Are you happier without bike facilities?

[Allister]

I love those bike lanes in the door zone! :rolleyes:

If you get doored in a bikelane that wide, you've got bigger problems than a line of paint. Just ride in the leftmost edge of the bikelane, and keep your eyes open (like you should anyway). Door openings are one of the most predictable conflict types you can encounter on the road.

[joejack951]

Door openings are one of the most predictable conflict types you can encounter on the road.

I've never been doored (but also don't often ride in areas where it's an issue). Have you been doored? Those who have who have also written about their experience on this forum would tend to disagree with you about it being predictable. One thing they almost all mention is that the door opened very quickly into their path. Not exactly what I'd call predictable (when riding in the door zone at least which is why I avoid it altogether). http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=294107&highlight=dooring+poll

[invisiblehand]

What I did read I feel duty bound to inform the reality challenged that its heavy on actual statistics and not hypo-ganda :eek:

What makes it so heavy on "actual statistics" relative to other studies?

[invisiblehand]

The only time I see "Bike Lanes as a saviour" type statements they are being made by VC zealots in order to create a straw man argument. Those of us who support bike facilities support their implementation only when needed and only when well designed. They are not the end all and be all of cycling- we know that- and we ride on the road just as much as the all VC all the time crowd. We do know the difference.

I don't see many people making such statements. But I do see people in practice automatically proposing bike lanes as the solution to a lot of different problems.

[invisiblehand]

If you get doored in a bikelane that wide, you've got bigger problems than a line of paint. Just ride in the leftmost edge of the bikelane, and keep your eyes open (like you should anyway).

Hah! Good point.

Although a nubie -- like the new riders that people want to attract with bike lanes -- might not realize the strategy.

Door openings are one of the most predictable conflict types you can encounter on the road.

Hmmmm perhaps. One also has many "trials" to get doored. That is, it might be a low probability event per door; but urban riders will often pass many doors.

[The Human Car]

It reminds me more of a conversation I once had with a Jehova's Witness who wanted to save me. Accept Bike Lanes as The Saviour and The Kingdom Of Cycling shall come unto you! Believe. Believe. :grin:

I remember him! He's converted to Unitarianism now and goes door to door encouraging people to ride their bike as long as it is not for any particular purpose or reason. :D

[Geonz]

Soon as I read "and can *only* help" (emphasis added)... I pretty much figured I was reading from somebody not *really* interested in thinking more deeply about the issue. So let me chime in.

It's just more complicated than that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcziko/sets/72057594104077802/ has an assortmetn of examples on just a single University's bike path system where the facilities are not exactly helpful.

When I choose not to get on the dangerous parts, drivers get hostile and point out the path to me. The fact that in 100 yards, that path heads off to the right and plants me as a "going straight" vehicle... well to the right of people turning right... they can't see that. They wouldn't see me until after they'd right-hooked me, either.

[Bekologist]

some roads are better than others; some bike lanes are better than others.

Well implemented bike facilities are a pleasure to use. die hard vehicular cyclists can often ride quite vehicularily in well provided bike infrastructure. there is not inherent conflict between vc and bike infrastructure; if it does not suit your needs do not use the space.

Despite the hems and haws in here, bike lanes that are well provided and implemented are quite often a pleasure to ride. poor roads and poor bike facilities are less pleasant.

[buzzman]

I don't see many people making such statements. But I do see people in practice automatically proposing bike lanes as the solution to a lot of different problems.


very possibly but pretty unlikely that a poor proposal would get very far if discussed without bias for or against bike lanes. Reasonable people would hopefully discuss and weigh the proposal on it's individual merits and not on either a mistaken belief that bike lanes always solve problems or that they never solve problems but that they are one approach that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

I have spoken several times in favor of the NYC efforts to install more bike lanes. There may even be an added bike lane coming here in Boston on a portion of Commonwealth Avenue near BU. This will be an opportunity to ride a stretch of road that I have ridden for almost 30 years without bike lanes and make an honest comparison. This is a road that has had a bad history of cyclist and pedestrian accidents and frequent doorings all without a bike lane. It will be interesting to see if there is any improvement.

[derath]

Boy am I joining the party late. I am not gonna go through the last 6 pages of posts. Anyhow, I don't have any of these "bike facilities" of which you speak. Yet I am a happy rider. Am I "happier" I don't know since I have nothing to compare.

-D

[StrangeWill]

I've never been doored (but also don't often ride in areas where it's an issue). Have you been doored? Those who have who have also written about their experience on this forum would tend to disagree with you about it being predictable. One thing they almost all mention is that the door opened very quickly into their path. Not exactly what I'd call predictable (when riding in the door zone at least which is why I avoid it altogether). http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=294107&highlight=dooring+poll
Because really, I'd expect people to be saying that they weren't paying attention like they should, least they'd be nailed with the hypocrisy when they claim that drivers do the same.

Regardless of the validity of the claim itself, it's a bad way to gather data.

[Allister]

I've never been doored (but also don't often ride in areas where it's an issue). Have you been doored? Those who have who have also written about their experience on this forum would tend to disagree with you about it being predictable.

And yet the majority in that thread didn't crash. Did you actually read it before going off half-cocked?

You see a vehicle parking, there's a good chance the driver's about to exit the vehicle, and you move over. The vast majority of parked cars are empty, the one's that aren't are easy to spot. Ride as far as you safely can from the door zone, but you don't need to be completely out of it to have time to avoid even a sudden, surprising door. Between the time it starts to open and the time it's potentially in your path, you're out of the way. The difference between riding in the left edge of that bike lane, and completely out of the door zone is about 30cm. Even a newbie should be able to cross that distance in plenty of time.

