Cycling Death In Cambridge, Mass

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
For those of us who ride defensively, I agree. But what about the other cyclists who, I contend, far, far outnumber us, just as the number of lunatic drivers outnumbers skilled drivers?

What about a rider like myself, who follows traffic rules, rides predictably, doesn't abuse motorists etc etc, and is still subjected to incompetent, abusive and aggresive drivers? How exactly is eliminating lunatic cyclists going to help my cause? I don't believe it is. This is why I go after lunatic drivers. Eliminating them will definitely help my cause.

Maybe I'm a little selfish, but then, aren't we all? Yes, I do see plenty of lunatic cyclists, but I can't say I've ever felt my life was endangered by one of them.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch

Does the introduction of a bike lane into this equation at all change the legal outlook? Is there (in Boston was it?) a special law governing opening doors in bike lanes?

I find it incongruous that the US wouldn't have laws about opening car doors onto traffic lanes. Bicycles were traffic last time I checked.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch

OK, we don't know the facts, but I think the word "accident" better describes the incident.

It's all well and good to have different definitions for "accident" and "negligent" - I tend to think one results from the other.

[JRA]

Originally posted by Chris L
How exactly is eliminating lunatic cyclists going to help my cause?It might help change the general perception among motorists that cyclists are unpredictable. I'm not sue that perception is all that wrong.

You may ride predictably. I may ride predictably. But cyclists, in general, do not. At least where I live they don't.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by JRA
It might help change the general perception among motorists that cyclists are unpredictable.

I don't think that would make any difference. Most drivers see bicycles as "toys" that don't belong on the road with the "real cars" anyway. Hence I don't believe perfect cyclists the world over would have any effect on motorists' attitudes at all.

[Feldman]

Bottom line to me is still the excessive privilege, inappropriate application of rights under the Constitution, and insufficient regulation or taxation of the spoiled-idiot US motorist.

"Adolf Hitler on a bicycle would be a superior human being to Mother Theresa in a car"

[Andy Dreisch]

Originally posted by Rich Clark


Apparently opening your door into traffic is a violation. Bike lanes are by definition traffic lanes. A special law would not be required.

RichC
I agree, and that's why I asked the question. The question arose from this line from an earlier post:

If the woman who was killed was indeed in the bicycle lane, then the SUV driver is at fault....

Andy

[Feldman]

Did see a good sign recently. The WA State Patrol is using stock-looking Ford Expeditions and Chevy Suburbans on I-5 in the Vancouver to Longview area. The unsuspecting speeder only knows they're being followed by the law when the hidden lights behind the SUV's radiator grill go on! I've seen them by the side of the road with motorists pulled over several times in the last year. Now, they just need to fine-tune the disguise; maybe Yakima roof racks, maybe a Blazers or Mariners bumper sticker.
Good concept, hope they stick with the stealth!

[oceanrider]

Feldman, I find your use of this forum to compare Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa or anyone an abuse. Because we live in a society prone to excesses of constitutional application as you so put it, you have the right to say what you want. And I have the right to tell you I find it offensive. By the way, those excesses that you refer to I call freedom. Still, there are more appropriate forums for your opinions.

[oceanrider]

Feldman, I do owe you an apology. I took your statement out of context and I didn't receive it in the spirit in which it was given. Sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[John C. Ratliff]

First, I don't think Hitler would ever have allowed himself to be viewed on a bicycle (it doesn't fit his character), and so this analogy doesn't fit this discussion at all.

As a safety professional, I find the discussion about this being an "accident" interesting, as there within the profession an accident has a definition as an unplanned event which has consequences. Most of the time, those consequences do not hurt anyone, and we call these "near misses." There are a lot of times when there is equipment damage, such as a bent wheel (in bicycling terms). Then there are the times when someone is hurt, and usually these are minor injury situations, but each time had circumstances been slightly different, it could be either a major injury or fatality.

