Bromley cyclist's death was an accident says inquest (From News Shopper)

I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

This need to go back to Court, whilst the Car Driver did not do this on purpose, I'm sure. She was 'in control' of a motor vehicle, and acted with gross negligence, i.e. failing to act in a resposible manner. If this had been a Police Car or Motorcycle she had opened the door onto, I think the outcome would be VERY different. All Bikers/Cyclists should pass parked vehicles more than a door width away, as this 'accident' shows, it does not give car drivers the right to act irresponsibly. A minimum of driving without due care & attention I would think?

As every motorist should know as common knowledge... you NEVER open a car door either road side or curb side without checking you side mirrors!!! This should go back to court as the driver did not proceed in highway code manor and by doing so caused the death of an undeserving gentleman!!

Opus the Poet wrote:
I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

Of course it's an accident! It could happen to anyone. It's a genuine mistake by the person opening the door. As we all know, a cyclist takes up a very small part of one's visual field. On this tragic occasion, the person opening the door has failed to see them. Do you actually think that the person who made this mistake should be sent to prison or given a criminal record?

You have to distinguish between accidents and dangerous acts. There are many injuries and deaths on the roads every year. Some are due to dangerous driving and in these cases, the person will be held responsible. However, many are genuine accidents.

PaulErith wrote:

Opus the Poet wrote:
I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

Of course it's an accident! It could happen to anyone. It's a genuine mistake by the person opening the door. As we all know, a cyclist takes up a very small part of one's visual field. On this tragic occasion, the person opening the door has failed to see them. Do you actually think that the person who made this mistake should be sent to prison or given a criminal record?

You have to distinguish between accidents and dangerous acts. There are many injuries and deaths on the roads every year. Some are due to dangerous driving and in these cases, the person will be held responsible. However, many are genuine accidents.

Accidents DO NOT HAPPEN,there is ALWAYS a cause.
Name one instance of a 'genuine' accident.
So if i 'accidentely' did not see your child on there bike whilst driving ,run them over and killed them.....you would quite happily say 'accidents happen!'

PaulErith wrote:

Opus the Poet wrote:
I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

Of course it's an accident! It could happen to anyone. It's a genuine mistake by the person opening the door. As we all know, a cyclist takes up a very small part of one's visual field. On this tragic occasion, the person opening the door has failed to see them. Do you actually think that the person who made this mistake should be sent to prison or given a criminal record?

You have to distinguish between accidents and dangerous acts. There are many injuries and deaths on the roads every year. Some are due to dangerous driving and in these cases, the person will be held responsible. However, many are genuine accidents.

Well, I don't think anyone is suggesting Mrs Pennacchia deliberately opened the car door into the path of the Mr Darby - but she was clearly negligent when she did so. If you open a car door you have a responsibility to make sure it is clear before doing so. This was drummed into me by my driving instructor. I can only imagine that Mrs Pennacchia did not look properly or not at all. My sympathies go to the family of the bereaved cyclist. RIP

Bikes should not be on the road full stop. And here the lesson endeth xx

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

Opus the Poet wrote: I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

Of course it's an accident! It could happen to anyone. It's a genuine mistake by the person opening the door. As we all know, a cyclist takes up a very small part of one's visual field. On this tragic occasion, the person opening the door has failed to see them. Do you actually think that the person who made this mistake should be sent to prison or given a criminal record? You have to distinguish between accidents and dangerous acts. There are many injuries and deaths on the roads every year. Some are due to dangerous driving and in these cases, the person will be held responsible. However, many are genuine accidents.

Accidents DO NOT HAPPEN,there is ALWAYS a cause. Name one instance of a 'genuine' accident. So if i 'accidentely' did not see your child on there bike whilst driving ,run them over and killed them.....you would quite happily say 'accidents happen!'

An accident is called an accident for a reason. If someone is speeding or on their phone, for example, then if they crash it's not an accident because they have been breaking the law and that action probably caused the crash. Say a driver gets their foot caught on the accelerator and crashes. Wouldn't you call that a genuine accident? It's not negligent or deliberate.

Obviously very sad for the cyclist's family, but shouldn't vilify the car driver either.

Opening a car door in a way that endangers any other road user is a clear offence under the Road Traffic Act. I cannot understand why there has been no prosecution in this case.

