtaking you.
Would you be happy about that ? ,to have a motorbike roar up the inside of you, appearing suddenly no doubt.

I'd expect a thread of that, possibly a you tube link if youve a camera along with a raft of comments showing support for such a ridiculous bit of driving., and also highly likely the police would want to have a word or three with the motorbike rider.

Would you not agree all of the above likely ?. So why claim its the right of a cyclist to do also ?.

Because you are allowed to filter through traffic, it was assumed just in the overtaking side, but wording makes the assumption bother sides are allowed.