Keith99

If you are riding outside a bike lane where one exists drivers are right to be upset. And as a cyclist I think being upset is right. The problem is very few drivers realize the object of their anger should be the idiot designer who created a Door Zone Bike Lane, not the cyclist who suffers from it far more than the drivers do.

Keith99

A lot of the time when I find a poorly designed bike lane there is no viable side street, e.g. nothing within a half mile on eiother side goes through for more than a couple of miles.

dynodonn 

That would be our state's DOT, and their following of outdated minimum BL standards.

hagen2456

As Genec says: you would have to analyze the accidents to know.

As the numbers stand, they tell a straightforward story. If you wish to refute that conclusion, you must prove that the conclusion is wrong.

`Orum

No, as they stand, no conclusions can be drawn. They say nothing about exposure (how many cyclists were riding "in traffic" vs "the door zone"), where cyclists were hit (one could be in the door zone and still be killed from behind), or as others have pointed out, if cyclists swerved into traffic to avoid doors, only to be killed from behind.

There are much better databases out there if one wants to do analysis, e.g. FARS, but everything is limited--especially when trying to get exposure data. In reality it's probably impossible to draw any general conclusions and it could be that in some cities or areas you are better off in the door zone and others you're better off in the lane.

Bekologist

build a better bikelane, perhaps?

Oh, that's right. There's a small, irate group of 'cyclists' dedicated to thwarting those efforts in California group of cyclists misrepresenting themselves as the voice of california cycling organizations block adoption of NACTO guidelines without years of needless study by motor-addled CALTRANS who prefer people just 'take the lane' in the midst of California drivers.

Pedaleur

No, they aren't.

(if it's a crappy door-zone bike lane)

hagen2456

Well, it DOES depend, doesn't it?

If closer inspection should really show that, yes, the door zone is less risky than the lane, they would be right to be upset. I haven't seen any breakdown of the accidents analyzing neither that aspect nor if really "taking the lane" is better than "hugging the curb". There's a lot of arguing going on, and attempts at logical reasoning, and anecdotal evidence - but very few hard statistical facts, it seems.

Pedaleur

Then let's dispatch with the huge hypotheticals, as well. In Virginia, there is no requirement to ride in the bike lane. Further, I am allowed to take the lane when riding to the right is dangerous. Since I am fully entitled to take the lane instead of riding in a door-zone bike lane, the driver has no right to be upset.

(Not with me, anyway. As noted elsewhere, the driver should take the issue up with the City.)

invisiblehand

There are bad things other than death. Broken arms, collar bones, and so on can be mapped to something comparable.

I think mortality is largely used since it is an easy and consistent measure.

bhop

I ride in L.A. and have hit a door... so yeah, the danger is there. Luckily I was barely moving so there was no damage all around, and it was my own fault for riding too close that one time, when I usually don't, but I see people all the time right next to cars and think "it's just a matter of time". There have been plenty of times when a door opened and IF I was in the door zone I would've been a goner.

Also, most bike lanes here are fine as long as you ride near the edge/white line away from the doors..

Overall, Los Angeles is hardly as dangerous as people make it out to be. The only reason it might seem that way is because you have more cars to worry about than most other places, but I personally enjoy riding here and for the most part drivers are pretty forgiving to bikes now that there are a lot more of us out there.

dynodonn 

Watch out for the "squeeze play", I have a video of me riding next to the inner BL line and being missed by 6 inches from a passing vehicles mirror, and 14 seconds later, have a door open up in front of me while I'm riding left of center in the BL, and me swerving 1ft into the adjacent travel lane.

DZBLs are nothing but a lottery in winning the door/front fender/mirror prize.

Keith99

Great job af taking somethgni out of context. Go back and read muy WHOLE post.

CB HI

Do you have a cypher key for reading them.

jputnam

Statistics will vary by local driving culture, but in San Francisco, dooring is the leading form of car/bicycle injury accident. Door zones are clearly not a myth, but sufficiently incompetent motorists out in the lane could possibly make door zone bike lanes safer than taking the lane. I'm not aware of any place where motorists are that bad, but it is at least theoretically possible.

jputnam

Data isn't the plural of anecdote, but the only time I've ever been hit from behind was while riding in a door zone bike lane in Los Angeles County, back in the late '80s. Fortunately, the driver was going slow enough that I wasn't badly hurt, just crushed my wheel, bent my frame, broke my glasses, a few scrapes and bruises, etc. She said she didn't even see me there. Hard to believe since my college team wore hideous neon pink uniforms.

jputnam

Indeed, the greatest hazard in dooring is not the dooring itself, but what dooring often does -- throw the cyclist into the path of overtaking traffic, where the cyclist is then hit from behind.

Absent analysis of lane positioning prior to the hit-from-behind accidents, the article's conclusions are unfounded.

The numbers could as easily prove that riding too far to the right is more dangerous than previously thought, since it increases the risk of both rear-end and dooring accidents.

Bekologist

Its certainly disputable how kryptonic bikelanes adjacent to parked cars are in san francisco. not all dooring happen in bikelanes.

statistics show bicyclists ride FURTHER from parked cars when there's a bikelane. possibly doorings happen more frequently on roads without bikelanes than with.

additionally, some statistics dispute the prevalence of 'doorings' in SF.

much feared, but less tangible a threat than the fearmongering makes them out to be.

riders are statistically safer on roads with bike lanes than without, and ride further from the parked cars.

Chris516

I could care less what motorists' think. I see them drifting into bike lanes and/or oncoming traffic like the road was deserted. I choose not to be the receiver of a drifting motorist.