In recent years carelessly opened car doors have killed twice as many cyclists as have cyclists going through red lights.

charlie_lcc wrote:
Opening a car door in a way that endangers any other road user is a clear offence under the Road Traffic Act. I cannot understand why there has been no prosecution in this case. In recent years carelessly opened car doors have killed twice as many cyclists as have cyclists going through red lights.

Don't know where you get these stats from, so I won't believe or disbelieve you. However, I would say (and I'm not talking about this particular case) that cyclists often ride very dangerously. There's always campaigns for "think bike", but what about cyclists "think car & pedestrian"? I nearly got wiped out by one the other day at a pedestrian crossing. When I launched a few insults at him, he clearly seemed to think he was in the right! In central London, it's so common place to see cyclists that think they have the right to go through red lights.

PaulErith wrote:

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

Opus the Poet wrote: I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

Of course it's an accident! It could happen to anyone. It's a genuine mistake by the person opening the door. As we all know, a cyclist takes up a very small part of one's visual field. On this tragic occasion, the person opening the door has failed to see them. Do you actually think that the person who made this mistake should be sent to prison or given a criminal record? You have to distinguish between accidents and dangerous acts. There are many injuries and deaths on the roads every year. Some are due to dangerous driving and in these cases, the person will be held responsible. However, many are genuine accidents.

Accidents DO NOT HAPPEN,there is ALWAYS a cause. Name one instance of a 'genuine' accident. So if i 'accidentely' did not see your child on there bike whilst driving ,run them over and killed them.....you would quite happily say 'accidents happen!'

An accident is called an accident for a reason. If someone is speeding or on their phone, for example, then if they crash it's not an accident because they have been breaking the law and that action probably caused the crash. Say a driver gets their foot caught on the accelerator and crashes. Wouldn't you call that a genuine accident? It's not negligent or deliberate.

Obviously very sad for the cyclist's family, but shouldn't vilify the car driver either.

I remember seeing a science program once on this subject and the conclusion was....
There is always a reason for an 'accident' and an 'accident' is caused by one or more actions that could have been prevented.
I have never caught my foot on the accelerator,have you?
If you have,what were you doing at the time to do something so stupid?

PaulErith wrote:

charlie_lcc wrote: Opening a car door in a way that endangers any other road user is a clear offence under the Road Traffic Act. I cannot understand why there has been no prosecution in this case. In recent years carelessly opened car doors have killed twice as many cyclists as have cyclists going through red lights.

Don't know where you get these stats from, so I won't believe or disbelieve you. However, I would say (and I'm not talking about this particular case) that cyclists often ride very dangerously. There's always campaigns for "think bike", but what about cyclists "think car & pedestrian"? I nearly got wiped out by one the other day at a pedestrian crossing. When I launched a few insults at him, he clearly seemed to think he was in the right! In central London, it's so common place to see cyclists that think they have the right to go through red lights.

Think Bike is for motorcycles.

I am not saying anyone is wrong or right here but you need to look at the facts of the case. The incident took place on January 7th at 6:10pm. The sun would have set at 4pm so by this time it would have been really quite dark.
While the driver may have checked their mirror they may not have seen the cyclist because they did not have adequate lights on their bike or been wearing high vis clothing.
At the end of the day none of us where there, none of us know the full whys and what fors of the incident, it is just a tragic event, a moment that I bet the driver wishes they could change but they can't, sadly some has lost their life and this case has been investigated and closed.

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

Opus the Poet wrote: I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

Of course it's an accident! It could happen to anyone. It's a genuine mistake by the person opening the door. As we all know, a cyclist takes up a very small part of one's visual field. On this tragic occasion, the person opening the door has failed to see them. Do you actually think that the person who made this mistake should be sent to prison or given a criminal record? You have to distinguish between accidents and dangerous acts. There are many injuries and deaths on the roads every year. Some are due to dangerous driving and in these cases, the person will be held responsible. However, many are genuine accidents.

Accidents DO NOT HAPPEN,there is ALWAYS a cause. Name one instance of a 'genuine' accident. So if i 'accidentely' did not see your child on there bike whilst driving ,run them over and killed them.....you would quite happily say 'accidents happen!'

An accident is called an accident for a reason. If someone is speeding or on their phone, for example, then if they crash it's not an accident because they have been breaking the law and that action probably caused the crash. Say a driver gets their foot caught on the accelerator and crashes. Wouldn't you call that a genuine accident? It's not negligent or deliberate. Obviously very sad for the cyclist's family, but shouldn't vilify the car driver either.

