Advocacy & Safety - You got doored...or you doored you?

In another thread, someone wrote about "getting doored", and I responded in my usual obnoxious manner:



Sorry to hear about your crash, glad you're okay, but don't you mean you doored you?

Riding in door zones and complaining about "getting doored" is like playing Russian Roulette and complaining about "getting shot".

Russian Roulette players don't get shot, they shoot themselves. It's only a matter of when.
Door zone cyclists don't get doored, they door themselves. It's only a matter of when.
The difference is not just semantic, it reflects a different way of looking at dooring, a different mentality, especially in terms of responsibility.

I call on all cyclists in this forum to refrain from using the "getting doored" terminology (and the associated mentality), and that we start recognizing the behavior for what it is: dooring ourselves.

If you collide into a door that is opened in front of you, you are not getting doored by the door opener, you are dooring yourself. In short, that's what you get for riding in the door zone. And a bike lane in the door zone is no excuse - stay the hell out of it.

Please ride at least five feet to the left of parked cars.

Give me a break, dude. I know what you're trying to say -- if we all just used the full lane all the time and were total VC monkeys, we'd never be in the door zone, and we'd never get doored.

That's a nice cozy sentiment and all, but it's, well, stupid. People in cars get doored, too, and they use the full lane. People stop halfway into curb lanes, then jump out huffing and puffing with a load of dry-cleaning in their arms. People turn on their emergency flashers and double-park. People throw open doors at intersections to spit or pour out their two day old Mountain Dew. There are a lot of ways to get injured by cars doors, whether you're a cyclist or a motorist, and they are universally not the fault of the doored party.

Bottom line: in my opinion, there is no One True Way to operate a bicycle, and the ability to adapt to traffic and road conditions will carry you a lot further than repeating the mental flatulence of Forester or patting yourself on the back for being the self-appointed VC police.

- Warren

Suit yourself.

As for myself, I guess I'll just keep on being stupid and staying out of door zones, period (it's not that hard once you get used to it).

Suit yourself.

As for myself, I guess I'll just keep on being stupid and staying out of door zones, period (it's not that hard once you get used to it).
This response doesn't seem to even remotely apply to what I said to you. Stop preaching. You're not always right, bro.

- Warren

Good intentions, Serge, I know, but the delivery sucks. Being obnoxious is not a character trait to be proud of.

By the way, another example of you fighting over philosophical terminology, with nothing practical coming of it. You come off as someone eager to "blame the victim," even if this is not your intention. To chastise someone who has, yes, "just been doored"...; well it's just in bad taste. Trust that your fellow cyclist has a brain.

Well then, one of us is not understand the post of the other.

My point is based on the premise that the only way to get doored is by being in a door zone of a car, and it's perfectly possible to avoid cycling in door zones. I'm sharing my own understanding and experience, not preaching. What are you doing?

Warren, fine, I'll address it in detail.



Give me a break, dude. I know what you're trying to say -- if we all just used the full lane all the time and were total VC monkeys, we'd never be in the door zone, and we'd never get doored.
No, all I'm trying to say is that if we stay out of door zones we would never door ourselves (with the implication that it is practically and reasonably possible to stay out of door zones).



That's a nice cozy sentiment and all, but it's, well, stupid.
What's stupid about it?



People in cars get doored, too, and they use the full lane.
People who drive their cars in the door zones of others cars door themselves (or their cars) too. I advocate driving cars as well as riding bicyles (and motorcycles) outside of door zones too. You should never have to rely on anyone looking before they open their door - people open their doors without looking all too often.



People stop halfway into curb lanes, then jump out huffing and puffing with a load of dry-cleaning in their arms.
And how do you get doored by someone like that if you're riding outside of their door zone?



People turn on their emergency flashers and double-park.
And how do you get doored by someone like that if you're riding outside of their door zone?



People throw open doors at intersections to spit or pour out their two day old Mountain Dew.
And how do you get doored by someone like that if you're riding outside of their door zone?