So when we look at accident prevention in industry, usually, we try to look at the near misses or minor injury situations to predict where major injuries will occur. But there are times when unique situations come up, which result in a major or fatal injury which could not have been predicted using these techniques. These many times are product safety related events where someone made a mistake in the product which resulted in a failure which normally would not have been predicted.

Most times, when we look at the circumstances surrounding a major or fatal event, we find multiple causes. In the case in question, there apparently were several factors which made this happen. These were:

--A car door opening at just the moment a bicyclist was coming around the car.

--A bicyclist who was not riding out of range of the car door.

--A bus in the traffic behind the bicyclist.

There may have been other factors we don't know about. But this will give you a good idea of where to take an investigation of this sort. All the factors need to be sorted out, and individually analyzed to see what measures (we call them "safet measures") could have prevented each factor. Until all factors are addressed, there is a potential for a repeat of the accident. This is because we will never know which was a major factor, and which a minor one.

Normally, we try three approaches to eliminating the hazards. These are, in order of preference:

1. Engineering controls. In this case, why was a bicyclist riding beside parked cars?

2. Administrative controls. In this case, could better training, or the routing of traffic affected the outcome. This training, by the way, would involve all three "actors" in this event, the bus driver, the car driver, and the bicyclist. In addressing the event, this training should be given to all the participants in the use of the highways. Unfortunately, this latter control measure is not possible under current conditions.

3. Personal protective equipment. In this case, a bicycle helmet may have helped (I have not read all this thread, but I don't recall whether a helmet was in use). PPE is the least-desired methodology of protection.

I hope this gives some perspective to the term "accident." In the safety profession, there is almost no-such-thing as a non-preventable accident. There normally is human error at some stage of any accident sequence, and usually there are multiple errors. To place blame is not normally a good idea, as it prevents some aspects of the causative sequence to be analyzed because they are excluded from examination. I will, at some point in the future, be analyzing my recent acciden along these lines and posting it on the forum.

John

[Walter]

I find the idea of excusing the negligent death of the cyclist as "just an accident" or "a split-second bad decision" and the rest of the range of excuses troubling. The lady was unlawfully put in a position where she had to make a "split-second" decision as a result she was unlawfully deprived of her life. Period.

It is an infraction to open a car door into a travel lane and she was in a travel lane. The driver of the car acted in a negligent manner, he was not part of an unavoidable accident. The only person who's part in this is purely accidental was the bus driver who had no control over the situation at all. In theory the lady had some control; she could have turned into the car cabin or perhaps other options were present. That's irrelevant. The unlawful action of the driver put her into a situation that was not of her making.

Should he spend some jailtime. YES. A person is dead b/c he chose not to be aware of the fact that there might actually be a bicycle in a bicycle lane. Someone compared this to the MADD campaign. DUI drivers often go to jail even when involved in non-fatal accidents. This guy wasn't drunk but he did kill somebody. People must be held accountable for their actions and I'm surprised that many of you fellow cyclists seem to disagree.

[Stor Mand]

Originally posted by Walter
It is an infraction to open a car door into a travel lane and she was in a travel lane

Does that mean that if one parks on the road that one must get out on the passenger side?

The driver of the car acted in a negligent manner, he was not part of an unavoidable accident.

We don't know the details. He may have looked initially, saw nothing and then looked away to grab something while opening the door. It takes seconds for things like this accident to unfold.

Should he spend some jailtime. YES. A person is dead b/c he chose not to be aware of the fact that there might actually be a bicycle in a bicycle lane.

Umm ... no.

[Walter]

Read your own response and see if it holds water.

"Perhaps he looked away.." Is it unreasonable to ask him to look again? It is the situation that was present when he opened the door not the situation that existed before then that is the relevant criteria. It matters not a bit if he stared down the road for 10 minutes before "turning away." If he wasn't looking into the bike lane when and as he opened his door he was acting in a potentially negligent manner. Since he opened his door and forced a cyclist into traffic resulting in her death he was in actuality negligent. This is not a blameless accident.

The lady is dead and ought not to be, I feel that is being forgotten.

A year or two in jail gives this guy plenty of time to weigh the consequences of his actions and perhaps begins to send much-needed messages to other drivers.