I have been doored once, and had one attempted dooring, in 12 years. Neither, curiously, were from parked cars. The former was a car stopped at a light and the passenger exited as I passed them on the left (kerbside) - It was many years ago, I wouldn't ride down the kerbside of a line of stopped traffic for preference these days. The second was a recalcitrant driver trying to deliberately knock me over as I was lane splitting. Saw it coming a mile away and avoided it easily. That was a few years ago too.

Bikelanes within door zones aren't ideal, obviously, but neither are they the great threat to cyclists safety that they are often painted as here.

Of course the real cause of doorings, which the anti-BL frothing conveniently ignores, is motor vehicle occupants not proprely looking behind before even opening the thing to make sure it's safe. It's amazing to me that these people have such a malformed sense of self preservation. I know I don't want to get hit by a bike, or car for that matter, and always, as a matter of simple common sense, have a look before opening my door into a traffic lane. Anyone that doesn't is an idiot.

[invisiblehand]

very possibly but pretty unlikely that a poor proposal would get very far if discussed without bias for or against bike lanes. Reasonable people would hopefully discuss and weigh the proposal on it's individual merits and not on either a mistaken belief that bike lanes always solve problems or that they never solve problems but that they are one approach that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

I have spoken several times in favor of the NYC efforts to install more bike lanes. There may even be an added bike lane coming here in Boston on a portion of Commonwealth Avenue near BU. This will be an opportunity to ride a stretch of road that I have ridden for almost 30 years without bike lanes and make an honest comparison. This is a road that has had a bad history of cyclist and pedestrian accidents and frequent doorings all without a bike lane. It will be interesting to see if there is any improvement.

I agree that the truly atrocious designs die an early death. I have no data other than my own experience, but what I see often are bike lanes where a strong majority -- say 80-90% -- are "good" whereas the remainder will have some rather negative qualities such as a suddenly shrinking width.

Despite the hems and haws in here, bike lanes that are well provided and implemented are quite often a pleasure to ride. poor roads and poor bike facilities are less pleasant.

True. But it is a not a point that people are arguing -- hemming and hawing -- against ... at least not by my reading. There does seem to be a debate as to what well provided and implemented means. And there is also a debate as to when such facilities should be provided, how well plans/maintenance are executed, whether they result in an increase in active cyclists, and the notion that the stripe leads to a reduction in road-cycling rights.

Of course the real cause of doorings, which the anti-BL frothing conveniently ignores, is motor vehicle occupants not proprely looking behind before even opening the thing to make sure it's safe. It's amazing to me that these people have such a malformed sense of self preservation. I know I don't want to get hit by a bike, or car for that matter, and always, as a matter of simple common sense, have a look before opening my door into a traffic lane. Anyone that doesn't is an idiot.

Ahhhhh, but the world does have its idiots. But more seriously, people have their moments of carelessness regardless of their general nature. That is, a person that is very careful will still on occasion do something that lacks common sense. It is just a product of living in dense areas where people interact often.

I agree that we should not freak out if a bike lane is four feet instead of five for a short distance of a boulevard. However, we might consider freaking out for a three foot lane. But I also think that repeating the issue and emphasizing it during planning sessions is worthwhile to avoid the really atrocious situations.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

What makes it so heavy on "actual statistics" relative to other studies?


Actually, I was referring to (again) the many hypotheticals VCealots
use in place of statistics for making thier anti-facility points.
After being very active in development issues in PA, I have come to
find there are very differnt stats that can be used in any situation.
Real stats, ie; real facts and figures relating to an issue or Forester type
"stats" that are used to reinforce an agenda. If I see Think Tank type
stats or a 'study' done to support development Im not going to believe it.
The bottom line on those is they are to push an agenda as cheaply as
possible. They have nothing to do with reality, efficiency of infrastructure
or whats best for the people who will use them.

[dynodonn]

Actually, I was referring to (again) the many hypotheticals VCealots
use in place of statistics for making thier anti-facility points.
After being very active in development issues in PA, I have come to
find there are very differnt stats that can be used in any situation.
Real stats, ie; real facts and figures relating to an issue or Forester type
"stats" that are used to reinforce an agenda. If I see Think Tank type
stats or a 'study' done to support development Im not going to believe it.
The bottom line on those is they are to push an agenda as cheaply as
possible. They have nothing to do with reality, efficiency of infrastructure
or whats best for the people who will use them.



If that's the case, a few "think tank" types must have implemented most of the bike facilities in my area. I learned over the my years of involvement in motorized racing, what looks like the greatest thing since sliced bread on paper, ends up being the worst possible thing you could have done to date at the track. Needless to say, our local bike facilities are seldom used since they are implemented on streets that really go nowhere most bicyclists would wish to go, or badly designed and making the majority of bicycists end up using the sidewalk or other side streets. I feel most bike facilities implemented here locally were really a form of compromise, to either appease certain cycling groups or state grant funding mandates or both.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Are you "THE" Dyno Don of 60's and 70's !?!?! :eek:
Ford Mavericks, Pinto PSers ?!?!?!

As I mentioned earlier, I spent many, many hours and lots of personal
money in PA to come try to get realistic infrastructure implemented
in the Nu-"smart growth' communities that plagued our area. You
are correct that all that was done was the very minimum to appease
state regs (the developers always paid to change local zoning) and that
was all. The 'studies' that were trotted out to support developer insanity
were laffable by any standard. The local otis is capable of coming up
with a magic marker drawing and BF type hypotheticals to support
this stuff. Im very skeptical when I see non-quantifiable studies as
opposed to actual statistics.

