Northeast - NYC - Man doored and killed on 6th Ave and 36th St

Sickening (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/05/cyclist-doored-killed-by-truck-in-midtown/)



Cyclist Doored, Killed by Truck in Midtown

A truck driver opened his door into the path of a 63-year-old cyclist this morning, sending him into traffic, where he was run over by another truck. Though the cyclist, who has yet to be identified, was conscious immediately following the collision, he was later pronounced dead at Bellevue Hospital.

Here is the wire report:


FINAL UPDATE,RESP-4 REPORTS A CYCLIST TRAVELING NORTH BOUND 6 AVE BTWN 36 & 37 ST WERE A RED PICK UP TRUCK WAS PARKED BY THE HYDRANT WHEN THE PASSENGER OPENED THE DOOR AND STRUCK THE CYCLIST . THE CYCLIST WAS STRUCK BY A PASSING BOX TRUCK.THE CYCLIST WAS TAKEN TO BELLVUE HOSPITAL {DOA** ..SIGNS & MARKING IN GOOD WORKING ORDER..PER OP-26

And here is how it was reported in the Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/12/05/2007-12-05_bicyclist_killed_after_falling_in_front_.html). Note the number of steps taken, and not taken, by the cyclist to put himself in mortal danger -- starting with the headline.


Bicyclist killed after falling in front of truck


A 63-year-old man bicycling in midtown Manhattan Wednesday morning hit a car door and flipped into the street before he was run over and killed by a box truck, police said.

The man, whose identity wasn't immediately released, was not wearing a helmet, a police source said.

It's as if every action -- hitting the door, flipping into the street -- was initiated by the cyclist, who wasn't even wearing a helmet. The drivers of the vehicles, meanwhile, are never mentioned in the story. In fact, the article makes it seem as if there were no drivers.


The Ace Hardware truck that hit the man stayed at the scene.

Of course this isn't the first time we've seen this kind of victim-blaming, even in the News (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/20/cyclists-throwing-selves-under-cars-in-brooklyn/).

Here is the 1010 WINS account:


Police said Wednesday that the victim, a Manhattan resident whose name was not immediately made public, was riding northbound on Sixth Avenue near 36th Street when he encountered the open door of a parked vehicle. The impact caused him to land on the street, where he was struck by a passing truck.

In this version, the cyclist encountered the door of a parked vehicle, which he apparently decided to crash into. At least this article refers to him as a "victim."

And though it almost goes without saying:


There were no charges, cops said.

This is just terrible and reinforces a definite need to separate cyclists safely. We'll eventually, however, always have to share the road eventually. It's just terrible that he did not wear a helmet, but I doubt it would have helped as the Ace truck was most likely (my assumption) barreling down and not necessarily giving the cyclist the buffer he needed.

The DN just seems to add to the spin that we're a nuisance...what to do in a city that is just moving to fast for safety...

According to Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--bicyclistfatal1205dec05,0,3099911.story) his name was David Smith.

The Sixth Avenue lane is one of the older, and probably most dangerous, lanes in the City. I remember Koch installed concrete barriers through Herald Square and then wound up pulling them out a few weeks later. I don't remember the reasoning behind that - maybe the lane was too narrow?

Ironically I believe the portion south of 34th Street is a memorial bike lane that was named for another cyclist killed there.

Actually, it pretty much is the cyclists' responsibility to ride far enough away from parked cars not to get doored.

As to Streetsblog's reading that the articles make it sound like it was exclusively the cyclists' fault, I disagree.

And Streetsblog's suggestion that someone should be charged? Sounds rather ludicrous to me. If the truck ran a red light, or the driver was intoxicated, or was talking on a cell phone, or was driving in the bike lane, then that's a totally different ball o' wax. I really cannot imagine why anyone should face criminal charges for this sad event.

(The author's biased attitude is basically why I stopped reading that blog, btw.)



This is just terrible and reinforces a definite need to separate cyclists safely.
That's a nice thought, but unfortunately your reasoning is flawed.

