Don't get doored, but if it's unavoidable, don't swerve

[sbhikes]

John, if you ride a Rans Stratus that doesn't have a high bottom-bracket positioned before the wheel, does it? In which case, you are very nicely protected from the doors but you don't get the glee of shoving a buzz-saw into somebody's outstretched arm on the door handle. :D

Just kidding. I'm not really so sadistic. slvoid's avatar just seems to bring that out in me.

Anyway, I ride a trike most of the time now and I fear the doors because I think my legs will travel right under, I have under-seat steering, so my face will hit the door first. My face isn't protected by a helmet.

What I wish I had was a switch to flip my bike into reverse. I really needed it the other day. Somebody cut me off and I had to slam on the brakes. Slamming on the brakes is all fine and dandy but if you can't also get the heck out of the way it's not handy enough. If I could have flipped it into reverse and back-pedaled a couple of feet that would have been great and I bet I would have gotten some applause from the witnesses. Could be handy to go in reverse in lots of situations, including door zones and non-emergency situations as well.

Anyway, wayyy off topic. Sorry. Yes, you cannot always avoid door zones. Even I understand that and I live in a very wealthy area. Heck, you gotta watch out for cars going by when you open your own car door because they are even in the door zone.

[Brian Ratliff]

Hmmm, Diane, sounds like you need a fixed gear trike. But then hills might be an issue.

[Helmet Head]

From what I read here, the basic gist is that getting doored is not as bad as swerving around it and getting hit by a car from behind. So, the best advice is: 1) don't get doored. This is easy to do; just stay out of the range of the door and keep a sharp watch for people about to leave their cars. But 2) if sh!t happens and you are going to get doored, just take the door and mitigate the damage. Don't ever swerve into traffic to avoid the door. Don't aim for the edge; I've heard it hurts worse. Aim for the center, keep your weight back to keep from getting thrown and kill as much speed as possible. Your bike will probably be damaged or destroyed, and it certainly won't make your day, but it beats getting rolled over by an 18 wheeler
Let's go over this one more time.

Among experienced cyclists, there are two primary paradigms used with respect to dooring.


Try to avoid getting doored as best as you can, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Stay alert. Watch out for people in parked cars who maybe about to open their doors.
Avoid dooring yourself by treating the door zone as an unacceptable place to ride at speed, akin to the wrong side of the road, or the sidewalk. Never ride in a door zone at speeds above a pedestrian's pace, period.

To me, the words in the OP quoted above, coupled with the title of this thread, indicate use of paradigm A. For reasons cited earlier, I use and promote the use of paradigm B.

If the connection between the OP and paradigm A are not clear, I can explain in detail. Let me know.

If the advantages and practicality of the use paradigm B over A are not clear, I can explain in detail. Let me know.

[recursive]

Sometimes I ride in the door zone. On purpose. Because it's faster/convenient.

Flame away!

[Nucks]

Talking about proving inexperience with their comments, this is a beaut.

You should be aware (as apparently you're not), that cars cannot move laterally without first moving longitudinally.
So if a car beside you starts moving laterally closer to you, all you have to do is slow down and get behind it. The faster it's going, the closer to instantly is the time that you can do that. There is no need to move laterally into a door zone.

The very idea that you "might" be "forced" into a door zone is a self-fulfilling prophecy, that prevents one from seeing, indeed sensing, the appropriate solution that allows one to avoid the door zone in situations like the one you raised. This is what I mean by a flawed paradigm.

Come up with 100 more theoretical situations of how a cyclist might be "forced" into a door zone, and I'll come up with 100 reasonable solutions that allow him to avoid it after all, because I'm working with a paradigm that does not accept riding in a door zone (at speed) as an option. That's the point that makes the advice in the OP moot, and, arguably, misdirecting.


Recently my wife was riding home and an SUV driver obviously didn't like something she did and pulled up alongside and squeezed her over to within the dooring zone. She did slow down but she passed at least one door before she was able to get behind the SUV. Luckily, that door remained closed.

[Brian Ratliff]

No, HH, you still don't get it. I made no reference to paradigms. This is not about why you should stay out of the door zone (you should, of course). This is about what to do should it be unavoidable. I have no interest in your paradigms and you, evidently, have no interest in what I was actually saying in my OP.

Yes, you say that the door zone is a hard, "no ride" area for you. Good for you, but I like to know my options should an emergency arise. There are things worse than being doored, such as getting nailed from a head-on or sideswiped under someone's wheels. What you are suggesting, is that giving information about what to do if you are doored is akin to a sanction of riding in the door zone as an option. Well guess what, it is an option.

You list two paradigms as if a rider is forced to choose between one or the other. But I firmly believe that all paradigms are fundamentally flawed because there is always a middle ground between the extremes. There are times when the door zone is a safe and efficient option over riding in congested traffic. After all, a car is inanimate, and if there are no persons in the parked cars, the car will not jump up and grab you. There are times when a rider makes a mistake and, to recover, might need to ride a short while in the door zone.

If I were to place myself on a scale between your two paradigms, I am much more towards B than A, but I recognize some situations where the door zone is preferable. Hence, a plan for an unexpected dooring is reasonable. I suspect that most people ride in this way.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that you lived and rode in an environment where all the rules are cut and dried. Do this, don't do this. No gray areas. Probably all but the residential streets have more than one lane in each direction, making it not a major event for you to take up a whole lane for long stretches. Traffic is probably very fast with respect to the cyclist, so staying out in contact with that traffic and slowing them down by making them go around you is of paramount importance to being able to ride vehicularly. Otherwise a left turn is nearly impossible. Parked cars are well out of the traffic stream to avoid the dooring of other cars.

My environment is different. I rarely ride on roads with more than one lane in each direction, making it a major backup if I take the lane for long stretches. Parked cars can sometimes take up much of the full width of the road, making it necessary to ride near the centerline to always be outside the doorzone. Hills are common, so I am frequently at speeds lower than 15 mph. Traffic, while being more dense, is also slower, making it less necessary to keep in contact with it and making it less necessary to force cars to maneuver around me.

Finally, the differences between us make it hard to communicate clearly. You live in a world of cut and dried and so develop either/or paradigms which you can follow to the extreme. The world of sprawl will do this to you.

I live in a world where compromises are the name of the game. Roads are narrow, forcing the cyclist to choose on the spectrum of holding traffic up almost indefinitely (there is no way to safely pass the cyclist) and giving the cars too much freedom to go around you. On-street parking many times interferes with the traveled portions of the road. Any paradigm, such as "never ride in door zones" or "always ride VC" is easily and frequently broken in favor of more shades of gray.