There are a lot of ways to get injured by cars doors, whether you're a cyclist or a motorist, and they are universally not the fault of the doored party.
Who said anything about fault? My point is that in order to ride (or drive) into an open door, you have to be operating in the door zone of that vehicle. Therefore, if you avoid door zones, you won't door yourself.



Bottom line: in my opinion, there is no One True Way to operate a bicycle,
I agree.



and the ability to adapt to traffic and road conditions will carry you a lot further than repeating the mental flatulence of Forester or patting yourself on the back for being the self-appointed VC police.

I also agree, but fail to see the relevance of this point to this thread.

By the way, another example of you fighting over philosophical terminology, with nothing practical coming of it.
I see. There is nothing practical about staying out of door zones. Right. :rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm going so much grief for simply advocating the avoidance of door zones!

My point is based on the premise that the only way to get doored is by being in a door zone of a car, and it's perfectly possible to avoid cycling in door zones.
And my point is that there any many situations where it's impossible to avoid being at least briefly in door zones, because there are as many idiot motorists as there are idiot cyclists. People do a lot of really weird things in cars that are definitely not "vehicular," particularly in dense urban areas, and those actions defeat the entire notion that being VC will keep you perfectly safe from doors. VC is not a panacea, and preaching that it is is counter-productive.

Motorists are legally obligated to look for oncoming traffic, of any kind, before opening doors. While I agree that cyclists should do everything possible to avoid being in the door zone to begin with, that's really not always possible in practice. Since you seem to be a fan of purely philosophical debate and arguing about unnaturally perfect scenarios, I guess I should expect you to argue that in a world of perfect motorists, the perfect cyclist should never get doored. Over here in reality-land, I find it reprehensible that you would ever blame a cyclist for a motorists' legal negligence. What's next? Girls who get raped should accept responsibility, since they wore a miniskirt? After all, in a perfect world they should never go to places where ******* might go.

- Warren

Who said anything about fault?! You did!



In short, that's what you get for riding in the door zone.

Do you actually believe the things you write here? Or are you just a troll?

- Warren

Well, I didn't use the word fault, that's all I meant.

But if you want me to say it, fine: if you ride into a door, it's your fault for riding in a door zone, especially if you are aware of the hazards of riding in door zones, and you are choosing to take the risk anyway.

There.

this thread is teh Gh3y!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Well, I didn't use the word fault, that's all I meant.

You should run for president.

- Warren

I doored my son-in-law's bike once while it leaned against the wall in his garage. Instead of apologizing, had I been more quick witted, I could have told him the bike shouldn't have been there. :D

And my point is that there any many situations where it's impossible to avoid being at least briefly in door zones, because there are as many idiot motorists as there are idiot cyclists. People do a lot of really weird things in cars that are definitely not "vehicular," particularly in dense urban areas, and those actions defeat the entire notion that being VC will keep you perfectly safe from doors. VC is not a panacea, and preaching that it is is counter-productive.

Motorists are legally obligated to look for oncoming traffic, of any kind, before opening doors. While I agree that cyclists should do everything possible to avoid being in the door zone to begin with, that's really not always possible in practice. Since you seem to be a fan of purely philosophical debate and arguing about unnaturally perfect scenarios, I guess I should expect you to argue that in a world of perfect motorists, the perfect cyclist should never get doored. Over here in reality-land, I find it reprehensible that you would ever blame a cyclist for a motorists' legal negligence. What's next? Girls who get raped should accept responsibility, since they wore a miniskirt? After all, in a perfect world they should never go to places where ******* might go.

- Warren
Good Lord.

First of all, none of this applies at slow pedestrian speeds of under, say 6 mph, where the ability to stop in time and avoid injury is not a problem.

All I've written about in this thread is about avoiding door zones. The relevance or even meaning of non sequitors like "VC is not a panacea, and preaching that it is is counter-productive" is beyond me, and is the only counter-productive preaching going on here.

You obviously have an ax to grind.