[Walter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stor Mand
[B]

Does that mean that if one parks on the road that one must get out on the passenger side?


If a person has chosen to park in an area where that is the only
safe way to exit his car then the answer is yes. If I exit a car into a travel lane and am struck by oncoming traffic it is my fault is it not? If my door is ripped off by oncoming traffic I get the ticket.

People must be responsible for their actions.

[Stor Mand]

Yes, people need to be responsible for their actions but you appear to be a little extreme on this subject. I'd say a jail term would be in line if the person deliberately opened the door to cause the bicyclist harm but this is not the case. It's not all that black & white.

[Walter]

Extreme? I don't think so. The lady is dead. That is extreme.

I'm not calling for a life sentence or even a charge of murder but his actions did lead to another person's death. I truly believe that we as a society have become insensitive to the carnage of motor vehicle accidents. I am not anti-car at all, between my wife and I we own 2 and a truck, but the view that deaths in car "accidents" are somehow excusable has to end. I'd agree that some may be inevitable but the vast majority are not and for those that are the result of negligence then jailtime is appropriate.

BTW to put the word "but" onto the sentence "We must be responsible for our actions" turns it into a phrase and makes it a much more conditional statement. This is an attitude that I fear is too prevalent in our society.

[Stor Mand]

Okay, let's say a person with a bag of groceries stepped off the curb into the bike lane and wasn't really paying that much attention. The bicyclist swerved to avoid the person and was killed by the bus. There is really no difference because the outcome is the same so with your line of thinking, that person should go to jail. Tell me if I'm mis-understanding.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
Okay, let's say a person with a bag of groceries stepped off the curb into the bike lane and wasn't really paying that much attention. The bicyclist swerved to avoid the person and was killed by the bus. There is really no difference because the outcome is the same so with your line of thinking, that person should go to jail. Tell me if I'm mis-understanding.

The fundamental difference between those situations is that opening a car door onto oncoming traffic without first looking is illegal (at least in this part of the world). There is no law stopping pedestrians from crossing the road without looking (You'd have to arrest half of Surfers Paradise, although I'm not totally convinced that would be a bad thing).

Now, in this situation, somebody is dead because of a breach of the law. Essentially, the car driver has acted in a way they should not have. Even if there were no consequences, they should be punished in some way. The fact that somebody has died as a result justifies a man-slaughter charge in my view.

[surreal]

chris,

actually, walking into traffic *is* illegal, at least where i live (nj usa). this is, of course, assuming that the pedestrian is not crossing at the crosswalks. if he/she is crossing at the crosswalks, it'd be legal, and the bicyclist is legally obligated to stop for him/her.

strangely enough, i knew a guy who hit a jaywalker, and was tried for manslaughter (!!) despite the fact that she walked out into the road without walking, and came from between 2 parked vehicles. he ended up just getting "reckless driving", which is still a very serious offense, despite the fact that he wasnt speeding and did absolutely *nothing* illegal.

i guess my point is, some ppl get pretty freeked out when they feel bad for whoever had the misfortune of dying in an accident.

in the case of the door opening/driver being bussed(i've been following this thread silently since it began):
-the guy who opened his door is certainly in the wrong, unless she was creeping up overly close to the curb, behind his vehicle, and then somehow quickly swerved 'round his vehicle. i dont see how this is possible, unless she was going incredibly fast and was extremely maneuverable. i'd say the guy in the uto is in serious trouble, or at least he oughta be.

-rob

[LittleBigMan]

John S. Allen on the Cambridge accident:

www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/massave/massave.htm

www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/program/pressrls.htm

[Guest]

I often get this challenge when I ride on the streets in Chicago. We have bike lanes on certain streets that are right next to where the cars park. Subsequently, as we are riding down the street, some dumbass opens their car door, causing me to have to brake hard or swerve to avoid. Keep in mind that the bike lane is sometimes part of the bus lane and sometimes the bike lane is sandwiched between the bus lane and the parking spaces on the side of the street for the cars. So I can see something like this happening, although I hadn't heard of it.

