i wouldnt be so sure. If you injured/damaged/killed someone, whilst drunk incharge of a motor vehicle on your own property, i think you would soon find differently. If intent to drive can be proven (very little burden of proof for that, merely having car keys on you sitting in car whilst over the limit) then you would find yourself on the wrong side of the law.
No, I'm 100% sure that driving while drunk on private land isn't itself a crime, unless the public have regular access to it.
Anything else that may or may not happen is a different matter entirely.
I find the vitriol aimed at the woman strange for what was, in all honesty, an accident. How many people would be calling for manslaughter charges, prison, lifetime driving disqualification and heavy fines for somebody who opened their garden gate without looking and caused somebody to fall from their bike and bang their head? Is it because the woman was in a car or what? Accidents happen, and I think the penalty was about right for what happened.
Looking at that picture, and assuming that it was the same bike he was using at the time, it's possible that she just didn't see him as he was so close to the ground??
No it isn't, i can drink drive on my property if I so wished, it only becomes illegal in a public place.
But you're unlikely to kill anyone on your own private land. Indeed, for 99% they wouldn't even be able to actually 'drive' on their land.
If you did manage to kill someone however, a charge of wanton or furious driving could be attempted
All car doors open outwards.
The guy shouldn't have been cycling too close to parked cars..
Lamoborghinis have doors that slide upwards. Mainly of danger to low-flying circus trapeze artists.
You'd have to give cars 3ft of clearance. Would take a strong will to put up with the abuse from the cars stacked up behind you.
Do you get a lot of parked cars on these cycle paths that always go from your front door to your many destinations?
Oh gosh no. These cycle paths are usually not the most direct route. However i certainly do not have a problem taking a slight detour in order to keep a safer route, and not disrupt traffic. I am aware of a chippy section of cyclists though who flat out refuse to use them as they don’t go direct from their front door to every location. And as they ride bikes that are so over sensitive as to be considered unroadworthy they complain that the tarmac on these cycle paths is not smooth enough.
Lamoborghinis have doors that slide upwards. Mainly of danger to low-flying circus trapeze artists.
You'd have to give cars 3ft of clearance. Would take a strong will to put up with the abuse from the cars stacked up behind you.
I don't cycle anywhere near as much as I used to, but even so, I'm not prepared to put my life at risk to ease the lives of car drivers behind me.
If the road is so narrow that the only way for a car to pass me, is for me to ride too close to parked cars, then I am putting myself at even more risk. A door opened suddenly will knock me off and under the cars following me, therefore I would take up a wider position which ultimately benefits everyone.
Just like this lady, I'm sure no one sets out each day hoping to kill a cyclist, and the hypothetical car drivers behind me surely would prefer not to run over my body if I got spilled across the road.
There's a road into town where I live that is precisely like the scenario above, fully parked up and quite long, but it has a very wide pavement and very few pedestrians, so in that case I would ride slowly on the pavement, despite the illegality,
Who said he was cycling too close, is there a set distance and do car drivers leave the same gap?
Car doors open a long way when open fully, so do you leave that gap?
A lot of comments on here from people who very little or no experience of riding a bike on a busy road!
The fact that he fell off and died would pretty much indicate he was cycling too close to avoid an open door, unless you want to suggest she opened the door with such alacrity, a pulse of air knocked him off.
Having lived near London, I can assure you I have a lot of experience of cycling in busy traffic. Yes I did leave a sufficient gap for car doors, and look to see if parked cars were empty etc etc.
Yes, car drivers leave the same gap where possible. It's kinda like, common sense.
Ive been steering clear of this thread, but gotta add my tuppence. Im torn because yes, a man died; however it was a complete accident. You cant reasonably assume that somebody cycling into your door will die. Its reasonable to accept that there could have been the potential for injury, and that the driver was negligent when opening the door. Not to victim blame, but the cyclist wearing a helmet would have almost certainly prevented serious head injuries. The cyclist must also have been pelting it past to hit at such a ferocity to slam into the pavement to a degree it caused serious head injuries, and his age would also have been a factor. Im not saying his speed is illegal, as it most certainly isnt. What I am saying is the punishment is appropriate for the circumstance, as it was an accident not intent.
All I see on this thread are a lot of unreasonable people.
All I can say is that as a cyclist I would always take care around parked cars and sort of clocked when someone was in them. But that, ideally, should not have been necessary. The accident was not the fault of the cyclist, nor was he contributorily negligent. As a motorist it wouldn't have happened to me either. I always look very carefully and on busy roads often slide over to the passenger door.
All I can say is that as a cyclist I would always take care around parked cars and sort of clocked when someone was in them. But that, ideally, should not have been necessary. The accident was not the fault of the cyclist, nor was he contributorily negligent.
