JonnyHK 

This is not an unloading lane. It is a single lane of road traffic with a small area marked for bikes.

Yes, she could 'take the lane' - but the whole point of filtering is that you don't get stuck in traffic. I'm sure that if you rode this route everyday to work that you'd start filtering here when there was a red light.

Not possible - that's where the big tram stop is. Riding around the tram stop (they are raised) by going onto the tram tracks is both illegal and dangerous (every Melbourne cyclist has a tram track crash story).

A front seat passenger can lean forward and see through the wing mirror. A rear seat passenger can look over their shoulder. Or they could have asked the driver if the path was clear.


That was 50m earlier, not where the accident was. The road way is wider back near the hotel because the big tram stop hasn't started yet.

It is the result - mostly - of poor road design. The big 'super stops' for the trams don't need to be as wide as they are.

She's calm and knowledgable. That is exactly what you need after an incident.

The cab is past the hotel and is simply stopped in traffic. It is not parked or pulled over.

Common sense says that cabs are always a risk (in the same way you don't trust dogs off the leash and small children playing with balls), but you wouldn't reasonably expect a car to throw open a door when stopped at a traffic light.

As I said: It is the result - mostly - of poor road design and the compromises they have made. They've given the pedestrians at the tram stop about 2.5m of space to stand in where the old stops were lucky to have 1m - or were not in the road way, but on the curb side (with drivers expected to stop - but that was always a safety issue and continues to be so on most other tram routes).

She was mostly unlucky, but I expect that she'll think twice about filtering here again.

The cab has not pulled over. That is the whole point.
It is stopped in traffic at the red light that is about 25m ahead of it and the passengers have probably though "ah, screw it - we'll walk from here" and jumped out.

Yes it is a potential dangerous spot and she might have avoided it by waiting in line at the red light, but her chosen action (filtering slowly) is not as out of line or crazy as you suggest.

Technically speaking she was, even if the traffic had just come to a halt at a red light.

This is a high frequency accident area (according to other reports), probably due to the sub-standard lane squeeze. No one is looking for this to happen to them.

So she knows her rights. Is that a crime? If she's a regular city rider she is acutely aware of the risks and the rules - she may even have had an incident before or knows someone else it happened to.

I say 'bravo' to her for being calm and for knowing what to do. What would you say about her if she started screaming abuse and obscenities?

FBinNY 

I'm not saying the cyclist was entirely at fault, just partly so because she was filtering up. We all (most) filter up in stopped traffic, but I consider it an "at your own risk" practice. Under the circumstances, with the cab were simply stopped at a light, that could easily have been me, but I would have taken part of the blame.

My problem isn't with cyclist, it's with the law, and the road design, which combine to give cyclists a false notion of safety that isn't delivered in practice. If one listens to the voice over, it starts with the statement that "many people aren't aware...." How can one (MV passenger) to factor and obey a law that they're not aware of. So, at the very least, laws like the anti-dooring laws need heavy public notice when passed, followed by frequent reminders. Otherwise they're just traps for the unwary and unaware.

Hypothetical -- what if instead of a cab door, it was a child running ahead of mummy leaving the tram stop, and darting out from in front of the cab?

achoo

Not in a door zone I wouldn't



And on Planet Earth, who does that?

No one.

So why should you expect that to happen?




The cab is past the hotel and is simply stopped in traffic. It is not parked or pulled over.[/quote]

The cab moves closer to the line on the pavement and is clearly the ONLY car actually on the line. It's by far the closest one to the curb.

Once again - cab with passengers in it moves close to the curb and stops.

Period.

Why not? It's a door zone. With a passenger-laden cab that just pulled close to the curb and stopped.

So a poor road design is a reason to excuse riding into a door zone?

Should a poor road design make a cyclist MORE cautious?

She should have thought once.

Quote:

The cab has not pulled over

Wrong.

Which passengers tend to do when a cab moves closer to a curb and then stops.

Yeah, it wasn't out of line or crazy.

If you like getting doored.

Umm, if it's a "high frequency accident area", maybe they should be looking for it?

But to IMMEDIATELY jump up and say "Give me your details. You committed a traffic violation" the moment you get dumped onto the pavement? I'll say it again - were she trolling for a dooring, she couldn't have done it any better. She sure acted like that wasn't a surprise.

I wouldn't care one way or the other.

If she had used her head, she wouldn't have been doored.

Filtering is dangerous enough. To do it between a curb and a passenger-laden cab that clearly moved closer to the curb right before stopping, while in a frequent accident area?

So what if the passenger was technically at fault for not looking.

JonnyHK 

Reality check: You can't always avoid door zones all the time. You'd never get anywhere.
Sometimes you need to take calculated risks.


Plenty of folks do. I know I do.


Your interpretation is wrong and you haven't looked far enough ahead. I also know this intersection.

