Advocacy & Safety - Dooring incident, poor response from police?

This is a strange incident:
1. cyclist is riding in bike lane, approaching parked cars, and cab driver is about to pass him on left.
2. woman opens door, dooring cyclist, he goes flying into the road
3. cab is right next to him, cabbie manages to brake hard enough that cyclist is not too injured, though bike hits the cab
4. police ticket the cabbie, but not the woman who doored him. She said she only opened it a "crack" to look


link 1 with video:
http://chicagodispatcher.com/doored-cyclist-caught-on-cab-camera-p2049-1.htm
link 2:
http://chicagodispatcher.com/editorial-word-on-the-street-p2055-1.htm

The cabbie only remembered he had the video afterward, and the police didn't believe his version of events (no idea if cyclist said he got doored or was conscious). I'm not sure if the cabbie did anything wrong here. But in the cab driver's interview he says he finally tracked her down and called, and she says she doesn't need to be involved since she's not in the police report. Nice.

Normally i hate cabs, but in this case the woman's attitude and not looking are so infuriating.... she reminds me of someone I dated 2 years ago actually ...

The quality of the [cab] video sucks (very low frame rate and wide angle / low res) - but is still adequate to prove that the cyclist was clearly doored, by a door that was clearly opened wide, not "a smidge" as claimed by the driver.

The police officer issuing the ticket must have failed to get any statement from the cyclist (perhaps unconcious) or was particularly negligent.

If the woman driving the SUV lied to the officer about the extent to which she opened the door then she is guilty of "false reporting", in some states that is a gross misdemeanor - though almost never actually prosecuted, because prosecutors are used-arse-wipes only interested in sure-fire cases that help their careers (I heart blanket statements).

Some police are notorious for having classes of people they dislike.

A guy I used ot work with had previously been a truck driver. He was driving a fruck that had those 2" long nuts on the wheels and a guy tried to squeeze past him while he was stopped at a light, and then tried to claim it was my frioneds fault.

The cop in question immediatly believed the guy and this was no surprise, police in htat area hatted truckers.

My friend won, at leat that cop was willing to listen, the scratches were all straight lines, pretty hard to do with a moving truck. The truch wheels could not bave been rotating!

This is a strange incident:
1. cyclist is riding in bike lane, approaching parked cars, and cab driver is about to pass him on left.
2. woman opens door, dooring cyclist, he goes flying into the road
3. cab is right next to him, cabbie manages to brake hard enough that cyclist is not too injured, though bike hits the cab
4. police ticket the cabbie, but not the woman who doored him. She said she only opened it a "crack" to look


link 1 with video:
http://chicagodispatcher.com/doored-cyclist-caught-on-cab-camera-p2049-1.htm
link 2:
http://chicagodispatcher.com/editorial-word-on-the-street-p2055-1.htm

The cabbie only remembered he had the video afterward, and the police didn't believe his version of events (no idea if cyclist said he got doored or was conscious). I'm not sure if the cabbie did anything wrong here. But in the cab driver's interview he says he finally tracked her down and called, and she says she doesn't need to be involved since she's not in the police report. Nice.

Normally i hate cabs, but in this case the woman's attitude and not looking are so infuriating.... she reminds me of someone I dated 2 years ago actually ...

The police cant be bothered by it, why? They cant make $$$ from it. If they could, they'd do something. They cant be bothered though. UNless someone dies from it, or they can somehow scam some money from it themselves, they dont care.

Besides, they're probably too busy writing 'Jaywalking tickets", or out nightsticking folks they shouldnt.

I see it differently:

1. Isn't this a textbook case of when a cyclist should be taking the lane? Obviously sorry the cyclist got hit and glad he wasn't killed, but doesn't he bear any responsibility to stay out of the door zone and for the situation?

2. We have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and the video. The cops did not. They show up, get 3 or more conflicting stories (there were probably bystanders and other drivers stopped), see that a cyclist/pedestrian was hit by a motorist (cabbie), and cite the motorist. Isn't that what most in these forums would be calling for, had they not seen the video?

