Video: Doored cyclist falls in path of black cab

ibike wrote:

Why are people saying it was "bad cycling"?

The guy on the bike did nothing wrong. What's bad is the crap cycle lane.

It is bad cycling for one reason, the cyclist assumed the door wouldn't open and cycled too close. I know why he didn't, but this is why you need to "take the lane"/"ride in primary" etc. Simply never ride in the gutter, never ride close to parked cars, the risks aren't worth it.

mrmo wrote:

ibike wrote:

Why are people saying it was "bad cycling"?

The guy on the bike did nothing wrong. What's bad is the crap cycle lane.

It is bad cycling for one reason, the cyclist assumed the door wouldn't open and cycled too close. I know why he didn't, but this is why you need to "take the lane"/"ride in primary" etc. Simply never ride in the gutter, never ride close to parked cars, the risks aren't worth it.

Totally 100% agree but of course we then get called Lane hoggers, now check on ITV London's view on this and see how we are treated

mrmo wrote:

It is bad cycling for one reason, the cyclist assumed the door wouldn't open and cycled too close. I know why he didn't, but this is why you need to "take the lane"/"ride in primary" etc. Simply never ride in the gutter, never ride close to parked cars, the risks aren't worth it.

Taking precautions is good cycling practice, but that doesn't mean that the cyclist in this video was a bad cyclist. He was simply a cyclist trying to get to a destination and breaking no laws in the process.

A cyclist should not be blamed for not compensating for someone else's faults.

Lycra Lout wrote:

Don't know why some on here are praising the taxi driver. It wasn't the best place to begin overtaking and he was passing too closely to the cyclist. Remember it isn't just with doorings that someone riding a bike could fall ( into the taxi driver's lane).

To defend the Taxi Driver and to praise him,
a) He hadn't started his overtaking manoeuvre,
b) He had adjusted his speed (or so it appears) so that he would be overtaking after the end of the barriers where he could overtake safely,
c) His full attention was on his driving, and most important of all
d) He was driving in such a manner and speed that he could react in time to prevent major injury.

This driver by his actions prior, during and after the incident (for which he is not at fault) has shown himself to be truly a professional driver.

Well done Sir.

levermonkey wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

Don't know why some on here are praising the taxi driver. It wasn't the best place to begin overtaking and he was passing too closely to the cyclist. Remember it isn't just with doorings that someone riding a bike could fall ( into the taxi driver's lane).

To defend the Taxi Driver and to praise him,
a) He hadn't started his overtaking manoeuvre,
b) He had adjusted his speed (or so it appears) so that he would be overtaking after the end of the barriers where he could overtake safely,
c) His full attention was on his driving, and most important of all
d) He was driving in such a manner and speed that he could react in time to prevent major injury.

This driver by his actions prior, during and after the incident (for which he is not at fault) has shown himself to be truly a professional driver.

Well done Sir.

Well if he hadn't started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver's lane.

He was concentrating on the road, but he didn't take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.

Lycra Lout wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

Don't know why some on here are praising the taxi driver. It wasn't the best place to begin overtaking and he was passing too closely to the cyclist. Remember it isn't just with doorings that someone riding a bike could fall ( into the taxi driver's lane).

To defend the Taxi Driver and to praise him,
a) He hadn't started his overtaking manoeuvre,
b) He had adjusted his speed (or so it appears) so that he would be overtaking after the end of the barriers where he could overtake safely,
c) His full attention was on his driving, and most important of all
d) He was driving in such a manner and speed that he could react in time to prevent major injury.

This driver by his actions prior, during and after the incident (for which he is not at fault) has shown himself to be truly a professional driver.

Well done Sir.

Well if he hadn't started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver's lane.

He was concentrating on the road, but he didn't take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.

If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he'd have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads - this incident is a great example - cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they're not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!

daddyELVIS wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

Don't know why some on here are praising the taxi driver. It wasn't the best place to begin overtaking and he was passing too closely to the cyclist. Remember it isn't just with doorings that someone riding a bike could fall ( into the taxi driver's lane).