I disagree with your premise that it's not always possible to avoid cycling (above ped speeds) in door zones. I assure you, it is, and it's not even that difficult. Sometimes it's a tradeoff between slowing down (or even stopping) or taking the risk, but it's always the cyclist's choice.

****? Please. What's next? A Nazi analogy?

Yes, technically it's the door operator's legal responsibility to check before they open the door. But counting on them doing so is stupid, and irresponsible, and, yes, it's your fault if you do anyway and get injured as a result.

Yes, technically it's the door operator's legal responsibility to check before they open the door. But counting on them doing so is stupid, and irresponsible, and, yes, it's your fault if you do anyway and get injured as a result.

It's your fault if someone else breaks a law that was intended to protect your safety, eh?

Is it your fault if someone else drives drunk and runs you over? Is it your fault if your company fails to use proper safety procedures and you get electrocuted?

My **** analogy, while perhaps tasteless, is appropriate. Your entire premise is that if people didn't put themselves in danger, they wouldn't be in danger. This is exactly the same argument I've heard many people make about **** victims, and it's a pathetic, short-sighted attempt at logic.

Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

- Warren

It's your fault if someone else breaks a law that was intended to protect your safety, eh?
Sometimes. It depends. Just because it's your fault if someone else breaks a law (in this case the door opening law) that was intended to protect your safety, it does not necessarily follow that it's your fault if someone breaks ANY law that was intended to protect your safety.



Your entire premise is that if people didn't put themselves in danger, they wouldn't be in danger
You're missing a key component of my premise: If people didn't put themselves in danger within reason, they wouldn't be in danger.

It is not reasonable for women to stay at home or not wear skirts when they go out (or whatever unreasonable expectations are made of women who have been blamed for being raped) in order to avoid getting raped.

It IS reasonable for cyclists to stay out of door zones in order to avoid dooring themselves.

If you can't see the logic in that, the help you need is beyond me.

Cuckoo indeed!

I'm done here.

It's your fault if someone else breaks a law that was intended to protect your safety, eh?

Is it your fault if someone else drives drunk and runs you over? Is it your fault if your company fails to use proper safety procedures and you get electrocuted?

My **** analogy, while perhaps tasteless, is appropriate. Your entire premise is that if people didn't put themselves in danger, they wouldn't be in danger. This is exactly the same argument I've heard many people make about **** victims, and it's a pathetic, short-sighted attempt at logic.

Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

- WarrenWarren--do you actually ride a bike? I am finding it hard to believe that you find it impossible to stay out of the door zone. I ride in traffic constantly and I never never never never never find it necessary to ride in a door zone. Why do you have such a problem with this? Why do you refuse to accept responsibility for your own behavior? Why do you expect a cager who doesn't even know you to be more responsible for your life and health than you are? Watch where you're going, dude, shether you are in a car, on a bike or on foot. Be responsible and live!

it does not necessarily follow that it's your fault if someone breaks ANY law that was intended to protect your safety.

It doesn't make any sense for anyone to be at fault when someone breaks a law intended for their protection. That's why such laws exist, Einstein.

But I get it now. You, Helmet Head, are the sole arbiter of which laws can or cannot be broken and who deserves fault for any such infractions, regardless of the laws, the intent of the laws, or the circumstances. Classic.



You're missing a key component of my premise: If people didn't put themselves in danger within reason, they wouldn't be in danger.

Once again, you're propping yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is or is not reasonable. This cop-out does not make your argument any stronger; in fact it is only weakened.

- Warren

Warren--do you actually ride a bike? I am finding it hard to believe that you find it impossible to stay out of the door zone. I ride in traffic constantly and I never never never never never find it necessary to ride in a door zone. Why do you have such a problem with this? Why do you refuse to accept responsibility for your own behavior? Why do you expect a cager who doesn't even know you to be more responsible for your life and health than you are? Watch where you're going, dude, shether you are in a car, on a bike or on foot. Be responsible and live!
What? I'm all about cyclists taking actions to reduce their risk exposure. I've said that several times already. Cyclists should do everything possible to avoid riding in door zones. That's a great message, and I concur completely. What I disagree with is Helmet Head's assertion that the cyclist is actually at fault when such accidents happen.