The vast majority (89%) of crashes within 25 feet of an intersection, not in bike lanes or in mid-block. Somewhere around 1.5-2% of all fatal crashes between 1996 and 2005 were in or near a bike lane, and only one of those was the result of an actual collision with a motor vehicle in a bike lane. ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicyclefatalities.pdf )

So again, while this is a sad occurence, let's not ditch a statistical analysis of 9 years' worth of data because of one incident.

That's a nice thought, but unfortunately your reasoning is flawed.Yep you're right; interesting stats - I knew I was generalizing; partly because I still have a fear of getting hit again - something I never overcame. I am sure that there are many that share this, but don't say it. Perhaps separation is the solution for those of us; perhaps not.

Actually, it pretty much is the cyclists' responsibility to ride far enough away from parked cars not to get doored.

True but if you ride three feet out from the parked cars, on Sixth Avenue, then you're no longer in the bike lane.

According to Newsday, one driver received three tickets. I presume it was the driver of the truck that was parked at a hydrant and originally doored the cyclist.

And Streetsblog's suggestion that someone should be charged? Sounds rather ludicrous to me. If the truck ran a red light, or the driver was intoxicated, or was talking on a cell phone, or was driving in the bike lane, then that's a totally different ball o' wax. I really cannot imagine why anyone should face criminal charges for this sad event.

(The author's biased attitude is basically why I stopped reading that blog, btw.)

The target of someone who should be charged is not the truck that struck him but the passenger and/or driver of that vehicle (since drivers are responsible for their passenger's actions) who doored him. Let's equate this cars to cars. Passenger Joe opens a door into traffic without looking and a car slams into it. There is absolutely a fault there - Joe is required to check to make sure there are no cars (technically, not to even open the door on the side of traffic) before opening the door. If that caused harm (say the door that the cab hit peeled back and hit someone in another car (I saw that happen on 42nd and 6th Ave a week ago)) something should happen to Joe.

In this case it's not another car but someone on a bike. The act of opening a door without looking caused him to get run over by a truck. The fact that they weren't charged (at the time of reporting anyway, Stacy's link states the driver was issued three summons (big whoop)) sends a message that a driver is not responsible and the language used does in fact make it seem like it was the bicyclist's fault. The lanes on 6th Ave are dangerous - to ride 'four from the door' requires a rider to be in the left hand lane outside of the bike lane.

This was sad but absolutely avoidable. The media's portrayal that it was the victim's fault is sickening.

I really cannot imagine why anyone should face criminal charges for this sad event.
It also depends how far the truck was parked from the kerb - just because it was in the space by the hydrant, it doesn't mean it wasn't across the bike line, for instance. Unfortunately, as we've juist seen, we can't rely on the pisspoor reporting for accurate details (or readers to read accurately ;) ).

Sadly, it's really a typical newspaper account of a cycling "accident".

REALITY: Driver opens door into traffic. As a result of his negligence, a cyclist is killed.

NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT: Some damn punk on a bike who should have been on the sidewalk committed suicide today by jumping out in front of a truck. The truck driver was thankfully not injured.

If you are a cyclist, your life means very little to most.

... Brad

[The Sixth Avenue lane is one of the older, and probably most dangerous, lanes in the City. I remember Koch installed concrete barriers through Herald Square and then wound up pulling them out a few weeks later. I don't remember the reasoning behind that - maybe the lane was too narrow?

I worked in Manhattan during those heady days after the 1980 transit strike. Those lanes took up theleft-most lane of 6th Avenue and were separated from the rest of the roadway by curb-height barriers approximately 12-18 inches wide.
The lanes were rarely cleaned (this was before the bottle bill) and for turning vehicles, traffic in the bike lane was totally off the radar (like this has changed . . .) The lanes were wide enough for a car to park in, and many did. In addition, delivery vehicles parked in the left-most vehicle lane and ran their conveyor systems from the bed of the truck ACROSS the bike lane to the sidewalk at a height of 4-5 feet.

It was a good design in theory, but parking violations where never enforced, and so few cyclists could reliably use it. In addition, there were many more bike messengers in those days. Messengers almost never used the lane and ran roughshod over traffic law in general. The media and the city focused on this, and soon the lanes were gone.

The New York Times has a slightly more objective piece on this is today's paper.

