Juha

(I have to admit I did not read the 70+ posts before replying. So if this has been said already, pardon my ignorance.)

Possible, yes. Legal, not always, and not universally for sure.

An example: I have a stretch of street in my commute that has been retrofitted with a narrow, one way bike path. They've been able to fit in the path by designating part of the sidewalk as a bike path. Now, when there are cars (legally) parked along the street, the right side doors open directly to the path.

I have been doored there once, and I blame mostly my elected MP for making such obvious design flaw not only possible but actually legally binding for me. Second, I blame the monkey-hurlage-for-brains-lady for opening the door without checking first. Third, I blame self for not being able to completely avoid the door. The only party involved with clean record is Wellgo, as their pedals turn out to leave a nice dent in a brand new BMW front door on impact.

Legally, there was no way I could have avoided that one by "choosing" to ride outside the door zone.

--J

Helmet Head

So in both cases you were passing on the right, a known risk factor in and of itself, even if you're in a bike lane (and not only because of the dooring risk, it's because you're riding where others do not expect anyone to be traveling, again, even if there is a bike lane).

Usually a car-bike collision (including a dooring) can be avoided by the cyclist not by doing something different just a few seconds prior to collision, but by following VC and defensive driving principles for some considerable time (minutes, hours, days, weeks, months...) prior to impact. In this case, avoidance would stem from recognition that passing on the right is an inherently dangerous maneuver, and either stopping to wait until the car proceeded, or slowing way down while passing with hyper vigilance.


Juha - Do you agree that opposing and eliminating bikeways that direct cyclists to ride in door zones should be a top priority of any bicycling advocacy group?

Helmet Head

Princess, in case you do come back to this thread, I was hoping you would answer my question... if you're riding in the door zone (on 101 or any other road), at 10 mph or faster, and someone suddenly opens a door in front of you, what is your plan?

genec

As a bike lane proponent, I agree that this is simply poor design in action.

As I advocate "good well designed bike lanes," these "door zone" bike lanes fall into the area of bad design, both for cyclists and motorists who become the "doorers."

This is a door zone bike lane:




****************************************************
This is not a door zone bike lane:

Notice in the link, the gap intentionally placed between the autos and the BL.

Roody

Yes, you do have a condescending attitude. Are you having a bad dayor what? I said I never get buzzed and I rarely get honked at. I ride 360 days a year. I learned defensive driving about 30 years ago. Post again when you are prepared to have a real discussion with the people here. We're not really into flaming each other here.

Helmet Head

It's not a door zone bike lane, but it's still a horrible design. With all the ped traffic going across, popping out from behind trees and from behind cars, what do you think the max safe MPH is? 5?

And look at the crud lying in the bike lane.

The street, from what I can tell, looks very inviting. Swept clean by traffic, peds crossing with the care given to crossing streets... Speed limit here is probably 30 km/h. There is no need for a bike lane here even by your standards.

genec

Well you are correct in your latter statement... I probably would not put a BL there... as far as the "crud," I think they are leaves. As far as peds "popping out," they tended to look, as getting hit by a fast bike can hurt... kinda turns the tables on "dooring."

BTW speaking of the quality of the streets... this happens to be Barcelona, but I saw similar wonderful street quality in southern France too... it just made me nearly cry thinking of the crappy broken up streets we have here.

Helmet Head

The large visible crud, while perhaps not puncture-causing in and of itself, is evidence of a lack of sweeping on the surface in question, and indicates the presence of smaller puncture-causing crud, as compared to a nearby street surface which is constantly swept clean of large and small puncture-causing crud by traffic.

genec

Or simply that the leaves just fell... they do that in the autumn... when this pic was taken. Actually November 2001, to be exact.

Helmet Head

Jeez. Leaves fall all over the street. The point is that they (and all the other crud) are constantly swept up on the street, and are not in the bike lane.

Why are you arguing with me about this? Are you contending that there is constant sweeping on that bike lane, like there is on the street from traffic? If not, what is your point?

sbhikes

Large, visible crud? Looks like somebody dropped a piece of paper in the cross walk, and the rest of it looks like a couple of fallen leaves. They could have swept the street 5 minutes ago and a couple of leaves fallen since then and while they fell some guy dropped the piece of paper. You call that evidence of a lack of sweeping? And you can see that the nearby street is clean? You must have x-ray vision.