- Warren

What? I'm all about cyclists taking actions to reduce their risk exposure. I've said that several times already. Cyclists should do everything possible to avoid riding in door zones. That's a great message, and I concur completely. What I disagree with is Helmet Head's assertion that the cyclist is actually at fault when such accidents happen.

- WarrenWhose fault is it?

Did the devil make them do it?

Please give one or more examples of why you would be forced to ride in a door zone.

Give me a break, dude. I know what you're trying to say -- if we all just used the full lane all the time and were total VC monkeys, we'd never be in the door zone, and we'd never get doored.

That's a nice cozy sentiment and all, but it's, well, stupid. People in cars get doored, too, and they use the full lane. People stop halfway into curb lanes, then jump out huffing and puffing with a load of dry-cleaning in their arms. People turn on their emergency flashers and double-park. People throw open doors at intersections to spit or pour out their two day old Mountain Dew. There are a lot of ways to get injured by cars doors, whether you're a cyclist or a motorist, and they are universally not the fault of the doored party.

Bottom line: in my opinion, there is no One True Way to operate a bicycle, and the ability to adapt to traffic and road conditions will carry you a lot further than repeating the mental flatulence of Forester or patting yourself on the back for being the self-appointed VC police.

- Warren


Wow, lots of real life examples that just are not covered in the "books." So much for book learnin'. OK, "stay out of the door zone..". so apparenly that means at least 5 feet away from the side of any vehicle, no matter where they are.

My favorite is the idiots that just open their doors to dump ashtrays on the side of the road. I'm not likely to be doored by them, but they still leave a stinking dirty mess... for all of us to deal with.

I shouldn't wade in here, but I can't resist.

In Cali. the law doesn't recognize the door zone as a hazard. Since it is the responsibility of the driver to look out for cyclists, then we are still required to ride as far right as possible. I got this speech from a cop who pulled me over. While I disagree and will take my chances with passing traffic it's still a bit of a legal gray area. While it's left up to the cyclist to determine what is a hazard, apparently the cop gets to chime in on this topic too.

Also, watch out for those passenger doors too.

Please give one or more examples of why you would be forced to ride in a door zone.
I've had motorists swerve out of the traffic lane, then halfway into the curb lane right in front of me. There's no time to look back and see if you can change lanes to the left; there's no time to hit the brakes and come to a (controlled) stop; there's no way to get around the car to the right. The only way out is to move as far left as you can and go around the car, hoping the driver doesn't fling open his door at just the wrong time. Maybe you have enough room, maybe you really don't.

It's entirely possible to avoid door zones of legally parked cars. It's entirely impossible to avoid door zones completely (both driver and passenger side) of cars that are breaking the law by stopping illegally in the street, or otherwise acting unpredictably. Traffic is a dynamic thing. When other people break laws, accidents can happen. (Accidents almost never happen when no one breaks a law; this is why laws exist, to clearly indicate safe behavior and to fix blame when accidents occur.)

- Warren

I've had motorists swerve out of the traffic lane, then halfway into the curb lane right in front of me. There's no time to look back and see if you can change lanes to the left; there's no time to hit the brakes and come to a (controlled) stop; there's no way to get around the car to the right. The only way out is to move as far left as you can and go around the car, hoping the driver doesn't fling open his door at just the wrong time. Maybe you have enough room, maybe you really don't.

It's entirely possible to avoid door zones of legally parked cars. It's entirely impossible to avoid door zones completely (both driver and passenger side) of cars that are breaking the law by stopping illegally in the street, or otherwise acting unpredictably. Traffic is a dynamic thing. When other people break laws, accidents can happen. (Accidents almost never happen when no one breaks a law; this is why laws exist, to clearly indicate safe behavior and to fix blame when accidents occur.)