Manhattan: Cyclist Killed in Accident (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/nyregion/06mbrfs-biker.html?ex=1354683600&en=e021ec7c620366ae&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)

Horrible. How many times have you had to veer into traffic to avoid a passenger door opening into the bike lane? I've done it hundreds of times. I try to look & signal, but that would be almost impossible if you were travelling at any kind of speed.

Here's hoping the cyclist's family raises this with the City, TA, NYPD and anyone else that will listen. A part of me hopes this man's family persues this in civil court, if only to raise awareness.

Messengers almost never used the lane and ran roughshod over traffic law in general. The media and the city focused on this, and soon the lanes were gone.
This is part of the problem today. NYPD says x,000 citations were given out to cyclists in 200x, and then 10 paragraphs down says 90% of them were to messengers and food delivery guys. I have no problem with the ass being ticketed off these guys, as they're the ones that piss all of them off. I wonder if many of them simply don't actually know what the bike/traffic laws are because they are recent immigrants - perhaps some Spanish/Chinese language flyers would do some good as a "first warning". The native New Yorkers have less of an excuse (although it's up to every road user to find out what the road law is before using it).

Actually, it pretty much is the cyclists' responsibility to ride far enough away from parked cars not to get doored.

As to Streetsblog's reading that the articles make it sound like it was exclusively the cyclists' fault, I disagree.

And Streetsblog's suggestion that someone should be charged? Sounds rather ludicrous to me. If the truck ran a red light, or the driver was intoxicated, or was talking on a cell phone, or was driving in the bike lane, then that's a totally different ball o' wax. I really cannot imagine why anyone should face criminal charges for this sad event.

(The author's biased attitude is basically why I stopped reading that blog, btw.)


There were 3 violations:
1. parking in front of a hydrant
2. parking in the bike lane
3. open the door into traffic without checking

All 3 of those things are illegal and deserve a summons. At least 2 of those violations resulted in a person's death. Although I don't believe there is such a law, there should be a law which imposes stricter penalties or an additional charge if bike lane violations result in a death (this idea should be extended to pedestrians in crosswalks as well).

As for Streetsblog's bias, well, they are individuals advocating for livable streets, not journalists with a goal of objectivity.

One more thing...
Anyone whose ever ridden the Sixth Ave bike lane knows how bad it is. You have to constantly veer out of the lane and into traffic in order to get around illegally parked cars. This is particularly dangerous since there is often fast moving traffic just outside the bike lane, and it is difficult to move out far enough away from the door zone without getting run over.

Personally, I just avoid Sixth Ave when I can and prefer to use Eighth Ave instead. Although not perfect, the Eighth Avenue bike lane is a lot better.

I suggest reading this book: The Art of Cycling, by Robert Hurst.
Its focus is on city riding. It's creative and witty and insightful. It also includes careful analysis and specific suggestions about how not to get killed riding on the city streets. I thought I knew everything about city riding, but I found some things I hadn't thought of before.

Even if you know everything already, it's still worth reading so that you can know how to recommend it to other riders.

Anyone whose ever ridden the Sixth Ave bike lane knows how bad it is.
My chain of reasoning:
1. That observation shows that the government cannot be relied upon to assure my safe riding on the streets.

2a. It's good to work to try to get the City to do better, but ...
2b. Smart dedicated people have been trying this approach for a long time, and there's still some big gaps -- unlikely to be closed in the next few years.

3a. "Not getting killed" is something very very important to me (and to Sharon).
3b. The knowledge that Sharon and some friendly BikeForums riders will be morally entitled to send out messages blaming the City and/or some car-driver after I've gotten killed is not sufficient for me. Therefore ...