I remember seeing a science program once on this subject and the conclusion was.... There is always a reason for an 'accident' and an 'accident' is caused by one or more actions that could have been prevented. I have never caught my foot on the accelerator,have you? If you have,what were you doing at the time to do something so stupid?

I know someone who had a crash a few years ago due to getting jammed on accelerator. They were wearing sensible shoes and driving safely. By a freak ACCIDENT it seemed that the rim of the sole jammed as they tried to move off the accelerator. Only for a second, but enough to cause the driver to go into car in front. Not a serious accident, but there can be no real blame attached either because it is an accident. Your so called scientific study sounds a load of cr@p to me.

Citygirl83 wrote:
I am not saying anyone is wrong or right here but you need to look at the facts of the case. The incident took place on January 7th at 6:10pm. The sun would have set at 4pm so by this time it would have been really quite dark. While the driver may have checked their mirror they may not have seen the cyclist because they did not have adequate lights on their bike or been wearing high vis clothing. At the end of the day none of us where there, none of us know the full whys and what fors of the incident, it is just a tragic event, a moment that I bet the driver wishes they could change but they can't, sadly some has lost their life and this case has been investigated and closed.

Well said. There's lots of factors here that we don't know. It seems the only witness 'saw' something in his peripheral vision so can't really apportion blame to anyone.

A disgusting verdict, this woman killed someone just as if she had accidentally fired a gun long a crowded high street. This is sickening, if you cycle out of the door zone you get hassled by impatient drivers, if you cycle in the door zone to let them past you could get killed and your death is treated by the justice system as just one of those things- and "accident". The woman deliberately opened the door and killed a man and nothing happens- this sends a clear message to drivers "Kill a cyclist and nothing will happen"

The reporting is very sloppy in this article too-why did Ms Wood write

"he crashed into a stationary blue Fiat Panda."

when what actually happened was the driver broke the law and opened the door without looking?

Just about factually accurate, but it’s quite clear where the uninformed reader is going to place the blame.

Stevo98 wrote:
A disgusting verdict, this woman killed someone just as if she had accidentally fired a gun long a crowded high street. This is sickening, if you cycle out of the door zone you get hassled by impatient drivers, if you cycle in the door zone to let them past you could get killed and your death is treated by the justice system as just one of those things- and "accident". The woman deliberately opened the door and killed a man and nothing happens- this sends a clear message to drivers "Kill a cyclist and nothing will happen"

"Just like firing a gun down a crowded street"! Get a grip! What a pathetic analogy. It's illegal to fire guns down the street. The person doing it would know that there's a high chance of causing injury. Opening one's car door is not illegal last time I looked!

Stevo98 wrote:
The reporting is very sloppy in this article too-why did Ms Wood write "he crashed into a stationary blue Fiat Panda." when what actually happened was the driver broke the law and opened the door without looking? Just about factually accurate, but it’s quite clear where the uninformed reader is going to place the blame.

I don't think anyone will read the article and doubt the fact that the driver opened the door. But, like someone else pointed out, do we know if the cyclist was riding correctly? Were they fully visible? It would have been pitch black: did they have lights, etc. An uniformed reader may make stupid comments and accuse the car driver of killing them.

The car driver did kill the man, read the article. As has been noted, another driver whose car door was opened and killed a cyclist is charged with manslaughter. It's against the law, the unlawful act in this case was to violate section 105 of the The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986:

"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."

Stevo98 wrote:
A disgusting verdict, this woman killed someone just as if she had accidentally fired a gun long a crowded high street. This is sickening, if you cycle out of the door zone you get hassled by impatient drivers, if you cycle in the door zone to let them past you could get killed and your death is treated by the justice system as just one of those things- and "accident". The woman deliberately opened the door and killed a man and nothing happens- this sends a clear message to drivers "Kill a cyclist and nothing will happen"

So are you saying the car driver "deliberately" killed the cyclist? Because that's what it seems.

None of us know the full facts - perhaps the car driver checked her mirror, the cyclist was directly behind the car (correctly) so she did not seen him He then pulled out to pass just as she opened her door.

Whilst the speed limit is 30mph, was he perhaps going too fast for the conditions (if slower he would have had time to react)?

