Be Excellent To Each Other

Yo.

My brother was giving a lift home to a friend. The friend opened the driver's side back door and WHAM, a cyclist rode into it. He was apparently 'fine', but he took my brother's insurance details.

Has SeniorPaz made a mistake here? Has he left himself open to a claim?

Will Sheila get back with Brock?

Who knows...

I don't know, but your brother's friend is a dick.

I don't know but I seem to think that the driver WOULD be responsible as a driver would be responsible for his own motor vehicle.

She was apparently very sorry

In my car, I'm obliged to drive slowly enough to brake before an opening car door is hit by me, and it would be my fault if that happened. Could it really be any different for a cyclist, another road user? Shouldn't be, surely?

What are the cyclists insurance details then, hmm? Are cyclists on the road probably uninsurable?

She's still a dick. Always check, regardless of which side you're on. She could have caused serious damage there.

Is your car in wrong-o-world?

As a member of the CTC, I'm insured against third party cover.

I think he's left himself open to a claim, as you're meant to check before opening car doors.

Nothing to worry about, it's why people have insurance, but he can probably sue his friend after he gets sued.

Er, dunno, actually. I'm not sure drivers have the same sort of general liability for their car as house owners do for their buildings. I think your mate's the one who has liability here, not your brother, as he's the one who actually did the thing that caused the "damage". Your brother giving over his insurance details doesn't make him responsible as a matter of law.

And no, cyclists generally aren't insured, which is ridiculous. Although, that said, home insurance sometimes covers general legal wranglings, funnily enough.

My understanding is that swapping insurance details doesn't imply any kind of acceptance of liability or fault or anything like like ( unless your brother signed a bit of paper saying "I was me that did it" ).

Indeed. And even less so where you cannot, as a matter of law, have any liability anyway. If you, Mr Squirt, drive into someone and I hand my insurance details to that person, I cannot accept liability for your fuck up. Same here with BrotherPaz and PazPal.

Thanks chaps. I'll pass this fried gold advice on to my brother.

Less fried gold than "not quite sure mumblings".

The driver is responsible for making sure doors aren't opened into the path of pedestrians and road users, so while it was dickface's literal fault for not looking, your brother is likely liable.

It all depends on how clued-up people are and how far they're prepared to push it - if the cyclist is uninsured, they're going to end up fighting an insurance company in court at potentially their own cost. Unless they go to a hateful no-win-no-fee claims company, though in this instance I'd not really begrudge them to be honest.

The insurance company might then turn round and sue the friend, I suppose. Or not, because they can easily rake it back in premium hikes over the next five years instead.

Edit: Remember, the driver is liable for anyone they allow into their cars. This also includes under-14s wearing seatbelts, for example.

MOAR EDITZ: Also remember that I'm usually factually, if not grossly, inaccurate in my understanding of things.

Did you get it on camera? You could get up £250 towards your legal fees from Harry Hill.

The only way to be certain is to hunt down the cyclist and kill them before they can sue.

Damn-nit people. Stop changing your story! I've told him he's fine now.

I don't think the cyclist is going to pursue a claim, as I said, he was fine, it's just that my brother was worried about his insurance going up.

Yeah, see, I'm not sure you're right there. I've googled around and can't find anything to say that the driver is responsible for the passsenger's actions - it would make absolutely no legal sense, anyway. Fault lies with the party occcasioning the harm - and that's the passenger.

EDIt - I've checked the Highway Code, and that only talks about MUST check before opening your own door.

Hm. I wonder where I heard that, then. It must've seemed a pretty trustworthy source or I wouldn't have managed to lodge it in my brain.

It's certainly true of youngsters and seatbelts.

The driver is liable for others wearing their seatbelts, yes.

Does that only apply to kids though? Surely a legally competent adult is responsible for their own actions.

Also, anecdotal:



http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/t ... ent-advice

ooh, good find!

BOO YA!

I mean, oh dear, davpaz, hope the cyclist doesn't claim, or something.

Hey, no skin off my nose... or his for that matter. If he's covered, meh, and extra £100 a year for a few years maybe. He can guilt the friend into paying that.

Tht's properly silly and counterintuitive, then. The Law is an Ass, as Mr Cavey is fond of reminding us.

However, I can't find anything to suggest this in RTA 1988

It'd make more sense to require cyclists to have insurance, that's for sure.

Neither could I, nor in the Highway Code (which DOES talk about liability for seatbelts), which is why I was fairly convinced that BikNorton was wrong here.

That would be a bitch to enforce. You'd probably have to register bicycles as well.

C'mon, law-talking guys! Work the system!

Or just nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Hmm - I've just found an insurance policy which specifically mentions covering:



Suggests to me that they expect the driver to be liable in that instance.

http://uk.nntp2http.com/legal/2008/08/3 ... f8989.html

Can someone read that as I've got to pick someone up from the doctors?

Need translator.

If the car stops so the passenger door opens into the highway it's unsafe, therefore the driver can be held liable if negligence can be proven in their letting the door open. Possibly only applies to cars with central locking.
Insurance doesn't have to cover passengers opening the doors unsafely.

No, but why would an insurance company provide coverage for something if it would not be normal for the driver to be liable?

Edits incoming to that post.

Yes, as you damn well should.

And make them pay road tax.

I'd be surprised if the driver isn't liable to be honest.

<- at suggestion of license and tax for bicycles. FFS.

And put spikes on their saddles.

Those fixed gear bikes are my current pet hate, as they're invariably ridden by courier-wannabes.

Tax is a silly idea, but there's no reason no to have them registered.

I only suggested insurance. And having cyclists pass a "cars are heavy and their drivers are stupid. Oh, and this red shiny thing means FUCKING STOP, by the way" test might be a wise thing. The unfair trend of making car drivers liable regardless of the circumstances is what happens otherwise.

You mean as in a car registration, with a number plate and registered address? All the paperwork and hassle and bureaucracy and expense that goes with that, not to mention the belming idiocy of fitting a number plate to a bicycle? It's bad enough that you have to register mopeds in this country, but at least that's defensible.

What next, register pushchairs?

Christ sake, this bloody country.

But what if the whole world suddenly started riding bicycles instead of driving cars? With no tax... Who would pay for the upkeep of the roads? Not such a silly idea then is it?

See also: What if the whole working population handed their notice in or what if everyone closed their bank account.

Every other vehicle that uses the public highway (except horses) has to be registered, taxed and insured. Why not bikes?

Considering how impossible it is to do anything about a cyclist that breaks the rules of the road, potentially harming pedestrians in the process, do you have a better suggestion?