[buzzman]

I have been doored once, and had one attempted dooring, in 12 years. Neither, curiously, were from parked cars. The former was a car stopped at a light and the passenger exited as I passed them on the left (kerbside) - It was many years ago....

my one dooring, which came from my left, not from the right as one might expect in the US, as I took a full lane at about 20 mph at an intersection. I had the green light, the left lane had a stop light for a left turn signal. I was in the left hand portion of the right lane in order to make a sweeping right turn when the passenger door of the car stopped in the left lane opened, I swerved but couldn't avoid it and it nailed me hard in the left thigh. The impact sent me careening across the right lane, I hit the curb and went up and over the handlebars. I thought I'd do a nice neat shoulder roll onto the sidewalk only to come down hard on a fire hydrant.

Lesson learned: people do stupid things- be ready.

Would a bike lane have helped or hurt?- I doubt bike lanes would prevent people from doing stupid things.

If that's the case, a few "think tank" types must have implemented most of the bike facilities in my area. I learned over the my years of involvement in motorized racing, what looks like the greatest thing since sliced bread on paper, ends up being the worst possible thing you could have done to date at the track. Needless to say, our local bike facilities are seldom used since they are implemented on streets that really go nowhere most bicyclists would wish to go, or badly designed and making the majority of bicycists end up using the sidewalk or other side streets. I feel most bike facilities implemented here locally were really a form of compromise, to either appease certain cycling groups or state grant funding mandates or both.



dynodonn- where are you located? It would be interesting to know where these inadequate facilities are and what logic, or lack thereof, was behind their design and implementation.

Poorly designed facilities may not be the best argument against all facilities. I could list a vast array of costly, poorly designed and implemented highways in my area (Boston- home of the "Big Dig"). While these facilities are an indictment of transportation bureaucracy they are not necessarily an indictment of highways, bridges and tunnels in general.

[dynodonn]

Are you "THE" Dyno Don of 60's and 70's !?!?! :eek:
Ford Mavericks, Pinto PSers ?!?!?!

As I mentioned earlier, I spent many, many hours and lots of personal
money in PA to come try to get realistic infrastructure implemented
in the Nu-"smart growth' communities that plagued our area. You
are correct that all that was done was the very minimum to appease
state regs (the developers always paid to change local zoning) and that
was all. The 'studies' that were trotted out to support developer insanity
were laffable by any standard. The local otis is capable of coming up
with a magic marker drawing and BF type hypotheticals to support
this stuff. Im very skeptical when I see non-quantifiable studies as
opposed to actual statistics.



Sorry Lem, I only borrowed the name, it's what the racers at the shop and track gave me, and I kept it since I liked it. Classic example of our grant funding machine in progress, they implemented a continuance of a bike lane, but so far, all they did was the widen the road on the opposite side, put in a ped island, and still left the center stripe in it's original location, still a narrow roadway on one side and very wide on the opposite side.

[dynodonn]

Poorly designed facilities may not be the best argument against all facilities. I could list a vast array of costly, poorly designed and implemented highways in my area (Boston- home of the "Big Dig"). While these facilities are an indictment of transportation bureaucracy they are not necessarily an indictment of highways, bridges and tunnels in general.


That's very true, there are sections of our local bike lanes that work, and work very well, it's just that once poorly designed bike infrastructure is implemented, they seem to be set in stone. Since our cycling population is fairly low as compared to the metropolitan areas, getting to change bad designs is pratically nil, or is not done until some road improvements neccessary for motor vehicle traffic is needed.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

^^^^ But you know there was an expensive study done to
show why this will benefit the community :rolleyes:
If the ped island is a grass strip, keep your eye on who
gets the contarct to maintain it and how much it costs :eek:

[Script]

Its almost laffable that VCealots arguments are based mostly
on over-the-top hypothetical situationing as opposed to reality.
Really....how many times has any one person gotten into a bikelane/doorzone
confrontation ? More than once ?? Put me down for zero.

Put me down for zero also. Although careful people still occasionally make mistakes, their behavior doesn't generally invite them.

I have observed enough 'doorings' to conclude that if you're a rider on a mission with the feeling that everyone else should be looking out for you, it's only a matter of time before you meet a door. By the same token, you will probably encounter some other fun occurrences like a pull out, right cross, left cross, pedestrian meeting, etc.

Show me someone who 'chooses' when they'll comply with traffic signals and signs, or demands their rights regardless of the circumstances (read...zealots) and they probably also will eventually get to join the road rash club.

:beer:

[John Forester]

Actually, I was referring to (again) the many hypotheticals VCealots
use in place of statistics for making thier anti-facility points.
After being very active in development issues in PA, I have come to
find there are very differnt stats that can be used in any situation.
Real stats, ie; real facts and figures relating to an issue or Forester type
"stats" that are used to reinforce an agenda. If I see Think Tank type
stats or a 'study' done to support development Im not going to believe it.
The bottom line on those is they are to push an agenda as cheaply as
possible. They have nothing to do with reality, efficiency of infrastructure
or whats best for the people who will use them.

It is quite correct that any statistic or set of statistics ought to be used only after reasonable evaluation of their accuracy and relevance to the issue. Your phrasing clearly says that you believe that the statistics and reasoning that I employ are either inaccurate or irrelevant. What is your basis for this opinion? What statistics provide a more accurate picture of the subject than do those that use? In what way are the statistics that I use irrelevant to the issue?