4a. I need to put in my own time + effort to gain my own knowledge and street-riding strategies and skills, sufficient to reduce the risk of my getting killed to an acceptable level.
4b. I already needed to put in substantial time + effort to learn strategies + skills for "not getting killed" while driving my car on roads + streets. Perhaps not unreasonable to put in a similar amount also for riding my bike. (I also skate on the streets sometimes, including the major Avenues + Broadway)

5a. Since the risks of riding a bicycle on city streets have been well-known for sevaral decades ... Instead of trying to figure this all out from scratch, I should first check if some really smart people have already worked on the problem.
5b. Discovery: Several really smart people indeed have worked on it -- and carefully communicated their findings. In addition to crucial advice like, "If we know the 6th Ave bike lane is unsafe even though the City says it's OK, then how about try riding on 8th Ave", at least three smart riders (http://www.roberts-1.com/bikehudson/s/m/resources/index.htm#books) have written whole books full of good (often non-intuitive) ideas for safer riding.

6a. A book about a complicated problem like riding on the streets could take significant time to read and carefully digest and work out the implications for my riding.
6b. A book costs money ... like The Art of Cycling cost me US$ 15.00

7. For me, "not getting killed" is worth $15.00.
? Might even be worth buying a second book (http://www.roberts-1.com/bikehudson/s/m/resources/index.htm#books) ?
Ken

From the county DOT website (http://morrisdot.org/BikePed/bikeped-tipshints.asp)where I live: "Having the legal right of way doesn't protect you from careless drivers."

Like a lot of other people, I commute to work in NYC, and unfortunately, this is another sad example of an incident that could have been avoided. I really don't know what to say, the truck was parked illegally (bike lane and hydrant), the passenger opened his door into traffic unsafely... someone died. Nothing can change that, sadly, the guy is gone now.

Some accidents are truly accidents, something you can't avoid (rockslide, flying deer...). However, if you do something illegal that endangers lives (parking in a bike lane, parking in front of a hydrant for instance), I don't know how that can be considered an accident, it's more like reckless endangerment. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe it could fall under some other name, but I don't think this is just an accident. The stage was set for trouble, and the driver knew it when he parked there.

I'm not naive enough (as much as I try sometimes) to think the goverment can suddenly change everyone's behavior, but I think they can make a start.

That said, I ride about as defensively as any Fred does, and often right in the middle of the lane when warranted. Horns be damned, it's my street too.

Whatever the penalty might be for blocking a bike lane or opening the passenger side door into traffic, it should be considerably more severe when someone dies as a result of these actions.

Make an example of this one and it might make the next one think first before doing the same... that's the theory anyway.

All 3 of those things are illegal and deserve a summons. At least 2 of those violations resulted in a person's death. Although I don't believe there is such a law, there should be a law which imposes stricter penalties or an additional charge if bike lane violations result in a death (this idea should be extended to pedestrians in crosswalks as well).
Uh, so now pedestrians should be held legally responsible if a bike gets into an accident? o_O Now do you see why bias can cause problems? ;)

Again: fatalities in NYC's bike lanes are exceedingly rare. Most of the accidents are happening at intersections, where there is already plenty of legislation to determine right of way. I really do not see how an extra law could have possibly prevented this accident. (You might also want to read the PDF on "Bicyclist Fatalities and Injuries in NYC" that I linked to earlier before proposing more legislation....)

Now I don't know about you, but if I'm on 6th Avenue, traffic is heavy, and there's a car parked in the bike lane, I'm still not going to zoom past it in the "door zone." Anything less than about 4 feet away from parked cars is unsafe, no matter how you slice it. Cyclists should assume that cars can't see them or don't notice them. And while not a panacea, if I am not wearing a helmet and get into an accident, I have no one but myself to blame if I wind up with a severe head injury.

This is not to say "this particular cyclist was exclusively at fault." But ultimately a cyclist, even one who is riding in a 100% legal manner, is largely responsible for their own safety.




As for Streetsblog's bias, well, they are individuals advocating for livable streets, not journalists with a goal of objectivity.
I don't assume it's a formal journalistic outlet; but excessive bias is excessive bias -- and IMO it affects their credibility on enough issues that I ultimately do not find Streetsblog worth reading.

So any car that feels like going in the bike lane has every right to attempt to mangle or kill a bicyclist without retribution because the cyclist shouldn't have been in the bike lane in the first place. Gotcha.

So any car that feels like going in the bike lane has every right to attempt to mangle or kill a bicyclist without retribution because the cyclist shouldn't have been in the bike lane in the first place. Gotcha.
I'd appreciate it if you refrained from intentionally mischaractering my position and the event.

