Advocacy & Safety - I witnessed a cyclist getting doored this morning- and a cop did nothing!

A Prius doored a cyclist right next to me and he went right down. The cyclist was riding in a bike lane. He seemed OK, but I encouraged him to take a minute to gather himself to make sure that he had no injuries and wasn't just in shock. A cop was right behind when the accident occurred and either witnessed it or came by immediately after it occurred. I asked the cop if he was going to cite the driver and the cop told me no in a very belligerent way. I pushed the issue and the cop was clearly getting pissed at me and started staring me down (I stared right back). The cop had a really bad attitude about it, saying that all I wanted was "punishment punishment punishment." What a negative experience. And this was in Berkeley, a place that is supposed to be very friendly to cyclists.

It seems to me that both the driver and the rider were victims of bad traffic design. The rider should avoid door zones even when the bike lane is poorly done and the driver should check for traffic before swinging the door, but putting bike lanes right next to parking makes it tough for both of them.

It seems to me that both the driver and the rider were victims of bad traffic design. The rider should avoid door zones even when the bike lane is poorly done and the driver should check for traffic before swinging the door, but putting bike lanes right next to parking makes it tough for both of them.
That may be true, but it's the driver's legal responsibility to make sure it's clear before opening the door.
I would have asked the po for his badge number.

Punishment, punishment, punishment?

Sounds more like a desire to avoid paperwork, paperwork, paperwork!

I can empathize with that, but I always consider what would have happened if the person auto-costed were a police officer.

When we're hit with a car (or any part thereof), we're told to get over it, or issued a summons.

When the police are hit with cars (or any part thereof), guns are pulled and serious charges are filed.

Kars become deadly weapons when they interact negatively with the police, but we non-drivers are fair game, it would seem.

Cops are so poorly educated he may not have even know there was anything he could do.

A Prius doored a cyclist right next to me and he went right down. The cyclist was riding in a bike lane. He seemed OK, but I encouraged him to take a minute to gather himself to make sure that he had no injuries and wasn't just in shock. A cop was right behind when the accident occurred and either witnessed it or came by immediately after it occurred. I asked the cop if he was going to cite the driver and the cop told me no in a very belligerent way. I pushed the issue and the cop was clearly getting pissed at me and started staring me down (I stared right back). The cop had a really bad attitude about it, saying that all I wanted was "punishment punishment punishment." What a negative experience. And this was in Berkeley, a place that is supposed to be very friendly to cyclists.
Good job checking on the cyclist. Did the policeman do the same?

Report him if he neglected his duty. Some cops need a cop.

The cop made a very cursory inquiry and then couldn't be bothered.

I hope the guy and his bike are OK and that he will watch out for that a bit more. As far as the officer, well it does not surprise me.













...do you hear it? HH and the anti bike lane folks are going to be here any minute. Prepare for another tiresome VC thread hijacking debate.

what did the car owner say?

That errant cop needs to be reported to higher ups. Also, it's against the law to exit a car on the street side. Next step, a lawyer for the cyclist against the city and car driver. The cop should have cited the driver at least.

I won a small claims against a driver who opened his street side door and clipped my car a few years ago.

knotty

Not sure what the law is exactly. It might depend on jurisdiction. No doubt we're dealing with a bad design here. But FWIW, cops have a lot of discretion on who to cite and who not to. It's usually a bad idea to get into a dispute with them; they can and will go after you if they feel like it. Rather than taking all the blame and putting it on the cops, it would probably be more productive to ask the traffic people why said bad bike lane still exists.

And this was in Berkeley, a place that is supposed to be very friendly to cyclists.

A possible explanation for the cop's poor behavior is that he's had to deal with bike local bike lunatics like Jason Meggs (google) and is painting all cyclists with the same brush. Reprehensible but it's a possible explanation.

Wait, this happened in Berkeley? Well, there you go!

The policeman probably believes in "restorative justice." How does punishing the motorist help heal the community? After all, that poor driver probably has Urban Vehicle Safe Disembarkment Disorder, and has struggled with it all his life. He's the REAL victim here! That cyclist has no compassion for his diversity issues! He should be forced to attend a UVSDD sensitivity course.

:D

That errant cop needs to be reported to higher ups. Also, it's against the law to exit a car on the street side. Next step, a lawyer for the cyclist against the city and car driver. The cop should have cited the driver at least.

I won a small claims against a driver who opened his street side door and clipped my car a few years ago.

knotty

Source? Oh and winning a small claims case is not a source or even evidence or any such law. It just indicates that the door was opened in a reckless manner.