Agreed, but at the same time it was an accident. Open a door into a car, it scratches. Open it to a pedestrian, it bumps them or they stop. He must have hit the door with real force to go off with enough speed to hit his head. Unfortunate, but an accident none the less. I do believe with a helmet he would just have come away with some scrapes and a headache.
Agreed, but at the same time it was an accident. Open a door into a car, it scratches. Open it to a pedestrian, it bumps them or they stop. He must have hit the door with real force to go off with enough speed to hit his head. Unfortunate, but an accident none the less. I do believe with a helmet he would just have come away with some scrapes and a headache.
I wouldn't disagree with what you say, but legally she was still wholly negligent.
Agreed, but at the same time it was an accident. Open a door into a car, it scratches. Open it to a pedestrian, it bumps them or they stop. He must have hit the door with real force to go off with enough speed to hit his head. Unfortunate, but an accident none the less. I do believe with a helmet he would just have come away with some scrapes and a headache.
I've also been avoiding it bar a couple of thoughts earlier as these threads always meander down the same petty arguments and cheap-shots (see previous posts...) but this needs addressing.
My late gran was knocked off her bike in the same circumstances when still a sprightly middle-aged woman. It broke her collar bone and left her off work for a few weeks, but it also broke her confidence - she never cycled again and as she'd never learnt to drive and never really wanted to by that age (mid-50s) to some extent it robbed her off her independance. As in this case, knocking an older or elderly person off his or her bike does more damage than 'just some scrapes and a headache'.
In the end it boils down to having a duty of care to other road uses. Most cyclists know the pay-off between avoiding the door zone and having an irate driver hovering on the rear wheel. For most of us, the irate motorist is well aware of our presence so can wait till it's safe to overtake; it's the car occupant about to throw open the door without much more than a cursory glance that's the scary part. It doesn't matter how normal it is to open a car door, the fact is that throwing a heavy steel object with sharp edges into the path of someone approaching at any speed between 7mph (i.e. my old gran) and higher is both dangerous and selfish.
It's fair to say that the outcome clearly reflects the details of the case which may have not been fully reported. When you take into account the fact that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, that is clearly a contributory factor to his death. If the cyclist had also been close enough behind the car that he would have seen it pull up and made no allowance in terms of speed or space for a car door being opened, then this would also have to be taken into account.
I wouldn't disagree with what you say, but legally she was still wholly negligent.
Yes, but the duty of care suggests that you have to be able to reasonably anticipate your actions would cause the outcome. Is it reasonable to assume that opening a door would cause the death of somebody? No it wouldnt be reasonable, but it would be reasonable to assume there may be another road user passing, so she should have checked. It is this culpability which dictates why the fine was so low, and only by being truly objective and following the law can you grasp why the fine is what it is.
To summarise, I believe the fine was fair and proportionate.
I've also been avoiding it bar a couple of thoughts earlier as these threads always meander down the same petty arguments and cheap-shots (see previous posts...) but this needs addressing.
My late gran was knocked off her bike in the same circumstances when still a sprightly middle-aged woman. It broke her collar bone and left her off work for a few weeks, bit it also broke her confidence - she never cycled again and as she'd never learnt to drive and never really wanted to by that age (mid-50s) to some extent it robbed her off her independance. As in this case, knocking an older or elderly person off his or her bike does more damage than 'just some scrapes and a headache'.
In the end it boils down to having a duty of care to other road uses. Most cyclists know the pay-off between avoiding the door zone and having an irate driver hovering on the rear wheel. For most of us, the irate motorist is well aware of our presence so can wait till it's safe to overtake; it's the car occupant about to throw open the door without much more than a cursory glance that's the scary part. It doesn't matter how normal it is to open a car door, the fact is that throwing a heavy steel object with sharp edges into the path of someone approaching at any speed between 7mph (i.e. my old gran) and higher is both dangerous and selfish.
In regard to point 1), I am very sorry that happened, but not sure of the relevance. No matter the punishment, it wouldnt have helped your gran. The facts have to be looked at objectively, or you resort to eye-for-an-eye. Psychological harm is taken into account, so any damages would reflect it.
In regards to point 2, see above. Its reasonable to assume another road user may pass, but again not sure what you expect? A custodial sentence? There is no intent to cause harm, just negligence, which is part of tort.
Comments
No, I'm 100% sure that driving while drunk on private land isn't itself a crime, unless the public have regular access to it.
Anything else that may or may not happen is a different matter entirely.
a) Most front gates open inwards
b) They shouldn't be riding on the pavement.
All car doors open outwards.