3. The cabbie slammed on his brakes and swerved left when a body came flying into his peripheral vision from the right. Wouldn't most drivers instinctively do the same thing? I'm sure the cabbie is a good guy, skilled driver, and probably freaked out by the whole incident; however, it looks to me from the video that he was going to pass the cyclist pretty closely (within 3 feet) straight ahead at full speed. Had he been pulling left to clear the cyclist by more than 3 feet, isn't there a possibility that he would have completely missed the cyclist when he braked and swerved further after the dooring?

4. As to the dooring, I have no idea why that driver was not also cited -- it could have been anti-cab/foreigner bias on the part of the cops, but I don't know enough to conclude that and there could be more to the story. There is a police report that may be illuminating.

5. The court will probably find in the cabbie's favor and dismiss the ticket. Doesn't mean that the cops were completely out of line in writing it.

My point is that, as cyclists, we are not helpless victims completely at the mercy of cops, cabbies, and drivers -- we bear at least some responsibility for our own outcomes and part of that is to not instinctively blame non-cyclists for everything that happens to us. And to not assume "cops don't care", "prosecutors are ...", "cabbies are jerks", "most drivers are idiots", etc. Aside from the clear bias such labeling demonstrates, it's bad PR for our sport and lifestyle.

Sorry if this sounds like a scolding rant -- normally, I'm not so serious.

1. Isn't this a textbook case of when a cyclist should be taking the lane? Obviously sorry the cyclist got hit and glad he wasn't killed, but doesn't he bear any responsibility to stay out of the door zone and for the situation?
If states would stop writing FRAP laws, and write decent drivers manuals that include cycling issues, I would agree. Until then the fault lies with the lady that doored the cyclist and state law makers.

PS - the cyclist is a she.

I see it differently:

1. Isn't this a textbook case of when a cyclist should be taking the lane? Obviously sorry the cyclist got hit and glad he wasn't killed, but doesn't he bear any responsibility to stay out of the door zone and for the situation?
There are two sides to this. First, the legal standpoint. The driver exiting the parked car has the legal responsibility to check for cyclists, and she doesn't. Therefore, she's at fault.

Secondly, there's the practical standpoint. As a cyclist, I know that while I want to be right, I don't want to be dead right. I never take the bike lane when it in sandwiched between the road and parking for this exact reason.

based on recent cases in NZ, they'd file charges against the person who opened the door... NOT the motorist passing the cyclist. FWIW, NZ's version of DOT officially recommends "at least" 1.5m of clearance when passing a cyclist, but this is not enforceable under statutory law. so, under NZ law, a motorist passing a cyclist without sufficient clearance is (arguably) not in violation of any law, but the person opening the door is... "A person must not cause a hazard to any person by opening or closing a door of a motor vehicle, or by leaving the door of a motor vehicle open."

here's one of the more high-profile cases - 'Car door' driver charged over cyclist's death
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10712712

there's plenty of blame to go around... the cyclist should have taken the lane, the person in the parked car should have looked before opening the door, and the cab driver should have given the bike more room. all three of them are playing with the cyclist's life. at least the cabbie wasn't TXTing and was focused enough to take evasive action and avoid more serious injuries to the cyclist.

IMHO, they should charge the person in the parked car... if there's no specific dooring law, then something along the lines of creating a dangerous situation or careless use of a motor vehicle. the taxi driver saved the day by being alert, but maybe should be charged with passing/following a cyclist too closely? the cyclist.... should s/he be charged with anything? s/he certainly contributed to the incident with poor lane position... but if the law there is FRAP then the cyclist would arguably risk being charged if s/he was too far from the parked cars. this is why FRAP (or FLAP, in NZ) is dangerous.

I don't ride in door zones.

The motorist opened the door to look to see if anything was coming. Did the rearview mirror not work?

however, it looks to me from the video that he was going to pass the cyclist pretty closely (within 3 feet) straight ahead at full speed. Had he been pulling left to clear the cyclist by more than 3 feet, isn't there a possibility that he would have completely missed the cyclist when he braked and swerved further after the dooring?
.

I think this is an effect of bike lanes: drivers think as long as they are on the left side of the line they are ok.