When we're hit with a car (or any part thereof), we're told to get over it, or issued a summons.

When the police are hit with cars (or any part thereof), guns are pulled and serious charges are filed.

Kars become deadly weapons when they interact negatively with the police, but we non-drivers are fair game, it would seem.

That's an excellent point. That's why communities often view cops with distrust; it's the 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' approach to law enforcement. I imagine if a car had doored a cop on a bike (or the Segways they put those out-of-shape losers on now) that a taser or something would have been involved.

That may be true, but it's the driver's legal responsibility to make sure it's clear before opening the door.


Is that true?

Much of the laws of the road are for cars. When a car doors another car, the person who opened the
door looses. You don't need a law to make people be careful about that. The stupid person looses.

Unfortunately this doesnt work on cyclists getting doored.

A possible explanation for the cop's poor behavior is that he's had to deal with bike local bike lunatics like Jason Meggs (google) and is painting all cyclists with the same brush. Reprehensible but it's a possible explanation.

You mean like the OP?

Notice nothing about the party involved wanting the driver cited.

So imagine you are a cop, come up on something that had recently happened and someone not involved wants someone involved cited, but the other party involved does not. Hmm

Source? Oh and winning a small claims case is not a source or even evidence or any such law. It just indicates that the door was opened in a reckless manner.

Keith99:

Opening and Closing Doors

22517. No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open upon the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

Amended Ch. 162, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.

From San Francisco Dept. of Parking and Traffic:

Q. Can’t cyclists just look into parked cars as they ride and see if someone is about to open the door?

A. This can be very difficult. All road users need to constantly scan the entire roadway for safety. Checking every parked car for a driver diverts cyclists’ attention from other roadway hazards. Also, it is often impossible to see drivers when large parked vehicles block the view of other parked vehicles, or due to tinted windows, headrests, etc. Car drivers should check their side-view mirror or look back prior to opening their door. It is the driver’s responsibility should any collision occur (CVC Section 22517).

What was the riders position within the bike lane. Was he maximizing his visibility so an exiting driver would see him?

Seems this is all a bunch of internet whining. Funny we jump down the throat of Law Enforcement over a perceived injustice but were that same officer enforcing a transgression committed by a cyclist, we'd be whining out the other side of our mouths.

And if the officer didn't see the incident, what exactly is he suppose to do?

What was the riders position within the bike lane. Was he maximizing his visibility so an exiting driver would see him?

Seems this is all a bunch of internet whining. Funny we jump down the throat of Law Enforcement over a perceived injustice but were that same officer enforcing a transgression committed by a cyclist, we'd be whining out the other side of our mouths.

And if the officer didn't see the incident, what exactly is he suppose to do?

A cyclist doesn't need to maximize his visibility. It's the legal responsibility of the door opener to make sure nothing is going to impact the door.

Whining? That's your opinion. Getting doored can kill you. There's a difference between whining and complaining. I don't see any whining here.

Officers don't have to see an incident. They take can take a statement and issue a citation without even being present when an infraction occurs. The officer is supposed to enforce the law. When it's clearly been broken and someone has been hurt he has no excuse using discretion to not cite the person responsible.

Is that true?

Much of the laws of the road are for cars. When a car doors another car, the person who opened the
door looses. You don't need a law to make people be careful about that. The stupid person looses.

Unfortunately this doesn't work on cyclists getting doored.

I can't speak with certainty to the law in all states, but it's likely true in nearly all of them. It's true where I live. Getting your door taken off by another car will not just result in your loss of the door. It will substantially damage the car that takes it off.

When it's clearly been broken and someone has been hurt...

Who was hurt?

I came close to being doored two nights ago, even with my dual headlights blasting into his mirror and car, the motorist still flung his door open just I passed next to him. I was fortunate that the traffic was light, and I happen to be riding just outside the bike lane at the time giving me extra room. If I ever happen to be doored, depending on the motorist's attitude or how badly I was hurt, I probably take some sort of legal recourse.

Who was hurt?

In this case the cyclist was presumably fine (that could have easily changed in as little as an hour), but that's not necessarily the case, and in any event, it's completely unrelated to whether a law was broken or not and, IMO shows poor use of discretion on the officer's part in this case.

If a car runs a light, hits another, no one is hurt and damage is minor, the officer should still cite the red light runner.

If a car runs a light, hits another, no one is hurt and damage is minor, the officer should still cite the red light runner.
Maybe so; but not when the known "facts" about the event consist of second hand information coming from a less than disinterested "witness".

