Cyclist vs Motorist: Court find Both At Fault

Summary of a court report that appeared in the Canberra Times, 9/6/2004:
A cyclist ran into a left hand passenger door of a stationary car, as a
15 year old passenger was getting out (at a high school).
The cyclist sued the driver (the only adult in the car) for about
$60,000 damages.
The insurance company claimed the cyclist was at fault because she
'should have been using the nearby footpath, rather than a busy and
dangerous suburban road.' [The report's words, not mine.]
The court (ACT Supreme Court) 'said that if the cyclist was held to be
partly to blame because of this, all cyclists who used the road instead
of the footpath would be guilty of contributory negligence if involved
in an accident.' ... 'while the cyclist could have used the footpath ...
she was equally entitled to use the road.'
The cyclist's damages were halved because she was '50 per cent to blame'
.... 'for overtaking the car on the left and, therefore, failing to take
reasonable care for her own safety.'

My comments:
What cheek by the insurance company! I'm glad the judge dismissed that
nonsense. Imagine if cyclists *had* to use footpaths.

Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian
road rules said it was legal to do such a thing. (Correct me if I
remember wrongly.) This court ruling seems to make that new road rule
somewhat worthless.

What do you think?

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au

K.A. Moylan wrote:
*snip*
My comments:
What cheek by the insurance company! I'm glad the judge dismissed that
nonsense. Imagine if cyclists *had* to use footpaths.

Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian
road rules said it was legal to do such a thing. (Correct me if I
remember wrongly.) This court ruling seems to make that new road rule
somewhat worthless.

What do you think?


I think overtaking a stationary car on the left is extremely hazardous,
and yes, the cyclist is partly to blame. but then, I'm not sure of the
full circumstances (ie. did the passenger open the door as soon as the
car stopped etc).
Anyway .. I thought it was illegal to ride on the footpath - I know I've
been fined twice for doing it.

K.A. Moylan wrote:
Summary of a court report that appeared in the Canberra Times, 9/6/2004:
A cyclist ran into a left hand passenger door of a stationary car, as a
15 year old passenger was getting out (at a high school). The cyclist
sued the driver (the only adult in the car) for about $60,000 damages.
The insurance company claimed the cyclist was at fault because she
'should have been using the nearby footpath, rather than a busy and
dangerous suburban road.' [The report's words, not mine.] The court (ACT
Supreme Court) 'said that if the cyclist was held to be partly to blame
because of this, all cyclists who used the road instead of the footpath
would be guilty of contributory negligence if involved in an accident.'
... 'while the cyclist could have used the footpath ... she was equally
entitled to use the road.' The cyclist's damages were halved because she
was '50 per cent to blame' ... 'for overtaking the car on the left and,
therefore, failing to take reasonable care for her own safety.'
My comments: What cheek by the insurance company! I'm glad the judge
dismissed that nonsense. Imagine if cyclists *had* to use footpaths.
Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian
road rules said it was legal to do such a thing. (Correct me if I
remember wrongly.) This court ruling seems to make that new road rule
somewhat worthless.
What do you think?
--
K.A. Moylan Canberra, Australia Ski Club:
http://www.cccsc.asn.au/http://www.cccsc.asn.au kamoylan at ozemail
dot com dot au


Hmm. Suggesting that cyclists use the footpath is ludicrous, especiall
past a school when it's obviously the time of day when there are goin
to be a large number of children using the footpath. Having said that
to run into an opening door on the LEFT suggests that they were passin
between a stationary car and a footpath. Outside a school. While kid
were being dropped off. That's pretty dumb, and I'd call that negligent
In the face of all that, I'd say 50/50 is fair, if not generous to th
cyclist. Now if they'd been doored on the RIGHT hand side, then that'
something completely different


-

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:37:32 +1000
K.A. Moylan wrote:

Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian
road rules said it was legal to do such a thing. (Correct me if I
remember wrongly.) This court ruling seems to make that new road rule
somewhat worthless.

What do you think?


I think you'd need to see the whole judgement to be sure.

However... IT's a matter of expectations. Yes, a driver (and
passenger) should expect
a cyclist to nick up the inside, it's what cyclists do.

But a cyclist should take note of where the stoped car is, and what
might happen.

If, for example, the cars are stopped at lights on a normal subuerban
road (ie not near a shopping strip or other high ped traffic area),
then it isn't that likely a passenger will step out, but it is likely
a pushbike will be lanesplitting. A passenger has to realise that.

On the other hand, if the car is stopped outside a school at
start-of-school time, then there's a much higher chance that someone
will want to get out. The cyclist has to realise that.

So both were at fault, the cyclist because they should have realised
that kids (and therefore less experienced in the ways of traffic) get
out of stopped cars near schools, the passenger because lanesplitting is
what cyclists do, and getting out of a car that's not in a parking lane
but part of the traffic stream (even if it's not streaming right then)
should be done only after looking for bikes.

Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone ), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:37:32 +1000, "K.A. Moylan"
wrote:

[snip]
The cyclist's damages were halved because she was '50 per cent to blame'
... 'for overtaking the car on the left and, therefore, failing to take
reasonable care for her own safety.'

My comments:
What cheek by the insurance company! I'm glad the judge dismissed that
nonsense. Imagine if cyclists *had* to use footpaths.

Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian

When someone sues someone else, it is a CIVIL action rather than a
criminal prosecution. As such, the road rules do not hold complete sway
over the debate.

As an example: you are going through an intersection, with a green
light. Halfway over, you are T-boned by someone coming through their
red light.

LEGALLY, the other person is wrong and will lose money and points. You
probably won't.
In a CIVIL action seeking damages, you will be apportioned SOME of the
blame for not ensuring that it was indeed safe to inter that
intersection at the time. IE: by virtue of BEING there, you
automatically assume SOME of the responsibility and hence blame.