I think this is an effect of bike lanes: drivers think as long as they are on the left side of the line they are ok.

Yes, and some traffic-averse cyclists think that as long as they are on the right side of the line they are ok. This seems to affect a disproportionate number of women cyclists, some of whom are attracted to the idea of the bike lane protecting them while they are riding "where they belong."

Lastly, some road engineers are under the delusion that opening doors won't be a problem, or that it is a problem that education and enforcement will somehow solve. How's that coming in San Francisco, where dooring is one of the leading causes of injuries to cyclists?

I believe door zone bike lanes are a breach of engineering ethics and that such facilities should be replaced with sharrows in the center of the adjacent travel lane. Engineers should let cyclists decide if they want to flirt with the door zone, and and support the rights of those who don't.

The motorist opened the door to look to see if anything was coming. Did the rearview mirror not work?

The motorist, also being a cyclist, disdains rearview mirrors and had it removed. She just swivels her head and relies on her hearing. :)

Whoa - I live on Wilson Ave and ride by this location every day, scary!

The motorist, also being a cyclist, disdains rearview mirrors and had it removed. She just swivels her head and relies on her hearing. :)With the exception of the Road Cycling forum, I think that you will find most cyclist here are in favor of cycling mirrors (strongly so in the Commuting forum).

Any new developments on this? Additional police reports can be filed on the incident, and I am sure the cabby is already doing this so he can simply clear himself and shift the blame onto the 'doorer'. I am glad that in my state that it is pretty clear cut on who is at fault when dooring happens. The idiot that didn't freaking check if it was safe to open the door.

Interestingly enough though if the cyclist was able to swerve out and avoid the dooring but instead gotten ran over by the cabby in California, it's the cyclist's fault.
Why? Because I was told it was an erratic, unpredictable and therefor dangerous behavior made by the cyclist.

Yes, and some traffic-averse cyclists think that as long as they are on the right side of the line they are ok. This seems to affect a disproportionate number of women cyclists, some of whom are attracted to the idea of the bike lane protecting them while they are riding "where they belong."

Lastly, some road engineers are under the delusion that opening doors won't be a problem, or that it is a problem that education and enforcement will somehow solve. How's that coming in San Francisco, where dooring is one of the leading causes of injuries to cyclists?

I believe door zone bike lanes are a breach of engineering ethics and that such facilities should be replaced with sharrows in the center of the adjacent travel lane. Engineers should let cyclists decide if they want to flirt with the door zone, and and support the rights of those who don't.

Steve,

I'd like to know how it is that a stripe of paint bestows some sort of "magical" protection to those who ride on the "right" side of said stripe. As I've said we've had a number of cyclists down here in Florida who have been hit and killed while riding their bikes in the bike lane. People, who I am sure thought that they were "safe" while riding in the bike lane.

One such case involved a woman who was riding with her husband. A woman driving a truck traveling in the opposite direction "drifted" across the double yellow lines, missed the husband, and struck the woman. Sending her over a guard rail and into the water. This happened on a causeway.

Steve,

I'd like to know how it is that a stripe of paint bestows some sort of "magical" protection to those who ride on the "right" side of said stripe. I think you need to reread Steve's post. Your post seems to imply that you think Steve believes the magical bike lane stripe myth. He does not.

I think you need to reread Steve's post. Your post seems to imply that you think Steve believes the magical bike lane stripe myth. He does not.

I think it's possible that bike lane striping (via an increase in total combined pavement width of right travel lane and bike lane) might provide some improvement in safety on long high speed roads, but certainly won't eliminate fatal crashes caused by motorists drifting to the right. Drivers who aren't looking through their windshields or who aren't in control of their vehicles won't be affected by stripes any more than they are by the view of a bicyclist ahead. But there may be subtle effects that we haven't been able to tease out of the limited evidence available on the subject.

However, that issue is unrelated to the urban street situation to which I was referring.

