Fifty Plus (50+) - insult to injury

Read an article in one of the Madison wi free papers. Said article was about a bicyclist who got doored and while getting treatment in the hospital was visited by a policeman who proceeded to write him up for riding to close to a parked vehicle. This is Madison supposedly one of the bike friendliest cities in the country. Go figure.

Read an article in one of the Madison wi free papers. Said article was about a bicyclist who got doored and while getting treatment in the hospital was visited by a policeman who proceeded to write him up for riding to close to a parked vehicle. This is Madison supposedly one of the bike friendliest cities in the country. Go figure.

There was a young cyclist who got doored
Then ticketed; he was floored!
The irony here
Is ever so clear:
In Madison cyclists are not so adored. :(

Since it is illegal to open a car door into passing traffic (including a cyclist) which is close enough to create a hazard, the motorist was legally at fault. Having said that, I would also note that it is extremely unsafe to ride in the door zone, and the citation given to the cyclist is a refreshing departure from the usual demand that we "get to the right." Numerous cyclists have been cited for impeding traffic, simply because they were dutifully and wisely avoiding the door zone.

This infuriated me. The fact that a police officer visited the victim, while in the hospital for a broken vertebrae, to issue a ten dollar ticket shows the stupidity of Madison's police priorities.

When I was 15yrs old, someone doored me, I flew over the car door, wrecked my bike and I had some nasty abrasions. I was so stupid that I thought somehow it was my fault. I limped away from the scene of the accident and never reported it. I was living in NYC at the time.

Being doored is most certainly not the bicyclist's fault. The Representative for this district (Risser) is introducing a law to change the three foot rule. There is just no way you can bike in downtown Madison observing the three foot rule.

Turns out it was a 50+'er

MADISON (WKOW) -- To Madison's Linda Willsey, her day in municipal court next week, is to stand up for all bicyclists in urban settings.

Willsey is refusing to pay a $10 ticket for failing to ride her bicycle at least three feet away from a parked car.

Willsey was ticketed July 16 while she was in a hospital emergency room after being hit by someone's car door as Willsey bicycled on Henry Street in downtown Madison.

"I'm going to fight this because it's not right," Willsey, 50, told 27 News.

"Most bikers who bike regularly are very wary when they're travelling along a line of parked cars," Willsey said. "But you've got traffic on the other side, so you're trying to find a safe zone between the parked vehicle that could open a door on you, and the traffic."

27 News used a tape measure in a downtown Madison bike lane, and discovered if a bicyclist maintained the legal clearance of three feet, the bicyclist would in the third of the lane closest to traffic.

Madison's Teena Morey has been on the other side of a car door, when a bicylclist hit. On Oct. 19, 2005, Morey said she barely opened her car door after parking on Langdon Street and a bicyclist was right next to her.

"Definitely less than three feet," Morey told 27 News. "I mean my door may have been open maybe twelve inches, and it was right there." Morey said the bicyclist hit her door and fell to the ground. But Morey said she was assigned no fault for the accident. Police reports indiciate no one was ticketed.

Willsey said state senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) is considering drafting a proposal to modify or abolish the three-foot-standard for bicyclists.

Willsey's date in Madison municipal court on her ticket is August 20.

So, the law requires cyclists to ride outside the bike lane, if there is one?

There usually aren't bike lanes where there are parking spaces along the street.

In my neighborhood the cars park on the bike lane, thereby fixing that problem. To go around the parked cars you have to be out in traffic anyway, so might as well take up the whole lane to keep out of the door zone. Take that, Madisonites.

That's logical. Around here, there is all kinds of parking between the curb and the bike lane. Most bike lanes here might be too close to the cars and violate that law. Even with 3 feet though, a cyclist should still hit a door that's opened.

According to the League of American Bicyclists, an organization that monitors a number of cycling-friendly parameters and ranks cities on their bicycle friendliness, the top bicycle-friendly cities in America are:

Two cities have achieved "Platinum" status:
Davis, CA
Portland, OR

Two cities have achieved "Gold" status:
Madison, WI
Tucson, AZ

Five are "Silver"
Colorado Springs, CO
Durango, CO
Minneapolis, MN
Bellingham, WA
Missoula, MO

Madison's city council has set a goal of moving to Platinum within the next few years, appropriating significant funding toward achieving that goal.