To defend the Taxi Driver and to praise him,
a) He hadn't started his overtaking manoeuvre,
b) He had adjusted his speed (or so it appears) so that he would be overtaking after the end of the barriers where he could overtake safely,
c) His full attention was on his driving, and most important of all
d) He was driving in such a manner and speed that he could react in time to prevent major injury.

This driver by his actions prior, during and after the incident (for which he is not at fault) has shown himself to be truly a professional driver.

Well done Sir.

Well if he hadn't started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver's lane.

He was concentrating on the road, but he didn't take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.

If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he'd have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads - this incident is a great example - cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they're not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!

First of all he wasn't in a cycle lane. He was in the same lane as the taxi driver, as there is no line demarcation.

By the same token, a driver shouldn't assume that since the person 'isn't' in their lane, that everything is safe. Paint does not protect you. We should be looking at distances, not lines. Also, the statement '' Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take'' implies that's it's ok for a driver not to do a proper overtake if the cyclist wasn't assertive. Not everyone is comfortable cycling in front of vehicles, but that shouldn't stop good drivers from driving properly regardless.

Lycra Lout wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

Don't know why some on here are praising the taxi driver. It wasn't the best place to begin overtaking and he was passing too closely to the cyclist. Remember it isn't just with doorings that someone riding a bike could fall ( into the taxi driver's lane).

To defend the Taxi Driver and to praise him,
a) He hadn't started his overtaking manoeuvre,
b) He had adjusted his speed (or so it appears) so that he would be overtaking after the end of the barriers where he could overtake safely,
c) His full attention was on his driving, and most important of all
d) He was driving in such a manner and speed that he could react in time to prevent major injury.

This driver by his actions prior, during and after the incident (for which he is not at fault) has shown himself to be truly a professional driver.

Well done Sir.

Well if he hadn't started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver's lane.

He was concentrating on the road, but he didn't take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.

If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he'd have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads - this incident is a great example - cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they're not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!

First of all he wasn't in a cycle lane. He was in the same lane as the taxi driver, as there is no line demarcation.

By the same token, a driver shouldn't assume that since the person 'isn't' in their lane, that everything is safe. Paint does not protect you. We should be looking at distances, not lines. Also, the statement '' Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take'' implies that's it's ok for a driver not to do a proper overtake if the cyclist wasn't assertive. Not everyone is comfortable cycling in front of vehicles, but that shouldn't stop good drivers from driving properly regardless.

Ok Mr Pedant, it was a Bus Lane. And no, I didn't imply that at all - just stating what a cyclist should do to stay safe when passing parked cars, that's all.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

Don't know why some on here are praising the taxi driver. It wasn't the best place to begin overtaking and he was passing too closely to the cyclist. Remember it isn't just with doorings that someone riding a bike could fall ( into the taxi driver's lane).

To defend the Taxi Driver and to praise him,
a) He hadn't started his overtaking manoeuvre,
b) He had adjusted his speed (or so it appears) so that he would be overtaking after the end of the barriers where he could overtake safely,
c) His full attention was on his driving, and most important of all
d) He was driving in such a manner and speed that he could react in time to prevent major injury.

This driver by his actions prior, during and after the incident (for which he is not at fault) has shown himself to be truly a professional driver.

Well done Sir.

Well if he hadn't started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver's lane.

He was concentrating on the road, but he didn't take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.

If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he'd have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads - this incident is a great example - cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they're not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!

First of all he wasn't in a cycle lane. He was in the same lane as the taxi driver, as there is no line demarcation.

By the same token, a driver shouldn't assume that since the person 'isn't' in their lane, that everything is safe. Paint does not protect you. We should be looking at distances, not lines. Also, the statement '' Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take'' implies that's it's ok for a driver not to do a proper overtake if the cyclist wasn't assertive. Not everyone is comfortable cycling in front of vehicles, but that shouldn't stop good drivers from driving properly regardless.