I believe many women cyclists are largely motivated by social factors when they express preference for striped bike lanes and ride them into dangerous situations. I suspect that they are attracted to the idea of a social contract where they ride well outside of the path of overtaking traffic in exchange for drivers recognizing their legitimacy in the bike lane and being careful around them. The problem is that for motorists to keep up their end of that hypothetical social contract requires more care than motorists can or will execute with any reliability. By comparison, assertive male cyclists may thumb their noses at the social contract and ride in line with traffic, understanding that they are actually less likely to get injured this way, and in many cases are willing to accept the false labels of "aggressive," "daredevil", "arrogant" or "militant" that go with violating a social taboo.

Personally, I place great value on social contracts; it's one of the reasons I try hard to make a complete stop at stop signs, wait for a red light to turn green, and avoid passing on the right. The social contract of riding in a badly designed bike lane, or riding far to the right in general when it is relatively unsafe to do so, is one of the very few social contracts related to traffic that I will violate regularly. The public's expectation is based on flawed assumptions, misinformation, and prejudice. The consequence of this violation is public harassment, but I have a thick skin when it comes to sticking up for the travel rights of cyclists.

Personally, I place great value on social contracts; it's one of the reasons I try hard to make a complete stop at stop signs, wait for a red light to turn green, and avoid passing on the right. Sadly, too many cities or states do not place the same value on social contracts.


The social contract of riding in a badly designed bike lane, or riding far to the right in general when it is relatively unsafe to do so, is one of the very few social contracts related to traffic that I will violate regularly. The public's expectation is based on flawed assumptions, misinformation, and prejudice. The consequence of this violation is public harassment, but I have a thick skin when it comes to sticking up for the travel rights of cyclists. In this case the cyclist do not violate the social contract. The social contract requires safe facilities, therefor, it is the city/state that violated the social contract and cyclist are left to make do the best they can with such violation.

A similar violation of social contract against cyclist is Honolulu's and State of Hawaii's refusal to properly adjust traffic signal sensors to detect cyclist.

I think you need to reread Steve's post. Your post seems to imply that you think Steve believes the magical bike lane stripe myth. He does not.

No, that wasn't my intent. I was as surprised as Steve (as well as anyone else with a brain in their head), at the notion that some have that a stripe of paint on the road somehow "magically" bestows protection to those who ride on the "right" side of it.

Yes, and some traffic-averse cyclists think that as long as they are on the right side of the line they are ok. ...

Lastly, some road engineers are under the delusion that opening doors won't be a problem, or that it is a problem that education and enforcement will somehow solve. How's that coming in San Francisco, where dooring is one of the leading causes of injuries to cyclists?

I believe door zone bike lanes are a breach of engineering ethics and that such facilities should be replaced with sharrows in the center of the adjacent travel lane. Engineers should let cyclists decide if they want to flirt with the door zone, and and support the rights of those who don't.


Many of ttraffic planners I've spoken to explicitly stated that they were willing accept the risk of being doored but were not comfortable enough to ride in the middle of the lane and expect cars wait to pass when it is safe. They told me in no uncertain terms the door zone bike lane is the standard, and sharrows will not be considered anywhere they can fit a bike lane (i.e. anywhere motorists stay out of the door zone, then they can install a bike lane).

Others have flat out denied that a motorist can be required to yield to any bicyclist when there is a bike lane (e.g. bicyclist going straight on green, motorist going right or straight on red). They dismissed sections of the traffic code that contradicted this. Strangely, some of them recognized that a bicyclist would be able to use the lane and have the right of way if no bike lane were striped.

While I agree that the risk of dooring is much lower for a planner that rides 200 miles a year at 12mph than for a commuter riding 4000-5000 miles per year, these facilities seem to be designed to remove assertive bicyclists, not to encourage more bicycle travel.

Morally, I agree with you that the door zone lanes are an abomination; practically and legally both planners and advocates seem to oppose putting sharrows on roads with speeds over 15-20mph, and say that since few bicyclists use major roads those bicyclists that do should not use them (but can't come up with alternate access to these destinations). The door zone lanes would be safe if bicyclists would just walk their bikes.

