Advocacy & Safety - Doored Cyclist Ticketed for Violating 3-foot Law

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=23479
http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8850254&nav=menu1362_2

Its only 10 bucks, but I think after an accident thats bull****!


should have check door mirriors First!

Frankly it should be a "two way street..." both the motorist and the cyclist should have fines. The motorist for not looking before opening a door, and the cyclist for riding in the door zone. Split the responsibility right down the middle.

This may be the only way anybody will learn... the carrot doesn't seem to work; time to apply the stick.

Damn, talk about kicking someone when they're down. The motorist should have gotten an obstructing traffic ticket, just like it said in the article. If another car had hit this guys door there is no way that that driver would have been ticketed.

the problem is not the ticket. the problem is that since the police officer gave a ticket in the incident, thus assigning blame, the motorists insurance won't cover the cyclists healthcare. and quite possibly the cyclists health insurance may refuse to cover under those same grounds. "It's our fault, it was preventable, so you have to pay it all."

THAT'S the trap

Sucks when you disobey the law

In Chicago the violation would have been the driver's fault. It really depends on the local ordinance of each town, municipality or city.

The officer, not having witnessed the impact is going to have a tough time proving it was less than three feet. Think about how small a distance three feet from the side of a car actually is.

The officer, not having witnessed the impact is going to have a tough time proving it was less than three feet. Think about how small a distance three feet from the side of a car actually is.


Really?

Unless the car door is more than three feet long (-was it a '73 Olds 88 coupe? ;)) and it opens ninety degess from the hinge, if she was struck by the door, she was within three feet.

Well, I'm trying to visualize how far the doors open on our cars and in my estimation they're farther than 3 feet from the side of the car. I could be completely wrong, though.

Usually the 3 foot law is worded so that cars passing a bicycle must give 3 feet minimum clearance, not the other way around. How is this one worded?
And usually a door opening law is worded to put the responsibility on the person opening the door to make sure that the road is clear.

great reason to take the lane and not worry about being nice.

This brings up some questions:

-How exactly is this "little-known state law that requires bicyclists passing a parked or standing vehicle to allow "a minimum of three feet" between themselves and the car" phrased? From what point on the vehicle and the bicycle/rider is this measured?

-If this law is real - was it done as part of a compromise for cyclists to get a 3' motorist passing law? A terrible trade if you ask me.

-Does this state have any bike lanes that place cyclists within 3' of parked cars?

-How does one know if the cyclist was within 3' of a parked car if doored. One can get doored riding a bit over 3'

Al

Wisconsin 346.80.3
(c) Any person operating a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device upon a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a standing or parked vehicle or a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, allowing a minimum of 3 feet between the bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device and the vehicle, and shall give an audible signal when passing a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device rider proceeding in the same direction.


Wisconsin might be the only state with such a law. I've read quite a few state laws regarding bicycles and never seen such a thing.

Many states have laws requiring someone opening a door into a traffic lane to exercise due care. Wisconsin has no such law. I couldn't find the word "door" in the Wisconsin traffic code at all.

This brings up some questions:

-How exactly is this "little-known state law that requires bicyclists passing a parked or standing vehicle to allow "a minimum of three feet" between themselves and the car" phrased? From what point on the vehicle and the bicycle/rider is this measured?

-If this law is real - was it done as part of a compromise for cyclists to get a 3' motorist passing law? A terrible trade if you ask me.

I have not thought of all the possibilities... but I don't really see why it is so bad for "overtaking" cyclists to also maintain a 3' distance from motorists. Perhaps the biggest issue is lane splitting, which isn't legal in all states... so as a cyclist you cannot split a lane and have to wait with the motorists for the light to change.

Really to me, a reciprocal 3 foot law just means cyclists are following the mantra of "same roads, same rules, same rights."

This obviously also gives clear incentive to take the lane and stay out of the door zone.




-Does this state have any bike lanes that place cyclists within 3' of parked cars?

-How does one know if the cyclist was within 3' of a parked car if doored. One can get doored riding a bit over 3'

Al

Now the BL in a door zone issue is interesting... did they go out and restripe all the BL to ensure that none were in door zones, or perhaps are they using sharrows?