Thanks for publishing this article. I hadn't even thought that could happen to me before. I now will make sure I am cautious in these situations. Or at least, more cautious than normal.

I am SO tired of riding defensively instead of being able to ride like a vehicle in the street.


Koffee Brown

[Harry]

What's all this c*ap about "door zones"?. Why have cycle lanes at all?

What a fantastic race we are! We can always find some lame brain excuse for negligence and criminality.

Wrong is right and black is white.

Good stuff, lets all buy cars and start and make cyclist hunting an olympic sport.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
I often get this challenge when I ride on the streets in Chicago. We have bike lanes on certain streets that are right next to where the cars park. Subsequently, as we are riding down the street, some dumbass opens their car door, causing me to have to brake hard or swerve to avoid.

The key to avoiding this sort of situation is to consistently ride wide enough of the car doors for the dumbass opening them to still not hit you at any time. Sometimes this means leaving the bike lane behind altogether and riding with the traffic. Of course, it sometimes annoys the crap out of the people behind me, but that's tough. They're probably the same morons who open the car doors without looking when they are parked.

[Andy Dreisch]

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
... I am SO tired of riding defensively instead of being able to ride like a vehicle in the street ...
I get tired of driving defensively, too.

The only difference is that the laws of physics put us at a distinct disadvantage.

[Andy Dreisch]

Originally posted by Chris L
From Stor Mand
Okay, let's say a person with a bag of groceries stepped off the curb into the bike lane and wasn't really paying that much attention. The bicyclist swerved to avoid the person and was killed by the bus....

The fundamental difference between those situations is that opening a car door onto oncoming traffic without first looking is illegal....
Right Chris L. But what if the bag-carrying person in Stor Mond's example is jaywalking? So now we have a jaywalking ped causing a bicyclist's death.

To all, let's have some more fun. Let's say an irresponsible bicyclist jumps a curb and rides in the wrong direction, crowding the bike lane and forcing a responsible bicyclist to swerve and, well, you know. (This occurs frequently to me ... idiot cyclists heading in the wrong direction.)

These examples can go on endlessly. They all have in common the fact that someone is at fault for the death or injury of someone else. We're all agreed on that. The disagreement lies in the penalty, and this disagreement stems at least in part from differing viewpoints surrounding the culpability of the person beginning the sequence of events (the SUV driver in this case, apparently).

To the forum members who are out to send this guy to jail, let's be sensitive to the fact that we'll never have enough jail space to house all the "perpetrators" of stupidity or inattentiveness that ultimately lead to another's injury or death. If the goal is to reduce the stupidity/inattentiveness of the perps, aren't there better ways? And can we allow for the fact that we live in an imperfect world, that accidents will happen, and that we cyclists must account for this very real possibility? Or do you believe that by carting this guy (and other perps of inattentiveness) off to jail we'll somehow arrive at a perfectly safe cycling environment?

[John C. Ratliff]

I just received this bit of news at work. It seems that this is a bad summer for bicyclists (ASSE is the American Society of Safety Engineers):

To: <steve@safetycal.com>
Cc: j.ratliff5@verizon.net
Subject: RE: ASSE Cascade Chapter Member, Stephen Furse, Had Fatal Bicycle Accident
From: John_Ratliff@Etec.com
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:18:02 -0700

Steve,

Thank you very much. *I will be posting this on the Bicycle Forum on the internet. *

John

"Steve Bridges" <steve@safetycal.com>
07/12/02 04:04 PM
Please respond to steve
*
To: *<John_Ratliff@etec.com>
cc: *"Paul West" <paul@safety-directions.com>, <lori@safetycal.com>
Subject: *RE: ASSE Cascade Chapter Member, Stephen Furse, Had Fatal Bicycle Accident
*
Here is a link to The Register-Guard article that is cut and pasted below with details of Stephen Furse Bicycle accident. *

<http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/07/10/5d.cr.bikecrash.0710.html>http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/07/10/5d.cr.bikecrash.0710.html

Bicyclist survives collision with car

<http://www.registerguard.com/cgi-bin/birdcast.cgi>Recommend this story to others. *
A helmet helped saved the life of a Eugene bicyclist involved in a collision with a car Tuesday morning.