Unless you can provide either facts or reasoning to support claims such as you have made, you should not be making them.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

^^^ Any of your posts to this thread support what I wrote :

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=389240

For the sake of sanity and not dignifying any of this stuff further I
will not pull any of the myriad of "Im basing my knowledge on what Ive
seen in Cal." type stuff you're using to support your agenda.

[joejack951]

And yet the majority in that thread didn't crash. Did you actually read it before going off half-cocked?

Perhaps I see a majority a little different than you. I had read the original thread when it was active and remembered that the majority had crashed and had done so because the door opening happened unexpectedly. I reread the thread because you so kindly asked and it appears that my memory has served me well. Of those who posted and described doorings, 9 of the 17 claimed to have crashed or described a crash of sorts. 2 more claimed to have hit doors and were injured but did not admit to crashing. That makes 11 out of 17 who had something more than what one would call uneventful. Only 6 of the 17 had a door fly open that they were not able to avoid by swerving but did not admit to crashing because of it.

You are welcome to do your own count and compare your results to mine.

You see a vehicle parking, there's a good chance the driver's about to exit the vehicle, and you move over. The vast majority of parked cars are empty, the one's that aren't are easy to spot. Ride as far as you safely can from the door zone, but you don't need to be completely out of it to have time to avoid even a sudden, surprising door. Between the time it starts to open and the time it's potentially in your path, you're out of the way. The difference between riding in the left edge of that bike lane, and completely out of the door zone is about 30cm. Even a newbie should be able to cross that distance in plenty of time.

You've described a very simple situation. Complicating factors that you so quickly discount include:

1. people waiting inside a parked car for several seconds or minutes before exitting (maybe making a phone call or killing some time or a slowly exitting passenger)
2. tinted windows
3. large vehicles blocking your view of the car parked in front of them
4. passing traffic making it impossible or dangerous to swerve left to avoid an opening door
5. completely unexpected exits [Example: I'm riding to work on a road with a 10 foot shoulder. I'm normally use this shoulder to let faster traffic pass as it's typically empty. One morning there's a car idling in the shoulder. I'm already in the lane as there's no faster same direction traffic around and a few seconds before I pass the car, the driver decides to jump out apparently to get something she forgot. In this situation I would have had time to avoid her door given the timing but I certainly would not expect the driver of a vehicle to leave the car while it's running. Would you?]

I have been doored once, and had one attempted dooring, in 12 years. Neither, curiously, were from parked cars. The former was a car stopped at a light and the passenger exited as I passed them on the left (kerbside) - It was many years ago, I wouldn't ride down the kerbside of a line of stopped traffic for preference these days. The second was a recalcitrant driver trying to deliberately knock me over as I was lane splitting. Saw it coming a mile away and avoided it easily. That was a few years ago too.

I had some teenagers pass me (honking and gesturing of course) one morning then stop at a light a few hundred meters up the road. I caught up with them and stopped behind them but the passenger apparently assumed I would try to pass them on the right as he had cracked his door open as I pulled up. I had no intentions of filtering past two cars at the intersection so they must have been really disappointed.

Bikelanes within door zones aren't ideal, obviously, but neither are they the great threat to cyclists safety that they are often painted as here.

I would agree that door zone bike lanes are not a great threat to cyclist safety. The cyclist is his own greatest threat in these situations with or without the bike lane. In my opinion, the issue with the bike lane is the expectation it creates that cyclists should ride in an area that presents an unpredictable danger to them, reinforcing the notion the notion that cyclists need to do whatever it takes to stay out of the way of faster traffic, and coaching novice cyclists to ride in the door zone even when a bike lane does not exists.

Of course the real cause of doorings, which the anti-BL frothing conveniently ignores, is motor vehicle occupants not proprely looking behind before even opening the thing to make sure it's safe. It's amazing to me that these people have such a malformed sense of self preservation. I know I don't want to get hit by a bike, or car for that matter, and always, as a matter of simple common sense, have a look before opening my door into a traffic lane. Anyone that doesn't is an idiot.

You seem to deny how easy it is to miss a cyclist riding next to parked cars when checking a side mirror as you exit a car. And good luck trying to change the behavior of every motorist, and their passengers, adults and children, in an attempt to make door zone cycling safer.

[randya]

Of course the real cause of doorings, which the anti-BL frothing conveniently ignores, is motor vehicle occupants not proprely looking behind before even opening the thing to make sure it's safe. It's amazing to me that these people have such a malformed sense of self preservation. I know I don't want to get hit by a bike, or car for that matter, and always, as a matter of simple common sense, have a look before opening my door into a traffic lane. Anyone that doesn't is an idiot.

You seem to deny how easy it is to miss a cyclist riding next to parked cars when checking a side mirror as you exit a car. And good luck trying to change the behavior of every motorist, and their passengers, adults and children, in an attempt to make door zone cycling safer.

I'm with Allister on this. Most motorists don't look at all before opening their door, and I've witnessed people opening doors into traffic and the door being hit by another motor vehicle.

[Allister]

Perhaps I see a majority a little different than you. I had read the original thread when it was active and remembered that the majority had crashed and had done so because the door opening happened unexpectedly. I reread the thread because you so kindly asked and it appears that my memory has served me well. Of those who posted and described doorings, 9 of the 17 claimed to have crashed or described a crash of sorts. 2 more claimed to have hit doors and were injured but did not admit to crashing. That makes 11 out of 17 who had something more than what one would call uneventful. Only 6 of the 17 had a door fly open that they were not able to avoid by swerving but did not admit to crashing because of it.