Really to me, a reciprocal 3 foot law just means cyclists are following the mantra of "same roads, same rules, same rights."


Are motor vehicles required to pass parked vehicles with 3' of clearance?

If not, it is not 'same rules same rights.'

Al

Most states have a law similar to the following-- from the Uniform Vehicle code:
UVC § 11-1105 Opening and closing vehicle doors
"No person shall open any door on a motor vehicle 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 a side of a vehicle adjacent to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers."

Based on the NHTSA guide to laws regarding bicycles (which may be out of date), states without a similar law are Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, Tennesse, Virginia, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

Are motor vehicles required to pass parked vehicles with 3' of clearance?

If not, it is not 'same rules same rights.'

Al

While there may not be a specified rule, I believe a 3 foot + gap pretty much occurs naturally. And motor vehicles are NOT likely to try to split lanes, nor are motorists likely to "hug the edge of a lane" in a way similar to what cyclists do when attempting to move between moving and parked cars.

That it is not specified by law does make it an issue of not being same rules, same rights. But in practice, this is only a technicality.

The 3 foot law for cyclists does put cyclists in a position of having to take the lane in the area of parked cars, thus cyclists have one more legal defense for not hugging the curb... or riding in door zones.

I still think the net outcome is positive... Although as I first stated in this thread, I believe the motorist should be ticketed for opening the door too.

While there may not be a specified rule, I believe a 3 foot + gap pretty much occurs naturally. And motor vehicles are NOT likely to try to split lanes, nor are motorists likely to "hug the edge of a lane" in a way similar to what cyclists do when attempting to move between moving and parked cars.

That it is not specified by law does make it an issue of not being same rules, same rights. But in practice, this is only a technicality.

The 3 foot law for cyclists does put cyclists in a position of having to take the lane in the area of parked cars, thus cyclists have one more legal defense for not hugging the curb... or riding in door zones.

I still think the net outcome is positive... Although as I first stated in this thread, I believe the motorist should be ticketed for opening the door too.

You've never seen a two wheeled motor vehicle split lanes or ride close to parked cars?

It is not just a technicality. If a motor vehicle gets doored blame will be on parked car occupant (or responsible driver) opening door. If cyclist gets doored they get blamed.

Yes of course the law encourages safer cycling, but why not just make the same rules for motor vehicles and non?

As to the part I bolded - no this is not the case - the 3' passing law now gives some suggestion for what is as far right as practicable is, that is >3' from parked cars. This minimum is still much too close, but now there is an potential argument based on law that a cyclist 4-5' from parked cars could and should be closer.

Al

Are motor vehicles required to pass parked vehicles with 3' of clearance?

And on that note, what if she was being passed by a car that was crowding her in. You can't leave 3' if that space is occupied by a vehicle.

You've never seen a two wheeled motor vehicle split lanes or ride close to parked cars?

Not next to parked cars, but between lanes of moving cars... apparently even the motorcycle riders here in CA are also keen to the door zones. In Europe where scooters were all the rage, again I only saw lane splitting between moving cars.




It is not just a technicality. If a motor vehicle gets doored blame will be on parked car occupant (or responsible driver) opening door. If cyclist gets doored they get blamed.
Which is why I mentioned that it should be a shared blame... I believe both parties should be ticketed.

RE this shared blame aspect... in this case both were at fault, but say a cyclist was outside of the minimum distance and a motorist swung open a 5 foot door, then fault would lie only with the motorist... which is why a law should also exist for the motorist.




Yes of course the law encourages safer cycling, but why not just make the same rules for motor vehicles and non?
I see no reason not to do it for motor vehicles too.




As to the part I bolded - no this is not the case - the 3' passing law now gives some suggestion for what is as far right as practicable is, that is >3' from parked cars. This minimum is still much too close, but now there is an potential argument based on law that a cyclist 4-5' from parked cars could and should be closer.

Al

No, it is a minimum law... there is nothing saying they cannot move out further... just as speed limits are a maximum law, and unless otherwise specified, there is no reason one cannot drive/bike at a slower speed.

And on that note, what if she was being passed by a car that was crowding her in. You can't leave 3' if that space is occupied by a vehicle.

This why 3 foot passing laws should exist... For all vehicles. And why cyclists should take the lane.