No-one is doubting that the driver was at fault, but to say she killed him deliberately is not true

"No-one is doubting that the driver was at fault, but to say she killed him deliberately is not true"

Nobody's said that, which makes your post rather pointless. We need to steer away from road deaths being described as "accidents"- with cyclist/vehicle collisions it is usually the driver who is at fault, according to TFL research (Google "Risky Cycling".

In more than 75% of vehicle/cyclist collisions it is the driver who is at fault, either, we need to get away from this victim-blaming, there is NOTHING to suggest the cyclist did anything wrong.

"Eilidh Cairns, an experienced commuter cyclist, was killed in February 2009, when a tipper truck driven by Joao Lopes ploughed over her from behind. Lopes was fined £200 for driving with defective vision, but the death was ruled “accidental” and he was free to kill again.

Catriona Patel, an experienced commuter cyclist, was killed in the Monday morning rush hour in June 2009. Pulling away from the Advanced Stop Line as the lights turned green outside Oval Station, a 32-tonne tipper lorry driven by Dennis Putz accelerated into her.


Witnesses had to bang on the side of the truck before the oblivious Putz stopped. Putz was a serial dangerous driver, was hung-over — 40% over the limit — and talking on his mobile phone. He denied a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, but was sentenced to 7 years for it.

Brian Dorling, an experienced commuter cyclist and motorcyclist, was killed in the morning rush hour in October last year. A tipper truck turned across his path at the Bow Intersection. They had to use his dental records to identify him.

Deep Lee was struck by a lorry from behind as the lights turned green; Svitlana Tereschenko was killed by a tipper truck whose distracted driver failed to indicate before turning and driving over her. Daniel Cox was run over by a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

Try telling Ian McNicoll that his son Andrew, well versed in cyclecraft as a road and commuter cyclist, should have known better than to throw himself under the wheels of the articulated lorry that side-swiped while overtaking him in Edinburgh. Try telling Debbie Dorling that her cycle and motorcycle-trained husband should have behaved differently at Bow. Try telling Allister Carey that the death of his daughter Eleanor under the wheels of a lorry in Tower Bridge Road was her own fault.

The cycling “community” in this country might not always agree about the most appropriate or desirable method for reducing exposure to danger and its role as a barrier to cycling, but I think at least one thing can unite us: anyone who, knowing little about the world says that the problem here is all cyclists’ own fault for throwing themselves under the wheels of trucks, is an **** who can keep his discredited half-baked ideas to himself."

No one is saying the car driver deliberately killed the cyclist but... her actions or LACK of actions caused a death,it is not an accident as it was CAUSED by someones carelessness.

PaulErith wrote:

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

Opus the Poet wrote: I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

Of course it's an accident! It could happen to anyone. It's a genuine mistake by the person opening the door. As we all know, a cyclist takes up a very small part of one's visual field. On this tragic occasion, the person opening the door has failed to see them. Do you actually think that the person who made this mistake should be sent to prison or given a criminal record? You have to distinguish between accidents and dangerous acts. There are many injuries and deaths on the roads every year. Some are due to dangerous driving and in these cases, the person will be held responsible. However, many are genuine accidents.

Accidents DO NOT HAPPEN,there is ALWAYS a cause. Name one instance of a 'genuine' accident. So if i 'accidentely' did not see your child on there bike whilst driving ,run them over and killed them.....you would quite happily say 'accidents happen!'

An accident is called an accident for a reason. If someone is speeding or on their phone, for example, then if they crash it's not an accident because they have been breaking the law and that action probably caused the crash. Say a driver gets their foot caught on the accelerator and crashes. Wouldn't you call that a genuine accident? It's not negligent or deliberate. Obviously very sad for the cyclist's family, but shouldn't vilify the car driver either.

I remember seeing a science program once on this subject and the conclusion was.... There is always a reason for an 'accident' and an 'accident' is caused by one or more actions that could have been prevented. I have never caught my foot on the accelerator,have you? If you have,what were you doing at the time to do something so stupid?

I know someone who had a crash a few years ago due to getting jammed on accelerator. They were wearing sensible shoes and driving safely. By a freak ACCIDENT it seemed that the rim of the sole jammed as they tried to move off the accelerator. Only for a second, but enough to cause the driver to go into car in front. Not a serious accident, but there can be no real blame attached either because it is an accident. Your so called scientific study sounds a load of cr@p to me.