The cyclist, 49-year-old Mary Linda Unruh, was in fair condition with head and neck injuries at Sacred Heart Medical Center in Eugene. She was struck at 7:55 a.m. in the intersection of Hilyard Street and East 18th Avenue by a car making a left turn, Eugene police said.

The driver of the car, Karen Jo Schell, 60, of Eugene, was cited for failing to yield to a bicycle in a bicycle lane, police said. She was not injured.

The first officers to arrive at the crash scene were surprised that the bicyclist's injuries were not more severe, police said. Pieces of her helmet were found scattered across the intersection.

On Saturday, a Eugene cyclist was killed while riding downhill on Willow Creek Road without a helmet. Stephen James Furse, 57, missed a turn, struck a fence post and died at the scene.

And on June 27, Gene Wilkinson, 70, of Eugene, died from injuries he suffered a week earlier when a darting squirrel became tangled in his bicycle spokes and threw him from his bike. The helmet he wore could not protect him from the neck and spinal injuries that took his life.

Police urged all bike riders to wear helmets - not just children under 16 who are required to do so by law.

-----Original Message-----
From: John_Ratliff@Etec.com [mailto:John_Ratliff@Etec.com]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:47 AM
To: steve@safetycal.com
Subject: Re: ASSE Cascade Chapter Member, Stephen Furse, Had Fatal Bicycle Accident


Steve,

Thank you for informing me of this truely unfortunate accident, which resulted in Stephen Fruse's death. *On May 17th, I was involved in a bicycle accident too, and my helmet is in many pieces. *The medics said that without the helmet, I could have had an obituary too for a bicycle accident. *I therefore have a renewed interest in bicycle accidents. *Do you have any details on the cause of Stephen's bicycle accident? *I would be very interested to know more about it.

John

John C. Ratliff, CSP
Sr. Environmental Health & Safety Engineer
Etec Systems, An Applied Materials Business Group
21515 NW Evergreen Parkway
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Phone: *(503) 439-4074
Cell Phone: *(503) 793-5296

"Steve Bridges" <steve@safetycal.com>
07/12/02 09:28 AM
Please respond to steve *
*To: *<steve@safetycal.com>
*cc: *
*Subject: *ASSE Cascade Chapter Member, Stephen Furse, Had Fatal Bicycle Accident
Attachments were removed from this document per sender's request.

ASSE Cascade Chapter will make a donation to the Oregon Nature Conservancy
in honor Stephen's wishes. *Steve Bridges will mail a card on behalf of ASSE
to Stephen's surviving spouse, Lynn. *The following is a link to the
obituary that ran in today's Register-Guard. *Brian Smith, Cascade Chapter
Membership Chair and the National ASSE has been notified.
If you have any question, comments or thoughts please reply to this email.
THANKS,
http://www.registerguard.com/news/20020710/4d.cr.obits.0710.html#StephenFurs
e
Stephen Furse
A memorial service will be held July 13 for Stephen James "Steve" Furse of
Eugene, who died July 6 in a bicycle accident. He was 57.
Furse was born Jan. 18, 1945, in Portland to Melvin Furse and Katherine
Furse Cake. He married Linne Necker in St. Louis on May 18, 1968.
He lived in Portland until moving to Eugene in 1978. He graduated from
Parkrose High School in Portland and Portland State University. He was a
U.S. Air Force sergeant in 1969 and served with the Oregon Air National
Guard until 1978.
He was president of Northwest Safety, a company he and his wife helped to
start.
His interests included spending time with his daughters and his puppy,
gardening, the outdoors, coaching Kidsports softball, kayaking, diving,
tennis and hiking. He was a member of the Willow Creek Tennis Club and the
PADI diving society.
Survivors include his wife; two daughters, Jennifer and Marni, both of
Eugene; and two sisters, Jill Ridgeway of Bellevue, Wash., and Julie Stutz
of Edmonds, Wash.
Saturday's service will be at 3 p.m. at 87392 Green Hill Road. Burial will
be private at Lane Memorial Gardens & Funeral Home, Eugene. Memorial
donations may be made to the Oregon Nature Conservancy.