I explicitly said I was not blaming the cyclist. Absolutely no one is suggesting anything about this event was intentional. I have no idea how or why you are conflating any of this with the legitimization of homicide; I assure you, it is not doing your position much good.

Rather than "bikes do not belong in the bike lane," I'm pointing out that bike lanes are generally safe and no matter what, you need to stay about 4 feet away from parked cars. Period. No matter how you try to cast the issue, even if the car is absolutely and unquestionably in the wrong spot and ought to be watching for you, the reality is that you cannot count on the driver to look. I.e., it simply is not safe to ride in the "door zone."

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

I, for one, am more interested in "justice" than in "retribution." If I miss throwing a banana peel into the trash, and someone winds up slipping on it, fracturing their skull and dying, should I be thrown in jail? Should we pass a law that littering will get you 5 years in the slammer?

It was an accident with shared responsibility. The driver was careless; the cyclist was careless. It's very sad, but hardly a reason to demonize either individual, pass new legislation or engage in criminal proceedings.

sad to hear about the bicyclist. condolences to his family and friends...

i have a question though about several aspects of this incident, that apparantly, and not suprisingly, was reported as it was in this car friendly nation.

1) how can a bicyclist/person be hit riding with traffic (vb) by someone exiting the passenger side of a vehicle? isn't a curb/sidewalk on the passenger side of a vehicle?

2) was this a oneway road with bike lane (BL) on the wrong side (left)? why would a BL be set on the left side when slower traffic, by law, is to drive (VB) as far to the right as safe, pending going straight or turning left?

3) are laws different in NYC?

these are a few questions i have for clarity of this posting. again i feel for the bicyclist/family.

thanks for the refocus in advance.

tomg

I'm pointing out that bike lanes are generally safe and no matter what, you need to stay about 4 feet away from parked cars. Period. No matter how you try to cast the issue, even if the car is absolutely and unquestionably in the wrong spot and ought to be watching for you, the reality is that you cannot count on the driver to look. I.e., it simply is not safe to ride in the "door zone."

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
Forgive me if I misinterpret what you are trying to say here, but I believe you are hereby legitimizing anyone that chooses to fling a door open at will, without even looking in their mirror for a blinking front light, which most cyclists don't even have anyway.

Stay the 4 feet away from a parked car and you are in a driving lane and will often be obstructing traffic. In NYC, one driving behavior is to speed up behind a slow moving vehicle, only to cut back to the faster moving lane, which can often lead to (I hope noone experiences this) clipping the slow moving vehicle or rider.

Cyclists will find themselves "in the door zone" many times during a typical ride in a major city that does not have wide bike lanes and a buffer, like NYC.

Now if you are saying that cyclists and cars don't mix, I am in full agreement as a person that was once hit and had to go to a hospital because of that. If you are saying that the cyclist has the primary responsibility to avoid the door, I wholehartedly disagree. There is a joint responsibility to cycle at a reasonable speed, together with the driver taking care that they will not strike a pedestrian, cyclist or other vehicle by opening their door.

Rather than "bikes do not belong in the bike lane," I'm pointing out that bike lanes are generally safe and no matter what, you need to stay about 4 feet away from parked cars. Period.

Your position seems contradictory to me. Its impossible to stay 4 feet away from parked cars and still be in the bike lane for most bike lanes in Manhattan. Therefore most bike lanes in Manhattan are not safe and should probably be removed.

If the city was serious about bike lanes and bike safety, it would not allow street parking on streets with bike lanes and not allow parking adjacent to bike lanes on the avenues.

1) how can a bicyclist/person be hit riding with traffic (vb) by someone exiting the passenger side of a vehicle? isn't a curb/sidewalk on the passenger side of a vehicle?

2) was this a oneway road with bike lane (BL) on the wrong side (left)? why would a BL be set on the left side when slower traffic, by law, is to drive (VB) as far to the right as safe, pending going straight or turning left?

3) are laws different in NYC?