You are welcome to do your own count and compare your results to mine.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4423975&postcount=58

And of those that did crash, it happened what, once to any one of them. Some of those guys have 30 or 40 years riding under their belts. It's hardly something to worry too much about, but be watchful for anyway.

Either way, it's a HH poll, so it's hardly conclusive about anything.

You've described a very simple situation. Complicating factors that you so quickly discount include:

1. people waiting inside a parked car for several seconds or minutes before exitting (maybe making a phone call or killing some time or a slowly exitting passenger)
2. tinted windows
3. large vehicles blocking your view of the car parked in front of them
4. passing traffic making it impossible or dangerous to swerve left to avoid an opening door
5. completely unexpected exits [Example: I'm riding to work on a road with a 10 foot shoulder. I'm normally use this shoulder to let faster traffic pass as it's typically empty. One morning there's a car idling in the shoulder. I'm already in the lane as there's no faster same direction traffic around and a few seconds before I pass the car, the driver decides to jump out apparently to get something she forgot. In this situation I would have had time to avoid her door given the timing but I certainly would not expect the driver of a vehicle to leave the car while it's running. Would you?]

Ah, the HH technique of spewing exception after exception in the name of overtstating a minor threat. You have learned well, grasshopper.

I could think of a thousand exceptions myself, so what? If you ride in the door zone, you do so at your own risk, and it's prudent to slow down, be ready with the brakes, and watch the doors. It's not that hard to mitigate any risk you care to concoct. Keep practicing, you'll get there eventually.

Riding in the left edge of the bikelane in the picture under discussion is far enough from opening doors to be safe enough. By all means lobby for wider bikelanes clear of door zones though, if you think they're so hazardous. I'll support you 100%

This one always flabbergasts me

4. passing traffic making it impossible or dangerous to swerve left to avoid an opening door

Don't you have brakes? It amazes me that the simple principle of applying the brakes never enter the heads of people whining about the dangers of doorings.

In my opinion, the issue with the bike lane is the expectation it creates that cyclists should ride in an area that presents an unpredictable danger to them, reinforcing the notion the notion that cyclists need to do whatever it takes to stay out of the way of faster traffic, and coaching novice cyclists to ride in the door zone even when a bike lane does not exists.

Then stop repeating it ad nauseum.

Unless you're assuming people are monumentally stupid, avoiding opening doors is pretty instinctive, and even the most clueless newbie soon learns how to avoid them (which of course means riding clear of the door zone as much as possible).

You seem to deny how easy it is to miss a cyclist riding next to parked cars when checking a side mirror as you exit a car. And good luck trying to change the behavior of every motorist, and their passengers, adults and children, in an attempt to make door zone cycling safer.

Which is why I am also on high alert if I find myself riding in the door zone.

Mate, it's a fundamental principle of using a car, and a legal requirement. I expect, as a bare minimum, from other road users, compliance with the rules, and a basic sense of self-preservation. The more you make excuses for errant and dangerous behaviour the worse that behaviour will get. It's not about 'changing the behavior of every motorist', but about getting the few exceptions to the rule to comply with the vast majority. That's a lot less sensationalist, I realise, but a lot more realistic, too.

[joejack951]

I'm with Allister on this. Most motorists don't look at all before opening their door, and I've witnessed people opening doors into traffic and the door being hit by another motor vehicle.

I'm not denying that that happens. My wife's friend lost a car door by opening it into the path of a guy speeding down the road.

[joejack951]

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4423975&postcount=58

And of those that did crash, it happened what, once to any one of them. Some of those guys have 30 or 40 years riding under their belts. It's hardly something to worry too much about, but be watchful for anyway.

Either way, it's a HH poll, so it's hardly conclusive about anything.

My original quote referenced "those who have [been doored] who have also written about their experience" so when you replied that the majority did not crash I took that to mean "those who have been doored [as in hit a car door] but did not crash." I did not realize you were talking about the majority of respondents, most of whom had never been doored at all (and thus were not part of my original reference). For the record, one respondent said he was doored twice in a very short period of time.

Anyway, I've read about way too many stories of either close calls or actual doorings (in comparison to the almighty square hit from behind while riding in a narrow lane, for instance) to consider it hardly something to worry too much about. You yourself obviously worry quite a bit about it as your comments below describe: "If you ride in the door zone, you do so at your own risk, and it's prudent to slow down, be ready with the brakes, and watch the doors." and "Which is why I am also on high alert if I find myself riding in the door zone."

If I can do something so easy as position myself a few feet further from a car door than the average cyclist (in my experience) might, then it's a no brainer to do if it helps me avoid a close call without having to take a bunch of other extra precautions. Again, by your own admittance it's good cycling practice to be "riding clear of the door zone as much as possible."

Ah, the HH technique of spewing exception after exception in the name of overtstating a minor threat. You have learned well, grasshopper.

The insults are unnecessary.

I could think of a thousand exceptions myself, so what? If you ride in the door zone, you do so at your own risk, and it's prudent to slow down, be ready with the brakes, and watch the doors. It's not that hard to mitigate any risk you care to concoct. Keep practicing, you'll get there eventually.

I know how to slow down and crawl past hazards. I don't need to practice door zone riding to get better at that. Generally, while cycling I don't enjoy crawling past hazards so I'll avoid riding in the door zone.

Look, I'm not saying that your advice about how to ride in the door zone is bad advice. Certainly, almost any cyclist could at some point in time be riding in the door zone for some reason (maybe it's just because it's the only way around a huge traffic jam). My point is and has always been that for normal cycling, there's no need to ride in the door zone so don't. It's an unnecessary risk to take.