STEVE BRIDGES
SAFETYCAL, INC.
SIGN & DECAL MFG.
P.O. BOX 21536
EUGENE, OR 97402
PH.#: (541) 344-0944
FAX#: (541) 687-2571
TOLL FREE: (800) 446-3525
WEB: www.safetycal.com
PROVIDING SOLUTIONS!

[LittleBigMan]

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
The only difference is that the laws of physics put us at a distinct disadvantage.
I disagree.

It is clear that cyclists are put at a disadvantage by inequities in the transportational system.

1) Drivers are "trained," while a cyclist need not be. This puts unskilled cyclists at a distinct safety disadvantage.
2) Drivers' vehicles are fully equipped with adequate lighting systems at the time of purchase. Bicycles need only have minimal
reflector systems to be sold. To the untrained, this sends the wrong message that it's safe to ride without lights.
3) "Bicycle facilities" do not have to pass the same standards of safety required of normal roads. In fact, most of these "facilities"
violate well-established safety principles of vehicle operation, such as:
a) separation of vehicles from pedestrians;
b) turning from right- or leftmost lanes only (violated when a
car must cross a bike lane to turn right, or when a bike must
leave a bike lane to turn left; )
c) adequate debris removal and elimination of dangerously
rough pavement;
d) standard right-of-way procedures;
e) speed/visibility/grading safety standards;
f) safe intersection negotiation (such as crossing an
intersection with traffic flow; )
g) striping bike lanes away from "door zones;"
h) reducing the number of intersections, as occurs in freeway
systems;
4) Drivers enjoy a social "acceptance," or, "right to the road," which cyclists do not. While cyclists usually have an equal legal claim to our roads, most road users do not view cyclists as having "equal rights" thereon.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch

Right Chris L. But what if the bag-carrying person in Stor Mond's example is jaywalking? So now we have a jaywalking ped causing a bicyclist's death.

To all, let's have some more fun. Let's say an irresponsible bicyclist jumps a curb and rides in the wrong direction, crowding the bike lane and forcing a responsible bicyclist to swerve and, well, you know. (This occurs frequently to me ... idiot cyclists heading in the wrong direction.)

These examples can go on endlessly. They all have in common the fact that someone is at fault for the death or injury of someone else. We're all agreed on that. The disagreement lies in the penalty,

Isn't this why we have road rules? To determine the right and wrong in such a situation? It's very simple to prove one's self innocent in a case like this, simply abide by what the rules of the road tell one to do.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
And can we allow for the fact that we live in an imperfect world, that accidents will happen, and that we cyclists must account for this very real possibility? Or do you believe that by carting this guy (and other perps of inattentiveness) off to jail we'll somehow arrive at a perfectly safe cycling environment?

Perhaps we wouldn't arrive at a perfect cycling environment, but I believe making an example of this guy might just make others think about their actions in future, hence arriving at a safer cycling environment than we now have.

[Andy Dreisch]

Originally posted by Chris L
... but I believe making an example of this guy might just make others think about their actions in future ...
No, this one jail sentence will have basically no impact. You'd instead need consistent jail sentences for all such accidents for there to be any lasting affect.

I think this is a very slippery slope to be on.

Andy

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch

No, this one jail sentence will have basically no impact. You'd instead need consistent jail sentences for all such accidents for there to be any lasting affect.

I think this is a very slippery slope to be on.


Possibly so, but for one thing, I don't believe anything that results from negligence can be classified as an accident. To be honest, these sort of incidents may well just be reckless, which is somewhere between accidental and intentional. If it had been purely accidental, I wouldn't be advocating a jail sentence, however, I'm no more convinced it was accidental than I am convinced it was intentional.