It is no accident that the strict VC'ists mostly come from sprawled areas like Southern California, Arizona, or the South, while there are few residing in places such as the Pacific Northwest or the New England area. Perhaps we should call a truce here, and when we post, ensure that the onlookers know that we are two vastly different environments. Strategies or paradigms which work in one place don't necessarily work in another.

[Nucks]

Recently my wife was riding home and an SUV driver obviously didn't like something she did and pulled up alongside and squeezed her over to within the dooring zone. She did slow down but she passed at least one door before she was able to get behind the SUV. Luckily, that door remained closed.

Another time, my wife's friend was riding to work and some yahoos pull up beside her trying to grab her ass. They squeezed her (no pun) into the door zone before she could react and slow down to get behind them. She passed at least one door before she could get behind the vehicle. Luckily, the door remained closed.

[Roody]

EXACTLY! - and not only in NYC but in many other densly populated older cities where the streets are filled with the parked cars of residents, shoppers and others who don't have the option of off street parking. Such streets only have one useable narrow lane plus space along side parked cars. And endless motorized traffic in that one narrow lane. My experience with such a city is in Philadelphia and to a lesser degree in Chicago.

It is not surprising that BF's self centered "experts" cannot imagine such areas, and cannot imagine cycling scenarios that do not match the boulevards used for their suburban training rides. Nor that they find it so easy to declare "Just Say No" to activities are not part of their simple minded scenarios.

Their profound provincialism makes their cycling advice useful only to those whose cycling experience/environment also is limited to that of the self proclaimed experts' cycling profile.(Setting aside the gratuitous name calling, this "inexperienced" and "provincial" boob will try to respond to you city slickers in a positive manner.:))

I also live and ride in a densely populated, older city with very narrow lanes and streetside parking. My way of staying out of the door zone is to ride further to the left in the traffic lane. A traffic lane must be at least 7 feet wide, even if it is the narrowest lane in the entire world. If you are riding 2 feet to the right of the inner stripe, you must be 5 feet or more from the parked cars, and therefore by definition outside the door zone. This makes sense to me, and is consistent with my expeiences. Did I miss any points with my math?

Furthermore, in a lane this narrow, with parked cars on the side, motor vehicles will typically be moving quite slowly, usually less than 25 mph. Therefore, even rather timid riders, who hate to "inconvnience" motorists, will be riding at speeds that are nearly compatible with cars. Also, there will likely be areas where you can safely move to the right to allow blocked cars to pass you safely.

I have seen streets that are even narrower with parked cars on the sides. These are actually "alleys" or "lanes" that can be ridden or diven very slowly, like less than 10 mph. I can see that one might have to ride in the door zone in these circumstances, but you would be going very slowly.

[genec]

It is no accident that the strict VC'ists mostly come from sprawled areas like Southern California, Arizona, or the South, while there are few residing in places such as the Pacific Northwest or the New England area. Perhaps we should call a truce here, and when we post, ensure that the onlookers know that we are two vastly different environments. Strategies or paradigms which work in one place don't necessarily work in another.

Interesting concept... the southwest being vastly autocentric mainly due to the wide open spaces and thus the result, many equally wide fast roads... But I do have to wonder if the southwest is in fact the "heartland" of the "VCist."

I believe John Allen a staunch VCer is from Cambridge, or at least Mass. I do know that John Forester is living in Southern California... just a few miles from San Diego... and was instrumental in pushing the current cycling laws in this state.

But I do wonder whether the southwest has spawned most "VCists."

[Roody]

. . . . It is no accident that the strict VC'ists mostly come from sprawled areas like Southern California, Arizona, or the South. . . . .
You mean like Bekologist and sbhikes? :D

I guess what I missed in your OP was your conclusion that if a car was coming head on at you and forcing you into a door zone, you think the problem would be the door zone.

I think the problem would be the insane or drunk cager who was trying to run you down like a dog! The door zone would probably be your safest refuge in such an unlikely situation.

Do you know anything about the probability of two independent events bot occurring? You multiply the single probabilities to determine the joint probability. Let's say the odds of a headon attack by a cager are 1 in 1000. And the odds of a door opening right when you are riding by are also 1 in 1000. The chance of both happening together is 1000 times 1000, or 1 in a million. Try not to worry too much!

[I-Like-To-Bike]

(Setting aside the gratuitous name calling, this "inexperienced" and "provincial" boob will try to respond to you city slickers in a positive manner.:))

...
Furthermore, in a lane this narrow, with parked cars on the side, motor vehicles will typically be moving quite slowly, usually less than 25 mph. Therefore, even rather timid riders, who hate to "inconvnience" motorists, will be riding at speeds that are nearly compatible with cars. Also, there will likely be areas where you can safely move to the right to allow blocked cars to pass you safely.
Bring your inexperience and provincial cycling ways to Philadelphia and commute through North, South or West Philadelphia trough the residential streets or the few so-called arterials to get to Center City and find out these these descriptions of ignorance about the real world outside of Planet Head and its satellite are NOT gratuitious.

[genec]

HH, paradigm or not, I do know that you tout and pratice emergency maneuvers for those rare situations that may indeed occur. Could "aim for the driver" not also be one of these emergency maneuvers should the "impossible" ever occur?

[Helmet Head]

I made no reference to paradigms.
I didn't say you made a reference to paradigms. Your use of paradigm A, however, is implied in your words, starting with the title of this thread.


have no interest in what I was actually saying in my OP.
I do. But I also have interest in what was implied by what you said in the OP, which you apparently have no interest in examining.


There are times when a rider makes a mistake and, to recover, might need to ride a short while in the door zone.
Should that ever happen, for whatever reason, the correct reaction is BRAKE. Slow down. At some point you're not in the door zone. Then something happens that causes you to have to move into the door zone. Fine. At that same moment you should be hitting the brakes. That should be the emphasis. Not aim for the door rather than swerve.

The whole point of the article you quoted is about the danger of swerving. That getting doored is something you want to avoid is already understood. The article was pointing out that swerving was not a good backup plan. I submit that crashing into the door is not a good backup plan either, and saying it is diverts attention from using paradigm B. Avoid riding at speed in any door zone period. That's the backup plan I advocate. That's using paradigm B.



There are times when the door zone is a safe and efficient option over riding in congested traffic.
Q.E.D. Paradigm A, in living color. For anyone who believes this, whether you door yourself is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.


It is no accident that the strict VC'ists mostly come from places like Southern California, Arizona, or the South, while there are few residing in places such as the Pacific Northwest or the New England area.
Oh please. Just because there are no VC advocates that happen to be active on this forum from those areas does not mean they don't exist.

[Roody]

Bring your inexperience and provincial cycling ways to Philadelphia and commute through North, South or West Philadelphia trough the residential streets or the few so-called arterials to get to Center City and find out these these descriptions of ignorance about the real world outside of Planet Head and its satellite are NOT gratuitious.
If I ever find a street that cannot be ridden outside a door zone, I'll either take it at less than 5mph, find an alternative route, or take a damn bus.