At least that is my interpretation of how it all works.

---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

Greetings,
Complete bull****. I had the same response from the
moron involved in my last bingle. `Were you riding on the footpath?' On
a racing tandem doing 32 k/mh when she cleaned us up in the middle of
the road? Get real. As noted previously, I still exercise my legal and
moral right to use the roads as a legally defined road vehicle under the
traffic laws, and I'm bloody well staying there.
Regards,
Ray.

K.A. Moylan wrote:

Summary of a court report that appeared in the Canberra Times, 9/6/2004:
A cyclist ran into a left hand passenger door of a stationary car, as a
15 year old passenger was getting out (at a high school).
The cyclist sued the driver (the only adult in the car) for about
$60,000 damages.
The insurance company claimed the cyclist was at fault because she
'should have been using the nearby footpath, rather than a busy and
dangerous suburban road.' [The report's words, not mine.]
The court (ACT Supreme Court) 'said that if the cyclist was held to be
partly to blame because of this, all cyclists who used the road instead
of the footpath would be guilty of contributory negligence if involved
in an accident.' ... 'while the cyclist could have used the footpath ...
she was equally entitled to use the road.'
The cyclist's damages were halved because she was '50 per cent to blame'
.... 'for overtaking the car on the left and, therefore, failing to take
reasonable care for her own safety.'

My comments:
What cheek by the insurance company! I'm glad the judge dismissed that
nonsense. Imagine if cyclists *had* to use footpaths.

Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian
road rules said it was legal to do such a thing. (Correct me if I
remember wrongly.) This court ruling seems to make that new road rule
somewhat worthless.

What do you think?

Unkey Munkey wrote in message ...
K.A. Moylan wrote:
*snip*
My comments:
What cheek by the insurance company! I'm glad the judge dismissed that
nonsense. Imagine if cyclists *had* to use footpaths.

Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian
road rules said it was legal to do such a thing. (Correct me if I
remember wrongly.) This court ruling seems to make that new road rule
somewhat worthless.

What do you think?


I think overtaking a stationary car on the left is extremely hazardous,
and yes, the cyclist is partly to blame. but then, I'm not sure of the
full circumstances (ie. did the passenger open the door as soon as the
car stopped etc).


As you said, you don't know the full circumstances, so HTF can you say
"the cyclist is partly to blame". I pass about 1000 stationary cars
on the left every day, every time they are not moving in peak hour
traffic. The only time, by law, you can't pass on the left is when
the car has an indicator to turn left on.

If a door flies open, the passenger is 100% at fault as they must
ensure safe disembarkment from the vehicle. I know, 'cos I've had
them charged and pay for repairs.

Anyway .. I thought it was illegal to ride on the footpath - I know I've
been fined twice for doing it.

Resound wrote in message ...
K.A. Moylan wrote:
Summary of a court report that appeared in the Canberra Times, 9/6/2004:
A cyclist ran into a left hand passenger door of a stationary car, as a
15 year old passenger was getting out (at a high school). The cyclist
sued the driver (the only adult in the car) for about $60,000 damages.
The insurance company claimed the cyclist was at fault because she
'should have been using the nearby footpath, rather than a busy and
dangerous suburban road.' [The report's words, not mine.] The court (ACT
Supreme Court) 'said that if the cyclist was held to be partly to blame
because of this, all cyclists who used the road instead of the footpath
would be guilty of contributory negligence if involved in an accident.'
... 'while the cyclist could have used the footpath ... she was equally
entitled to use the road.' The cyclist's damages were halved because she
was '50 per cent to blame' ... 'for overtaking the car on the left and,
therefore, failing to take reasonable care for her own safety.'
My comments: What cheek by the insurance company! I'm glad the judge
dismissed that nonsense. Imagine if cyclists *had* to use footpaths.
Allocating half the blame on the cyclist for overtaking to the left of a
stationary car is a worry. Weren't we debating recently about the
legality of overtaking stationary cars on the left? IIRC, the Australian
road rules said it was legal to do such a thing. (Correct me if I
remember wrongly.) This court ruling seems to make that new road rule
somewhat worthless.
What do you think?
--
K.A. Moylan Canberra, Australia Ski Club:
http://www.cccsc.asn.au/http://www.cccsc.asn.au kamoylan at ozemail
dot com dot au



Hmm. Suggesting that cyclists use the footpath is ludicrous, especially
past a school when it's obviously the time of day when there are going
to be a large number of children using the footpath. Having said that,
to run into an opening door on the LEFT suggests that they were passing
between a stationary car and a footpath. Outside a school. While kids
were being dropped off. That's pretty dumb, and I'd call that negligent.
In the face of all that, I'd say 50/50 is fair, if not generous to the
cyclist. Now if they'd been doored on the RIGHT hand side, then that's
something completely different.


Bull**** it's completely different. A person in a car must ensure
safe disembarkment, does not matter which side they are getting out
of.

If there was room to pass on the left then the car could have been
illegaly parked, i.e too far from the curb. Unless the cyclist was
foolish enough to attempt to ride through a 10 cm gap. Which one was
it ? We should all hold judgement until we know the full facts. Is

My understanding was that you can pass on the left (otherwise we'd be a
banked up as the rest of the traffic!) UNLESS the car is indicating t
turn left or obviously parked

If there is an obvious gap (ie not parked) it would seem absurd tha
you cant pas

This is a real issue on my commute when I go the mainly road way as
pass many tram stops and people quickly jump out of cars to catch th
tram and do it at a whim rather than a parked/planned transfe


-

Anyway .. I thought it was illegal to ride on the footpath - I know I've
been fined twice for doing it.

Not in the ACT