Shoe is on the other foot now. We complain about cars passing too close now it's the other way around. Sucks.... sorry anyone got hurt. Tough lesson, but again not paying attention to your surroundings can get you. Was this avoidable ? Most likely from the sounds of the reports. We cry for 3 feet so why not give three feet OR better still in situations like this reduce our speed to one we can stop if needed.
Still sucks that she was hurt.

We cry for 3 feet

'We' do? Not all of us we.

All I ask for is safe passing law - drivers of all types of vehicles should be required to pass all other types of vehicles moving and stationary with safe passing clearance.

Al

'We' do? Not all of us we.

All I ask for is safe passing law - drivers of all types of vehicles should be required to pass all other types of vehicles moving and stationary with safe passing clearance.

Al

Define "a safe passing distance."

To the motorist that would be any distance that cleared a cyclist. To a cyclist that distance might be much further depending on the speed and type of passing vehicle... A truck or bus, for instance, passing "safely" within inches would technically be legal by your definition, but the whoosh of wind off of such a vehicle moving at a high rate of speed could knock a cyclist down.

A vehicle passing a cyclist within inches doesn't leave a cyclist room for avoiding hazards that exist within inches of narrow tires.

While I understand the issues of motorists working at the edges of limits such as minimums or maximums, I still feel that a well defined number helps to remove the ambiguity of "a safe passing distance."

Well, in the interest of science :geek: (and because Olympic beach volleyball was getting a little boring) I took a tape measure out to the driveway.

-With a "depending on the vehicle" caveat, you're absolutely right. :cheers:



At full open, the front doors of my '06 Nissan XTERRA extend 37" from the vehicle. The rear doors, 35".

The '07 Chevy Tahoe also out there, and substantially larger, goes about 38"/36" - F/R.

I assume our Mini Cooper would be less, but it isn't here right now to measure. I'm sure many sleek coupes would be more.

Boy, I guess that '73 Oldsmobile I was thinking of could be used to close entire streets.:eek:

Wisconsin does have a 3 foot passing law that applies to a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle but I can't find anything that requires a motor vehicle to give a parked vehicle 3 feet of clearance.

While there may not be a specified rule, I believe a 3 foot + gap pretty much occurs naturally.
You must have very different roads then the ones we have around here. If you check you'll find that the mirrors on most cars can be folded in. There's a reason for that. I find the bits and pieces fairly regularly in my travels. Charmingly, having a broken mirror is also a ticketable offense (I wouldn't mind if I was driving around with it but I found the mirror and the ticket at the same time, shattered glass alongside the car).


And motor vehicles are NOT likely to try to split lanes, nor are motorists likely to "hug the edge of a lane" in a way similar to what cyclists do when attempting to move between moving and parked cars.
Again, you're assuming that the rest of the forest is like your neck of the woods. I see them do both regularly. Driving in empty parking lanes is also a popular pastime.

Around my neck of the woods the bike lanes are not only almost always on the left, but are almost entirely in the door zones. I hug the right (outside) edge and keep watch for vehicles swinging into my lane while they pass other vehicles on their right (guess which side they pay attention to).

I don't know what Henry Street in Madison looks like or how wide it is, but the cyclist is quoted as saying that she'd left what she thought was a safe distance. It sounded from the article like she was hit in the side by the door (not that she drove into an open door), so she could very easily have had her tire path well outside of 36 inches and still have been struck (is it 36 inches to the elbow?). LEO really would've needed to see it happen. If it'd been another car there'd be no question of fault… there really isn't one here either.

its too bad because one cop might give a ticket for riding in the 3 foot zone, while another might ticket for "obstructing traffic" riding outside of "acceptable distance from the right"

Most states have a law similar to the following-- from the Uniform Vehicle code:
UVC § 11-1105 Opening and closing vehicle doors
"No person shall open any door on a motor vehicle 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 a side of a vehicle adjacent to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers."

Based on the NHTSA guide to laws regarding bicycles (which may be out of date), states without a similar law are Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, Tennesse, Virginia, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

You can include Washington on that list.

"RCW 46.61.620
Opening and closing vehicle doors.

No person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side adjacent 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 adjacent to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers."