I might be provincial, but I'm not reckless!

[Brian Ratliff]

Q.E.D. Paradigm A, in living color. For anyone who believes this, whether you door yourself is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.


I suspected you would say this, leaving the prospect of shades of gray unanswered. You didn't reply to the heart of my post, about different cycling environments coloring our replies. Too bad. You live in a world of black and white, and I cannot afford to. Tell me that my suspicions about your cycling environment are wrong.

Roody- you just confirmed my point. Yes, there are ways you might be forced into the door zone, such as you suggested. Plan for it if you want. I do, but then, that's just me.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

If I ever find a street that cannot be ridden outside a door zone, I'll either take it at less than 5mph, find an alternative route, or take a damn bus.

That is one possible answer and in fact is probably the only way to comply in many areas with the Planet Head commandment of "Just Say No to Door Zones". You can decide to listen to yourself if you ever find your way out of your neighborhood.

Others evaluate risk independently of dogma spouting experts and ignore impractical/useless advice from self appointed shuckers and jivers, and make the decisions based on their own experience with their own environment.

[Helmet Head]

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that you lived and rode in an environment where all the rules are cut and dried. Do this, don't do this. No gray areas. Probably all but the residential streets have more than one lane in each direction, making it not a major event for you to take up a whole lane for long stretches. Traffic is probably very fast with respect to the cyclist, so staying out in contact with that traffic and slowing them down by making them go around you is of paramount importance to being able to ride vehicularly. Otherwise a left turn is nearly impossible. Parked cars are well out of the traffic stream to avoid the dooring of other cars.
Good thing you're not a betting man. San Diego has a wide variety of conditions, and I ride in all of them.


My environment is different. I rarely ride on roads with more than one lane in each direction, making it a major backup if I take the lane for long stretches. Parked cars can sometimes take up much of the full width of the road, making it necessary to ride near the centerline to always be outside the doorzone. Hills are common, so I am frequently at speeds lower than 15 mph. Traffic, while being more dense, is also slower, making it less necessary to keep in contact with it and making it less necessary to force cars to maneuver around me.
If I'm climbing a hill at, say, 6 mph, I will venture into a door zone to facilitate passing by faster traffic if necessary. But if I'm moving much faster than that, then moving into a door zone constitutes sacrificing my safety in order not to inconvenience others. If I'm holding up traffic for a significant period of time, then of course I'll SLOW DOWN and move into the door zone to let them pass, but that's a deliberate and temporary maneuver, during which I'm not doing anything unsafe because I've slowed to a pedestrian speed.


Finally, the differences between us make it hard to communicate clearly. You live in a world of cut and dried and so develop either/or paradigms which you can follow to the extreme. The world of sprawl will do this to you.
Now whose living in a cut and dried world? Paradigms can be markedly different, because they are invented abstractions. But you're comparing real worlds, where we actually live. Now that's the realm of grays, yet that's where you're drawing the black and white distinctions. You've got it backwards, my friend.


I live in a world where compromises are the name of the game.
I compromise how I use my paradigms in the real world; I do not compromise the paradigms which I use to guide me in the real world. You seem to have it all muddled in your mind.


Roads are narrow, forcing the cyclist to choose on the spectrum of holding traffic up almost indefinitely (there is no way to safely pass the cyclist) and giving the cars too much freedom to go around you.
So slow down and move into the door zone to let them pass.


On-street parking many times interferes with the traveled portions of the road. Any paradigm, such as "never ride in door zones" or "always ride VC" is easily and frequently broken in favor of more shades of gray.
Muddled. You are confusing uncomprised use of a paradigm (which I do not use nor advocate) with advocating use of well-defined paradigms (which I do use and advocate).

My words: "Avoid dooring yourself by treating the door zone as an unacceptable place to ride at speed, akin to the wrong side of the road, or the sidewalk. Never ride in a door zone at speeds above a pedestrian's pace, period."

Your misinterpretation: "never ride in door zones"

My words: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".
Your misinterpretation: "always ride VC"

This illustrates why we have trouble communicating.

[Brian Ratliff]

Should that ever happen, for whatever reason, the correct reaction is BRAKE. Slow down. At some point you're not in the door zone. Then something happens that causes you to have to move into the door zone. Fine. At that same moment you should be hitting the brakes. That should be the emphasis. Not aim for the door rather than swerve.

The whole point of the article you quoted is about the danger of swerving. That getting doored is something you want to avoid is already understood. The article was pointing out that swerving was not a good backup plan. I submit that crashing into the door is not a good backup plan either, and saying it is diverts attention from using paradigm B. Avoid riding at speed in any door zone period. That's the backup plan I advocate. That's using paradigm B.


...and the compromise and acknowledgement that sometimes the door zone is inevitable. If your braking is not successful? (BTW, I did say that braking is part of the process as well, if you read the OP) What happens if braking doesn't get you down to zero speed when you get to the door you are about to run into? Do you swerve? Or do you hit the door, and where?

And by golly, we are back to where we started in the OP. Brakes are good, but sometimes not good enough. Are you saying that your only advice is to brake? And if the braking doesn't stop them in time, the cyclist is simply screwed; that you are out of advice?

How can a backup plan involve...er...not being in the situation? I thought that "not being in the situation" was plan A. You are already in the situation, which is why you need plan B. How can a backup plan telling you not to be where you currently are be of any use what-so-ever? I can just see it now: Boy Scout finds himself lost and out past dark. Boy Scout turns to his trusted handbood and finds the chapter: "What to do to Survive in the Woods for a Night." Reads what it says and finds the single sentence: "Don't be out in the woods by yourself at night."

It makes sense, right? Give the Boy Scout confidence to handle the "lost in the woods at night" situation and he might be tempted to stray from the pack and get himself lost. Right?

[joejack951]

Furthermore, in a lane this narrow, with parked cars on the side, motor vehicles will typically be moving quite slowly, usually less than 25 mph. Therefore, even rather timid riders, who hate to "inconvnience" motorists, will be riding at speeds that are nearly compatible with cars. Also, there will likely be areas where you can safely move to the right to allow blocked cars to pass you safely.

I have seen streets that are even narrower with parked cars on the sides. These are actually "alleys" or "lanes" that can be ridden or diven very slowly, like less than 10 mph. I can see that one might have to ride in the door zone in these circumstances, but you would be going very slowly.