According to the BFW (Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin):

"The Wisconsin State law requires bicyclists to keep to the right, but that does not mean hugging the curb. You should be at least three feet away from the curb or parked cars. This will reduce the risk of hitting the curb or debris, and also will place you within the motorist's field of vision. This allows you to move away from traffic to avoid an obstacle or crowding by another vehicle."

Seems to me that the law as it is now written is saying to take over a traffic lane.

I won't defend the writing of the ticket, that seems stupid, but it is a cyclist's responsibility to not ride close enough to parked cars to be hit by an opening door, regardless of the law.
<edit> It is also the car driver's responsibility to look before opening the door of a parked car.

I won't defend the writing of the ticket, that seems stupid, but it is a cyclist's responsibility to not ride close enough to parked cars to be hit by an opening door, regardless of the law.
<edit> It is also the car driver's responsibility to look before opening the door of a parked car.And it is the responsibility of legislatures and mayors, governors to write/sign proper laws rather than stupid ones that cyclist must ignore for their own safety. And who do you think paints all those door zone bike lanes.

And it is the responsibility of legislatures and mayors, governors to write/sign proper laws rather than stupid ones that cyclist must ignore for their own safety. And who do you think paints all those door zone bike lanes.

Yes, and it is the responsibility of local cycling advocates to call them on it when they do write stupid laws. The chain of responsibility ties everyone together. Everyone has a role in making society work.

Sounds like a critical mass style ride/protest may be in order....

Sounds like a critical mass style ride/protest may be in order....

What would a protest accomplish?

Go to a city council meeting and call to their attention the problems with the ordinances and ask them to correct them.

According to the League of American Bicyclists, an organization that monitors a number of cycling-friendly parameters and ranks cities on their bicycle friendliness, the top bicycle-friendly cities in America are:

Five are "Silver"
Colorado Springs, CO


This is a freakin' joke! If CS is "bike friendly" then I don't wanna live somewhere that's "bike hostile" I love living here but bike friendly it ain't.

Silver? More like rusty iron...

I won't defend the writing of the ticket, that seems stupid, but it is a cyclist's responsibility to not ride close enough to parked cars to be hit by an opening door, regardless of the law.
<edit> It is also the car driver's responsibility to look before opening the door of a parked car.

I concur. Riding at least 3 feet away from parked cars is a fundamental part of defensive cycling. A motorist is legally obligated not to open a door when traffic is approaching, but we need to protect ourselves against illegal stupidity and carelessness. The motorist should be ticketed, although the cyclist's press release unfortunately reads as though she did not learn her lesson about avoiding the door zone.

This is going to sound cruel, but looking at the big picture, I actually hope the ticket against the cyclist stands, because it will set a nice legal precedent for any cyclist anywhere who is cited for not riding in the door zone. We need to defend our right to ride safely, which includes not cowering against the curb or the parked cars.

What would a protest accomplish?

Go to a city council meeting and call to their attention the problems with the ordinances and ask them to correct them.

What would a protest accomplish?

Awareness...

What would a protest accomplish?

Awareness...

I suspect most people who would see the "protest" would have no idea what it was about. Those who did know probably would be annoyed at being inconvenienced by the cyclists and thus less likely to sympathize with their "cause."

I used to get upset when drivers, bikers or pedestrians, all seemingly oblivious, would wander right into my biking path. :( But this test helped me see the light...if you haven't see it yet - check it out...

http://www.dothetest.co.uk/

I concur. Riding at least 3 feet away from parked cars is a fundamental part of defensive cycling. A motorist is legally obligated not to open a door when traffic is approaching, but we need to protect ourselves against illegal stupidity and carelessness. The motorist should be ticketed, although the cyclist's press release unfortunately reads as though she did not learn her lesson about avoiding the door zone.

This is going to sound cruel, but looking at the big picture, I actually hope the ticket against the cyclist stands, because it will set a nice legal precedent for any cyclist anywhere who is cited for not riding in the door zone. We need to defend our right to ride safely, which includes not cowering against the curb or the parked cars.

In some cases, safe riding means taking the lane. It forces drivers to not squeeze between you and the car to its left which is dangerous for both cyclist and driver. And allowing enough room between yourself and the parked car or curb gives you space to move toward the right if you need to react quickly.