Bike lanes are bike ghettos

Maybe so; but not when the known "facts" about the event consist of second hand information coming from a less than disinterested "witness".

In this case, on its face the facts are apparent and obvious and no one apparently disputes them, including the doorie or the doorer.

Dooring, just like red light running, intentional or not is against the law and the motorist should be cited.

That errant cop needs to be reported to higher ups. Also, it's against the law to exit a car on the street side. Next step, a lawyer for the cyclist against the city and car driver. The cop should have cited the driver at least.

I won a small claims against a driver who opened his street side door and clipped my car a few years ago.

knotty


Keith99:

Opening and Closing Doors

22517. No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open upon the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
Amended Ch. 162, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.

From San Francisco Dept. of Parking and Traffic:

Q. Can’t cyclists just look into parked cars as they ride and see if someone is about to open the door?

A. This can be very difficult. All road users need to constantly scan the entire roadway for safety. Checking every parked car for a driver diverts cyclists’ attention from other roadway hazards. Also, it is often impossible to see drivers when large parked vehicles block the view of other parked vehicles, or due to tinted windows, headrests, etc. Car drivers should check their side-view mirror or look back prior to opening their door. It is the driver’s responsibility should any collision occur (CVC Section 22517).


What you said is quite different from what the SF Dept of Parking and Traffic code says.

A Prius doored a cyclist right next to me and he went right down. The cyclist was riding in a bike lane. He seemed OK, but I encouraged him to take a minute to gather himself to make sure that he had no injuries and wasn't just in shock. A cop was right behind when the accident occurred and either witnessed it or came by immediately after it occurred. I asked the cop if he was going to cite the driver and the cop told me no in a very belligerent way. I pushed the issue and the cop was clearly getting pissed at me and started staring me down (I stared right back). The cop had a really bad attitude about it, saying that all I wanted was "punishment punishment punishment." What a negative experience. And this was in Berkeley, a place that is supposed to be very friendly to cyclists.
Technically, the guy who opened the door was definitely in violation of 22517. But cops are not obligated (legally, practically or morally) to cite for every infraction they witness, much less for one they didn't actually witness (though in this case the evidence is pretty clear).

The fact is, dooring is a relatively infrequent event. That is, you can open your door streetside for years without properly checking first and never hit anyone. Also, even if you are religious about checking first, if you do so habitually you become accustomed to not seeing anyone there and so unconsciously come to expect there to be no one there: you are prone to inattentional blindness and not seeing the cyclist coming the one time there is someone there. That is, you're so accustomed to not seeing anyone there, that your mind just doesn't see him when he is there. So you open the door anyway.

Because of all this, it is highly unlikely that stricter enforcement of dooring violations would have any significant impact on the incidence of doorings. Thus, the cop was right when he said all you wanted was "punishment punishment punishment."

If you really want to make a significant difference in terms of reducing dooring incidents, then you need to lobby against door zone bike lanes and advocate the practice of riding at least FIVE FEET from the outside edge of parked cars.

Otherwise, you're just a whiner interested only in "punishment punishment punishment."

What you said is quite different from what the SF Dept of Parking and Traffic code says.
Agreed.

Making it the driver's responsibility to check first is a far cry from making it illegal to open a door streetside.

By the way, I know someone who was doored twice while riding on sidewalks (passenger side door opened).

In this case, on its face the facts are apparent and obvious and no one apparently disputes them, including the doorie or the doorer.
How do you know what "the doorie or the doorer" said, disputed or agreed/disagreed? Did they post their thoughts on the subject elsewhere? It sure ain't here on this thread.

All you "know" is what a ranting third party claimed. Period. And that may be all the law officer "witnessed" at the time about an incident with no apparent injury or consequence.

OP-Its one thing to offer to be a witness, its another thing to argue with a cop about what he "has" to do. You could very well have queered the whole thing for the cyclist. If you hadn't gotten in the cops face, he may have been more inclined to give the driver a ticket.

The ticket is the cyclists responsibility and he is the person that has to deal with the cop, not you.

Also, it's against the law to exit a car on the street side.

That simply can't be true, think about it. What's a driver supposed to do, cross over into the passenger side and exit that way?

If anything, this is a civil matter, not a criminal one, thus why the policeman didn't nor could do much.

A cyclist doesn't need to maximize his visibility. It's the legal responsibility of the door opener to make sure nothing is going to impact the door.