These are some big assumptions that you are making. Especially in Philly, and certainly even in my sprawled area of Wilmington, just because motor vehicles behind you wouldn't be going any faster doesn't mean they try to get around you or intimidate you until you do move. It's been a good number of months since my last ride through Philly but on a two lane road with parking on either side and stop signs every block, a car full of college dudes got behind me and proceeded and shout and honk that I should get out of the way. They were stuck behind me for two blocks (stop signs every block) as I had nowhere to go. When I had some room, I let them get by, only to see them do exactly what I knew would happen which was to get stuck behind the car in front of me. On my way to the grocery store about a week ago, I'm following a line of cars into the parking lot, moving at about 10mph (with no cars I'm usually closer to 18mph). The girl behind me decides to try and pull around me knowing full well she wasn't going to get anywhere. It's obvious to me that because a bicycle is usually a slow moving vehicle, drivers usually consider them to always be slow moving. Speed limits and/or dangerous roads don't always make people err on the side of caution. Ignorance is bliss.

My opinion of this thread is that it's a lot like some of the helmet discussions. The most obvious advice one can give is to not crash and you won't need your helmet. Yet most reasonable cyclists do wear one (note: I'm not saying reasonable = wearing a helmet. I'm saying that you don't see many wrong way cyclists wearing helmets). It the same respect, you can be a reasonable cyclist and still feel a need to know how to deal with a dooring. I, for one, am glad Brian brought this topic up as it's food for thought even though I'm rarely in a situation where I could get doored (it's very rare that I encounter parked cars during my rides).

[sbhikes]

I'm from Southern California. I am a vehicular cyclist. I'm just not an anti-bike lane zealout, Forrester disciple, or center-lane-biasing enthusiast. Also, Santa Barbara has very little sprawl. We make sure all our sprawl is done in Lompoc, Santa Maria and Ventura/Oxnard.

[Brian Ratliff]

Now whose living in a cut and dried world? Paradigms can be markedly different, because they are invented abstractions. But you're comparing real worlds, where we actually live. Now that's the realm of grays, yet that's where you're drawing the black and white distinctions. You've got it backwards, my friend.

I compromise how I use my paradigms in the real world; I do not compromise the paradigms which I use to guide me in the real world. You seem to have it all muddled in your mind.


Which is why I stated that I was not refering to any paradigm in my OP. So you don't have any advice to give for when the real world suddenly doesn't match up with your paradigm?

How do you choose your compromises when you act in the real world? You see, I act in the real world, and what I find interesting is when the real world doesn't match up with the abstract. You are trying to turn this thread into a debate about one abstraction vs. another, and then accuse me of muddling things when I try to probe how your real world riding relates to your abstraction. You, just now admitted that you make compromises in your real world riding, after first turning around and branding me as a "door zone riding cyclist" for admitting that there are compromises to be made. Since you also make compromises, do I get to inform you that you are, in fact, a paradigm A rider?

I do modeling of physical reality for a living. In modeling (your "paradigm"), the real world is the gold standard. I won't design a part based on what my model says unless I can convince myself first that the model is a reflection of reality. Even then, I qualify my assumptions by adding in design factors of safety. The analogy of this would be disseminating information for what one should do should the unexpected happen.

You approach the world in the opposite way, perhaps from your computer programming background. When you program, you have an objective, and a procedure for getting there. You get to design your reality, and what you make changes to your design, your reality changes in response. In this case, it is your procedure which is your gold standard, because your procedure defines your end result.

I don't have paradigms which govern my riding style. I have rules of thumb based on my own experience and the experience of others. To me, "don't ride in the door zone," or "don't swerve," are rules of thumb which I have compiled for myself from a number of sources. Because they are rules of thumb, I know there will be exceptions, and I need to be prepared for those exceptions. In writing the OP, I have no agenda other than the dissemination of the observations which make up my rules of thumb.

This post by you indicates that we are more alike than we are different; we simply approach the world differently. You have paradigms for dealing with the world and you simply modify your exceptions to deal with situations where the world doesn't match up your paradigms. I have rules of thumb which are constantly being updated to take into account new information. You mistake my rules of thumb for a paradigm, and cannot help but wonder why I constantly modify my "paradigm." I mistake your paradigms for rules of thumb and constantly wonder what why your "rules of thumb" don't match up with the real world. Neither one is wrong.

We need to drop this. We've both insulted each other to no end, civily of course, but we both have the same goals. To get riders to ride as safely as possible and to get cycling to be more common and accepted as a mode of transportation. We emphasis different aspects of cycling advocacy, but we should learn to work together rather than being content to swipe the feet out from under each other.

[Helmet Head]

The girl behind me decides to try and pull around me knowing full well she wasn't going to get anywhere. It's obvious to me that because a bicycle is usually a slow moving vehicle, drivers usually consider them to always be slow moving. Speed limits and/or dangerous roads don't always make people err on the side of caution. Ignorance is bliss.
The elimination of this type of incident is a great benefit of using a mirror. I'm convinced people do what this girl did almost unconsciously, and, yes, it's based on the belief, again perhaps subconscious, that bikes will "always be slow moving"... that they belong out of the way, and if they're in the way, I'll go around them.

Anyway, with a mirror, you can see when this is happening, and it's amazing what a slight adjustment to the LEFT will accomplish, perhaps accompanied by a slow/stop signal with the left arm. Asserting one's position like this gets them to back off, every time.

[Helmet Head]

...and the compromise and acknowledgement that sometimes the door zone is inevitable. If your braking is not successful? (BTW, I did say that braking is part of the process as well, if you read the OP) What happens if braking doesn't get you down to zero speed when you get to the door you are about to run into? Do you swerve? Or do you hit the door, and where?
There is no need to be down to zero speed. Before you move into the door zone, you should decelerate to a speed at which hitting a door would be harmless.

Besides, if the reason you're in a door zone is some kind of bizarre sudden situation that forced you into it, then swerving to avoid the opening door would not even be an option (if it is, then you're not forced to be in there).


Which is why I stated that I was not refering to any paradigm in my OP
Being unaware of one's own use of a paradigm does not equate to not using it.


I don't have paradigms which govern my riding style.
Of course you do. You have paradigms for everything you do. We all do. It's only a question of how aware you are of what they are, and how aware you are of how they affect your choices and behavior.

[joejack951]

The elimination of this type of incident is a great benefit of using a mirror. I'm convinced people do what this girl did almost unconsciously, and, yes, it's based on the belief, again perhaps subconscious, that bikes will "always be slow moving"... that they belong out of the way, and if they're in the way, I'll go around them.

Anyway, with a mirror, you can see when this is happening, and it's amazing what a slight adjustment to the LEFT will accomplish, perhaps accompanied by a slow/stop signal with the left arm. Asserting one's position like this gets them to back off, every time.

I don't use a mirror but did hear the engine rev and gave her a steely eyed gaze (sorry :)) and she backed off. I am actually serious about the look but it was more scorn and less steel. When I'm riding in "traffic" like that I am very left biased and in this case was probably only a foot from the left side of the cars in front as we were nearing the parking spots and I wanted to be ready to move around them as they turned off.