Seems stupid to cite the bicyclist in this instance. That law needs changin'

You must have very different roads then the ones we have around here. If you check you'll find that the mirrors on most cars can be folded in. There's a reason for that. I find the bits and pieces fairly regularly in my travels. Charmingly, having a broken mirror is also a ticketable offense (I wouldn't mind if I was driving around with it but I found the mirror and the ticket at the same time, shattered glass alongside the car).

I'll admit that the roads can be quite different... in different parts of the country, but consider that many bike riders tend to ride in that gap between parked cars and the moving cars... that gap tends to be about 3-4 feet wide if not a bit wider. Consider also that cities often paint bike lanes in that gap... so it must exist for the most part. (Said BL are often not very safe... being in the door zone.)

Why are the mirrors are broken on occasion I have no idea... perhaps from close calls at low speeds. Perhaps from cyclists riding in the 3-4 foot gap.



Again, you're assuming that the rest of the forest is like your neck of the woods. I see them do both regularly. Driving in empty parking lanes is also a popular pastime.

Around my neck of the woods the bike lanes are not only almost always on the left, but are almost entirely in the door zones. I hug the right (outside) edge and keep watch for vehicles swinging into my lane while they pass other vehicles on their right (guess which side they pay attention to).

I don't know what Henry Street in Madison looks like or how wide it is, but the cyclist is quoted as saying that she'd left what she thought was a safe distance. It sounded from the article like she was hit in the side by the door (not that she drove into an open door), so she could very easily have had her tire path well outside of 36 inches and still have been struck (is it 36 inches to the elbow?). LEO really would've needed to see it happen. If it'd been another car there'd be no question of fault… there really isn't one here either.

Take a tape measure out there and give a look, really. Take a camera and prove me wrong. BTW I am not talking about alleys... which I know are quite narrow and some folks do use as streets... but not at 25MPH. I also am not talking about residential streets... The streets in my residential neighborhood (built in the 1950s) are very narrow... so much so that the residents tend to stop while another car passes... but then no one drives those streets at 25MPH either. And cyclists, they ride right in the middle... where kids play basket ball.

its too bad because one cop might give a ticket for riding in the 3 foot zone, while another might ticket for "obstructing traffic" riding outside of "acceptable distance from the right"
That's a good point. Wisconsin has a "ride right" law, with exceptions, but there is no exception for "in order to stay at least 3 feet from parked cars."

It's quite possible that one cop might ticket a bicyclist for not riding within 3 feet of parked cars, while another might ticket a bicyclist for riding within 3 feet of parked cars.

Of course, in court, it should be fairly easy to argue that it's not practicable to ride within 3 feet of a parked car, in light of the fact that it's illegal (at least in Wisconsin). That is, provided that everyone agrees that it's not practicable to do something that's illegal.

Ironic that if cyclists have to leave 3' by law, and any part of the bike lane is within 3' of the parked cars, then the bike lane is encouraging illegal behavior. (In addition to dangerous, as always.)

If Wisconsin indeed has the law about not opening car doors unless safe, I would agree that the motorist should have been cited. Not that riding in the door zone shouldn't still be avoided, but at least the cyclist here should have a legal leg to stand on.


Of course, in court, it should be fairly easy to argue that it's not practicable to ride within 3 feet of a parked car, in light of the fact that it's illegal (at least in Wisconsin). That is, provided that everyone agrees that it's not practicable to do something that's illegal.

Agreed. Even if not illegal, I would consider dangerous to be impracticable as well.

that gap tends to be about 3-4 feet wide if not a bit wider. Consider also that cities often paint bike lanes in that gap... so it must exist for the most part.My street is about 140 inches wide from parked car to parked car. My VW Golf has about exactly 3 feet clearance either side. Vans and trucks tend to have considerably less.


Why are the mirrors are broken on occasion I have no idea... perhaps from close calls at low speeds. Perhaps from cyclists riding in the 3-4 foot gap.The neighborhood consensus is that the mirrors are scraped off by delivery trucks and mini-busses. You're free to speculate. The speeds aren't as low as you might hope and when they do a couple hundred dollars worth of damage to our cars we tend to not think of them as close calls. Never heard of a cyclist taking one off with their arm but then again anything is possible. Cyclists tend to go directly down the middle of the street.