While the legal responsibility may fall to the motorist, the cyclist bears a responsibility to make sure he's riding in a manner prudent to the situation. In this case that may mean not hugging the right side of the bike lane where he would be less visible.


Whining? That's your opinion. Getting doored can kill you. There's a difference between whining and complaining. I don't see any whining here.

A&S is mostly comprised of whining about percieved injustices.


Officers don't have to see an incident. They take can take a statement and issue a citation without even being present when an infraction occurs. The officer is supposed to enforce the law. When it's clearly been broken and someone has been hurt he has no excuse using discretion to not cite the person responsible.

Sure they can. But they don't have to. If nobody was injured or property damaged. Should they also chase down every cyclist that doesn't come to a complete stop, that splits lanes or fails to signal a turn?

That simply can't be true, think about it. What's a driver supposed to do, cross over into the passenger side and exit that way?

That was an old law that was enforced when most cars had bench seats where a driver could slide over to the passenger door to exit, and really not applicable to today's cars with bucket seats and consoles.

If anything, this is a civil matter, not a criminal one, thus why the policeman didn't nor could do much.

Umm... duh? Wait... thus why the policeman couldn't do much??? Just about EVERY traffic infraction is a civil matter... and the police write traffic tickets all the time.

That was an old law that was enforced when most cars had bench seats where a driver could slide over to the passenger door to exit, and really not applicable to today's cars with bucket seats and consoles.
Urban Legend alert.

Urban Legend alert.

Yea, and look back the the law Knotty cited. It basically says you can only exit into traffic when it is reasonably safe. Not prohibited. And he did cut and paste in full, e.g. he got the effective date 1963. Just how old would the urban legend law be? Back to when they were called horseless carriages?

A Prius doored a cyclist right next to me and he went right down. The cyclist was riding in a bike lane. He seemed OK, but I encouraged him to take a minute to gather himself to make sure that he had no injuries and wasn't just in shock. A cop was right behind when the accident occurred and either witnessed it or came by immediately after it occurred. I asked the cop if he was going to cite the driver and the cop told me no in a very belligerent way. I pushed the issue and the cop was clearly getting pissed at me and started staring me down (I stared right back). The cop had a really bad attitude about it, saying that all I wanted was "punishment punishment punishment." What a negative experience. And this was in Berkeley, a place that is supposed to be very friendly to cyclists.

From the 2007 California Driver's Manual (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf), Page 41:

Do not open the driver’s side doors unless it is safe and you do not interfere with traffic. Look for passing bicyclists and motorcyclists. Do not leave the door open any longer than necessary.

I am sure there's a DOT or DMV statute that backs this up. The PO was clearly wrong in not enforcing the law. I know I am generalizing here, but I bet they write thousands of speeding tickets for every "dooring" incident.

How do you know what "the doorie or the doorer" said, disputed or agreed/disagreed? Did they post their thoughts on the subject elsewhere? It sure ain't here on this thread.

All you "know" is what a ranting third party claimed. Period. And that may be all the law officer "witnessed" at the time about an incident with no apparent injury or consequence.

I don't know which is why I said "on its face"
The point still stands. The poster wouldn't have even posted this if the act did not happen. it's quite simple, door was opened and impacted another vehicle. That's the violation. There's nothing to argue about other than did it happen. The very nature of the posting is that it did. Period.

Eye witness testimony isn't required at all. It's not uncommon for a po to issue a wreckless driving citation in single car accidents, post accident for something he didn't even witness.

While the legal responsibility may fall to the motorist, the cyclist bears a responsibility to make sure he's riding in a manner prudent to the situation. In this case that may mean not hugging the right side of the bike lane where he would be less visible.
If he's acting in a legal manner, riding in the bike lane and someone doesn't check it's clearly the motorist's fault. As a matter of prudence he should be visibile, but as a matter of law, unless he's doing something really reckless like say riding in all black at night with no lights, it would be nearly impossible for the motorist to avoid fault here.



A&S is mostly comprised of whining about percieved injustices.

Perhaps, but this is a very serious hazard. We aren't complaining about paths, or stopping at every red light or a lack of respect on the road. We're talking about an action that can and has killed cyclists.


Sure they can. But they don't have to. If nobody was injured or property damaged. Should they also chase down every cyclist that doesn't come to a complete stop, that splits lanes or fails to signal a turn?
They should when it's a very serious offense. This wasn't opening a door and damaging a car. This was committing an act that could have easily serverly injured or killed someone. What if someone waived a gun around your wife or child and it went off and barely missed them? It was an accident but no harm was done. Should that person not be cited?

remember when the guy got doored on "the Sopranos", and then those guys beat the crap out of him to boot. Moral of the story: don't get doored by a mobster's son and his psycho cronies.






hey, it makes about as much sense as anything else in this thread!