Riding in the left edge of the bikelane in the picture under discussion is far enough from opening doors to be safe enough. By all means lobby for wider bikelanes clear of door zones though, if you think they're so hazardous. I'll support you 100%

Better yet, why not advise to ride in the lane in the absence of traffic, then move a little right, but not into the door zone, if someone needs to get by? Why bother striping the bike lane if most experienced cyclists would say not to use 90% of it?

This one always flabbergasts me

Don't you have brakes? It amazes me that the simple principle of applying the brakes never enter the heads of people whining about the dangers of doorings.

Go tell that to the folks who have crashed into car doors. I think they would have braked or swerved if they had the chance. I hardly got the impression that these doors were waiting in the path of the cyclists for several seconds before impact. If you did, maybe that explains the disagreement.

Then stop repeating it ad nauseum.

Possibly a good suggestion but it seems far too few cyclists have thought at all about it yet so for most, they are just hearng it for the first time. Sorry you've had to hear it so often though.

Unless you're assuming people are monumentally stupid, avoiding opening doors is pretty instinctive, and even the most clueless newbie soon learns how to avoid them (which of course means riding clear of the door zone as much as possible).

Which is why I am also on high alert if I find myself riding in the door zone.


Again, go tell that to the people who have been doored. If it was so easy, I'm sure they would not have hit the door as it was hardly pleasureable for any of them. Given that many cyclists seem to have the impression that bike lanes in general are a safe refuge on the roads (some have even gone so far to say that they like to zone out in a bike lane), striping them in door zones is not going to have any of those cyclists riding clear of the door zone any time soon.

Mate, it's a fundamental principle of using a car, and a legal requirement. I expect, as a bare minimum, from other road users, compliance with the rules, and a basic sense of self-preservation. The more you make excuses for errant and dangerous behaviour the worse that behaviour will get. It's not about 'changing the behavior of every motorist', but about getting the few exceptions to the rule to comply with the vast majority. That's a lot less sensationalist, I realise, but a lot more realistic, too.

I generally expect basic self preservation from other road users as well. The problem is that not opening a car door into the path of traffic, while part of the rules, is rarely, if ever, damaging to the door opener when the other road user is a cyclist. So even if someone had previously doored a cyclist, what's to stop them from doing it again other than knowing that they might hurt someone else. For the rest of the door openers, most can get by their whole lives with during a cursory check of traffic, mainly looking for automobiles, and never door anyone. A few morons can go through life never checking at all for traffic and still never door anyone. It's sensationalist to assume that you can change the behavior of these people when their rule-breaking ways will never affect themselves or anyone else. It's also sensationalist to assume that a rule-follower will never mistakenly open a car door into the path of traffic, especially a cyclist who may be very difficult to see depending on how close they are riding to other parked cars.

[randya]

I'm not denying that that happens. My wife's friend lost a car door by opening it into the path of a guy speeding down the road.

In your favor, I do think Allister is somewhat underestimating the danger, other than solo crashes the only crashes I've ever had with motor vehicles have been doorings. The first was the worst though, I was pretty young and learned a valuable lesson that day. OTOH, there was no bike lane so it wasn't even a factor.

[Allister]

In your favor, I do think Allister is somewhat underestimating the danger.

It's possible. I get the distinct impression that despite my previous belief that Brisbane drivers were pretty atrocious, that the drivers you guys across the pond deal with are in another league.

[LittleBigMan]

Who is advocating that bike facilities are a necessity for everyone? I don't see that argument being made here. I do see some posts that are 100% anti-facilities, which basically means if I don't like them they shouldn't exist for anyone- a much more narrow minded perspective in my opinion.

This supports my contention that much of the anti-facilities argument is more based on the misinterpretation that advocating for facilities goes hand in hand with the loss of a cyclist's right to ride on the road.

If you don't like facilities don't ride on them.
Certainly, you are not saying bicycle facilities are a necessity for everyone, Buzzman. This is evident from your posts, which are open and honest.

Yet laws allowing the restriction of cyclists from roads adjacent to bike facilities are a reality.

[buzzman]

Yet laws allowing the restriction of cyclists from roads adjacent to bike facilities are a reality.

true and it should be a matter of real concern to all cyclists.

And this is where it can get contentious among cyclists further still. We, as cyclists in general, must pick our battles and fight when a facility impedes our right to ride on roads. Especially if the facility is poorly designed or offers a less than ideal alternative to the road in question.

I remember being amazed that some areas, that could offer excellent cycling on existing roads with some widening and restriping, put in what I would call "go nowhere recreational side paths" for cyclists and could be vigilant about forcing cyclists to use them. These tend to be in Sunbelt States or areas with a high degree of retired persons or vacation areas. These less than adequate bike facilities are supposed to be an attraction so that realtors and travel agents can lay claim that the area promotes a healthy lifestyle. These side paths, if used at all, tend to be used by local kids on skateboards, moms with strollers and an occasional walking speed cyclist out for exercise.

I've had cops try to force me unto such ridiculous wastes of money and successfully refused. Fortunately, these types of facilities were a wave that occurred in the 1970's into the early 80's during the fitness craze and, while they still exist, have proven to be non-functional amusements at best instead of a viable transportation facility.

Unfortunately, some cycling advocates think all bike facilities are of this type and would be right to oppose them if this were the only model. Some cyclists may not agree but a well designed bike facility that offers a reasonable alternative to a poorly designed road might not be the best place to fight for the right of cyclists to ride on the road.