Many of ttraffic planners I've spoken to explicitly stated that they were willing accept the risk of being doored but were not comfortable enough to ride in the middle of the lane and expect cars wait to pass when it is safe. They told me in no uncertain terms the door zone bike lane is the standard, and sharrows will not be considered anywhere they can fit a bike lane (i.e. anywhere motorists stay out of the door zone, then they can install a bike lane).

Others have flat out denied that a motorist can be required to yield to any bicyclist when there is a bike lane (e.g. bicyclist going straight on green, motorist going right or straight on red). They dismissed sections of the traffic code that contradicted this. Strangely, some of them recognized that a bicyclist would be able to use the lane and have the right of way if no bike lane were striped.

While I agree that the risk of dooring is much lower for a planner that rides 200 miles a year at 12mph than for a commuter riding 4000-5000 miles per year, these facilities seem to be designed to remove assertive bicyclists, not to encourage more bicycle travel.

Morally, I agree with you that the door zone lanes are an abomination; practically and legally both planners and advocates seem to oppose putting sharrows on roads with speeds over 15-20mph, and say that since few bicyclists use major roads those bicyclists that do should not use them (but can't come up with alternate access to these destinations). The door zone lanes would be safe if bicyclists would just walk their bikes.

So then essentially it's the same bottom line that I was basically told when I complained about how unsafe it was for people to cross the road in front of where I live, i.e. anything that facilitates the movement of cars good, and anything that impedes the movement of cars bad. Even if what is good for cars is bad for everyone else.

Maybe it's time the US adopted the strategy of some European countries where they're increasingly making it more and more difficult for cars to get around and more and more convenient for pedestrians and cyclists to get around.

With the exception of the Road Cycling forum, I think that you will find most cyclist here are in favor of cycling mirrors (strongly so in the Commuting forum).

Good to hear -- I checked out the Commuting forum and found it as you had said. I must say that I can honestly see both sides of the various contentious issues that are perennially debated on BF, except for that wacky anti-mirror thing. I guess I'm permanenty exiled to Fred-Land; although, I'm now old enough that I don't care how cool I'm not.

Many of ttraffic planners I've spoken to explicitly stated that they were willing accept the risk of being doored but were not comfortable enough to ride in the middle of the lane and expect cars wait to pass when it is safe. They told me in no uncertain terms the door zone bike lane is the standard, and sharrows will not be considered anywhere they can fit a bike lane (i.e. anywhere motorists stay out of the door zone, then they can install a bike lane).

Others have flat out denied that a motorist can be required to yield to any bicyclist when there is a bike lane (e.g. bicyclist going straight on green, motorist going right or straight on red). They dismissed sections of the traffic code that contradicted this. Strangely, some of them recognized that a bicyclist would be able to use the lane and have the right of way if no bike lane were striped.

While I agree that the risk of dooring is much lower for a planner that rides 200 miles a year at 12mph than for a commuter riding 4000-5000 miles per year, these facilities seem to be designed to remove assertive bicyclists, not to encourage more bicycle travel.

Morally, I agree with you that the door zone lanes are an abomination; practically and legally both planners and advocates seem to oppose putting sharrows on roads with speeds over 15-20mph, and say that since few bicyclists use major roads those bicyclists that do should not use them (but can't come up with alternate access to these destinations). The door zone lanes would be safe if bicyclists would just walk their bikes.

I think real crash data numbers need to be compiled on door zone crashes and overtaking crashes on the urban street types where door zone lanes are often considered. In the urban areas that I've looked at, overtaking collisions are extremely rare on downtown streets, especially if the speed limit is 25mph or less, and/or the cyclist isn't riding at night without any rear lighting/reflectors.

Dooring data seems to be harder to come by. Some cities simply don't collect it; others don't have many door zone bike lanes or travel lane configurations that encourage door zone cycling. Yet other cities like San Francisco report dooring as either the first or second most common crash type.