If he's acting in a legal manner, riding in the bike lane and someone doesn't check it's clearly the motorist's fault. As a matter of prudence he should be visibile, but as a matter of law, unless he's doing something really reckless like say riding in all black at night with no lights, it would be nearly impossible for the motorist to avoid fault here.
And what if a driver opens the car door responsibly after seeing that no bicyclist is nearby, and while the door is open, a careless/inattentive cyclist, gabbing with his buddy comes by and stupidly rides right into an open door that was easily avoidable if the cyclist had been paying attention? Do you think that impossible? Unlikely? Who is to say?

Motorist still to blame and be given a ticket because YOU have determined what happened from the "on the face/facts" presented by the OP?

And what if a driver opens the car door responsibly after seeing that no bicyclist is nearby, and while the door is open, a careless/inattentive cyclist, gabbing with his buddy comes by and stupidly rides right into an open door that was easily avoidable if the cyclist had been paying attention? Do you think that impossible? Unlikely? Who is to say?

Motorist still to blame and be given a ticket because YOU have determined what happened from the "on the face/facts" presented by the OP?

These laws are very clear, just like a rear ending in cars. The car in the front can slam on his brakes for almost no reason and it will 99% of the time still be the following driver's fault. Same situation here.

It would be very hard/almost impossible to argue from the driver's perspective that what the cyclist did superceeds his legal responsibility when he opens his door.
Doing something stupid or smart on the cyclist's part is almost completely irrelevant in this case.

unlikely, impossible, who is to say? moot point, the law in most states is very clear on whose responsibility these types of accidents are. to prevent your situation it's actually illegal to open the door on the street side in many states. It is only enforced when things like this happen.

And what if a driver opens the car door responsibly after seeing that no bicyclist is nearby, and while the door is open, a careless/inattentive cyclist, gabbing with his buddy comes by and stupidly rides right into an open door that was easily avoidable if the cyclist had been paying attention? Do you think that impossible? Unlikely? Who is to say?

Motorist still to blame and be given a ticket because YOU have determined what happened from the "on the face/facts" presented by the OP?

Considering that most of the laws make it illegal to leave your door open for any longer than it takes you to get out of the car... then yes, the driver is still responsible.


nor shall any person leave a door open upon the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

And what if a driver opens the car door responsibly after seeing that no bicyclist is nearby, and while the door is open, a careless/inattentive cyclist, gabbing with his buddy comes by and stupidly rides right into an open door that was easily avoidable if the cyclist had been paying attention? Do you think that impossible? Unlikely? Who is to say?

Motorist still to blame and be given a ticket because YOU have determined what happened from the "on the face/facts" presented by the OP?

I think the key words here are "careless/inattentive;" if a cyclist is not looking ahead to determine that his/her path is clear, certainly then the issues that follow are the fault of that cyclist. We expect a certain amount of responsibility for all road users, from peds looking to ensure their way is clear before stepping into the street, to motorists looking ahead to ensure their path is clear, to cyclists ensuring that nothing is in their way, to drivers and passengers ensuring that they are not about to open doors into anyone.

In every case above, one should always check their path first.

Considering that most of the laws make it illegal to leave your door open for any longer than it takes you to get out of the car... then yes, the driver is still responsible.

Mind referencing any of "most of the laws" that specify the amount of time a car door may remain open? And the immunity from responsibility for bicyclists to look where they are going?

Obviously the law officer must also not have been aware of the bmclaughlin's unique Book of Laws. I've known of sober, but inattentive cyclists (as well as motorists) who have crashed into non moving "legally static" objects like trees and parked cars. Who gets the ticket? the tree? The owner of the parked car?

I wonder if the OP berated the law officer with the same unique interpretations of laws and responsibilities.

to prevent your situation it's actually illegal to open the door on the street side in many states.
Reference?

Cops are so poorly educated he may not have even know there was anything he could do.

Used to be, you had to have a 4 yr. degree to be a cop in Berkeley. No guarantee of innate intelligence to be sure, but better than the High School diploma or GED that was required in Oakland. I would have taken this to the next level. i.e. Badge number,supervisor name, etc.

Richard

Reference?
do your own research...PA was an example, but they changed it not too long ago.