- WarrenYour example doesn't really have anything to do with door zones as we ordinarily consider them. Door zone refers to the area up to 5 feet (give or take) away from the side of parked (or at leat nonmoving) cars. Sorry, but that is the only reasonable definition. The cager who pulled the bonehead maneuver you described doesn't fall into that definition, does he? This character is a danger in many ways, dooring probably the least of them.

Maybe, just a little bit, you were trolling us? (just maybe?)

Better to be in the door zone than in the front-bumper-of-a-50MPH-truck-zone. Now back to your regularly scheduled smug "Vehicular Cycling" dogma blabber.

I almost doored myself twice today.

I wanted to let a car that was behind me pass, but I saw someone in a parked car on the curb ahead of me. I saw it happening in slow motion in front of me, so I came almost to a complete stop. The guy was embarrassed (actually, I think I startled the stuff out of him) because he was struggling to get out of his car. He offered me one of his coffees and a bite of his donut. I declined. Kind of funny actually. Even the guy in the slow-moving car laughed.

The second one involved my front door . . . but maybe that one doesn't count. More of a ballance issue juggling my bike, my keys, my dinner, my mail, and the top of a set of stairs. I saved the dinner and the bike . . .

Sandy

The cager who pulled the bonehead maneuver you described doesn't fall into that definition, does he?

Maybe, just a little bit, you were trolling us? (just maybe?)
Roody,

The original poster made the blanket statement that cyclists are at fault when they are doored. You asked me for a situation (which I've personally experienced) in which the cyclist would clearly have no other option than ride in a car's door zone. I provided such an example, and you now tell me it's outside the scope of the argument? We were talking about bikes hitting car doors, with no additional qualification. I never once heard Helmet Head provide a precise definition of "dooring" with regards to vehicle positioning, whether or not the motorist was driving legally, or anything else. He simply said that cyclists who hit car doors are at fault, and I objected. It sounds to me like you also would object, so I appreciate your newfound support.

- Warren

BS!!! There's plenty of road that there isn't 5 feet to the left for anything bike, busses or cars.
I take my own safety as my own responsibility (that's why i'm still alive) but the law is clear that it is the parked cars responsibility to check before you open a door. (Proof, try opening a door into traffic and see what happens when your door gets torn off.)

And in the city you are ALWAYS at risk from doors. It's NOT a matter of when, it's a risk. That's all. That's like saying that all drivers will get into a fatal accident. BS. Door accidents arn't even on the top ten of most common bike/ car accidents.

Sorry Dude but BS.

It doesn't make any sense for anyone to be at fault when someone breaks a law intended for their protection. That's why such laws exist, Einstein.
Sigh. Let's not confuse legal responsibility with real-world actual responsibility that is required for staying safe while cycling in traffic. If you're relying on laws to define the limits of your responsibilities, you again need more help than I can provide.



But I get it now. You, Helmet Head, are the sole arbiter of which laws can or cannot be broken and who deserves fault for any such infractions, regardless of the laws, the intent of the laws, or the circumstances.
I'm surprised you finally caught on. :D

Seriously, I am the sole arbiter for determining what my responsibilities are (if not me, then who?). Unlike some other people, I recognize that the laws set absolute bare minimums on personal responsibilities, and mine go far beyond that. Again, you may suit yourself.

Further, as a bicycling advocate, I urge cyclists to set responsibilities for ourselves that again go beyond the bare minimums set by the laws. This is exactly what defensive driving instruction does for drivers, and I think cyclists, given our relative vulnerability (lack of cage) have even a greater need to define relatively conservative responsibilites for ourselves. High among those, to my mind, is to stay the hell out of the frickin' door zone.

Let's just say that any cyclist who has read through this far in this thread, and still rides in door zones, may not deserve it, but certainly should not be surprised when he doors himself.

Let's try this approach... Imagine two cyclists with similar experiences, skills and riding styles, who live in the same apartment building, work in the same office building, and cycle-commute along the same route at similar times. The only significant difference between the two is that one believes that in dooring collisions it is generally the fault of the person opening the door (for not checking first), while the other believes it is the fault of the cyclist (for riding in a door zone). Which of these two cyclists do you think is more likely to door himself? NEW! (This is another example of how attitude, derived from beliefs, can be so important in determining cyclist behavior).