For those who aren't familiar with the area -

Sixth avenue is a major one-way avenue, with about six lanes of traffic and one lane of parking on each side. Bus lane is on the right and a very narrow bike lane is on the left. Faster traffic generally travels in the middle. Since the bike lane is only about 3 three feet wide it's impossible to ride 4 feet out from parked cars and still ride in the bikelane.

36th Street is just north of Herald Square, Macys, etc where Sixth Avenue crosses Broadway, so the cyclist had just traveled through several chaotic intersections. Also it's not unusual for tourists, shoppers, venders, and other pedestrians to block the bike lane in that area, especially during rush hour.

To make matters worse, NYPD has ticketed cyclists along Sixth Avenue for riding outside the bike lane. I think the fine is something like $150.

Yes some laws are different from the rest of New York State. For example, NYC doesn't allow a right turn on red. No junior licenses either.

Although I don't believe there is such a law, there should be a law which imposes stricter penalties or an additional charge if bike lane violations result in a death (this idea should be extended to pedestrians in crosswalks as well).



Uh, so now pedestrians should be held legally responsible if a bike gets into an accident? o_O Now do you see why bias can cause problems? ;)


You completely misunderstood me. I said nothing about pedestrians being held responsible for a bike accident. I meant that in addition to creating stricter penalties and charges for motorists whose bike lane violations results in a cyclist's death, there should also be additional penalties for any vehicle which causes death to a pedestrian while in a crosswalk ("vehicles" would include both motorists & cyclists...not much cyclist bias coming from me when it comes to the rights of pedestrians).

Obviously motorists are not supposed to hit pedestrians or cyclists...I'm proposing stricter penalties if those collisions occur in a bike lane or crosswalk.

Konrad: Thanks for the clarification. Extending extra legal protections to crosswalks seems rather unnecessary though, since that is the only place a pedestrian is supposed to cross in the first place, yes? Or do we need separate laws for pedestrian-vehicular crashes on the sidewalks? ;)

I do not quite see the utility behind such laws, particularly given the infrequent nature of the infractions. (E.g. will extra penalties for hitting pedestrians on a sidewalk really reduce pedestrian deaths?) I'd even view a PR campaign for driver awareness as more effective than passing new laws and levying extra penalties.



Stacy: FYI it is, in fact, legal to operate your bicycle outside of the bike lane in NYC under two circumstances: 1) making a left turn and 2) to avoid obstructions in the bike lane.

See Transit Alternatives (http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/013Summer/17bikelanes.html) for more info.





Forgive me if I misinterpret what you are trying to say here, but I believe you are hereby legitimizing anyone that chooses to fling a door open at will, without even looking in their mirror for a blinking front light, which most cyclists don't even have anyway.
To clarify (yet again :) ): I am definitely saying that it is the responsibility of the cyclist to stay out of the door zone whenever possible. In NYC, this does mean riding on the outer side of the bike lane and occasionally taking the lane.

Although it is not quite comparable to this very unfortunate incident, think of it this way: There are plenty of laws and penalties for stealing a bike. But when you park your bike outside, it is still your responsibility to lock it up; no one's going to do it for you. In a similar way, you cannot rely on vehicle operators to do the right thing to keep you safe; it's up to you to operate your vehicle in the manner that is appropriate to your vehicle type in order to keep yourself safe.



Stay the 4 feet away from a parked car and you are in a driving lane and will often be obstructing traffic.
Fine by me, as long as I can do it safely. I don't care if a car honks, I will generally take a lane rather than ride too close to a car that looks like the driver is about to pop open a door.



Now if you are saying that cyclists and cars don't mix, I am in full agreement as a person that was once hit and had to go to a hospital because of that.
Sorry to hear about that, I can definitely see how that can lead to your opinions.

I'm fine with some improvements to the existing bike lanes, and I believe they would vastly improve major roads like Houston Street. However, I am not convinced that total segregation is the answer (for NYC), for two reasons: 1) the existing bike lanes do appear to be generally safe (as the overwhelming majority of fatal crashes are happening at intersections), and 2) segregation can result in cyclists entering an intersection in a way that motor vehicle operators do not expect, which can lead to more crashes.