The cab does not 'move close to the curb and stop' in the manner of a cab pulling over to let out passengers. It simply stops in traffic in a narrow lane.


It's a car stopped in traffic and NOT car that is clearly pulling in. That's the point.


I repeat the reality check from above: sometimes you just have to accept crappy conditions. You try to avoid them and you act to reduce the risks (slowing down, lights, hi-viz, ringing the bell - whatever), but you just can't be wrapped in cotton wool the whole time.

She is being cautious by being slow (note she's geared down too) and the fact that she pretty much stops and falls on the spot with little/no injury or damage supports this.



Passengers jumping out of cabs is always a risk, but you are basing you opinion on a false premise (namely that it has clearly pulled in rather than just stopped in traffic).


I'd say she was watching for it. That door literally opens up when she's less than 1m from it. She had no chance even at her slower pace. A fraction of a second later and they'd have opened the door into her instead of in front of her.



She was being careful, even if you might have chosen to act differently.


It was dumb, careless and against the law. That's 'so what'. It could have been worse on a wider and faster moving road even with a proper bike lane.

JonnyHK 

I agree that I might also make a mental note that I was partly to blame or could have done something different - but legally she's totally in the right and that guy screwed up. Just because you might have second thoughts doesn't mean another person should be excused for their behaviour. If they didn't break the law she wouldn't have been hit.


The law is fine. It has also been in the media a lot after the death of a cyclist in Glenferrie Road, Melbourne a couple of years back.
Cyclist's death a catalyst for change
And that is an article in a Sydney paper as well! So you'd think a Melbourne local would have seen one of the papers there or the nightly news on TV.


It's the road design here that is the problem.

The passenger should know the law (these guys are old enough to be drivers) and - ignoring the poor road design for a moment - they should be old/smart enough to 'look before you leap' anyway.


The tram stop has a handrail around it to stop jaywalking. The only places I'd be expecting a child (or anyone) to be able to run out in front of me would be at the start or end of the tram stop. This is visible in the Google streetview.

Street View
https://www.google.com/maps/place/SA...7bebde!6m1!1e1

JonnyHK 

Street View
https://www.google.com/maps/place/SA...7bebde!6m1!1e1

Notes on the street view:
- I've got it positioned extremely close to the accident site (see store called SABA to left)
- you can see raised tram stop with hand rail
- behind (turn around) you can see where the road moves over and narrows. The hotel is just beyond that near a mid-block pedestrian crossing (you can see someone striding out)
- in front you can see the traffic light that would have caused the cab to stop
- at this intersection you can see a cyclist stopped beside a cab. This should give some scale to it all.
- there are no cars parked on the curb-side, which is the traditional 'door-zone' (we don't normally call the traffic side a 'door-zone', so aren't expecting that)

The bold final point is the key to the matter.

A 'normal' door zone is to the curb side and experienced riders avoid it.

This girl was not hit in a 'door zone'. She was hit from the traffic side. This is why I think a couple of you (above) are drawing wrong/unreasonable conclusions.

FBinNY 

As I keep repeating. It's not the people involved, either a cab passenger that wouldn't think about traffic when opening a door on the curb side (the bike lane isn't clearly marked, and even if it were, I don't expect cab passengers to know or watch the road), the cyclist, who felt safe and "doorproof" by virtue of the law.

While you're right in saying the door zone is typically on the other side, I'd be much more concerned about doors on the curbside, since that's where people typically enter and exit cars.

If they passengers are charged, I'd expect their defense to be "dooring?, it was curbside, who looks for traffic curbside?"

Interestingly, note how much safer the lanes would be in every way if the bicycle lane were to the right against the barricaded center island. No reason for anybody to open a door on that side, nobody stepping off curbs, overall much safer. However, that leaves the question of how to cross it back to the other side when the road's layout changes.

IMO, much smarter to do away with the bike lane, and let it be a shared lane for all traffic.

It all comes down to expectations, and applying the anti-dooring law to curbside unduly raises those of cyclists in a truly crappy bike lane.

BTW- I got curious and moved down the block. At the next intersection, both lanes jog over, and there parking along the curb, with the bike lane straight down the door zone.

So I guess the policy thinking, is first paint a narrow, dangerous bike lane down the door zone. Then when that causes problems, put a patch on it with a meaningless anti-dooring law. I feel much safer in the free for all we call NY traffic.

JonnyHK 

FBinNY - fair comment. This really is a bit of sucky road that moves in and out around parking and hazards. On a positive note, some of the intersections in this area have bike boxes and special bike only early green traffic signals.


As for the defence in court:
The response will be "tough ****", or the legal equivalent.