I also am not talking about residential streets... The streets in my residential neighborhood (built in the 1950s) are very narrow... but then no one drives those streets at 25MPH either. And cyclists, they ride right in the middle... where kids play basket ball.Well why not?

Was either the parked car or the cyclist going more than 25 mph? Henry Street in Madison is 10 blocks long with two dead ends, part residential, part commercial and near the core of the city (not a terribly high speed area). It looks (on Google maps) to be a smallish two lane street. Whenever they took the satellite photos it had at the most 10 (moving) cars on its entire length including three at a light. Why the speculation that the rider was shooting a gap?

If I was holding a line 42" out from the parked cars (in the right tire path) and someone threw a door open directly in front of me that extended 37 or 38 inches out from the car (per Tortoise, above), they would in fact take me out. If I were 48" out they'd still hit me a pretty good shot… assuming I held my line and didn't wobble to the right in surprise.


"I think I yelled 'No!'" says Willsey, as the door hit her right side. "I went into the air and landed on my back."… "I don't think I was riding my bike dangerously close."

Frankly it should be a "two way street..." both the motorist and the cyclist should have fines. The motorist for not looking before opening a door, and the cyclist for riding in the door zone. Split the responsibility right down the middle.Why? Do you have any evidence at all? Did the cop?

Surely this law is a safety and educational law. So officers can ticket cyclists doing something really stupid.

Maybe the purpose of ticketing the girl is to get this in the news to educate drivers and cyclists. $10 is a small price for this young lady to pay for that kind of educational value.

Otherwise, I don't know what we pay cops for. We can write software to write this kind of ticket.

Why? Do you have any evidence at all? Did the cop?

A cyclist was hit by a door... what more evidence do you need that the cyclist was riding too close to the door zone and the motorist opened the door without being cognizant of approaching traffic?

Both are guilty of different "offenses" that lead to one result.

My street is about 140 inches wide from parked car to parked car. My VW Golf has about exactly 3 feet clearance either side. Vans and trucks tend to have considerably less.

The neighborhood consensus is that the mirrors are scraped off by delivery trucks and mini-busses. You're free to speculate. The speeds aren't as low as you might hope and when they do a couple hundred dollars worth of damage to our cars we tend to not think of them as close calls. Never heard of a cyclist taking one off with their arm but then again anything is possible. Cyclists tend to go directly down the middle of the street.



Was either the parked car or the cyclist going more than 25 mph? Henry Street in Madison is 10 blocks long with two dead ends, part residential, part commercial and near the core of the city (not a terribly high speed area). It looks (on Google maps) to be a smallish two lane street. Whenever they took the satellite photos it had at the most 10 (moving) cars on its entire length including three at a light. Why the speculation that the rider was shooting a gap?

I chose 25MPH as the typical speed of down town commercial areas... it also happens to be the same speed of residential areas which are not built to the same standard.

I don't know where Henry Street in Madison is... but due to the nature of the dooring I assumed it was in a commercial area. (yeah, I made an assumption)

In my older residential neighborhood, every one goes down the center of the street, the streets are simply too narrow otherwise. I therefore guessed that Henry was a commercial street with traffic that passed on either side of a center double yellow with parked cars on either side... such street configurations are common in America... and there is usually about 3 feet or so between moving cars (not delivery trucks, as you point out) and parked cars and about 3 or more feet between vehicles on either side of the center.






If I was holding a line 42" out from the parked cars (in the right tire path) and someone threw a door open directly in front of me that extended 37 or 38 inches out from the car (per Tortoise, above), they would in fact take me out. If I were 48" out they'd still hit me a pretty good shot… assuming I held my line and didn't wobble to the right in surprise.



If a door extended 38 inches and you were 48 inches out I think you might hit said door by 2 inches... assuming a 24 inch hand to hand distance.

So should we lobby Madison for a cyclist 48 inch rule instead?

I don't know what Henry Street in Madison looks like or how wide it is, but the cyclist is quoted as saying that she'd left what she thought was a safe distance. It sounded from the article like she was hit in the side by the door (not that she drove into an open door), so she could very easily have had her tire path well outside of 36 inches and still have been struck (is it 36 inches to the elbow?). LEO really would've needed to see it happen. If it'd been another car there'd be no question of fault… there really isn't one here either.