Treespeed

Isn't there already a bike lane thread?

Helmet Head

Oh for Pete's sake!

It's a street with cars parked on it. Are you contending that it is unreasonable to assume that there is sufficient traffic on that street to keep it relatively well swept clean of puncture causing debris as compared to the bike lane, which obviously never gets any motor traffic to sweep it (for which the presence of the crud in question is not the only evidence).

We would save a lot of time if you folks would stop making such frivolous points.

genec

Actually there are leaves in the street too. I know, I was there. It was a quiet weekend morning and none of those cars had moved all night. The smell of coffee was strong from the neighborhood shops and the voices were still quiet, reflecting the still of the morning. I had accidently dropped my napkin from the croissant that I was still munching on when I reached for my cheap digital camera...

But all in all, I just wanted to show that BL can be built outside the door zone. This is a door zone thread, right?

Thanks Pete...

Helmet Head

Yes, Gene, you made your point about how bike lanes could be built outside of a door zone.
Unfortunately, in the process, you also identified yourself as a self-proclaimed advocate of "good well designed bike lanes", as if there is such a thing, and presented a photo of a bike lane, implying that it was a "good well designed bike lane". I thought it was appropriate to point out why that particular bike lane was neither good nor well designed.

Show me a picture of a bike lane that you think is "good well designed", and I'll show you a picture of something you're missing, every time.

I-Like-To-Bike

Indeed. "Frivolous points" sez the King of the Black Kettles (or is it the Mad Hatter?)

genec

Well, not to delve into the aspects of BL on a dooring thread... frankly, I think your "picture of what is missing" is missing the point.

This BL is clean, albeit for some leaves, as the city choses to keep them that way, and "peds popping out from behind trees" are not a problem as the peds are more vulnerable than moving cyclists, thus the peds tend to keep a lookout just as cyclists in the US have to watch out for moving doors.

Of course you will never support BL, in any form, as you believe that none should ever exist. In a perfect road sharing world, that is just fine, but in the world we live in, motorists must often be reminded of their place... and BL help to do just that.

Heck, in a perfect world, doorings would never occur... but since we do not live in that world, perhaps some effort could be made to reduce the potential of said doorings by redesigning parts of that world.

Helmet Head

This statement illustrates the bigger issue behind the bike lane debate, the question of whether motorists and cyclists should be segregated into separated spaces of their own ("their place"). Yes, motorists have their space, and we have ours (e.g., in the door zone).

OR... should we be sharing the same space?

Brian Ratliff

Have off it already Serge. We spent hours and days arguing this point in a different thread. As I recall, neither you or I persuaded each other about the other's points and we ended by going around in circles until the thread was abandoned.

Just as some of us are "self-proclaimed advocate of 'good well designed bike lanes'," you are the self-proclaimed opponent of "good, well designed bike lanes," apparently favoring narrow lanes with no accomodations for cyclists, or maybe WOL's. We all have our opinions and competing philosophies. As with all two sided issues, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of it all.

Brian Ratliff

By the way, I'll bet the person who was there is in better position to describe the setting than the person looking at a picture. Just a thought.

genec

We can share as soon as I can ride 50MPH... until then there is little "sharing" going on... and the laws of physics still don't allow us to be in the same place at the same time.

Brian Ratliff

I want to point out... I believe the point Gene is trying to make is that debris, swept or not, is simply not an issue. It is also commonly the case here in Portland where debris in the bike lane is simply not the issue you make it out to be.

Helmet Head

To be clear, the issue "I make it out to be" is that riding in bike lane debris and side-of-the-road debris increases puncture incidence on the order of 500%. That is, before I made it a point to avoid those areas, I got punctures about every 1,000 miles; now I get them about every 5,000 miles. YMMV.

Perhaps more importantly, avoiding those not-regularly/constantly-swept-by-traffic areas also reduces the incidence of encountering more dangerous -- crash-causing -- debris.