[invisiblehand]

Actually, I was referring to (again) the many hypotheticals VCealots
use in place of statistics for making thier anti-facility points.
After being very active in development issues in PA, I have come to
find there are very differnt stats that can be used in any situation.
Real stats, ie; real facts and figures relating to an issue or Forester type
"stats" that are used to reinforce an agenda. If I see Think Tank type
stats or a 'study' done to support development Im not going to believe it.
The bottom line on those is they are to push an agenda as cheaply as
possible. They have nothing to do with reality, efficiency of infrastructure
or whats best for the people who will use them.

While I am not entirely clear on aspects of your statement, you are correct that there are examples of selective uses of metrics to push one's agenda. However, no one has a monopoly on statistical manipulation and overstatements. For instance, while everyone accepts that oil companies will manipulate statistics for their own purposes, with a little inspection it is clear that environmentalists pervert statistics too. I think that many of the popular divides in the forum are similarly afflicted.

[The Human Car]

At times it does seem like a turf war. They built segregated highways to keep fast traffic off of local streets and keep our local streets safe for other uses. They built segregated paths so cyclists did have to ride on the "unsafe" local streets. Both systems have failed and both systems have contrary assumption as to what is the purpose of the local roads.

I thought mandatory sidepath laws were rare and I didn't think anyone had a mandatory bike trail law. All the hassle we get is assumptions by police and motorists. Around here it is not that uncommon to have the police stop you and tell you to ride on the sidewalk even though it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk.

[invisiblehand]

Allister,

It crossed my mind that distribution of passenger car/truck size -- and their doors -- might be different across the US and Australia. If doors are generally longer here, I speculate that dooring becomes more likely and a greater problem.

If you think that cheaper gas would lead to bigger cars, then it appears that gasoline is -- at least in 2006 -- cheaper in the US.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/au-en/shell_for_motorists/petrol_pricing/prices/world_prices_0116.html

[dynodonn]

buzzman, I agree on the fact that with proper planning, that bike facilities can be useful to some cyclists, but again, I feel that certain interested parties or mandates have the upper hand when deciding what facilities are best for our area. For example, some of our best sections of bike lanes are in places seldom used by cyclists, one such section has a 5 foot lane with a 6 foot buffer zone from the curb, and with no parking allowed on that section of street. The irony is that the bike lane goes through an industrial park, but does end up on a scenic drive that has no bike facilities whatsoever.

[buzzman]

buzzman, I agree on the fact that with proper planning, that bike facilities can be useful to some cyclists, but again, I feel that certain interested parties or mandates have the upper hand when deciding what facilities are best for our area. For example, some of our best sections of bike lanes are in places seldom used by cyclists, one such section has a 5 foot lane with a 6 foot buffer zone from the curb, and with no parking allowed on that section of street. The irony is that the bike lane goes through an industrial park, but does end up on a scenic drive that has no bike facilities whatsoever.

all projects are ultimately political entities and to quote a former Massachusetts congressman, Tip O'Neill, "All politics is local."

In order to better understand the why's and wherefores of bike facilities in your area it's worth it to get involved, even tangentially, in local advocacy. At least then you can get an understanding of the politics of some of the decisions that get made. It may not make it any easier to accept but it makes for a fuller appreciation of the extraordinary effort it takes to do anything right- especially when the most motivated in the political arena are often the most self-serving as opposed to truly serving the public good.

Not that I'm implying you, in particular, are not involved in your local advocacy but it's helped me to better understand the stumbling blocks to improvements by joining various organizations and at least reading through the newsletters even if I can't always attend a meeting.

[WaltPoutine]

Unless you're assuming people are monumentally stupid, avoiding opening doors is pretty instinctive, and even the most clueless newbie soon learns how to avoid them (which of course means riding clear of the door zone as much as possible).

You don't have to assume stupidity to explain why people are pressured into doing things which are not good for them. After all, you've just described yourself as practically lane-splitting by riding on the stripe. I'd suggest that you might want to sit down at an outdoor cafe with a good view down a bikelane and count for yourself how many people ride within the width of a door.

Your explanation of how to ride safely within a bikelane seems to be based on not really riding in the bikelane but actually on its margin. You also seem to be positing perfect sight lines into every car, and either an ability to do a phenomenally quick stop or else riding at an unrealistically low speed.

[Allister]

You don't have to assume stupidity to explain why people are pressured into doing things which are not good for them. After all, you've just described yourself as practically lane-splitting by riding on the stripe. I'd suggest that you might want to sit down at an outdoor cafe with a good view down a bikelane and count for yourself how many people ride within the width of a door.

Not on the stripe, Walt, just to the right of it. Riding to the edge of the bikelane furthest from the kerb is standard practice.

Fortunately, I know of nowhere in my city that has been stupid enough to put bikelanes within door zones (I have heard mention of some though). This is what sh!ts me about the anti-bikelane arguments - I find myself arguing for things that ordinarily I'd be against. In the picture posted, given the opportinuty to design the street myself, I'd just use wide lanes and a low speed limit, or, if they absolutely must have a bikelane, make it wider. They use yellow bike symbols painted in the middle of the lane here (similar, I believe, to 'sharrows'), that serve as a reminder to watch out for bikes without limiting where they actually ride, are useful in those kinds of environments.

Your explanation of how to ride safely within a bikelane seems to be based on not really riding in the bikelane but actually on its margin. You also seem to be positing perfect sight lines into every car, and either an ability to do a phenomenally quick stop or else riding at an unrealistically low speed.

My only point is all of this is that, if that design goes ahead unmodified, the risk from dooring can reasonably easily be mitigated whilst still remaining within the bikelane, and that even the most clueless newbie will soon learn that on their own. If the traffic's light, I'd probably be out of the bikelane too, but if it's backing up at traffic lights, damn right I'll be fully in it.