If you are saying that the cyclist has the primary responsibility to avoid the door, I wholehartedly disagree.
Why? Is someone else going to operate your vehicle for you? ;)

To put it another way: there are only so many ways to stop jaywalkers. But if a jaywalker gets hit, who had the primary (not exclusive, just primary) responsibility to keep the pedestrian safe?

Of course the ideal situation is for motor vehicle operators to look before opening the car door. In real life, that simply doesn't happen. For example, it is quite possible for the driver to not see a cyclist in a bike lane, especially if the cyclist is in the driver's blind spot.

My point is that in order to ride safely in a dense urban environment, you cannot rely on the motor vehicle operators seeing you. As a cyclist you feel obvious, but often are not, especially to the vehicles in front of you.

Stacy: FYI it is, in fact, legal to operate your bicycle outside of the bike lane in NYC under two circumstances: 1) making a left turn and 2) to avoid obstructions in the bike lane.

See Transit Alternatives (http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/013Summer/17bikelanes.html) for more info.



Yes but that wasn't my point. Any cyclist traveling on Sixth Avenue is required to use the bike lane. Riding four feet out from parked cars isn't a legal option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgx1_LV_GQI

It was an accident with shared responsibility.

Not under the law it isn't.

If car #1 threw out his driver's side door out into traffic, and it got ripped off by passing car #2, it's CLEARLY and 100% car #1's fault. The same applies when "car #1" is a bicycle.

... Brad

Konrad: To clarify (yet again :) ): I am definitely saying that it is the responsibility of the cyclist to stay out of the door zone whenever possible.
Of course the cyclist should stay out of the "door zone" if the bike lane permits it. However, there is no required "responsibility" to do this, as long as they are riding at a reasonable speed and are in compliance with how they are operating their vehicle, in this case a bicycle. However, it is the primary responsibility of the driver to not exit their vehicle into a moving traffic lane, and injury caused by this action is enforceable.

There are many jurisdictions that place bike lanes that overlap in the "door zone"; cyclists should always try to ride in the "non-door zone" in these cases, as long as they feel safe to do so, understanding that the legal, primary responsibility lies with the parked vehicle's occupants to open their door(s) only when it is safe. This is enforceable. If a cyclist gets hit in a vehicle traveling lane that they took over or tried to take over is less clear as to whose fault it is, than a "dooring" situation.


Of course the ideal situation is for motor vehicle operators to look before opening the car door. In real life, that simply doesn't happen. For example, it is quite possible for the driver to not see a cyclist in a bike lane, especially if the cyclist is in the driver's blind spot.

It is not an "ideal situation", it is the law. Period. There is no law stating that a cyclist must travel in the "non-door" portion of the bike lane.


NYS Motor Vehicle Law states:

"§ 1214. Opening and closing vehicle doors. No person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without
interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers."


*edit* furthermore, here's the NYS Law on motorists and bike lanes:


(2) Driving on or across bicycle lanes prohibited. No person shall drive a
vehicle on or across a designated bicycle lane, except when it is reasonable and
necessary:
(i) to enter or leave a driveway; or
(ii) to enter or leave a legal curbside parking space; or
Section 4-12
54
(iii) to cross an intersection; or
(iv) to make a turn within an intersection; or
(v) to comply with the direction of any law enforcement officer or other
person authorized to enforce this rule; or
(vi) to avoid an obstacle which leaves fewer than ten feet available for
the free movement of vehicular traffic.
Notwithstanding any other rule, no person shall drive a vehicle on or across a
designated bicycle lane in such manner as to interfere with the safety and
passage of persons operating bicycles thereon

Of course the cyclist should stay out of the "door zone" if the bike lane permits it. However, there is no required "responsibility" to do this... However, it is the primary responsibility of the driver to not exit their vehicle into a moving traffic lane, and injury caused by this action is enforceable.
It is? Then what's the applicable statute? Is it vehicular manslaughter? Reckless endangerment? What are the penalties? Why did the driver only get a citation for parking in the bike lane?

Of course, you could claim there is some sort of anti-cyclist bias at work. If you were talking about the NYC DOT, I might agree with you. But the DA's office is not a part of the DOT. I can't picture Robert Morgenthau letting a criminal act, especially one that has gotten some press attention, go unexamined.