I grew up in Madison, so perhaps I can settle this one.

Henry Street is a side street in downtown Madison, one way over much of its length. It doesn't carry much traffic, and it is partly multi-family residential, partly commercial. The businesses along Henry Street have neighborhood and local appeal. Perhaps the best known, famous already when I was in high school (and we won't say how long ago that was), is the Plaza Tavern (http://www.theplazatavern.com/).

As far as traffic is concerned, Henry Street is one of those streets you might use to go around the block, but you wouldn't even use it in a car or truck as a way to cross downtown. Henry Street runs behind (not in front of) Madison's new Overture Center, a civic center where the local symphony and repertory theater have their home base. Much of the housing on northern end of Henry Street is filled by students. At Henry and Langdon is the big Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority house. Closer to West Washington Avenue, Henry Street has several big condominium developments alongside it which are now stalled by the housing crisis.

To make a long story short, Henry Street is not an arterial street. It is the kind of minor street on which bicyclists expect to find safety.

Howard Metzenberg
Madison native

The ordinance in Wisconsin is:
346.80(2)(c) Any person operating a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device upon a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a standing or parked vehicle or a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, allowing a minimum of 3 feet between the bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device and the vehicle, and shall give an audible signal when passing a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility device rider proceeding in the same direction.

At least she shouted, otherwise they could ticket her twice.

I grew up in Madison, so perhaps I can settle this one.

Henry Street is a side street in downtown Madison, one way over much of its length. It doesn't carry much traffic, and it is partly multi-family residential, partly commercial. The businesses along Henry Street have neighborhood and local appeal. Perhaps the best known, famous already when I was in high school (and we won't say how long ago that was), is the Plaza Tavern (http://www.theplazatavern.com/).

As far as traffic is concerned, Henry Street is one of those streets you might use to go around the block, but you wouldn't even use it in a car or truck as a way to cross downtown. Henry Street runs behind (not in front of) Madison's new Overture Center, a civic center where the local symphony and repertory theater have their home base. Much of the housing on northern end of Henry Street is filled by students. At Henry and Langdon is the big Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority house. Closer to West Washington Avenue, Henry Street has several big condominium developments alongside it which are now stalled by the housing crisis.

To make a long story short, Henry Street is not an arterial street. It is the kind of minor street on which bicyclists expect to find safety.

Howard Metzenberg
Madison native

So a cyclist could easily ride well away from parked cars on Henry Street and perhaps not even encounter harassment from motorists. In other words, one could ride out three feet or more easily?

So a cyclist could easily ride well away from parked cars on Henry Street and perhaps not even encounter harassment from motorists. In other words, one could ride out three feet or more easily?

And perhaps did…


the door hit her right side… "I don't think I was riding my bike dangerously close."

At the very least the article provides no evidence to the contrary.


If a door extended 38 inches and you were 48 inches out I think you might hit said door by 2 inches... assuming a 24 inch hand to hand distance.

I don't know how you ride, but that'd put the door frame right about where my fingers are… and if I unexpectedly punched a car door at 10 mph and had my handlebars wrenched violently to one side I think its very possible that I'd find myself lying in the street a moment or two later. If she was hit in the side, it'd seem (to me at least) that the door opened more or less as she was passing and not before.

If I were to lobby the City of Madison, I think I'd suggest something explicit about opening car doors into traffic. If it'd happened to another car there wouldn't be any question of fault.

I don't know how you ride, but that'd put the door frame right about where my fingers are… and if I unexpectedly punched a car door at 10 mph and had my handlebars wrenched violently to one side I think its very possible that I'd find myself lying in the street a moment or two later. If she was hit in the side, it'd seem (to me at least) that the door opened more or less as she was passing and not before.

If I were to lobby the City of Madison, I think I'd suggest something explicit about opening car doors into traffic. If it'd happened to another car there wouldn't be any question of fault.