The guy shouldn't have been cycling too close to parked cars.
It's 50/50 culpability in my eyes.
Just playing devils advocate
But you're unlikely to kill anyone on your own private land. Indeed, for 99% they wouldn't even be able to actually 'drive' on their land.
If you did manage to kill someone however, a charge of wanton or furious driving could be attempted
You'd have to give cars 3ft of clearance. Would take a strong will to put up with the abuse from the cars stacked up behind you.
Oh gosh no. These cycle paths are usually not the most direct route. However i certainly do not have a problem taking a slight detour in order to keep a safer route, and not disrupt traffic. I am aware of a chippy section of cyclists though who flat out refuse to use them as they don’t go direct from their front door to every location. And as they ride bikes that are so over sensitive as to be considered unroadworthy they complain that the tarmac on these cycle paths is not smooth enough.
Of course, we know, that’s just silly.
Source??
I don't cycle anywhere near as much as I used to, but even so, I'm not prepared to put my life at risk to ease the lives of car drivers behind me.
If the road is so narrow that the only way for a car to pass me, is for me to ride too close to parked cars, then I am putting myself at even more risk. A door opened suddenly will knock me off and under the cars following me, therefore I would take up a wider position which ultimately benefits everyone.
Just like this lady, I'm sure no one sets out each day hoping to kill a cyclist, and the hypothetical car drivers behind me surely would prefer not to run over my body if I got spilled across the road.
There's a road into town where I live that is precisely like the scenario above, fully parked up and quite long, but it has a very wide pavement and very few pedestrians, so in that case I would ride slowly on the pavement, despite the illegality,
Car doors open a long way when open fully, so do you leave that gap?
A lot of comments on here from people who very little or no experience of riding a bike on a busy road!
Likewise who said it was a busy road?
The fact that he fell off and died would pretty much indicate he was cycling too close to avoid an open door, unless you want to suggest she opened the door with such alacrity, a pulse of air knocked him off.
Having lived near London, I can assure you I have a lot of experience of cycling in busy traffic. Yes I did leave a sufficient gap for car doors, and look to see if parked cars were empty etc etc.
Yes, car drivers leave the same gap where possible. It's kinda like, common sense.
All I see on this thread are a lot of unreasonable people.
Many of whom have virtually no knowledge of the law!
Agreed, but at the same time it was an accident. Open a door into a car, it scratches. Open it to a pedestrian, it bumps them or they stop. He must have hit the door with real force to go off with enough speed to hit his head. Unfortunate, but an accident none the less. I do believe with a helmet he would just have come away with some scrapes and a headache.
I wouldn't disagree with what you say, but legally she was still wholly negligent.
My late gran was knocked off her bike in the same circumstances when still a sprightly middle-aged woman. It broke her collar bone and left her off work for a few weeks, but it also broke her confidence - she never cycled again and as she'd never learnt to drive and never really wanted to by that age (mid-50s) to some extent it robbed her off her independance. As in this case, knocking an older or elderly person off his or her bike does more damage than 'just some scrapes and a headache'.
In the end it boils down to having a duty of care to other road uses. Most cyclists know the pay-off between avoiding the door zone and having an irate driver hovering on the rear wheel. For most of us, the irate motorist is well aware of our presence so can wait till it's safe to overtake; it's the car occupant about to throw open the door without much more than a cursory glance that's the scary part. It doesn't matter how normal it is to open a car door, the fact is that throwing a heavy steel object with sharp edges into the path of someone approaching at any speed between 7mph (i.e. my old gran) and higher is both dangerous and selfish.
Sounds like the sort of convoluted egress Mr Bean would attempt.
That it may, but if it avoids an accident I'll happily trade off for the odd inane comment.
Yes, but the duty of care suggests that you have to be able to reasonably anticipate your actions would cause the outcome. Is it reasonable to assume that opening a door would cause the death of somebody? No it wouldnt be reasonable, but it would be reasonable to assume there may be another road user passing, so she should have checked. It is this culpability which dictates why the fine was so low, and only by being truly objective and following the law can you grasp why the fine is what it is.
To summarise, I believe the fine was fair and proportionate.
In regard to point 1), I am very sorry that happened, but not sure of the relevance. No matter the punishment, it wouldnt have helped your gran. The facts have to be looked at objectively, or you resort to eye-for-an-eye. Psychological harm is taken into account, so any damages would reflect it.
In regards to point 2, see above. Its reasonable to assume another road user may pass, but again not sure what you expect? A custodial sentence? There is no intent to cause harm, just negligence, which is part of tort.
And what if there was a danger from cyclists approaching from the near and offside? would you exit via the sunroof?
And gear stick up your arse?