We need to know the bicycle laws in our own state to be familiar with our rights and responsibilities as a cyclist. If you take a lane while knowing you have the legal right to do so, then you really have a basis for stating that if a motorist (or uninformed police officer) complains against you. When it's safe to move over to the right and let the motorist pass, then do that. But don't allow yourself to be squeezed out of the lane by an impatient driver.

[QUOTE=Dchiefransom;7287001 Most bike lanes here might be too close to the cars and violate that law. Even with 3 feet though, a cyclist should still hit a door that's opened.[/QUOTE]

True. It makes me wonder how far away the cyclist was. 4 feet is too close sometimes. The last time I noticed, it is still not legal to signal making a right turn with your right hand.

Unawareness of the door zone also points to this issue. In Orange County, CA, I cannot tell you how often it has happened to me by now that I entered an intersection when the light was green only to stare the red light in the face before I was able to exit the intersection. Some of them are so fast that I was literally left on the near side of the median of an arterial that runs 4 lanes in each direction when the light turned red. On at least two of those occasions the drivers felt justified to blow their horns at me, one of them even thought his car gave him the right to give me the finger. I pretty much shrug off the idiocy of the hicks, but it looks like we need to do some serious educating with the traffic people to at least get the traffic light yellow-phases lenghtened so they don't leave us stranded in the middle of large intersections.

In A&S someone actually quoted the law, and it does specifically require a bicyclist to allow 3 feet distance when going faster than slower or parked vehicles.

I'm really perplexed on this one. Just what did the officer hope to accomplish by issuing the ticket? There's an agenda here that defies logic. If the ticket was issued to help the cyclist learn, this makes no sense. The impact of the bike into the open door trumps almost any other learning that could take place. If the city coffers need income, a small ticket won't likely compensate for the officer's time and gas used to deliver it. I mean this just makes no sense...

I will be surprised if they end up sticking the cyclist for the $10.

I'm really perplexed on this one. Just what did the officer hope to accomplish by issuing the ticket? There's an agenda here that defies logic. If the ticket was issued to help the cyclist learn, this makes no sense. The impact of the bike into the open door trumps almost any other learning that could take place. If the city coffers need income, a small ticket won't likely compensate for the officer's time and gas used to deliver it. I mean this just makes no sense...

As I recall from reading in the article, under their rules, any time a traffic incident occurs with an injury someone must get a citation... There were no possible citations for the driver that opened the door, so the officer felt he had to give the one to the cyclist based on the obscure law.

In some cases, safe riding means taking the lane. It forces drivers to not squeeze between you and the car to its left which is dangerous for both cyclist and driver. And allowing enough room between yourself and the parked car or curb gives you space to move toward the right if you need to react quickly.

I think this is why I have a problem with the whole "take the lane" approach. I don't like the idea of trying to force a driver to do anything. It just seems to me to be presumptuous, maybe even arrogant, to assume that I know better than the driver how he should be driving his car. I'd rather do what I think is correct (staying as far to the right as I can), trust the driver to do what is right (passing only when safe), and be prepared to get out of the way if he does something dangerous. I'll move further left if necessary to avoid obstacles like debris, damaged pavement or door zones, but I never choose a lane position as an attempt to control the behavior of other traffic. How I ride is up to me, and how they drive is up to them, and if something goes wrong, well, that's part of the risk I accept by riding on the streets.

I think this is why I have a problem with the whole "take the lane" approach. I don't like the idea of trying to force a driver to do anything. It just seems to me to be presumptuous, maybe even arrogant, to assume that I know better than the driver how he should be driving his car. I'd rather do what I think is correct (staying as far to the right as I can), trust the driver to do what is right (passing only when safe), and be prepared to get out of the way if he does something dangerous. I'll move further left if necessary to avoid obstacles like debris, damaged pavement or door zones, but I never choose a lane position as an attempt to control the behavior of other traffic. How I ride is up to me, and how they drive is up to them, and if something goes wrong, well, that's part of the risk I accept by riding on the streets.

The point of this thread is show that in downtown Madison, because of the parked cars, you are required by law to be in the drivers lane in order to comply with the law as it is currently written.

Whether you are doing it to be safe or to control the behavior of drivers is irrelevant. Its the law.