The other thing to bear in mind is that a failure to penalise negligence can set a very dangerous precedent, by which the larger vehicle on the road can do basically whatever they like to the smaller ones, and then get let off by pleading ignorance. Having already had two deliberate attempts made on my life in the last couple of years, I think any situation is preferable to the one I've just described (yes, even a fascist police state).

[Andy Dreisch]

Originally posted by Chris L
... Having already had two deliberate attempts made on my life in the last couple of years, I think any situation is preferable to the one I've just described (yes, even a fascist police state).
Wow. Deliberate attempts? Well, that's attempted murder in my book. Did you seek prosecution? Here I think we can agree to a jail term -- if the attempts were deliberate as you say.

Wow. Fascist state? I'm afraid we'll never agree to this point.

Andy

[Stor Mand]

The jails would fill quickly if everyone that did something negligent got prosecuted.

[Andy Dreisch]

Originally posted by me
... if the attempts were deliberate as you say.

Chris L, or re-reading this, I realize it came off with a sh*tty edge. It wasn't meant to sound this way.

I didn't mean to doubt your interpretation.

Andy

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
The jails would fill quickly if everyone that did something negligent got prosecuted.

How about if they only did something negligent that actually resulted in someone else's death? Think about this: if you do something negligent in your professional life, you're liable to get sued for it. Hence the punishment is already there. Are you advocating that there should be no punishment for personal negligence that results in someone's death?

In any case, I don't think the jails would fill as quickly as you say. Somehow I think people would soon wake up to themselves.

Originally posted by Andy Driesch
Wow. Deliberate attempts? Well, that's attempted murder in my book. Did you seek prosecution? Here I think we can agree to a jail term -- if the attempts were deliberate as you say.

I have been to the police in the past, although in the two specific incidents I was referring to, I just got out of there before they could have another go. However, I have read about a lot of incidents where people have swerved and generally altered their direction to facilitate a collision, then used the "I didn't see him" excuse to get let off. As far as I'm concerned, unless they can't prove a valid reason as to why they didn't see him (i.e. no lights at night or something of that description), they should be prosecuted.

[John E]

Cyclists need to realize that safely avoiding the door zone often means fully taking the outer lane, riding in its center or between its center and the outer tyre tracks, rather than on the tyre tracks.

[Chris L]

Come on, the thread died 16 months ago.

[randya]

I agree with the fact that bike lanes in the door zone are unacceptably unsafe. However, this is an old story (the actual incident in question happened in July '02, if you read carefully to the bottom of the article; and I recall information about this incident being posted to ProBicycle and several other cyclists' web sites at the time...); for some reason it's recently been reposted to several locations, including bike forums and Portland Indy Media.

Two words: Lane Position.

Three more words: Unsafe Bike Lanes.

[Bobatin]

I do not know if this has been mentioned in this thread (too much to read, not enough time) but I remember it being mentioned in another thread, in Holland, drivers are taught to open doors with there right hand because it makes it easier to look over there left shoulder and out the door before they open it. When I ride in the city I look through the rear window and the side mirror to see what the ocupants are doing so I can be ready for them. As for PPE, I find it difficult to beleive that a bicycle helmet is going to protect you when you are run over by a bus.

[Chris L]

I do not know if this has been mentioned in this thread (too much to read, not enough time) but I remember it being mentioned in another thread, in Holland, drivers are taught to open doors with there right hand because it makes it easier to look over there left shoulder and out the door before they open it. When I ride in the city I look through the rear window and the side mirror to see what the ocupants are doing so I can be ready for them. As for PPE, I find it difficult to beleive that a bicycle helmet is going to protect you when you are run over by a bus.

I think the problem here is that a lot of people simply do not look point blank before opening car doors. As others have already related (and as I will once more in my last post to this thread) the only way to avoid being doored is lane position. As far as the whole bus thing goes, I think the most important thing to do here is ensure you are seen by a bus driver, the best way of doing that is to be an attention wh*re. Again, we're talking about lane position.