Advocacy & Safety - Not so sure this is quite a good idea

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/43893062.html

While I do understand that the car driver has a little more control than the bicyclist (that is, until they invent car door signals) the bill seems to fly in the face of the whole "three feet for safety" argument. I'm all for equal rights but they must come with equal responsibilities; else we will become what cagers claim we are: self-centrists will little regard for others.

They need this law while leaving the 3 foot rule in place. Then you'd have something.


Laws differ by state, but I learned that the parked car is responsible for making sure they have room before opening their door.

They need this law while leaving the 3 foot rule in place.

The "3 foot rule" the article is talking about is not the "cars give bicyclists 3 feet" one.

The one they are talking about is one that requires bicyclists to give "any vehicle" (including parked cars) thee feet. (I think that rule doesn't make any sense.)

"The plan also eliminates a requirement that riders allow three feet between their bike and any vehicle."

[QUOTE=fordmanvt;8824266]They need this law while leaving the 3 foot rule in place.QUOTE]

The one they are talking about is one that requires bicyclists to give "any vehicle" (including parked cars) thee feet. (I think that rule doesn't make any sense.)



Parked unoccupied vehicles, I understand. But if you see the sihlouette of a person in the side closest to you I would think that you would assume that they could open the door at anytime and take steps to keep yourself at least out of arms distance from teh door.

I think that this bill is a good idea. Around here, many parking lanes are close enough to the flow of traffic that you need to look for an oncoming car anyway. Of course if you see a silhouette of a person you'll be careful, but it's not always possible to dodge left, or the rear window may be obscured by snow, glare, tinting, etc.

woot! filtering

The one they are talking about is one that requires bicyclists to give "any vehicle" (including parked cars) thee feet. (I think that rule doesn't make any sense.)

I already knew that, apparently you didn't. And it's a perfectly good rule to use even if it's not the law.

Having a fine for the doorman is a great idea and helps them to have some sort of incenting to not door cyclists for fun.
Eliminating the 3 foot requirement for the cyclist also seems a benefit for us, true its a good rule and I will follow it as a rule of thumb; but removing it as a legal requirement makes it harder to blame cyclists in dooring incidents in general.

Do you really need a ticket for being less than 3ft in addition to your injuries?

It certainly would seem that physics deals that punishment quite effectively already. $10 in comparison to the likely injuries seems like a tickle anyway. I can barely eat at Chipotle for $10.

So basically what I'm saying is that with the three foot rule it's like getting beat up and they take your lunch money too.

It sounds like they are saying cyclists are now required to ride in the door zone because motorist are now required to look before oping their door. Really bad pairing and public information.

This has been the law here forever, you cannot open your door into traffic.
dc

I already knew that, apparently you didn't. And it's a perfectly good rule to use even if it's not the law.
No, you were not clear. Other people might have been confused by your mention of "3 foot rule" especially when the article mentioned a (different) 3 foot rule.

It sounds like they are saying cyclists are now required to ride in the door zone because motorist are now required to look before oping their door. Really bad pairing and public information.
No, that is not what they are saying. I think the point of the law is to make opening car doors in front of bicyclists explicitly illegal rather than something ambiguous like "careless driving". In other words, it makes it easier to charge the driver with an infraction (and it makes it more clear what the responsibilities of the driver are). The driver has always required to look before opening the door (into traffic). The law makes it explicit (regarding cyclists).

With respect to the "3 foot from any vehicle rule", the law eliminates a requirement for cyclists; It doesn't add any to the cyclist.


But if you see the sihlouette of a person in the side closest to you I would think that you would assume that they could open the door at anytime and take steps to keep yourself at least out of arms distance from teh door.
The law says nothing about this common-sense action/advice.

a few months ago a lady was riding and got doored. Went to the hospital and while in bed there, the cops gave her a $10 ticket for not passing 3 feet away.

a few months ago a lady was riding and got doored. Went to the hospital and while in bed there, the cops gave her a $10 ticket for not passing 3 feet away.

It would seem, then, this law (not in place when her accident occurred) would have helped her avoid the $10 ticket.

No, you were not clear. Other people might have been confused by your mention of "3 foot rule" especially when the article mentioned a (different) 3 foot rule.

I was talking about the one in the article. You are the only person confused.

No, that is not what they are saying.

I agree but if you read that article with the bias that now cyclists have to ride as far right as possible even in the door zone, there is nothing there to contradict that bias, the article is poorly written.

The one they are talking about is one that requires bicyclists to give "any vehicle" (including parked cars) three feet. (I think that rule doesn't make any sense.)

Ya think?

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=103188&stc=1&d=1241148981

I take "The Rules" as suggestions anyway. They can make all the rules they want to.

I was talking about the one in the article. You are the only person confused.
Then, your confusing comment begs the question "why?"


They need this law while leaving the 3 foot rule in place. Then you'd have something.
Why do you think bicyclists should be required to keep 3 feet away from parked cars?


(I get the rational behind the 3-foot passing rule for cars but I don't get the requirement in the original WI law.)

===============================


I agree but if you read that article with the bias that now cyclists have to ride as far right as possible even in the door zone, there is nothing there to contradict that bias, the article is poorly written.

I guess my tin foil hat is thicker than yours. The law is better without the requirement for bicyclists (which isn't required for cars!).

It looks like Wisconsin may be getting in step with the rest of the country, where it is the door-opener's responsibility to check for safety. Here's an article explaining what they're working on:
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/437600
(no luck finding the actual text of the proposed law).

The current Wisconsin law is not totally a bad thing, though -- so you're riding down the street and a motorist yells that you should move over. You could tell them that the law requires you to stay 3 feet away from the parked cars, thus you have to be in the middle of the lane. [It would probably take a block of riding to explain that.]

Still, it is totally bogus to ticket someone laid up in the hospital.

And, as the Bekologist noted, this law could be enforced on cyclists filtering between cars.

but, would a rider be cited if the cars moved too close to the cyclist?