My point is that when you believe it is your responsibility to avoid a certain type of hazard, and that it is your fault if you're hurt because you didn't properly and reasonably avoid that hazard, that you are significantly more likely to avoid that hazard than is someone who believes it is someone else's responsibility to protect him from that hazard.

That's my motivation in trying to convey to other cyclists the importance of believing it is our responsibility to avoid door zones - to reduce the incidence of cyclists being injured and killed in dooring collisions. What's motivating you?

There's plenty of road that there isn't 5 feet to the left for anything bike, busses or cars.
I haven't seen a bus narrower than 5 feet.

If a bus, or another car for that matter, can fit beside a car, then there is room for a cyclist to ride 5 feet away from that car, by definition.

I am truly astonished at the level of dissent on this point. I'm beginning to think you guys are going to argue automatically against anything I happen to support.

I am truly astonished at the level of dissent on this point. I'm beginning to think you guys are going to argue automatically against anything I happen to support.

It's taken you this long to figure that out Serge? :p

It's taken you this long to figure that out Serge? :p



Shhhhhh.... he's catching on.

Okay, Warren, I concede that there may be some edge cases where a driver suddenly stops in front of a cyclist and opens his door such that the cyclist is unable to avoid the door zone. But whether these anomolies actually exist, and how often they do, is beyond the scope of the topic I originally intended for this thread.

Most dooring collisions, the ones I seek to reduce the incidence of, at least among forum members, involve parked cars, and cyclists riding too close along the left, in the roadway, or too close to the right, on the sidewalk.

That said, whenever a car stops in front of me and, say, double-parks, I instinctively look back and merge far enough left to pass it outside of the door zone.

I think world peace is an admirable goal, apples are healthy, and motherhood rocks.

(this is a test)

But whether these anomolies actually exist, and how often they do, is beyond the scope of the topic I originally intended for this thread.

Well, they do exist, and I was recently a lucky participant of such a near-dooring. As I passed, the motorist was digging into the center console of the car, and thus nowhere near his door handle, but I was completely expecting to eat door at any moment. I spent a long time thinking of ways to have avoided the situation, but couldn't come up with anything. I was at the motorist's mercy. This hopefully explains why I am vehement on the topic.



Most dooring collisions, the ones I seek to reduce the incidence of, at least among forum members, involve parked cars, and cyclists riding too close along the left, in the roadway, or too close to the right, on the sidewalk.

Then I'm happy to say we're in complete agreement. If you had qualified your original post by saying something along the lines of "if a cyclist consciously chooses to routinely ride within an unsafe distance from parked cars, even when better positioning is available, then I consider that cyclist morally (not legally) responsible for resulting dooring accidents", I would probably have never posted here at all.

- Warren

36 posts to consensus... not bad!

Have a great weekend everybody!

Oh come off it Serge, Peace through strength, apples are pesticide laden, and motherhood is just a tool to keep women subjugated in the home.
Can't you just post like everyone else without having to always stir up trouble.

I do agree with you on the dooring thing for the most part. It's the one % of situations where the choice is either to filter through at ped speeds or come to a complete stop that I find annoying and where one can end up letting their guard down. But as you've said still avoidable.

There are plenty of situations when one can't stay out of the door zone of parked cars. Plenty of narrow busy roads. Now, I personally never ride in the door zone or when I am truly forced (and sometimes I am) I do it so slowly that I will be able to stop in time. However, given the world we live in, it's unreasonable to demand all cyclists to stay out of the door zones at all times. What about places that have laws about riding in bike lanes whenever there is one and the lane just happen to be next to the parked cars? It's either you ride in the door zone or get a ticket from the cop (and perhaps lots of anger from the fellow users of the road). You lose no matter what you do. Under these circumstances blaming the cyclists who get doored is just not right.

