Cyclist dies after hitting car door

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:54:03 +1000
Glen F <[email protected]> wrote:
> A college was once doored by a passenger while
> passing to the left of a line of cars waiting
> at the lights. Some cars really do have them,
> and sometimes they even get out - at the oddest
> places.

I recall a case in Adelaide in the mid 80s where that happened.

It caused a stir because the judge held the passenger was personally
liable for compensation and medical costs as a) it was reasonably
forseeable that there might be a pushbike there so the passenger should
have looked and b) the car's 3rd party insurance only covered the
*driver's* actions.

I don't know if it was appealed or what happened, I do recall there
was a fair old fuss in the 'Tizer.

Zebee

 

[Resound]

"Richard Sherratt" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:18:25 GMT, "Campag_nut"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> One time it happened to me (no bike lane), the two young guys in the
>>> hot Torana behind me, who had hung back waiting for a chance to
>>> overtake, abused the door opener and apologised to me on behalf of all
>>> car drivers.
>>>
>>> Amazing, but true.
>
>>Are you sure they weren't high on something???
>><g>
>
> They were lucid
>
> I was surprised, but happy.
>
I'm guessing they were cyclists themselves.

 

[beerwolf]

Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:54:03 +1000
> Glen F <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A college was once doored by a passenger while
>> passing to the left of a line of cars waiting
>> at the lights. Some cars really do have them,
>> and sometimes they even get out - at the oddest
>> places.
>
> I recall a case in Adelaide in the mid 80s where that happened.
>
> It caused a stir because the judge held the passenger was personally
> liable for compensation and medical costs as a) it was reasonably
> forseeable that there might be a pushbike there so the passenger
> should have looked and b) the car's 3rd party insurance only covered
> the *driver's* actions.

Most taxis I've ridden in (all? can't be sure) have a sticker right in
the front passenger's face, warning to watch for cyclists when getting
out, and saying that liability is the passenger's in the event of the
door hitting anything. If that is not the case, it ought to be.

I've been pondering the long term potential for saving lives and
injuries, by changing car design standards to prevent doors being flung
open. I'd envisage a door opening in 2 stages - first a little push
could open it so there's a gap just big enough to see through.
Thereafter, the door would only move further with positive pressure at a
certain point far from the hinge, so your hand would have to travel with
the door. In similar mode to the spring-loaded doors you find leading to
stairwells. If this happened, we'd just about eliminate the problem over
time, I reckon.

--
beerwolf
(To reply by email, remove numbers from my address)

 

[MikeyOz]

I'm very wary of car doors, but I figure if I'm in a situation where
I'm going to hit, I'm steering INTO the car (and possibly soft door-
opener) rather than into that very sharp unforgiving edge.
duncan

Helmet first into the person that opened the door in the first place, if you have time to make that decision, should also give the driver something to think about.

 

[PeteSig]

"beerwolf" wrote:

> I've been pondering the long term potential for saving lives and
> injuries, by changing car design standards to prevent doors being flung
> open. I'd envisage a door opening in 2 stages - first a little push
> could open it so there's a gap just big enough to see through.
> Thereafter, the door would only move further with positive pressure at a
> certain point far from the hinge, so your hand would have to travel with
> the door. In similar mode to the spring-loaded doors you find leading to
> stairwells. If this happened, we'd just about eliminate the problem over
> time, I reckon.

Great idea! New Inventors for you, son, if you can run with it.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bean Long <[email protected]> wrote:

> The circumstances are pretty sketchy. The report makes it sound as
> though he ran into an open door like it had been open for some time...
> Or was it opened on him by someone who wasn't looking?

Apparently this unfortunate victim is a friend of a poster on one of the
cycling forums. According to him, the victim did not wear a helmet. He
posted to warn everyone again of the dangers of not wearing a helmet.
--

 

[TimC]

On 2007-04-16, Artoi (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bean Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The circumstances are pretty sketchy. The report makes it sound as
>> though he ran into an open door like it had been open for some time...
>> Or was it opened on him by someone who wasn't looking?
>
> Apparently this unfortunate victim is a friend of a poster on one of the
> cycling forums. According to him, the victim did not wear a helmet. He
> posted to warn everyone again of the dangers of not wearing a helmet.