Shifting primary responsibility to the motorist, by the way, hardly eliminates the various mitigating circumstances that could prevent even a careful motorist from dooring a cyclist by accident. The driver can easily misjudge the cyclists's speed; their distance behind the car; their distance to the left or the right of the car; the cyclist can be obscured by other vehicles and/or weaving in and out of traffic. And of course, the cyclist might look the wrong way and not notice the open car door.

Ultimately the problem is that no matter how many laws are passed, no matter where you believe the legal responsibility lies, you as a cyclist cannot rely on a driver to see you.

And to me, you bear the primary responsibility to ride in a safe manner, the same way you bear the primary responsibility to buckle your seatbelt, to not jump onto the subway tracks, to not mix bleach with ammonia, not to drop a toaster in the tub, and so forth.

Catch my drift yet?

No one is saying that a bicyclist shouldn't pay extra attention and stop themselves from getting hurt or killed.

But people who break the law and cause someone's death through either recklessness or carelessness should still be prosecuted. I would say illegally parking and not paying attention to opening a door falls under that heading. You're right, the DA doesn't go after these people but there are plenty of instances of when a bicyclist is killed by a drunk driver the penalties are less than if they killed someone in a car. The person is still dead but they don't carry the same punishment. It's probably not sexy enough to spend the time on for when re-election comes back around.

Giving them a free pass will do nothing to help increase our safety on the road whereas some heavier fines or jail time might give people a bit more pause. When there are traffic cameras people don't blow through the lights nearly as much because they're afraid of the penalties. When the media ignores the fact that a driver did something that caused harm they send a message to the DA that no one cares and there's no reason to do anything about it. The entire thing is a giant system - to break that pattern it has to start somewhere. If mainstream media was up in arms every time a pedestrian or bicyclist is killed because of the carelessness of a driver you'd see some changes accordingly.

From Times-Up (http://times-up.org/index.php?page=2007-12-12-bike-lane-action)


TIME’S UP! BIKE LANE ACTION WILL DRAMATICALLY CALL ATTENTION TO UNSAFE CONDITIONS IN 6TH AVENUE BIKE LANE

Action will also commemorate the death of cyclist, David Smith, who was killed while riding on 6th Avenue one week ago.

**For further details of 3:30pm action call 917 405 1544 or email press@times-up.org

New York, NY (December 12, 2007) -- On Wednesday, December 12th, cyclists and supporters will participate in a Bike Lane Action that will dramatize the fatal last moments of David Smith’s ride up 6th Avenue. Participants of the action will meet at 3:00pm at Greeley Square Park at 6th Avenue (between 32 & 33th street) and ride together to the 3:30pm action.


The action will call attention to the need for safe, buffered bike lanes, especially on heavily trafficked streets. The bike lanes on 6th Avenue and Broadway are examples of bike lanes that are too narrow and offer no protection for cyclists who are forced to ride either too closely to the moving vehicles or risk being "doored" by someone in a parked car. On 12/5/07, a passenger in a pickup truck, illegally parked in the bike lane on 6th Avenue, opened a door into the path of David Smith, throwing the cyclist into an oncoming truck.

“Unfortunately, dodging illegally parked cars and carelessly opened doors is an everyday activity for NYC cyclists. The NYPD needs to step up enforcement of traffic laws and ticket motorists who park in bike lanes. The number of cyclists in the city is increasing every year, and bicycle safety has to become a higher priority if we want to encourage this trend to continue,” said Judy Ross, Time’s Up! spokesperson.

Of course, you could claim there is some sort of anti-cyclist bias at work. If you were talking about the NYC DOT, I might agree with you. But the DA's office is not a part of the DOT. I can't picture Robert Morgenthau letting a criminal act, especially one that has gotten some press attention, go unexamined.

I vote for the bias (http://www.onnyturf.com/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=12639).

Garrison Keillor, host of the public radio show Prarie Home Companion, payed tribute to David Smith on the air on December 15th. Apparently he was an amazing song writer.

http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2007/12/15/