[Brian Ratliff]

Being unaware of one's own use of a paradigm does not equate to not using it.

Of course you do. You have paradigms for everything you do. We all do. It's only a question of how aware you are of what they are, and how aware you are of how they affect your choices and behavior.

Never mind. You don't get it.

[Brian Ratliff]

There is no need to be down to zero speed. Before you move into the door zone, you should decelerate to a speed at which hitting a door would be harmless.


Okay, fine, not zero speed. Can you slow from 20 to 5 mph in less than a car length in a controlled manner? You contest my wording, but not the hypothesis, so I change the wording.

...and the compromise and acknowledgement that sometimes the door zone is inevitable. If your braking is not successful? (BTW, I did say that braking is part of the process as well, if you read the OP) What happens if braking doesn't get you down to a sufficiently slow speed when you get to the door you are about to run into? Do you swerve? Or do you hit the door, and where?

And we are back to the OP.

[Helmet Head]

Okay, fine, not zero speed. Can you slow from 20 to 5 mph in less than a car length in a controlled manner?
Yes. More importantly, the odds of a door opening just as you happen to move into the door zone under the already astronomical likelihood of being forced to do so are nil.

What you're saying is, if you happen to be forced into a door zone, slow down to a ped speed, and if in the second or so that that takes a door happens to open in front of you, don't swerve around the door despite whatever-it-is that just forced you into the door zone anyway, aim for the driver instead. I mean, come on.


And we are back to the OP.
Right, which only makes sense if you're assuming the use of paradigm A.

[Brian Ratliff]

Yes. More importantly, the odds of a door opening just as you happen to move into the door zone under the already astronomical likelihood of being forced to do so are nil.

What you're saying is, if you happen to be forced into a door zone, slow down to a ped speed, and if in the second or so that that takes a door happens to open in front of you, don't swerve around the door despite whatever-it-is that just forced you into the door zone anyway, aim for the driver instead. I mean, come on.

Right, which only makes sense if you're assuming the use of paradigm A.

I'll just leave it at this: Nature does not respect a lack of imagination. That you cannot imagine this situation happening is really all of what you are resting your defense on, since we've discovered that: 1) you do sometimes find the need to ride in the door zone. 2) you have established that it is possible to be forced into the door zone. and 3) you simply cannot imagine yourself in the position to hit a door at significant speed. You assume you will always have the forsight and ability to slow sufficiently to avoid a dooring. I try to stay away from assumptions like this when ordering my plan B's since it is precisely when these assumptions break down when the plan B is necessary.

Like I said; you and I are different in how we think. This is not about paradigms; this is about planning. I plan for things like this. Apparently you do not. To each his own.

[Bekologist]

Aim for the driver if you're getting doored; it's ultimately their responsibility to not door an overtaking bicyclist, regardless of smenatics surrounding ones' paradigm lateral lane shifts.

[sbhikes]

Okay, fine, not zero speed. Can you slow from 20 to 5 mph in less than a car length in a controlled manner?
Yes.
The other day I had to slow from about 5 mph to 0 in less than a car length and my rear wheel lifted up off the ground. HH you truly have super-human control over your bicycle. :rolleyes:

[CMcMahon]

People need to remember the "hop off the bike quickly and let it go" option, methinks.

[Brian Ratliff]

People need to remember the "hop off the bike quickly and let it go" option, methinks.

That could work too, if you've got time. I'm not usually in a position to willy nilly jettison my bicycle though.

[CMcMahon]

I've gone OTB enough times (granted, for different reasons than most of you guys would run into) to be able to hop off in a rather timely fashion.

Granted, I'd probably grab the seat instead of just ghostriding it into the driver.

[Helmet Head]

That you cannot imagine this situation happening is really all of what you are resting your defense on, since we've discovered that: 1) you do sometimes find the need to ride in the door zone. 2) you have established that it is possible to be forced into the door zone. and 3) you simply cannot imagine yourself in the position to hit a door at significant speed.

What I can't imagine is:

1) Being at speed while riding outside of a door zone, AND
2) being forced into the door zone, AND
3) in response to the "force", braking as I move into the door zone, AND
4) during the second or so that I've moved into the door zone but have not yet slowed to safe door zone speed, a door opens in front of me, AND
5) the cause that just forced me into the door zone is no longer present so that swerving is even a consideration, AND
6) needing the OP to tell me or anyone else in this astronomically unlikely sequence of events that the door opener is a better target than swerving back out towards the cause of what I moments earlier deemed to be a clear and present danger that warranted entering the door zone at speed in the first place.

That's what I have trouble imagining.

This is why I continue to contend that use of paradigm A is the implied assumption of the OP, whether you realize it or not.

In the end, we all do what "feels right", because that's all there is time to do. Another implied assumption of your OP is that we can affect what "feel rights" by planning ahead. The intent of the OP, after all, is to get folks to think about the implications of being presented with an opening door and swerving left to avoid it, so if that should ever happen, it will not "feel right" to swerve, but will "feel right" to head for the door-opener.

What I'm getting at is starting with the title of this thread, and including much of the language in the OP, the assumption is made that it's normal to "feel right" about being in a door zone at speed from time to time. That's paradigm A. My point is that it should never "feel right" to be in a door zone at speed, period, and that the OP of this thread is misleading in that respect.

We both believe in planning ahead. It's how we plan that is different. My primary focus is on avoiding dangerous situations in the first place. Effectively managing a series of bad events is an important part of it too, but not when it involves using paradigms that imply ignoring basic principles of danger avoidance in the first place, which is the approach taken by the OP of this thread.

[genec]

That's what I have trouble imagining.



Sign of a closed mind... no doubt.

That's OK, the rest of us are only human and can easily imagine it for you... and will consider the sage advice thus offered in the OP:

"If the 'unimaginable' happens... go for the driver."

[sbhikes]

"If the 'unimaginable' happens... go for the driver."
I think that would make a good slogan to put on my bike someplace. Not a bumper-sticker, just something for me to chuckle at from time-to-time.

[SamHouston]

I ride in "door zones" constantly. A door zone is anywhere within 2-3 feet of any side of a vehicle I'm overtaking. I don't have the luxury of occupying an entire lane while filtering forward. I also don't have the luxury of waiting my turn in line instead of filtering forward. Helmet Head may be on to something, bout being observant or something? I guess it works for me as I've only been "doored" once and not at a terribly high speed, not high at impact anyway.

I was in my part of the road, which is whatever part I occupy. It was not my fault at all and my preventative measures saved the passenger exiting much pain while saving the driver the liability faced when driver failed to properly indicate the release of the passenger or use a mirror to check for me. Lucky I wasn't a lil old lady chugging along.