Warren - great posts. I agree with every line you wrote.

Well, I didn't use the word fault, that's all I meant.

But if you want me to say it, fine: if you ride into a door, it's your fault for riding in a door zone, especially if you are aware of the hazards of riding in door zones, and you are choosing to take the risk anyway.

There.
Does anyone take this "stuff" seriously?

To be consistant with the logic of a SUPREME JACK_DONKEY - If you cyle ANYWHERE and get involved in a collision it's your fault for riding where you could have a collision. No if's, no but's, no maybe - What a load of B.S.!!

There are plenty of situations when one can't stay out of the door zone of parked cars. Plenty of narrow busy roads. Now, I personally never ride in the door zone or when I am truly forced (and sometimes I am) I do it so slowly that I will be able to stop in time. However, given the world we live in, it's unreasonable to demand all cyclists to stay out of the door zones at all times. What about places that have laws about riding in bike lanes whenever there is one and the lane just happen to be next to the parked cars? It's either you ride in the door zone or get a ticket from the cop (and perhaps lots of anger from the fellow users of the road). You lose no matter what you do. Under these circumstances blaming the cyclists who get doored is just not right.

Warren - great posts. I agree with every line you wrote.On a narrow busy road I would take the outer lane in order to stay out of the door zone. If I lacked the training or confidence to do that, I would find another route, or use the sidewalk. I would never ride in the door zone.

I see. There is nothing practical about staying out of door zones. Right. :rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm going so much grief for simply advocating the avoidance of door zones!

No, you get so much "grief" because you always make it sound like it's the cyclists fault, even if they were following the law and riding where the law tells them to be.

No, you get so much "grief" because you always make it sound like it's the cyclists fault, even if they were following the law and riding where the law tells them to be.I just don't get this. If you ride somewhere where you know it's dangerous, how could it possibly not be your fault if you get doored?

We all know that sometimes people in cars forget to look before thay open their doors. That may be illegal, but it happens frequently. Sometimes you do look, but the approaching cyclist is in your blind spot. Passengers exiting from the rear door do not have a mirror that enables them to look. Sometimes it is a small child who opens the door, sometimes it is a blind person, or someone with Alzheimer's Disease. I know that it is the driver's legal responsibility to check before allowing passengers to exit. Do you always do this when you are driving? "Wait a minute, grandma, don't open the door until I check for cyclists riding in the door zone."

Why in God's name would you ride there if you know what could happen? Do you enjoy arguing that you were right and someone else was wrong? Do you enjoy arguing from your hospital bed? 99.99 per cent of cyclists know that it is stupid to ride in door zones, thank God.

Would you rather be "right" or would you rather be alive?

I just can't believe that supposedly experienced cyclists are arguing against what must be the most basic principle of bicycle safety.

I just don't get this. If you ride somewhere where you know it's dangerous, how could it possibly not be your fault if you get doored?

We all know that sometimes people in cars forget to look before thay open their doors. That may be illegal, but it happens frequently. Sometimes you do look, but the approaching cyclist is in your blind spot. Passengers exiting from the rear door do not have a mirror that enables them to look. Sometimes it is a small child who opens the door, sometimes it is a blind person, or someone with Alzheimer's Disease. I know that it is the driver's legal responsibility to check before allowing passengers to exit. Do you always do this when you are driving? "Wait a minute, grandma, don't open the door until I check for cyclists riding in the door zone."

Why in God's name would you ride there if you know what could happen? Do you enjoy arguing that you were right and someone else was wrong? Do you enjoy arguing from your hospital bed? 99.99 per cent of cyclists know that it is stupid to ride in door zones, thank God.

Would you rather be "right" or would you rather be alive?

I just can't believe that supposedly experienced cyclists are arguing against what must be the most basic principle of bicycle safety.

But if you're hit while riding outside the door zone, and outside the bike lane, then the accident will also be your fault. They tried to pass a bill allowing us legally to ride outside the lane like this, but the CHP lobbied against it, and it was defeated. Arguing to ride safely is advocating for cyclists to ride illegally.