But once accurate data allows the safety of center-of-downtown-travel-lane use to be compared to door zone bike lane use, I believe this will be a serious indignment of door zone bike lanes, and force the traffic engineering establishment to take notice, modifying both the FHWA guidelines and the MUTCD to strongly discourage them. The non-PE traffic planners will take longer to convince than the engineers, however, since they are motivated by social issues and many of them believe that encouraging novices to cycle in the door zone is the only way to get them to ride bikes, and they believe that door zone cycling is better for society than motoring, despite the fact that channeling cyclists into the door zone is really pro-motoring, anti-bicyclist.

The social contract of riding in a badly designed bike lane, or riding far to the right in general when it is relatively unsafe to do so...

I just checked. That's not in the contract.

.......The non-PE traffic planners will take longer to convince than the engineers, however, since they are motivated by social issues and many of them believe that encouraging novices to cycle in the door zone is the only way to get them to ride bikes,....

That was one selling point on our latest BL, which had BL proponents touting that "polls show that women like and want bike lanes to feel safe riding on the street."

Just yesterday, I had a man step into the BL in order to get into his vehicle, at the same time I had a semi tractor/trailer bearing down on me from behind in the adjacent 10ft lane. I quickly deduced that I had enough time and a safe enough distance to signal and merge into the 10 foot travel lane ahead of the semi, and I can only guess what a novice rider would have done in that situation.

using the bike lane, eh?

a novice rider would.......use similar human reflexes as Dynodonn's to decide they had time to signal (optional) and safely merge into the travel lane, I'm thinking.

using the bike lane, eh?

a novice rider would.......use similar human reflexes as Dynodonn's to decide they had time to signal (optional) and safely merge into the travel lane, I'm thinking.
Well, that's your opinion. I would think that the novice would have failed to notice the hazard quite as quickly as DD, then would have attempted to stop. Once he/she realized that the bike would not stop in time, he/she would either aim for the squishy thing (unlikely) or become the squishy thing in front of the semi.

Well, that's your opinion. I would think that the novice would have failed to notice the hazard quite as quickly as DD....

Haven't ridden behind many novice cyclists, have you? One word - trepidation.

and you simply don't hear about the wholesale slaughter of bike lane encroaching pedestrians by wayward novice cyclists or bicyclists 'squished' by semis in a right of way conflict involving bikes, peds and semis on traffic calmed roadways, do you?

It sounds like a statistical non-event.

Haven't ridden behind many novice cyclists, have you? One word - trepidation.

and you simply don't hear about the wholesale slaughter of bike lane encroaching pedestrians by wayward novice cyclists or bicyclists 'squished' by semis in a right of way conflict involving bikes, peds and semis on traffic calmed roadways, do you?

It sounds like a statistical non-event.Your head is intentionally in the sand, Bek.

really?

Haven't ridden behind many novice cyclists, have you? One word - trepidation.

and you simply don't hear about the wholesale slaughter of bike lane encroaching pedestrians by wayward novice cyclists or bicyclists 'squished' by semis in a right of way conflict involving bikes, peds and semis on traffic calmed roadways, do you?

It sounds like a statistical non-event.
To my great pleasure, I have ridden behind many novice cyclists. It is rather unavoidable since the vast majority of folks on bikes hereabouts have taken to riding within the last couple of years. (No, there hasn't been any infrastructure-led increase. Just enlightenment.) While they are often a bit nervous, they are also preoccupied with controlling their bikes and seem to have too much input to process.

I agree that squished cyclists is rather rare. However, DD's scenario is what I was commenting on. Being overtaken by a semi just as someone opens a car door into a dzbl is thankfully uncommon. Uncommon, but not unheard of. Like crashing as a result of an unseen pothole, it is something to consider in one's assessment of what could go wrong that is easily dealt with if one is not taken completely by surprise. The more cyclists are aware of the risks of dzbl's, the fewer incidents happen in/around them. Notice how many experienced cyclists refuse to ride in them even when they live in mandatory use states. Such adaptive behavior likely helps keep the numbers down.

.....Notice how many experienced cyclists refuse to ride in them even when they live in mandatory use states......

I regularly ride in DZBLs, but in left bias fashion in order to give me a split second more notice on sudden door openings, motorists stepping into the BL, as well as in reducing motorist harassment from being outside the DZBL.

