Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 4:10am:


Well, I wouldn't be surprised that the passenger did look. But your peripheral vision can only do so much, and you wouldn't expect to have some cyclist riding in the gutter. I'm satisfied the passenger wasn't liable.

I rode my mountain bike through a shopping center car park at no considerable excessive speed. An old lady and her daughter decided to walk out onto the road without even a hint that they were looking either way for traffic. They got in my way, and I made the decision to ride behind them (thus giving both a bit of a scare). The younger lady exclaimed dismissively "Kids on bikes...". I swear, I must have been (at 25 years of age then) the oldest and biggest looking kid ever since the time Dad discovered Mario Bros on nintendo. I was going to go back and give a piece of my mind to the apparent senile ladies, but I would assume that it would have fallen on deaf ears.

ian wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:


What makes you think the passenger didn't look out the window before he got out? Most people do glance first, but what he didn't do is swivel his head and look behind the taxi, for the simple reason he wasn't expecting moving traffic coming along on the kerb side.

ian wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:



It was pretty darn close to that kerb!! I saw it on TV and I think any passenger in a car would have looked out and assumed it was kerbside. I have seen plenty of cars parked that far out from a kerb. Just because a cyclist could squeeze past doesn't mean the passenger was expecting one to. Most people wouldn't.
The cyclist could have used a little bit of initiative here. She was behind the parked taxi so she could definitely see it. If you saw a taxi pulled over, with people inside, (or any car with people inside) and you were hoping to ride past within much less than a metre of the car, would you not slow down, just in case?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 6:39am:


It turns out she thought wrong though, didn't she? It wasn't a dedicated bike lane as such. And why wouldn't she be aware that such things can happen?
How much time did she have to assess the situation? Well, taxi drivers are usually paid once they pull over, so I would say it had to be at least several seconds.
If you are a bike rider and in the city, you would need to be extra alert for traffic, that is just the reality of it. What you are implying is that because she thought she was in a bike lane, she felt she could continue on without slackening pace. In the same way, the passenger thought he was in a safe place, next to the kerb.
She saw them but didn't think to slow down or practice any caution, so she needs to shoulder some blame.

Kat wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 8:06pm:


Really? If I coat hangered you off your bike you wouldn't be doing much. Now the orthodontist may be something you'd need & I'd expect you'd consult a Lawyer...... But the proctologist is a worrying aspect....... Are you that way inclined? 

That aside I think ignorant bike riders on busy footpaths in the
CBD all deserve coat hangering. Just like that Sheila deserved to be doored.

If she was road conscious then she should have been prepared for such an event going up the inside.

Hypothetical....If they bought the 1 mtr rule in like proposed for QLD.... Who would be in breach then?

If you see the vision, the cab didn't pull over, it indicated at the same time as the door swung open. It remained clearly in the line of traffic - so very much a mixed message to the cyclist.

To me, the cab occupants made a snap decision to exit, and they didn't expect or see the cyclist. Unfortunate but the cab occupants have erred. And they know it, one at least has fronted up and apologised.

Rider wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:35am:



Sounds reasonable - people often make a snap judgement and don't anticipate such things as a cyclist right there.

Well - it was not a bike lane and there are multiple factors at work here - which points to a need to change 'laws' in this case.

Opening a door facing a gutter is not a situation in which that door is not opened safely - every person has a reasonable expectation that such a situation is safe.

This is where 'laws' come unstuck - they seek to cover all situations where many arise in which they clearly cannot do so.

Multiple factors:-

the rider failed to keep a safe lookout

failed to ride defensively taking into account the situation

the occupant did not look behind

multiple factors are in play...

I'll try this:-

Last year I was driving on a narrow windy dirt road - and was VERY careful - since I did not know the road - to keep well to the left on corners.  sure enough - a local lad in a red ute (is there any other kind?) came howling around one blind corner on the wrong side of the road - and only because of my careful prior consideration of that possibility and my fast reactions was I able to head into the 'gutter' - 'go bush' to avoid a headon at considerable speed.

It's called situational awareness - and is something that bike riders should be taught before they are licensed..... as they so obviously need to be.  Anticipate - be in front of your aircraft at all times - not playing catch-up - and always assume the other person is dumb.