Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-29-09, 04:14 PM   #1
pueblonative
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
pueblonative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pueblo, CO
Bikes: Roadmaster 26 Men's Mountain Bike
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not so sure this is quite a good idea

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/43893062.html

While I do understand that the car driver has a little more control than the bicyclist (that is, until they invent car door signals) the bill seems to fly in the face of the whole "three feet for safety" argument. I'm all for equal rights but they must come with equal responsibilities; else we will become what cagers claim we are: self-centrists will little regard for others.
pueblonative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-09, 04:21 PM   #2
fordmanvt
Refrigerator Raider Hater
 
fordmanvt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Barre, VT
Bikes: 2008 Sequoia
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
They need this law while leaving the 3 foot rule in place. Then you'd have something.


Laws differ by state, but I learned that the parked car is responsible for making sure they have room before opening their door.
fordmanvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-09, 04:54 PM   #3
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,666
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordmanvt View Post
They need this law while leaving the 3 foot rule in place.
The "3 foot rule" the article is talking about is not the "cars give bicyclists 3 feet" one.

The one they are talking about is one that requires bicyclists to give "any vehicle" (including parked cars) thee feet. (I think that rule doesn't make any sense.)

"The plan also eliminates a requirement that riders allow three feet between their bike and any vehicle."

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-29-09 at 05:05 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-09, 05:01 PM   #4
pueblonative
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
pueblonative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pueblo, CO
Bikes: Roadmaster 26 Men's Mountain Bike
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=njkayaker;8824455]
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordmanvt View Post
They need this law while leaving the 3 foot rule in place.QUOTE]

The one they are talking about is one that requires bicyclists to give "any vehicle" (including parked cars) thee feet. (I think that rule doesn't make any sense.)

Parked unoccupied vehicles, I understand. But if you see the sihlouette of a person in the side closest to you I would think that you would assume that they could open the door at anytime and take steps to keep yourself at least out of arms distance from teh door.
pueblonative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-09, 08:26 PM   #5
dirtyhippy
<~>
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: MSP
Bikes:
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that this bill is a good idea. Around here, many parking lanes are close enough to the flow of traffic that you need to look for an oncoming car anyway. Of course if you see a silhouette of a person you'll be careful, but it's not always possible to dodge left, or the rear window may be obscured by snow, glare, tinting, etc.
dirtyhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-09, 09:15 PM   #6
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
woot! filtering
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-09, 11:46 PM   #7
fordmanvt
Refrigerator Raider Hater
 
fordmanvt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Barre, VT
Bikes: 2008 Sequoia
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
The one they are talking about is one that requires bicyclists to give "any vehicle" (including parked cars) thee feet. (I think that rule doesn't make any sense.)
I already knew that, apparently you didn't. And it's a perfectly good rule to use even if it's not the law.
fordmanvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 01:21 AM   #8
xenologer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 2,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Having a fine for the doorman is a great idea and helps them to have some sort of incenting to not door cyclists for fun.
Eliminating the 3 foot requirement for the cyclist also seems a benefit for us, true its a good rule and I will follow it as a rule of thumb; but removing it as a legal requirement makes it harder to blame cyclists in dooring incidents in general.

Do you really need a ticket for being less than 3ft in addition to your injuries?
xenologer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 01:33 AM   #9
UCP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It certainly would seem that physics deals that punishment quite effectively already. $10 in comparison to the likely injuries seems like a tickle anyway. I can barely eat at Chipotle for $10.
UCP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 01:35 AM   #10
UCP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So basically what I'm saying is that with the three foot rule it's like getting beat up and they take your lunch money too.
UCP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 07:14 AM   #11
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It sounds like they are saying cyclists are now required to ride in the door zone because motorist are now required to look before oping their door. Really bad pairing and public information.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 09:23 AM   #12
David13
Senior Member
 
David13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles area (SoBay)
Bikes: DiamondBack Edgewood// Raleigh M20
Posts: 280
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This has been the law here forever, you cannot open your door into traffic.
dc
David13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 12:06 PM   #13
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,666
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordmanvt View Post
I already knew that, apparently you didn't. And it's a perfectly good rule to use even if it's not the law.
No, you were not clear. Other people might have been confused by your mention of "3 foot rule" especially when the article mentioned a (different) 3 foot rule.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 12:11 PM   #14
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,666
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
It sounds like they are saying cyclists are now required to ride in the door zone because motorist are now required to look before oping their door. Really bad pairing and public information.
No, that is not what they are saying. I think the point of the law is to make opening car doors in front of bicyclists explicitly illegal rather than something ambiguous like "careless driving". In other words, it makes it easier to charge the driver with an infraction (and it makes it more clear what the responsibilities of the driver are). The driver has always required to look before opening the door (into traffic). The law makes it explicit (regarding cyclists).