I ride very wide out in the lane. I have very wide handlebars (flat) on my commuter and I try to stay at least 5 feet away from parked cars... usually by centering myself in the right tire track. (because of the wide bars, I also tend to not filter forward)

I tend to agree with your assessment about where you'd be hit and what would happen. I had some close calls years ago that convinced me that 5 feet was about right.

The issue of fault is where we have a bit of disagreement.

While I do believe the motorist was at fault for not looking, I also believe the cyclist was at fault for riding in the door zone... I don't feel a $10 "education ticket" is out of line... but at the same time, I want the motorist dinged too... I would like to see the motorist also get a ticket.

I really feel that both parties are at fault here. The cyclist has more to lose than the motorist and therefore should have enough sense to stay well clear of the door zone... if it takes a law to make that so... so be it.

In the real world, 3 feet is often a luxury. 3 feet in a tight-laned urban zone will put you near the middle of the lane. It will put you outside most parking-space-flanking bike lanes. And 3 feet doesn't clear some doors.

So the cyclist gets ticketed for passing closely, or gets ticketed for blocking traffic... it's a catch-22.

Your options are to 1) bravely stand your ground and maintain 3+ feet 2) avoid such streets 3) pass closely, but slow down and be vigilant.

Also, I felt bad about the cyclist until I found out that she doored one herself before.

So the cyclist gets ticketed for passing closely, or gets ticketed for blocking traffic... it's a catch-22.

Maybe they are out there, but I don't know of any laws about "blocking traffic." Impeding traffic is a traffic offense, but in the case of a cyclist, it really doesn't apply unless the cyclist is intentionally trying to slow traffic down for the sake of slowing traffic down, i.e. not because they are using the full lane for safety reasons but because they simply want to be a jerk and annoy others.

The "as far right as practicable" law could be cited by an uninformed officer but that citation could hopefully be easily defeated in court due to the obvious issues with riding in the doorzone (and apparently the laws that prohibit it, something that is news to me).

The only other possible citation could be the "slow moving vehicle to pull off the roadway" law but this only applies once 5 or more vehicles are slowed behind the slow moving vehicle, the road is only one way in each direction, and there is a safe place to pull over (in my opinion, the door zone is a safe place to stop). This law also does not exist in every state and when it does exist, the police don't usually have a clue about it in my experience (DE and PA cops specifically).

In the real world, 3 feet is often a luxury. 3 feet in a tight-laned urban zone will put you near the middle of the lane. It will put you outside most parking-space-flanking bike lanes. And 3 feet doesn't clear some doors.

So the cyclist gets ticketed for passing closely, or gets ticketed for blocking traffic... it's a catch-22.

Your options are to 1) bravely stand your ground and maintain 3+ feet 2) avoid such streets 3) pass closely, but slow down and be vigilant.

Also, I felt bad about the cyclist until I found out that she doored one herself before.

Are there tickets for blocking traffic? The only place I have heard of such was in New Orleans. Does such a law exist in Portland? Anywhere else?

How about Madison?

when I lived near Madison in the late '70s, I rode through stop signs hundreds of times with the Chief of Police. I forget his name, but he raced bikes, and there was a stop sign in the club race route.

This story is more than a little crazy, the cop should have at least cited the motorist. There are mirrors on cars for a reason. A quick glance would have revealed that it wasn't a good time to open the door.

when I lived near Madison in the late '70s, I rode through stop signs hundreds of times with the Chief of Police. I forget his name, but he raced bikes, and there was a stop sign in the club race route.

This story is more than a little crazy, the cop should have at least cited the motorist. There are mirrors on cars for a reason. A quick glance would have revealed that it wasn't a good time to open the door.

Unterhausen,

That was Police Chief David Couper. Remember him? Young but very bald. He was a former marine. I understand that he is still living and active, but he has become a minister. He has also written books and articles, and he has been interviewed a great deal about his experiences as Madison's chief of police in the 1970s. I have a lot of personal memories of him.


So a cyclist could easily ride well away from parked cars on Henry Street and perhaps not even encounter harassment from motorists. In other words, one could ride out three feet or more easily?

genec,

I don't know which block of Henry Street this occurred on. One section, north of Langdon, is barely more than an alley. Another section has one way traffic and no parking (behind the Civic Center). My recollection is that most of it is one way heading northwest with parking only on one side. I was last in Madison three weeks ago. My experiences in Madison include a summer in the late 1970s driving a cab. Henry Street was the only way to turn your cab around without going blocks further west. I lived half a block from Henry Street in 1979-80. There isn't enough room on Henry Street in Madison for this bizarre law. Yet it is a street that bicyclists absolutely depend on to get around downtown Madison safely.