It was not a freak accident,they were wearing inappropriate footwear.
The 'Scientific study' you ridicule was by people a lot better informed than you and i and a lot better educated than yourself!
Their is always a reason, not an excuse.

Stevo98 wrote:
"No-one is doubting that the driver was at fault, but to say she killed him deliberately is not true" Nobody's said that, which makes your post rather pointless. We need to steer away from road deaths being described as "accidents"- with cyclist/vehicle collisions it is usually the driver who is at fault, according to TFL research (Google "Risky Cycling". In more than 75% of vehicle/cyclist collisions it is the driver who is at fault, either, we need to get away from this victim-blaming, there is NOTHING to suggest the cyclist did anything wrong. "Eilidh Cairns, an experienced commuter cyclist, was killed in February 2009, when a tipper truck driven by Joao Lopes ploughed over her from behind. Lopes was fined £200 for driving with defective vision, but the death was ruled “accidental” and he was free to kill again. Catriona Patel, an experienced commuter cyclist, was killed in the Monday morning rush hour in June 2009. Pulling away from the Advanced Stop Line as the lights turned green outside Oval Station, a 32-tonne tipper lorry driven by Dennis Putz accelerated into her. Witnesses had to bang on the side of the truck before the oblivious Putz stopped. Putz was a serial dangerous driver, was hung-over — 40% over the limit — and talking on his mobile phone. He denied a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, but was sentenced to 7 years for it. Brian Dorling, an experienced commuter cyclist and motorcyclist, was killed in the morning rush hour in October last year. A tipper truck turned across his path at the Bow Intersection. They had to use his dental records to identify him. Deep Lee was struck by a lorry from behind as the lights turned green; Svitlana Tereschenko was killed by a tipper truck whose distracted driver failed to indicate before turning and driving over her. Daniel Cox was run over by a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned. Try telling Ian McNicoll that his son Andrew, well versed in cyclecraft as a road and commuter cyclist, should have known better than to throw himself under the wheels of the articulated lorry that side-swiped while overtaking him in Edinburgh. Try telling Debbie Dorling that her cycle and motorcycle-trained husband should have behaved differently at Bow. Try telling Allister Carey that the death of his daughter Eleanor under the wheels of a lorry in Tower Bridge Road was her own fault. The cycling “community” in this country might not always agree about the most appropriate or desirable method for reducing exposure to danger and its role as a barrier to cycling, but I think at least one thing can unite us: anyone who, knowing little about the world says that the problem here is all cyclists’ own fault for throwing themselves under the wheels of trucks, is an **** who can keep his discredited half-baked ideas to himself."

Your comment "The woman deliberately opened the door and killed a man and nothing happens- this sends a clear message to drivers "Kill a cyclist and nothing will happen" infers she deliberately killed him

She perhaps carelessly opened the door, with tragic consequences. Most actions are deliberate, but fortunately do no result in death

Can you honestly say you have never had an accident?

This morning I was in Penge stopped at the lights by the old police station. In front was a truck clearly indicating it was turning left. A cyclist went past me (on my left) then squeezed between the truck and the kerb - there could not have been more that a couple of feet gap, it was so tight that he actually used his hand against the truck

The lights changed before he got to the front - fortunately as he was going straight on

Now a question for all the cyclists - it would have been difficult if not impossible for the truck driver to see the bike, and probably not expected anyone to be there. Had the cyclist been a bit further forward when the lights changed he would have ended up under the truck. So who's fault would that have been?

I expect there would be demands to have the truck driver charged with murder

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

lord righteous wrote:

PaulErith wrote:

Opus the Poet wrote: I am appalled at this judgement, getting "doored" is not an "accident" it is the result of an illegal action by the person that opened the door into the cyclist causing him to fly off the bike and fall to the road. It can only happen with a deliberate action on the part of the person opening the door. Just because the person opening the door did not intend to cause harm does not mean the action is any less illegal. It can be likened to getting a cricket bat to the head or leg.

Of course it's an accident! It could happen to anyone. It's a genuine mistake by the person opening the door. As we all know, a cyclist takes up a very small part of one's visual field. On this tragic occasion, the person opening the door has failed to see them. Do you actually think that the person who made this mistake should be sent to prison or given a criminal record? You have to distinguish between accidents and dangerous acts. There are many injuries and deaths on the roads every year. Some are due to dangerous driving and in these cases, the person will be held responsible. However, many are genuine accidents.