Riding at a speed that suits the conditions is not what I'd call 'unrealistically slowly'. Riding any faster, imo, is riding 'unrealistically quickly'. We're not talking about a significant proportion of any ride, if it happens at all, and there's no need to try and rush through it hastily, and therefore, dangerously. For the most part, out of the doorzone is inarguably the ideal place to be, but it's not so bad within it that it should be avoided at all costs.

You don't have to be going all that slowly to be able to stop in a very short distance. Try it out in a carpark sometime.

[Allister]

Allister,

It crossed my mind that distribution of passenger car/truck size -- and their doors -- might be different across the US and Australia. If doors are generally longer here, I speculate that dooring becomes more likely and a greater problem.

If you think that cheaper gas would lead to bigger cars, then it appears that gasoline is -- at least in 2006 -- cheaper in the US.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/au-en/shell_for_motorists/petrol_pricing/prices/world_prices_0116.html

I'm not sure if it's just a car type thing. I get the feeling that compliance with the law, and simple courtesy and attentiveness to driving is much better here, which I do find kind of comforting. Previously I thought they were all maniacs here, now I have a little perspective.

[dynodonn]

.....It crossed my mind that distribution of passenger car/truck size -- and their doors -- might be different across the US and Australia. If doors are generally longer here, I speculate that dooring becomes more likely and a greater problem.

If you think that cheaper gas would lead to bigger cars, then it appears that gasoline is -- at least in 2006 -- cheaper in the US.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/au-en/shell_for_motorists/petrol_pricing/prices/world_prices_0116.html



Sometime back, I measured the distance from the outside edge of the passenger tires to the outer edge of the driver's door on my midsized SUV, and it came to just over 10 ft (3.1m). Again, that's on my "midsize" SUV, full size trucks and SUV's dwarf my SUV when I park next to them, plus the white stripe furthest from the curb of our bike lanes averages between 11 ft (3.3m) to 12ft (3.6m). Add that most motorist do not park their cars up against the curb, leaving a gap of considerable distance at times, it leaves little margin of error even when riding the bike lane line furthest from the curb.

[MarkS]

I wonder how many of the anti-bike laners have ever tried to do extensive transport with a child?

Could you ride where you ride with a child, and not get arrested for child endangerment?

If a route is unsuitable for a child (with supervision), what makes anyone think that its really suitable for adults?

Are WOL's just as effective as bike lanes? Maybe, but WOL's are not politically protected. WOL's around here would get converted into car lanes faster than you can say "Selfish Ugly Vehicle." Having lanes designated as Bike Lanes provide political cover for the civil engineers, even if the lanes are basically places for maintenance trucks to park.

[The Human Car]

... plus the white stripe furthest from the curb of our bike lanes averages between 11 ft (3.3m) to 12ft (3.6m). Add that most motorist do not park their cars up against the curb, leaving a gap of considerable distance at times, it leaves little margin of error even when riding the bike lane line furthest from the curb.

FWIW If you don't live in California a 11ft door zone bike lane is in violation of AASHTO and the agency that installed it can be held liable for damages.

[noisebeam]

IWOL's around here would get converted into car lanes faster than you can say "Selfish Ugly Vehicle." Having lanes designated as Bike Lanes provide political cover for the civil engineers, even if the lanes are basically places for maintenance trucks to park.

Huh? How does one convert a lane already shared by cyclists and motorists to a 'car lane'?

Al

[The Human Car]

I wonder how many of the anti-bike laners have ever tried to do extensive transport with a child?

Could you ride where you ride with a child, and not get arrested for child endangerment?

When my kids were little I used to ride all over the place without the aid of bike lanes. Kid trailers are one of the best get respect on the road devices ever made. (Note: I did pretest routes with an empty trailer first.) Zero harassment with the trailer and some harassment without.

Personally I think part of the problem is the "toy" factor of a bicycle, make it look like you are doing something practical and most of the problem disappears.

[noisebeam]

One of the only other cyclists I see sometime on my commute who appears to be quite vehicular in practice also tows a young child in a trailer.

Al

[MarkS]

One of the only other cyclists I see sometime on my commute who appears to be quite vehicular in practice also tows a young child in a trailer.

AlWith 50+ MPH traffic behind them?

I don't buy it. And I never see it.

[noisebeam]

With 50+ MPH traffic behind them?

I don't buy it. And I never see it.

Nearly every cyclist where I live has cycled with 50mph traffic behind them. So what?

[Bekologist]

should they have to be required to do so in order to transit their community on a bicycle?

[MarkS]

Huh? How does one convert a lane already shared by cyclists and motorists to a 'car lane'?

Al
By restriping so that a 3 lane road with one wide lane becomes a four lane with no wide lane and maybe no or minimal shoulder. This is especially likely to happen if a road area is going under construction. Apparently lane width and shoulder requirements can be waived if an area is termed a construction area. Unfortunately, these construction areas can linger on 2 or three years.

Around here all roads east were restriped/repainted in just this manner to make way for a freeway. Bike lanes were removed, and no WOL was left.

Maybe you would be happy going up hill with 50+ mph traffic behind you, and no shoulder or WOL, but I wasn't. And although I could do it personally and deal with the traffic, I probably would have been arrested if I had tried to take my child on the tag-a-long. There was an "official" bike detour that went 3 miles out of the way up one of the steepest hills around, leading to another East route that ALSO had the same lane problem due to the same freeway construction.

Young studs can ride their expensive lightweight bikes anywhere, but the rest of us like bike lanes.