Doorings are possible in congested urban riding no matter whose rules of the road you use. Dooring is an illegal act, opening a door in any traffic without first observing to make sure you are not going to immediately obstruct oncoming traffic is an offence for a reason. 100% liability is placed on the driver by law enforcement and insurance adjusters for a very good reason. Do your best to avoid it as any other obstacle but should it happen to you be sure the offender receives a citation/ticket whatever.

Helmet Heads statement that it is the cyclists fault/responsibility is wrong and should be ignored & forgotten. Opening a door without observing is negligent behavior and an offender should be responsible for any pain/damage or loss suffered as a result of this action. It doesn't matter if it's a bike, a jogger, a roller blader, another motorized vehicle or marching band in full swing. You look first, you use your hazards when dropping someone off or otherwise doing something involving your door opening and you look for your passenger, it's your responsibility.

HH don't release the other people on the road from their responsiblities just to get your point across.

There is no such thing as "getting" doored. It's not something that happens to you, it's something you do to yourself. A cyclist does not get doored, he doors himself.

[John C. Ratliff]

First, HH you can only have one paradigm. Check out the definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

What Brian is trying, unsuccessfully, is to get you to shift your paradigm (way of thinking). You can have several action plans, alternatives, etc., but only one paradigm. You can change to a different paradigm, but that is sometimes very difficult. I think for you it would require that you get doored some day, and remember the occurrance (which, depending on the injury, may not happen too).

That this does happen is not in dispute. Read the article that Brian posted the link to, and that should help you see that it does happen with regularity.

Concerning your comment above about "dooring yourself," that's a physical impossibility. Here's what Robert Mionske, J D, stated in that article about this driver's responsibility:

Now, back to the scene of the accident. Remember that driver who nearly doored you? There is a very high probability that the driver who nearly doored you will be found to be the superseding cause of the accident. This means that this driver's negligence supersedes any other person's negligence, and is the legal cause of the injuries sustained. In fact, in some states, it is illegal to open a door in the bicycle lane if it is unsafe to do so or will interfere with the movement of a bicycle. In those states, the violation of the statute would at a minimum be considered prima facie evidence of negligence; this means that the violation of the statute would be considered legally sufficient to establish negligent conduct unless the presumption of negligence were disproved. In at least some states, however, the violation of the statute would be considered negligence per se; this means that if a person has violated the statute, that person will be found negligent as a matter of law.

Because the driver who nearly doored you may be found liable for negligence, you must be absolutely certain to get as much of that driver's identifying information as possible, as well as to get the names and phone numbers of any witnesses to the accident. If you are conscious, but are too injured to get the information yourself, you should ask any bystanders available to get the information for you. Otherwise, you may have be faced with the task of trying to find a mystery driver and witnesses days or weeks later.

From training I've had over the years, to get you and Brian on the same page, that paradigm shift I discussed above, will be exceedingly difficult. We usually "lock in" to our view of life at age about 14, and don't change throughout our lives except for what psychologists call "a significant emotional event." I expect you had that when you converted to a Vehicular Cyclist. It will therefore take that significant emotional event to change you again, unless you unlock your brain and open it to new ideas.

John

PS--in that link to "Paradigm" above, they had this quote:

Paradigm "is a word too often used by those who would like to have a new idea but cannot think of one."
— Mervyn Allister King, then–Deputy Governor, Bank of England

[SamHouston]

There is no need to be down to zero speed. Before you move into the door zone, you should decelerate to a speed at which hitting a door would be harmless.

There is no such speed.

[ivan_yulaev]

I've heard aiming for the motorist is probably the softest landing you can hope for.

I work to stay out of door zones, but if I ever get into a sqeeze play, the motorist and the interior of the car are my targets.
QFT. Aim for the softest thing in front of you...

[Brian Ratliff]

We both believe in planning ahead. It's how we plan that is different. My primary focus is on avoiding dangerous situations in the first place. Effectively managing a series of bad events is an important part of it too, but not when it involves using paradigms that imply ignoring basic principles of danger avoidance in the first place, which is the approach taken by the OP of this thread.

This shows that we are thinking exactly alike. How do you get the impression that my primary focus is not on avoiding the dangerous situation? I get the impression your sole complaint is that I talk about "effectively managing a series of bad events," and you wish I hadn't. And how do you "effectively manage a series of bad events" without acknowledging that those events can sometimes occur?

There is no difference in paradigms here. After all, you have admitted to sometimes having to ride in a door zone (and I never mentioned at what speed, you read that in) as well. Your contingency plan might be different (you: panic stop, me: be wary) and you are perfectly within your rights to present what you think someone should do in the event that a dooring be unavoidable. I get the impression that you have the, sort of, fatalistic view: "well, I lost, I am in the door zone. If the dooring occurs, I am screwed; nothing I can do about it." If you want to present this view as an alternative to my OP, then go right on ahead.

But instead, you choose the intellectually dishonest route of claiming that you are on some high road and I am on some low road, and even going so far as saying that I am being somehow irresponsible for simply passing some information along. Then you go and admit that you sometimes ride in the door zone, though responsibly (how, in your paradigm B, can there ever be "responsible" riding in the door zone?), and claim that I am advocating door zone riding.

I think that you simply get a kick about being the "wise sage" who claims to know better than us. You somehow think that you have seen some light or another that nobody else has seen. You create battles where none exist, to support your belief that you are fighting ignorance. The fact is, is that there are others more experienced then you. Even I am more experienced when it comes to knowing about and practicing vehicular cycling. Why, I read "Effective cycling" some 8 years ago, and used to to pretty militant about it as well. It was not until I had more experience while trying to follow the VC methodology when I learned to disconnect bike lanes from vehicular cycling, as well as some of the weaknesses of VC as a matter of practical value. In fact, the first time I jumped into the bike lane debate, it was because I saw that you were simply paroting lines that others had written and I had read some 5 years ago when I was reading a lot about this stuff.

You have all the marks of a recent convert to a religion. You have all the militant defensiveness of a neophyte, and you tend to pick fights over the smallest of issues, like in this thread here. You think your new religion is the best thing since sliced bread, and, of course, you are over-eager to evangelicalize. Then, when you are drawn out of your comfort zone, you sputter a bit, withdraw, then start over, using the already established views created by others in your religion. It already happened with the "bike lane debate" thread; you still havn't responded to my reply which I spent some good amount of time on. And we were just getting to the good bits.

[Helmet Head]

How do you get the impression that my primary focus is not on avoiding the dangerous situation?
This is a key question, and I hope answering it will help you understand what this is all about for me.

Perhaps an example that changes slightly the words of your thread and OP will help you understand what I'm trying to get across.