The difference is not just semantic, it reflects a different way of looking at dooring, a different mentality, especially in terms of responsibility.

Right.

Legally, "you got doored" is the correct perspective. In most municipalities, drivers are responsible for ensuring safety and not disrupting traffic flow when opening or closing doors.

No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open upon the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.


However, I am not oblivious to the fact that many drivers don't look before opening doors, nor am I oblivious to the insulting and unsympathetic philosophy which views the cyclist as being at fault in such a scenario becuase he was in the Door Zone for whatever reason.

But if you're hit while riding outside the door zone, and outside the bike lane, then the accident will also be your fault. They tried to pass a bill allowing us legally to ride outside the lane like this, but the CHP lobbied against it, and it was defeated. Arguing to ride safely is advocating for cyclists to ride illegally.I didn't address that part of your post (about the bike lane putting you in the door zone, and it being illegal to ride outside the bike lane) because, frankly, I have no answer. I can't imagine riding in such circumstances, but I know some have to. All I can say is "I dunno, but it sucks." Where are you riding that this is an issue? How do people generally handle it?

I didn't address that part of your post (about the bike lane putting you in the door zone, and it being illegal to ride outside the bike lane) because, frankly, I have no answer. I can't imagine riding in such circumstances, but I know some have to. All I can say is "I dunno, but it sucks." Where are you riding that this is an issue? How do people generally handle it?

Riding in the San Francisco Bay Area. In some places, they have bikes lanes almost as wide as a lane, with no parking. In others, there is a bike lane that is only 4 feet wide right next to parked cars. Do we always stay in the bike lane? No. The issue of people being "afraid" on the road has been addressed here many times, but riding in the door zone or riding outside the bike lane here is, for me, determined by how I "feel". I guess it's instinct, where I judge my situation by how I feel instinctively. If there's no bike lane, I tend to stay wide of cars.
The CHP here is the "definitive" source when interpreting the vehicle code, so their lobbying against the change will also have a negative effect on any court cases. I remember thinking they wouldn't be against it if their motorcycle officers were required to ride in bike lanes right next to cars.

On a narrow busy road I would take the outer lane in order to stay out of the door zone. If I lacked the training or confidence to do that, I would find another route, or use the sidewalk. I would never ride in the door zone. And how about the mandatory bike lane situation?

Oops, I guess I just saw you answer that.

Again you're making an erronous assumption of risk, that door zone riding is more dangerous or unreasonably dangerous AND your pushing your perceptions that don't always work for others (ie that door zones are an option for everyone all the time.)

Most of the bike lanes in San Jose/ SF ARE the door zones. They're painted lanes but still "in the zone." And what about all the narrow city streets where i'm DRIVING in the door zone? Or narrow streets where theres no choice to ride in the zone?
Do you just not ride? I'd rather not ride the zone if i can avoid it but calling it my fault IS the same argument as saying that someone is "asking for it."

C'mon, we all take risks and the rational for what is "reasonable" is not up to you no matter how rude and opinionated you are.

I just don't get this. If you ride somewhere where you know it's dangerous, how could it possibly not be your fault if you get doored?

And it is also obvious that you (and HH and similiar ilk who have ALL the answers for ALL other cyclists) don't get - ALL cyclists' scenarios can be considered "dangerous" (i.e. there is some degree of risk involved with ALL cycling activities.) In evaluating the relative risk of door zone cycling OTHER cyclists may be considering their alternatives and have concluded that the door zone area is their best choice for certain situations. That YOU think differently or don't encounter those type of situations does not mean "stuff" about the relative risk for other cyclists in their specific situations. NOR do other cyclists need to explain a "gol dang" thing to the likes of a VC know-It-All.

Your dang opinion about fault, based on your personal scenario that you assume is true everywhere else, doesn't mean a dang thing elsewhere.

AND no one else gives a dang about some wacky VC pedant's new definition of "fault."