I regularly ride in DZBLs.....

the sky is falling?

using the bike lane, eh?

a novice rider would.......use similar human reflexes as Dynodonn's to decide they had time to signal (optional) and safely merge into the travel lane, I'm thinking.

Really, you think that a novice with limited experience of riding with and around traffic is going to know that s/he will have enough time to complete such a maneuver?

I presume that you realize that a novice hasn't yet gained the experience, skills or confidence to be able to safely make such a maneuver.

Why can't you just admit that not all bike lanes are created equally? And that some bike lanes are more dangerous then not having a bike lane.

To my great pleasure, I have ridden behind many novice cyclists. It is rather unavoidable since the vast majority of folks on bikes hereabouts have taken to riding within the last couple of years. (No, there hasn't been any infrastructure-led increase. Just enlightenment.) While they are often a bit nervous, they are also preoccupied with controlling their bikes and seem to have too much input to process.

I agree that squished cyclists is rather rare. However, DD's scenario is what I was commenting on. Being overtaken by a semi just as someone opens a car door into a dzbl is thankfully uncommon. Uncommon, but not unheard of. Like crashing as a result of an unseen pothole, it is something to consider in one's assessment of what could go wrong that is easily dealt with if one is not taken completely by surprise. The more cyclists are aware of the risks of dzbl's, the fewer incidents happen in/around them. Notice how many experienced cyclists refuse to ride in them even when they live in mandatory use states. Such adaptive behavior likely helps keep the numbers down.

Agreed, I have a few DZBLs around where I live, and if there are any cars parked along side of them I flat out refuse to ride in them. And I'm one of those who lives in a MBL state. But fortunately it was explained to me that the same exceptions that apply to FRAP also apply to the MBL, as well as the lone cyclist isn't likely to be harassed by the LEOs (regular motorists is another story) for not riding in the bike lane.

Another bike lane that I refuse to ride in is one that does go to the left of a dedicated right turn lane. The reason that I refuse to ride in it is because it's only a bout a foot or so wide and in my opinion it isn't safe to be "squeezed/pinched" between the two travel lanes. And that it would be safer to take the travel lane. Particularly considering that at this intersection the bike lane ends and does not continue on the other side.

So there is no advantage to staying in the bike lane when approaching this particular intersection.

Really, you think that a novice with limited experience of riding with and around traffic is going to know that s/he will have enough time to complete such a maneuver?

I presume that you realize that a novice hasn't yet gained the experience, skills or confidence to be able to safely make such a maneuver.

Why can't you just admit that not all bike lanes are created equally? And that some bike lanes are more dangerous then not having a bike lane.

I've never seen any statistics that suggest that, to be perfectly honest. what's you're doing is "blowing smoke" about the supposed dangers of bikelanes.

now, do i think bikelanes can be built to a quality standard and some people complain about are sub-standard? absolutely.

... Another bike lane that I refuse to ride in is one that does go to the left of a dedicated right turn lane. The reason that I refuse to ride in it is because it's only a bout a foot or so wide and in my opinion it isn't safe to be "squeezed/pinched" between the two travel lanes. And that it would be safer to take the travel lane. Particularly considering that at this intersection the bike lane ends and does not continue on the other side.

So there is no advantage to staying in the bike lane when approaching this particular intersection.

Hmm. I need to reexamine how I treat dedicated right-hand turn lanes.

My current practice, bike lane or no bike lane, is to filter up to the front past the line of cars on my left that will be proceeding straight. I wait in the "squeeze/pinch" zone you described, aligned with the front of the lead car on my left. Cars on my right turning right seem to give me plenty of clearance because they start to round the corner away from me. They also seem to appreciate that I'm far enough to their left that they are not impeded in making a right hand turn on red. When the light turns green, I just proceed forward and to the right, giving me plenty of room through the intersection.

Am I missing something? Let me know if I'm pulling a bonehead move and don't even know it.

By the way, when the right hand lane is marked such that drivers can turn right or go straight, I just take that lane. If I'm in front, I stay far enough left to allow cars behind me to turn right on red, but far enough right to prevent cars that are proceeding straight from pulling up beside me.