Accidents DO NOT HAPPEN,there is ALWAYS a cause. Name one instance of a 'genuine' accident. So if i 'accidentely' did not see your child on there bike whilst driving ,run them over and killed them.....you would quite happily say 'accidents happen!'

An accident is called an accident for a reason. If someone is speeding or on their phone, for example, then if they crash it's not an accident because they have been breaking the law and that action probably caused the crash. Say a driver gets their foot caught on the accelerator and crashes. Wouldn't you call that a genuine accident? It's not negligent or deliberate. Obviously very sad for the cyclist's family, but shouldn't vilify the car driver either.

I remember seeing a science program once on this subject and the conclusion was.... There is always a reason for an 'accident' and an 'accident' is caused by one or more actions that could have been prevented. I have never caught my foot on the accelerator,have you? If you have,what were you doing at the time to do something so stupid?

I know someone who had a crash a few years ago due to getting jammed on accelerator. They were wearing sensible shoes and driving safely. By a freak ACCIDENT it seemed that the rim of the sole jammed as they tried to move off the accelerator. Only for a second, but enough to cause the driver to go into car in front. Not a serious accident, but there can be no real blame attached either because it is an accident. Your so called scientific study sounds a load of cr@p to me.

It was not a freak accident,they were wearing inappropriate footwear. The 'Scientific study' you ridicule was by people a lot better informed than you and i and a lot better educated than yourself! Their is always a reason, not an excuse.

Did you actuall read what I said? They didn't have inappropriate shoes on. I already said that they had sensible shoes on. i.e. black men's work shoes. They couldn't explain how it happened, but it did. There's no way that can be deemed a deliberate action. It's a freak accident.

For every scientific study 'proving' one thing, there'll be another 'proving' the opposite. Take them with a pinch of salt.

The term RTA (road traffic accident), is now called RTC (road traffic collision) the the police as accidents always have a reason.

Going by the news shopper story, it says the door was open and the cyclist swerved round it, but caught it with his leg. It is possible, that his speed down the hill was excessive, her door was already open, but he mis-judged it. It's not necessarily the motorists fault.

I cycle to work quite regularly and have found that motorists are very unaware of me even though I wear a bright orange jacket.

You do not have to go to London to find cyclists that go through red lights, they do it in Bromley all the time and continue to ride their bikes on the footway, as if they have some god given rights!

For goodness sake read the article:

"Mr Darby, of Aviemore Way Road, Beckenham, collided with the door of the car as owner, Lena Pennacchia, opened it to get out of the vehicle."

The driver threw the door open and killed someone.

There is a precedent:

Driver charged with manslaughter after open car door leads to death of cyclist
Driver of vehicle whose opened door caused Sam Harding to swerve into path of London bus appears before magistrates.

A 32-year-old man has been charged with manslaughter in connection with the death on London's Holloway Road of cyclist Sam Harding last August, the Metropolitan Police has confirmed.

Mr Harding, aged 25, died after being struck by a bus when he swerved to avoid the open door of a parked car. According a report in the to the Islington Tribune in the week following his death, a 31-year-old motorist was arrested at the scene and bailed to return at a later date.