The point of this thread is show that in downtown Madison, because of the parked cars, you are required by law to be in the drivers lane in order to comply with the law as it is currently written.

Whether you are doing it to be safe or to control the behavior of drivers is irrelevant. Its the law.

So if I were riding in downtown Madison, I'd ride where the law requires. Fortunately, the law is different where I ride. Anyway, I wasn't commenting on "the point of the thread," but rather, on the point raised by Yen in the material I quoted.

I think this is why I have a problem with the whole "take the lane" approach. I don't like the idea of trying to force a driver to do anything. It just seems to me to be presumptuous, maybe even arrogant, to assume that I know better than the driver how he should be driving his car. I'd rather do what I think is correct (staying as far to the right as I can), trust the driver to do what is right (passing only when safe), and be prepared to get out of the way if he does something dangerous. I'll move further left if necessary to avoid obstacles like debris, damaged pavement or door zones, but I never choose a lane position as an attempt to control the behavior of other traffic. How I ride is up to me, and how they drive is up to them, and if something goes wrong, well, that's part of the risk I accept by riding on the streets.

But if you don't stay left of the likely debris and bad pavement you can't safely move left when you spot it. Cagers won't see the debris and won't expect you to veer left. Of course, you will look for traffic and be careful, but the effect is you will behave in a way cagers won't expect, making you less safe, and you will sometimes have to simply stop and wait for traffic to clear so you can avoid unsafe pavement.

I see no problem with "forcing" a car to recognize that I am operating a vehicle in this lane of traffic and the cager should behave accordingly.

From the article:


...the bicyclist would in the third of the lane closest to traffic.

Could someone translate that for me?

Can we get the word "cager" filtered out like the word for a female dog I.E. ***** is?

But if you don't stay left of the likely debris and bad pavement you can't safely move left when you spot it. Cagers won't see the debris and won't expect you to veer left. Of course, you will look for traffic and be careful, but the effect is you will behave in a way cagers won't expect, making you less safe, and you will sometimes have to simply stop and wait for traffic to clear so you can avoid unsafe pavement.

I see no problem with "forcing" a car to recognize that I am operating a vehicle in this lane of traffic and the cager should behave accordingly.

If that's what I have to do, then that's what I have to do, and in fact I have done that on occasion. I've also just stood on the pedals and hung on as I bounced over rough pavement when it wasn't safe to veer left.

Here are a few selected quotes on the subject from a book by Peter Braddock that I first read about thirty-five years ago and which still is the source of most of my riding habits:

Learning to stay within an imaginary two foot stripe down the right hand side of the road is essential, in that it communicates to passing motorists your intention to keep on going where you've been heading. They can then react smoothly and in accordance with that intention.

Staying far to the right keeps you out of the mainstream of traffic.

For the most part, cycling is restricted to a narrow strip down the side of the road. Often maintained more poorly than the rest of the pavement, this strip may have potholes and ruts. Even if it's relatively smooth, glass, sand and gravel are sure to be there. And every so often, up pops a yawning sewer grate, the venus flytraps of the bicycle world. If you're careless enough to ride over one and catch a tire in an open slit, you'll likely take a spill right into traffic. As if all that isn't enough, heaps of glittering chrome brush by your left side from time to time, keeping you honest. Keeping you in your place.

Never swing into the road to avoid something unless you've taken a look and made sure no motorist is behind. It's far better to hit a pothole than a car.

Can we get the word "cager" filtered out like the word for a female dog I.E. ***** is?

Sorry, didn't realize the word was that offensive. :o Anyway, trying to stay within 2 feet of the curb (or parked cars?) seems to me to put the cyclist in danger from even careful motorists. I want to share the road, not my lane or the gutter.

Sorry, didn't realize the word was that offensive. :o Anyway, trying to stay within 2 feet of the curb (or parked cars?) seems to me to put the cyclist in danger from even careful motorists. I want to share the road, not my lane or the gutter.

Another quote from the same book:

When you come to a row of parked cars, slow down, and give them a wide berth. A glance through the back window to see who's inside will give you a clue as to whether either door on the driver's side might swing open. Trucks and other vehicles that don't have a back window usually have a mirror good for judging this. If it looks as though you'll be safe from a swinging door, train your eyes down around the right front wheel. That's where you'll spot small children and animals darting out into the street.