Allister

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...5&postcount=58

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

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

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

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

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

This one always flabbergasts me

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

Then stop repeating it ad nauseum.

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

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

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

joejack951

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

joejack951

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

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

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

The insults are unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

randya

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

Allister

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

LittleBigMan

Certainly, you are not saying bicycle facilities are a necessity for everyone, Buzzman. This is evident from your posts, which are open and honest.

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

buzzman

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

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

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

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

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

invisiblehand

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

The Human Car

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

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

invisiblehand

Allister,

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

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

https://www.shell.com/home/content/au...ices_0116.html

dynodonn 

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

buzzman

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

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

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

WaltPoutine

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

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

Allister

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

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

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

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

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

Allister

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

dynodonn 

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

MarkS

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

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

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

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

The Human Car

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

noisebeam

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

Al

The Human Car

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

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

noisebeam

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

Al

MarkS

With 50+ MPH traffic behind them?

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

noisebeam

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

Bekologist

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

MarkS

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

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

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

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