Stevo98 wrote:
"No-one is doubting that the driver was at fault, but to say she killed him deliberately is not true" Nobody's said that, which makes your post rather pointless. We need to steer away from road deaths being described as "accidents"- with cyclist/vehicle collisions it is usually the driver who is at fault, according to TFL research (Google "Risky Cycling". In more than 75% of vehicle/cyclist collisions it is the driver who is at fault, either, we need to get away from this victim-blaming, there is NOTHING to suggest the cyclist did anything wrong. "Eilidh Cairns, an experienced commuter cyclist, was killed in February 2009, when a tipper truck driven by Joao Lopes ploughed over her from behind. Lopes was fined £200 for driving with defective vision, but the death was ruled “accidental” and he was free to kill again. Catriona Patel, an experienced commuter cyclist, was killed in the Monday morning rush hour in June 2009. Pulling away from the Advanced Stop Line as the lights turned green outside Oval Station, a 32-tonne tipper lorry driven by Dennis Putz accelerated into her. Witnesses had to bang on the side of the truck before the oblivious Putz stopped. Putz was a serial dangerous driver, was hung-over — 40% over the limit — and talking on his mobile phone. He denied a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, but was sentenced to 7 years for it. Brian Dorling, an experienced commuter cyclist and motorcyclist, was killed in the morning rush hour in October last year. A tipper truck turned across his path at the Bow Intersection. They had to use his dental records to identify him. Deep Lee was struck by a lorry from behind as the lights turned green; Svitlana Tereschenko was killed by a tipper truck whose distracted driver failed to indicate before turning and driving over her. Daniel Cox was run over by a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned. Try telling Ian McNicoll that his son Andrew, well versed in cyclecraft as a road and commuter cyclist, should have known better than to throw himself under the wheels of the articulated lorry that side-swiped while overtaking him in Edinburgh. Try telling Debbie Dorling that her cycle and motorcycle-trained husband should have behaved differently at Bow. Try telling Allister Carey that the death of his daughter Eleanor under the wheels of a lorry in Tower Bridge Road was her own fault. The cycling “community” in this country might not always agree about the most appropriate or desirable method for reducing exposure to danger and its role as a barrier to cycling, but I think at least one thing can unite us: anyone who, knowing little about the world says that the problem here is all cyclists’ own fault for throwing themselves under the wheels of trucks, is an **** who can keep his discredited half-baked ideas to himself."

Perhaps you try telling your story to my granfather - his wife (87) was knocked over by a cyclist who had gone through a red light on a pedesrian crossing. She died from complications (broken leg and arm).
But although the cyclist stopped (he had to as he fell off!) after screaming abuse at her go back on his bike & rode off.

There was no way to trace him - so he's got away

Car drivers need a licence, insurance etc - bikers need nothing

And whilst you're quoting the law - what does it say about overtaking on the near side - which most cyclists do

"Perhaps you try telling your story to my granfather " That's a tragic story, what was your gran's name? I don't remember that case, when did that happen? Was there cctv?

Drivers need insurance because they are the ones killing and injuring people. Look at the Boris Bike scheme in London- ten million journeys and NO SERIOUS INJURIES. That's why cyclists don't really need insurance, although many have it, Third Party Liability is included in household insurance. You could also go to the MIB for compensation for your gran,if your story is actually true.

"Filtering" is entirely legal, it's in the Highway Code. It's worrying how ignorant of traffic law some people are.

Why are some of trying to create or put an example of other incidents. Some incidents are he cyclists fault, others are drivers/pedestrian/t
ruckers.

TO THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT the driver was in wrong (my opinion) as they should have ensured he road side was clear!!!

TO THE LADY IN PENGE BY POLICE STATION... in this cituation the cyclist is STUPID and is endangering there own life!!!

TO FANKSUTTON... i agree its a disgrace that cyclist who are in th wrong...why do they not have licence plates as the laws of the road are for he "road" not just car/van/truck drivers...this should apply to all who use the "roads".

Do we know if the driver is actually facing any charges? In the other example the driver's charged with manslaughter, it seems inconsistent if nothing happens in this case.

zooloo wrote:
Why are some of trying to create or put an example of other incidents. Some incidents are he cyclists fault, others are drivers/pedestrian/t ruckers. TO THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT the driver was in wrong (my opinion) as they should have ensured he road side was clear!!! TO THE LADY IN PENGE BY POLICE STATION... in this cituation the cyclist is STUPID and is endangering there own life!!! TO FANKSUTTON... i agree its a disgrace that cyclist who are in th wrong...why do they not have licence plates as the laws of the road are for he "road" not just car/van/truck drivers...this should apply to all who use the "roads".

But we don't know that the driver was wrong because we haven't got all of the details. Whilst the law would firstly say that it's the fault of the person opening the door, there's other factors that would mitigate this. i.e. was the cyclist speeding? Did they have lights on their bike (as it was dark at that time)?

There is no such offence as "speeding" on a bike. They don't have speedometers, for a start. The witness Mr Bray had no difficulty seeing the cyclist so visibility wasn't a factor.

Stevo98 wrote:
There is no such offence as "speeding" on a bike. They don't have speedometers, for a start. The witness Mr Bray had no difficulty seeing the cyclist so visibility wasn't a factor.

There's no such offence as speeding on a bike!

So a cyclist is doing 40mph in a 30 area they are not doing anything wrong

Same as ignoring red lights, one way streets, riding on pavements

Yet another example that cyclists are above the law

"So a cyclist is doing 40mph in a 30 area they are not doing anything wrong
"
No, that's not what I said at all. Ever tried to cycle at 40mph? Not many people could manage it. The offence would be "Furious Cycling"- great phrase.