Ok Mr Pedant, it was a Bus Lane. And no, I didn't imply that at all - just stating what a cyclist should do to stay safe when passing parked cars, that's all.

Wasn't a bus lane either. No line demarcation means it is the same lane.

So I have a question, what stops the driver from doing a proper overtake if someone isn't assertive?

My point is that 0.5 seconds is not enough because the cyclist could easily fall into the taxi driver's path. What he should have been looking at was the distances between the taxi and cyclist, which was insufficient to justify being so close behind him.

Lycra Lout wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

Don't know why some on here are praising the taxi driver. It wasn't the best place to begin overtaking and he was passing too closely to the cyclist. Remember it isn't just with doorings that someone riding a bike could fall ( into the taxi driver's lane).

To defend the Taxi Driver and to praise him,
a) He hadn't started his overtaking manoeuvre,
b) He had adjusted his speed (or so it appears) so that he would be overtaking after the end of the barriers where he could overtake safely,
c) His full attention was on his driving, and most important of all
d) He was driving in such a manner and speed that he could react in time to prevent major injury.

This driver by his actions prior, during and after the incident (for which he is not at fault) has shown himself to be truly a professional driver.

Well done Sir.

Well if he hadn't started overtaking, he was still too close. 0.5 seconds behind rather than 2. You may claim the cyclist was in another lane but the two were clearly close enough to each other as a fall would result in him entering the taxi dirver's lane.

He was concentrating on the road, but he didn't take enough precautions in my opinion. He was barely able to stop in time.

If cyclist was taking responsibility for own safety he'd have cycled at least a full door width out from the parked cars, taking him out of the cycle lane. Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take. Given the circumstances I think taxi driver did well. Cyclist need to be assertive on the roads - this incident is a great example - cycle lanes are not necessarily the safest place to cycle. I pretend they're not there and just cycle in the safest part of the road depending on the circumstances as they play out!

First of all he wasn't in a cycle lane. He was in the same lane as the taxi driver, as there is no line demarcation.

By the same token, a driver shouldn't assume that since the person 'isn't' in their lane, that everything is safe. Paint does not protect you. We should be looking at distances, not lines. Also, the statement '' Taxi would then have had to do a proper over-take i.e. cross into the on-coming lane, hence making it a more considered over-take'' implies that's it's ok for a driver not to do a proper overtake if the cyclist wasn't assertive. Not everyone is comfortable cycling in front of vehicles, but that shouldn't stop good drivers from driving properly regardless.

Ok Mr Pedant, it was a Bus Lane. And no, I didn't imply that at all - just stating what a cyclist should do to stay safe when passing parked cars, that's all.

Wasn't a bus lane either. No line demarcation means it is the same lane.

So I have a question, what stops the driver from doing a proper overtake if someone isn't assertive?

My point is that 0.5 seconds is not enough because the cyclist could easily fall into the taxi driver's path. What he should have been looking at was the distances between the taxi and cyclist, which was insufficient to justify being so close behind him.

Blimey, who cares what it is? - it's a strip of paint the cyclist felt compelled to cycle on even when dangerous!

When cycling you have to assume that all drivers are inconsiderate at best and that the door of a parked car can fling open at any time! Anything less and you're not doing all you can to stay safe. Arguing about what constitutes are separate lane and how far back a taxi driver should be, etc, doesn't matter.

What matters is how to stay safe on a bike - take it or leave it!

daddyELVIS wrote:

Blimey, who cares what it is? - it's a strip of paint the cyclist felt compelled to cycle on even when dangerous!

When cycling you have to assume that all drivers are inconsiderate at best and that the door of a parked car can fling open at any time! Anything less and you're not doing all you can to stay safe. Arguing about what constitutes are separate lane and how far back a taxi driver should be, etc, doesn't matter.

What matters is how to stay safe on a bike - take it or leave it!

I'm the first person to not cycle in the door zone. However, that is mitigation due to actions of other drivers. It doesn't help that cycling infrastructure encourages dangerous cycling!