Don't get hit by riding on the wrong of the road, but if it's unavoidable, don't go fast


An excellent article from Yuk Yuk News compiles an injury list as a result from wrong-side-of-the-road-riding car-bike collisions from newspaper clippings. It is not a scientific study, so don't go quoting statistics from it, but it uncovers the real reasons riding the wrong way is fatal. It seems that ....

From what I read here, the basic gist is that riding on the wrong side of the road slowly is not as bad as doing so fast... So, the best advice is: 1) don't ride on the wrong side of the road. This is easy to do; just stay on the right side of the road. But 2) if sh!t happens and you find yourself riding on the wrong side of the road, slow down. Don't speed up. Be ready to stop at any second. You might have to ditch your bike if someone turns into your path while looking the other way. Your bike will probably be damaged or destroyed, and it certainly won't make your day, but it beats getting rolled over by an 18 wheeler.

The underlying implication of even starting such a thread is that it's reasonable to be riding on the wrong side of the road, at least sometimes. Anyone who thinks this is not primarily focused on avoiding the dangerous situation in the first place: riding on the wrong side of the road.

And your actual thread has a similar implication. That it is sufficiently reasonable to find oneself riding at speed in a door zone, and suddenly confronted with an opening door, that it could be useful to consider the consequences of various choices one might have, and how best to mitigate one's injuries.

Your father says I should read the article (I did), because it "should help [me] see that [dooring] does happen with regularity." If anyone thinks that anything I've written is based on the assumption that dooring does not happen with regularity, you're not reading very carefully. I know it does, which means door zone riding happens with regularity. But so does wrong-side-of-the-road riding. That doesn't mean we should accept those behaviors and focus on how to mitigate injuries when they are exercised.

The solution to avoid injuries that result from riding on the wrong side of the road, is to avoid riding on the wrong side of the road. The focus should be on making it clear to as many cyclists as possible that that is the case.

The solution to avoid injuries that result from running red lights is to not run red lights. If someone posts a thread explaining how to run red lights in a way that will reduce one's chance of getting injured (keep to the center?) , I would react in a way there similar to the way I'm reacting here.

The solution to avoid injuries that result from doorings is to not ride in door zones. Period. If I were a betting man, I would bet you a paycheck that no cyclist has ever been doored who was honestly doing his or her best to avoid door zones.

Allow me to illustrate. A few months ago I noticed I hadn't seen someone for a while, and I asked her husband about her. He told me how she was injured from an accident. I asked how it happened, and he described how they were riding on a residential street when "some jerk" suddenly opened the door of his large pickup and the edge hit her handlebars or something, causing her to fall... broken collarbone, the whole nine yards. When I made some comment about how I had been reading about the danger of riding in door zones, he agreed, and assured me, with a totally straight face, that she was not riding in the door zone. This is a guy with years of experience. As a former state racing champion, he probably has more miles in his legs that everyone who reads this sentence combined. Now, you tell me, how do you get doored if you're not riding in the door zone?

Look at your OP again.

"1) don't get doored. This is easy to do; just stay out of the range of the door and keep a sharp watch for people about to leave their cars." 31 words.

"2) if sh!t happens and you are going to get doored, just take the door and mitigate the damage. Don't ever swerve into traffic to avoid the door. Don't aim for the edge; I've heard it hurts worse. Aim for the center, keep your weight back to keep from getting thrown and kill as much speed as possible. Your bike will probably be damaged or destroyed, and it certainly won't make your day, but it beats getting rolled over by an 18 wheeler" 56 words

You used about 60 words on something that probably has never happened, and probably never will, to anyone who adheres to the behavior you spent about half as many words describing and advocating. That's how I "get the impression that [your] primary focus is not on avoiding the dangerous situation". Because, you give avoiding door zone riding (at speed) hardly any focus at all. The main aspects of it, by the way, are:


Knowing what the door zone is, and making sure you are not it, by riding at least 5 full feet from the edge of parked cars. Three feet is not outside of the door zone, four feet often is not. Five feet is as wide as a wide bike lane - it's pretty far out into the lane. Many cyclists are within the door zone and don't realize it.
Learning and understanding, deep down that it is your legal right to ride at least 5 full feet from the edge of parked cars.
Understanding that the only time, if at all, that you should ever be riding in a door zone is at pedestrian speed.
That when you're riding outside of a door zone, you don't need to worry about opening doors at all.
The slow/stop signal is an effective way to tell motorists behind you that you know they'r there, that you're sorry you're slowing them down, but you know what you're doing and that you'll be getting out of their way as soon as it's safe and resonable to do so.

If your primary focus was on avoiding door zone cycling, then I would expect you to spend many more words on these issues than none, rather than devoting a thread to aiming for the door-opener.

With respect to having all the marks of a recent religious convert, I'm not going to deny that, though I prefer to think of it as having all the marks of one who has made a recent profound scientific discovery that is not yet understood and accepted in the scientific community.

As to our other discussion, I plan on getting back to it. Sorry about this door zone diversion, but I believe it's very important, and I only have so much time...

[Roody]

I wonder if focusing on these extremely unlikely risks in any way contributes to the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity.

[sbhikes]

The underlying implication of even starting such a thread is that it's reasonable to be riding on the wrong side of the road, at least sometimes. Anyone who thinks this is not primarily focused on avoiding the dangerous situation in the first place: riding on the wrong side of the road.

Once again you prove a lack of imagination.

I have had to ride on the wrong side of the road lately because of road construction. They break up and "put back" portions of the road differently each day. By "put back" I mean they might toss a little asphalt into the trench they've created, or they might toss some smooth steel plates on top of the trench. Each day it's a crap-shoot. One day it was "put back" relatively well and I was able to ride in my regular road position. But the next day while riding in my regular riding position I found I was squeezed further and further left by 4" deep trenches and steel plates with 1 inch high sharp edges until the only way to continue was to cross the yellow line and ride on the wrong side of the road for a stretch (and risk being passed on my right by people who probably thought I was nuts or something). For a while I tried riding well over into the gutter, too, until lateral trenches that spanned the entire roadway prevented even that. Nope, you're never going to find yourself in a bad situation ever on a bicycle if you just heed the words of Forester and Serge.

After I experienced that more than once, of course, my permanent strategy was to skip the road until they're finished and just ride on the sidewalk. Oh, but sidewalk riding is bad, too, isn't it?

Use some imagination. What if you are riding down the boulevard when a giant, thorny palm frond comes crashing down in front of you? What should you choose? Swerve around it toward the door-zone or away from the door-zone? What would hurt more? To hit the darn thing, to risk getting a door in your face or an 18 wheel back massage?

[Brian Ratliff]

HH- Well... I guess I've been doored by the politically correct police. Counting words and all. Can't be helped. Guess I shouldn't have been riding in the politically correct door zone.