More car drivers than cyclists jump red lights, and car drivers are the ones causing the damage.

“Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping, only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does."

Not only do drivers jump reds more than cyclists they also hurt a lot more people doing so.

Think about it- a cyclist doesn't want to collide with anything- it really hurts! Cyclists aren't protected by a steel cage so any collision could cause a serious injury- rather more serious than a scratched bumper!

Not sure where your figures comes from, but even if correct, they talk about number of injuries and not how many jump lights. i.e. from personal experience, far more cyclists jump red lights than cars. I guess it is less likely to end in injury but doesn't change the facts.

Interesting read;;
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/debate/articl
e-2168939/Jumping-re
d-lights-Putting-ped
estrians-peril-Why-t
artars-wheels-think-
law.html

Ten thousand car drivers jump red lights in London every month, and that's just the ones that get caught:

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/magazine/3723
726.stm

In itself it neither proves nor disproves whether more cyclists or car users jump red lights. For a start, how many cyclists get caught? They won't be picked up by cameras as a car would. Also the raw numbers mean nothing. What percentage of car drivers jump them as opposed to cyclists?

Suggest Steve goes to central London (on foot!) and watches how many cyclists ride in pavements, go through red lights & break many other laws

Let's not lose sight of the fact that someone has tragically lost their life

There are good and bad users of all types on the roads, there is nothing to suggest that either the driver or cyclist were in the latter category

It's a shame that both the pro and anti cyclist lobbies seem to have hijacked this story to try and out over their agendas

PaulErith wrote:
Not sure where your figures comes from, but even if correct, they talk about number of injuries and not how many jump lights. i.e. from personal experience, far more cyclists jump red lights than cars. I guess it is less likely to end in injury but doesn't change the facts. Interesting read;; http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2168939/Jumping-re d-lights-Putting-ped estrians-peril-Why-t artars-wheels-think- law.html

Very interesting article.

Whilst there are both cyclists & motorist who jump red lights, the difference is that a car has a registration number & there is more chance of the driver being traced and prosecuted.

Cyclists are effectively anonymous – and they know it! They can break laws with impunity as there is virtually no chance of getting caught. Even if they were caught, they may be fined (a lower amount than a motorist) but that’s all. The motorist faces points on their licence, with potentially higher insurance premiums (something cyclists don’t need to bother about) and maybe even a driving ban

And I have never seen a car driving along a pavement scattering pedestrians!

Oldchap wrote:
Let's not lose sight of the fact that someone has tragically lost their life There are good and bad users of all types on the roads, there is nothing to suggest that either the driver or cyclist were in the latter category It's a shame that both the pro and anti cyclist lobbies seem to have hijacked this story to try and out over their agendas

That's a very good point.

Marty1979 wrote:

PaulErith wrote: Not sure where your figures comes from, but even if correct, they talk about number of injuries and not how many jump lights. i.e. from personal experience, far more cyclists jump red lights than cars. I guess it is less likely to end in injury but doesn't change the facts. Interesting read;; http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2168939/Jumping-re d-lights-Putting-ped estrians-peril-Why-t artars-wheels-think- law.html

Very interesting article. Whilst there are both cyclists & motorist who jump red lights, the difference is that a car has a registration number & there is more chance of the driver being traced and prosecuted. Cyclists are effectively anonymous – and they know it! They can break laws with impunity as there is virtually no chance of getting caught. Even if they were caught, they may be fined (a lower amount than a motorist) but that’s all. The motorist faces points on their licence, with potentially higher insurance premiums (something cyclists don’t need to bother about) and maybe even a driving ban And I have never seen a car driving along a pavement scattering pedestrians!

So it appears both cyclists and motorists jump red lights. You say that the difference is that the motorist has a registration number and is more likely to be traced. How exactly does this help you when you are lying in a heap on the road having been hit by 1.5tonnes of metal?

And really have you NEVER seen a car drive on a pavement scattering pedestrians? Outside my house it happens on a daily basis as lazy, invariably overweight motorists can't be bothered to use the car park 50 yards away and instead pull onto the pavement.

Having read all the way through the comments on this thread it is amazing how much ignorance there is on both sides of the argument.