If you look at the twitter comments there are some people saying what I am. The driver responded saying words to the effect 'he was in his lane, I was in mine', which is not the correct attitude.

Lycra Lout wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Blimey, who cares what it is? - it's a strip of paint the cyclist felt compelled to cycle on even when dangerous!

When cycling you have to assume that all drivers are inconsiderate at best and that the door of a parked car can fling open at any time! Anything less and you're not doing all you can to stay safe. Arguing about what constitutes are separate lane and how far back a taxi driver should be, etc, doesn't matter.

What matters is how to stay safe on a bike - take it or leave it!

I'm the first person to not cycle in the door zone. However, that is mitigation due to actions of other drivers. It doesn't help that cycling infrastructure encourages dangerous cycling!

If you look at the twitter comments there are some people saying what I am. The driver responded saying words to the effect 'he was in his lane, I was in mine', which is not the correct attitude.

But, driver behaviour isn't going to change. Who is at fault doesn't really matter if a cyclist is seriously injured (or worse). What matters is riding in a way to avoid these potential hazards as much as possible!

daddyELVIS wrote:

Lycra Lout wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Blimey, who cares what it is? - it's a strip of paint the cyclist felt compelled to cycle on even when dangerous!

When cycling you have to assume that all drivers are inconsiderate at best and that the door of a parked car can fling open at any time! Anything less and you're not doing all you can to stay safe. Arguing about what constitutes are separate lane and how far back a taxi driver should be, etc, doesn't matter.

What matters is how to stay safe on a bike - take it or leave it!

I'm the first person to not cycle in the door zone. However, that is mitigation due to actions of other drivers. It doesn't help that cycling infrastructure encourages dangerous cycling!

If you look at the twitter comments there are some people saying what I am. The driver responded saying words to the effect 'he was in his lane, I was in mine', which is not the correct attitude.

But, driver behaviour isn't going to change. Who is at fault doesn't really matter if a cyclist is seriously injured (or worse). What matters is riding in a way to avoid these potential hazards as much as possible!

We both agree that drivers should look but that cyclists should still cycle outside of the door zone anyway. That's a separate issue entirely, though. We were discussing whether the driver did everything correctly. I'm arguing that he didn't.

daddyELVIS wrote:

What matters is how to stay safe on a bike - take it or leave it!

The problem though is that the vast majority decide that the way to stay safe on a bike is not to get on it in the first place.

flobble wrote:

Bad to park in cycle lane (though depending on time of day, may have been perfectly legal).

TfL shouldn't create part time cycle lanes when full time idiots will use them for parking.

ianrobo wrote:

Bad cycling, how ?

I guess from the point of view of cycling a door's width from the line of parked cars but that's being very harsh!

ianrobo wrote:

Bad cycling, how ?

Don't ride close to parked cars, ride at least a door-width away. Of course the person opening door should check and double-check before opening, but if you want to stay safe on a bike you have to assume that a door could be flung open at any moment.

ianrobo wrote:

Bad cycling, how ?

Don't ride close to parked cars, ride at least a door-width away. Of course the person opening door should check and double-check before opening, but if you want to stay safe on a bike you have to assume that a door could be flung open at any moment.

ianrobo wrote:

Bad cycling, how ?

Don't ride close to parked cars, ride at least a door-width away. Of course the person opening door should check and double-check before opening, but if you want to stay safe on a bike you have to assume that a door could be flung open at any moment.

danthomascyclist wrote:

Bad cycling, bad motorist - let's hope they both learn something from this. Sadly it's mostly the case that the cyclist is the one that gets hurt.

Bad road design, yet again. Cyclist did nothing bad, or wrong or unusual. Even the driver of the parked car did nothing unusual - they were careless, but even if they had looked the same risk still exists - it's easy to misjudge speed and the space needed.

What shouldn't happen is expecting everyone to act perfectly all the time when the known consequences of a common mistake (by either party) is the injury or death of the more vulnerable road user. This is exactly why we need #space4cycling.