You are imagining that traffic laws are extremely literal, that they can prescribe correct behavior in every situation for both drivers, that they determine right and wrong. In fact, traffic laws are often contradictory, and prescribe behavior that is reasonable and prudent for the given situation above all else. For example, speed limit laws in every state require the driver to slow down even further if traffic conditions require it.

The police officer had a lot of discretion about what law to ticket under, and she could have ticketed the driver who opened his door just as easily for obstructing traffic, even if the word "door" is not anywhere in the Wisconsin statutes. I hope the woman who was doored has a good bicycle attorney.

I wish there were some way to follow the story in Madison. I have been checking the Isthmus Daily Page in Madison. It has had a few comments from the usual losers (like us) who comment on these matters.

Howard Metzenberg

Unterhausen,

genec,

You are imagining that traffic laws are extremely literal, that they can prescribe correct behavior in every situation for both drivers, that they determine right and wrong. In fact, traffic laws are often contradictory, and prescribe behavior that is reasonable and prudent for the given situation above all else. For example, speed limit laws in every state require the driver to slow down even further if traffic conditions require it.
Howard Metzenberg

Actually what I imagine is that people use common sense, respect each other, share the road courteously, and work to stay within the intent of the law.

That's what I imagine... too bad reality is often so far from it.

According to the very readable Law Enforcement Officer’s Instruction Manual for Completing the Wisconsin Motor Vehicle Accident Report Form (1998 Edition)…


…motor vehicles with a door open into a traffic way are also considered motor vehicles in transport. The person who parked the vehicle is the operator (page 43)… A parked motor vehicle is any motor vehicle stopped, parked, disabled, or abandoned along the roadway where normal usage permits such stopping or parking outside the roadway traffic lanes. This does NOT include double parked vehicles, vehicles parked in no parking zones, driverless motor vehicles, vehicles with a door open into a traffic way… (page 59)

Under Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 346: Rules of the Road, 346.18 General rules of right−of−way…


(5) MOVING FROM PARKED POSITION. The operator of any vehicle that has been parked or standing shall, while moving such vehicle from such position, yield the right−of−way to all vehicles approaching on the highway.

Common sense and Wisconsin law both seem to indicate that the occupants of the parked car interfered catastrophically with the cyclist's right of way. There may have been an assumption on the part of the LEO that if the door struck the cyclist, the cyclist must have been in the door zone. I think we agreed above that this isn't necessarily true.

Failure to yield seems to me to be supported by facts in evidence… that the cyclist was inside of 3 feet seems to me to require some assumptions that may not be true. The cyclist's statement that she thought she was a safe distance out suggests she was in agreement with the intent of the law. She obviously wasn't far out enough, but could have been in compliance while staying as far to the right as practical (which she's also asked to do).

Not really sure why she needs to be found at fault.

According to the very readable Law Enforcement Officer’s Instruction Manual for Completing the Wisconsin Motor Vehicle Accident Report Form (1998 Edition)…



Under Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 346: Rules of the Road, 346.18 General rules of right−of−way…



Common sense and Wisconsin law both seem to indicate that the occupants of the parked car interfered catastrophically with the cyclist's right of way. There may have been an assumption on the part of the LEO that if the door struck the cyclist, the cyclist must have been in the door zone. I think we agreed above that this isn't necessarily true.

Failure to yield seems to me to be supported by facts in evidence… that the cyclist was inside of 3 feet seems to me to require some assumptions that may not be true. The cyclist's statement that she thought she was a safe distance out suggests she was in agreement with the intent of the law. She obviously wasn't far out enough, but could have been in compliance while staying as far to the right as practical (which she's also asked to do).

Not really sure why she needs to be found at fault.

Actually the solution is simple... measure the door in question. If it opens less than three feet, the cyclist is sharing guilt for the collision. If the door opens more than 3 feet... slam the motorist.