I can see the police report now.

"He wasn't wearing a helmet. Driver has no case to answer. QED".

--
TimC
Skywalker> You are either with me, or you are my enemy.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. -- Obi Wan Kenobi on George Bush Jnr

 

[Theo Bekkers]

beerwolf wrote:

> I've been pondering the long term potential for saving lives and
> injuries, by changing car design standards to prevent doors being
> flung open. I'd envisage a door opening in 2 stages - first a little
> push could open it so there's a gap just big enough to see through.
> Thereafter, the door would only move further with positive pressure
> at a certain point far from the hinge, so your hand would have to
> travel with the door. In similar mode to the spring-loaded doors you
> find leading to stairwells. If this happened, we'd just about
> eliminate the problem over time, I reckon.

How about we go back to "suicide" doors, front doors hinged at the centre
pillar, rear doors hinged at the rear. They make it much easier to get in
and out of the vehicle and would deflect a bike rider rather than give them
an edge to run in to. They will need a locking mechanism to prevent the
doors being opened whilst the vehicle is in motion, but that is not
difficult. A lot of cars now auto-lock the doors when they reach a
predetermined speed. All Mercedes cars now lock the doors at 15 km/h.

Theo

 

[PiledHigher]

On Apr 17, 10:13 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> beerwolf wrote:
> > I've been pondering the long term potential for saving lives and
> > injuries, by changing car design standards to prevent doors being
> > flung open. I'd envisage a door opening in 2 stages - first a little
> > push could open it so there's a gap just big enough to see through.
> > Thereafter, the door would only move further with positive pressure
> > at a certain point far from the hinge, so your hand would have to
> > travel with the door. In similar mode to the spring-loaded doors you
> > find leading to stairwells. If this happened, we'd just about
> > eliminate the problem over time, I reckon.
>
> How about we go back to "suicide" doors, front doors hinged at the centre
> pillar, rear doors hinged at the rear. They make it much easier to get in
> and out of the vehicle and would deflect a bike rider rather than give them
> an edge to run in to. They will need a locking mechanism to prevent the
> doors being opened whilst the vehicle is in motion, but that is not
> difficult. A lot of cars now auto-lock the doors when they reach a
> predetermined speed. All Mercedes cars now lock the doors at 15 km/h.
>
> Theo

The problem with deflection is that the average death in this
situaation is caused by the rider being run over by a following car
while on the ground. This wasn't the case here but most often is.
Someone else has said it, aim for the door opener, don't swerve
outward.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

PiledHigher wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:

>> How about we go back to "suicide" doors, front doors hinged at the
>> centre pillar, rear doors hinged at the rear. They make it much
>> easier to get in and out of the vehicle and would deflect a bike
>> rider rather than give them an edge to run in to. They will need a
>> locking mechanism to prevent the doors being opened whilst the
>> vehicle is in motion, but that is not difficult. A lot of cars now
>> auto-lock the doors when they reach a predetermined speed. All
>> Mercedes cars now lock the doors at 15 km/h.

> The problem with deflection is that the average death in this
> situation is caused by the rider being run over by a following car
> while on the ground. This wasn't the case here but most often is.
> Someone else has said it, aim for the door opener, don't swerve
> outward.

In the scenario wasn't it the passenger who opened the door, and would they
not be alighting from the kerb lane? A deflection would put the rider on the
footpath. Isn't this scenario more likely than the driver getting out of the
car or a passenger getting out from a car not in the kerb-side lane. I think
it would be against most people's natural reaction to steer into the
obstruction.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Artoi wrote

>> Apparently this unfortunate victim is a friend of a poster on one of
>> the cycling forums. According to him, the victim did not wear a
>> helmet. He posted to warn everyone again of the dangers of not
>> wearing a helmet.

> I can see the police report now.
>
> "He wasn't wearing a helmet. Driver has no case to answer. QED".

Not as funny as it sounds. If he was not killed but seriously injured, no
doubt some court would have held him at least partially 'responsible' for
his own injuries. One of the biggest problems with the motorcycle 'lights
on' legislation was just that. "He didn't have his light on, the accident
was therefore his fault".

No helmet or seat belt ever prevented an accident.

Theo