I would reply that you have spent hundreds of words explaining why what I said was politically incorrect; how I should have given 30 more words to staying out of door zones. Here you are:

Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones. Stay out of door zones.

There's 40 extra words to your cause. If I do the math correctly, that's over 70 words to "stay out of door zones" to the 56 of the words I wanted to get across. Too bad you just spent hundreds of words diluting both of messages. Next time, if my point is differently aimed, and you think I should have given more words to something unrelated, just supply them yourself and save both of us the trouble. If you think I gave 56 words to something you think is not important, do me a favor and humor me. I wrote them, so apparently I think they are important, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. If you want to add something, feel free. If you think I am wrong in substance, then correct me. But if all you are worried about is the message between the lines, well, add it yourself and keep out of my hair.

Information is like ice cream. The more the better.

[Brian Ratliff]

The main aspects of [staying out of the door zone] are:


Knowing what the door zone is, and making sure you are not it, by riding at least 5 full feet from the edge of parked cars. Three feet is not outside of the door zone, four feet often is not. Five feet is as wide as a wide bike lane - it's pretty far out into the lane. Many cyclists are within the door zone and don't realize it.
Learning and understanding, deep down that it is your legal right to ride at least 5 full feet from the edge of parked cars.
Understanding that the only time, if at all, that you should ever be riding in a door zone is at pedestrian speed.
That when you're riding outside of a door zone, you don't need to worry about opening doors at all.
The slow/stop signal is an effective way to tell motorists behind you that you know they'r there, that you're sorry you're slowing them down, but you know what you're doing and that you'll be getting out of their way as soon as it's safe and resonable to do so.


Folks, here you are. This is how you stay out of the door zone. This is the primary, plan (1) option. Don't ride in the door zone.

HH, if you had simply posted this as your first post, you could have avoided all this acrimony about paradigms, theories, exceptions, real world vs. theory etc. You are welcome to contribute to a thread. If this had been your first post, both our messages could have reinforced each other, instead of competing. The fact remains that we have no differences in opinion about door zones, which makes sense, seeing as you formed your opinions using the same information as I did.

You look for conflict, even when none exists. Your comment that you think of yourself as a scientist with an important discovery is indicative of where you are on the spectrum of experience. All new converts think they have stumbled onto something unique and misunderstood. In 5 years, provided you spend more time cycling than writing about VC, you will moderate a bit. In reality, VC is 30 or more years old as a brand; as a riding style, it is older still. As far as VC goes, there is not much more to say. You have stumbled onto something new to you, but not something new.

The sum total of experience on this forum is staggering. You should be seeking to harness that experience and adding your own contributions rather than trying to tear down other's.

[SamHouston]

You guys really believe the "door zone" is only within five feet of parked cars?

[Bekologist]

Sam- do you mean the entire lane is a door zone?? Better start practing steely eyed gazes and dymnamic lateral paradigm shifts, I mean lane shifts....


I ride in the door zone daily and find it far less radioactive than many. On uphill grades, a door zone ceases to become the major threat, overtaking vehicles barrelling along at 40 in a 25 trump the 'door danger zone'

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I ride in the door zone daily.
Some self proclaimed "experts" claim on BF that the front bumper/grille/windshield zone is ALWAYS the correct cycling location.:rolleyes: Therefore, by the logic espoused by the King of Planet Know-It-All-Land, you must be in error, and in need of further "education/training".

Repent! Read, Study and Memorize the Good Book, and Repeat Endlessly, until you have mended your ways!

[SamHouston]

Sam- do you mean the entire lane is a door zone?? Better start practing steely eyed gazes and dymnamic lateral paradigm shifts, I mean lane shifts....


I ride in the door zone daily and find it far less radioactive than many. On uphill grades, a door zone ceases to become the major threat, overtaking vehicles barrelling along at 40 in a 25 trump the 'door danger zone'

No not at all. I mean that HH formula for steering clear of door zones only protects you from driver side doors on parked cars.

This is one of the reasons I spoke up when HH stated that doorings are a cyclists fault/responsibility. That's a dangerous and untenable position to take on an issue of public safety.

Door zones are both sides of any vehicle you're overtaking, parked or otherwise. As someone who has always simply used observation to avoid being doored, successfully through 12 years of 8+ hour days in congested urban traffic, I know many who haven't been as lucky.

The worst of the accidents attributed to doorings are very often not parked cars but rather a passenger exiting curbside from a vehicle that still occupies a position many feet from the curb in slow moving or temporarily stopped traffic. I don't think HH would try to forbid someone from filtering forward when they've 4 feet from car to curb? Probably recommend a lower speed, but even at a walking pace a door, especially the edge can cause broken bones and lacerations.

Certainly your riding method, enviroment and observation skills play a part in prevention, but to place all responsibility at the feet of the cyclist is ridiculous. A door opening into traffic is the fastest appearing obstruction you'll encounter. Faster than the lateral movement of a a vehicle, faster than a pedestrian stepping into traffic from between parked trucks, faster than anything. It can appear in front of a cyclist moving at any pace within just anothers doors length or less. Often you only hear the click and it seems next to you, but it's 1 foot in front and has caught your handlebar. It can happen in any lane at any time.

The only application of HH formula that would work would also reduce the effectiveness of the bicycle as congestion relief entirely. It would require the full use of the lane at all times, no filtering forward at all, no use of the area between the curb and moving traffic.

It would remove entirely some benefits of cycling you provide to others when you yourself ride instead of driving and actually worsen congestion in some situations. It still wouldn't prevent all doorings, you have to leave the road sometime and often it is through a "door zone".

So all I'm saying is do your best, find what works for your enviroment. That said, keep in mind (while driving and riding) that opening a door in traffic is dangerous and illegal. If you do it and someone is hurt their pain is your responsibility. If it happens to you be sure to take action that could prevent the same person from doing it again, call law enforcement to the scene.

I've pulled over to assist at many, many accident scenes and with dooring the excuse I've heard most is "I looked, I didn't see him/her" which is no excuse at all. Most of the time they didn't look at all. For those that did look and didn't see him/her, failure to observe is the same as not looking at all, negligent behaviour.

Goodwill & safety between motorists & cyclists depends on responsible behaviour from both sides. The claim that doorings are the fault of the victim is incorrect in all possible manner and should not be taken to heart. You are protected by this, if you are doored do not apologize or "let it go" because of a guilty feeling associated by something you read that a self-proclaimed expert on the subject mistakenly wrote on the internet. You'll do more for your fellow man/woman by taking the offender to task and seeing to it they understand their error with the issuance of a citation or ticket. This is also important for any claim you may have arising from the incident.

I'm only making a big deal of this because HH is in many of the discussions on this board and many listen (I didn't say agree) to his repeated messege. This one is wrong and it'd be a damn shame if that weren't understood.