With respect to the "3 foot from any vehicle rule", the law eliminates a requirement for cyclists; It doesn't add any to the cyclist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pueblonative View Post
But if you see the sihlouette of a person in the side closest to you I would think that you would assume that they could open the door at anytime and take steps to keep yourself at least out of arms distance from teh door.
The law says nothing about this common-sense action/advice.

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-30-09 at 12:19 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 12:25 PM   #15
mmerner
okay maybe not.
 
mmerner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: waukesha, wi
Bikes: oh a bunch.
Posts: 598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
a few months ago a lady was riding and got doored. Went to the hospital and while in bed there, the cops gave her a $10 ticket for not passing 3 feet away.
__________________
question everything.
mmerner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 12:40 PM   #16
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,666
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmerner View Post
a few months ago a lady was riding and got doored. Went to the hospital and while in bed there, the cops gave her a $10 ticket for not passing 3 feet away.
It would seem, then, this law (not in place when her accident occurred) would have helped her avoid the $10 ticket.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 05:00 PM   #17
fordmanvt
Refrigerator Raider Hater
 
fordmanvt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Barre, VT
Bikes: 2008 Sequoia
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
No, you were not clear. Other people might have been confused by your mention of "3 foot rule" especially when the article mentioned a (different) 3 foot rule.
I was talking about the one in the article. You are the only person confused.
fordmanvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 05:22 PM   #18
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
No, that is not what they are saying.
I agree but if you read that article with the bias that now cyclists have to ride as far right as possible even in the door zone, there is nothing there to contradict that bias, the article is poorly written.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-09, 09:37 PM   #19
JoeyBike
20+mph Commuter
 
JoeyBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Bikes: Surly LHT, and 3 others
Posts: 5,625
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
The one they are talking about is one that requires bicyclists to give "any vehicle" (including parked cars) three feet. (I think that rule doesn't make any sense.)
Ya think?



I take "The Rules" as suggestions anyway. They can make all the rules they want to.
JoeyBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-09, 01:33 PM   #20
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,666
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordmanvt View Post
I was talking about the one in the article. You are the only person confused.
Then, your confusing comment begs the question "why?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by fordmanvt View Post
They need this law while leaving the 3 foot rule in place. Then you'd have something.
Why do you think bicyclists should be required to keep 3 feet away from parked cars?


(I get the rational behind the 3-foot passing rule for cars but I don't get the requirement in the original WI law.)

===============================

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
I agree but if you read that article with the bias that now cyclists have to ride as far right as possible even in the door zone, there is nothing there to contradict that bias, the article is poorly written.
I guess my tin foil hat is thicker than yours. The law is better without the requirement for bicyclists (which isn't required for cars!).

Last edited by njkayaker; 05-01-09 at 03:17 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-09, 01:45 PM   #21
moleman76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: western Washington
Bikes: Stella
Posts: 604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It looks like Wisconsin may be getting in step with the rest of the country, where it is the door-opener's responsibility to check for safety. Here's an article explaining what they're working on:
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/437600
(no luck finding the actual text of the proposed law).

The current Wisconsin law is not totally a bad thing, though -- so you're riding down the street and a motorist yells that you should move over. You could tell them that the law requires you to stay 3 feet away from the parked cars, thus you have to be in the middle of the lane. [It would probably take a block of riding to explain that.]

Still, it is totally bogus to ticket someone laid up in the hospital.

And, as the Bekologist noted, this law could be enforced on cyclists filtering between cars.

but, would a rider be cited if the cars moved too close to the cyclist?
moleman76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:14 AM.