The law is clear and just because this guy didn't look or might claim he didn't know won't matter. It's on video and he should be convicted (if he challenges it - I think it's just a ticket the cops write and he can just pay it).

yugyug

You've got the order wrong - the anti-dooring law has been in place for years, working to protect cyclists who are legally allowed to filter in many kinds of traffic conditions and road setups . Its far from meaningless and the cab driver and passenger should both know what the passenger did was wrong. A key point that JonnyHK has explained is that its a no-stopping zone - passengers are not meant to alight from vehicles in no-stopping zones.

Anyway, the passenger has come forward and made a media statement. The guy, Jeff Hunter, runs a company importing IMHO crappy toys from asia and is notable for selling his 10million dollar home to a cricket player last year. In his statement he claims he wasn't aware it was an infringement and that the cyclist was "irate"... thats bogus. There is guarded, half apology, probably advised by his lawyer for reasons of damage control. Even if he wasn't aware of dooring, why flee the scene, not provide details and insult the cyclist? He's scum.

Cyclist-dooring man 'not proud' of reaction

009jim

The thing that disgusts me most about that video is the guys in suits. Ever notice how some guys put on a suit and think they are special. In reality, take a closer look at a suit and you will see they have special inserts on the shoulders to make fat, unhealthy, droopy-shouldered men look smart and aggressive. If those same guys had been in their week-end attire, I'm willing to bet their reaction would have been a lot more considerate. Wearing a suit seems to really impress some people. You see a turkey in a suit walking down the side-walk proudly, with his droopy shoulders and his man-boobs out of sight and the average dude moves aside to let him pass, presumably thinking he is important and needs to be somewhere in a hurry. The reality is quite different...he is only important in his own mind!

achoo

Yes, you can. It's called "stop". And "wait". Cyclists expect drivers to do that all the damn time.

Lame strawman is lame. So you start rolling from a red light two cars further back than you would have been otherwise.

And get doored for it.

And the Earth is flat, the Easter Bunny is your best friend, and the Tooth Fairy gives you investment advice. Got it.


Flat Earth, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy.


What reality are you living in?

In this universe, no one's forcing you forward with mind control rays and you always have the option of stopping - and not actually riding into a dangerous situation.

I'm sorry - I forgot you're in the flat Earth/Easter Bunny reality.

Look again. How many other cars actually pull over - right before they stop - to the point they're actually on the painted line?

ZERO.

There also appears there might be a pretty decent sized gap in front of that cab.

Toss that in there, too - cab with passengers pulls over closer to curb, stops with gap in front of it.

Thank you for articulating a perfect example of WHY you stay out of door zones of cabs that stop next to a curb while seemingly leaving a gap in front.

Careful? You have very low standards for "careful". She got doored by a cab passenger in an obvious dooring situation. That's the antithesis of careful.

I'm beginning to wonder what your connection to the not-really-so-careful doored cyclist in the video is.

You sure seem bent on making sure no one notices the cab pulling closer to the curb right before stopping. And pointing out that the cyclist couldn't do a better job trolling for a dooring had that been her goal sure seems to get your panties in a wad.

Face it - she did something stupid. She filtered forward past stopped traffic, from the car's blind spot, through a door zone, in an obvious dooring situation.

And got doored.

Saying, "The passenger broke the LAW!!!" changes that not one bit.

He might even wind up being held accountable.

So what?

Dooring situations will still be dooring situations, and if you blithely ride into them, you'll get doored.

dynodonn 

Stuck between a rock and a hard spot the cyclist was, tram stop blocking the one side, and the sidewalk on the other, then add into the mix an impatient, arrogant group of business men, and the situation gets even more acerbated. The one businessman has now realized to even more of an extent on how powerful the internet can be. Again, this video will make a number of motorists and their passengers even more aware of their surroundings before exiting their vehicle.

02Giant 

I like this!

Cyclosaurus

This is the "boys will be boys" defense. We can't expect or ask for better behavior from people who misbehave, so the burden is on the victim to alter their behavior. It's the same rationale whereby people tell women "if you wear a short skirt then you're asking to be *****; that's just what men do".

Yes, dooring is a legitimate risk, and you should take reasonable precautions. However, the law is clear and drivers and passengers have a legal responsibility to ensure that they do not impede traffic and/or hurt others by blindly opening doors. Cagers who violate should be held accountable—regardless of whether the cyclist was "asking for it". Cyclists don't have a sense of entitlement, and no one is asking for one. As an experienced cyclist in an urban area, you are hyper-aware of all the risks around you (if you aren't then you the world will correct that for you quickly). People in cars are generally far more oblivious and act way way way more often without regard for others. So saying, "you should just been more careful" essentially sends society a message that the entire burden is on cyclists to protect themselves and cagers have zero responsibility and accountability. I mean, how much less can you expect of drivers? When cycling, you already have to assume that every driver is a distracted, sleep deprived, violent, vindictive sociopath in order to properly account for the potential for harm from others on the road. It's time to send society a different message. Making an example out of Jerky Suit Man helps to tip the balance back toward a more equitable environment.

The fault is with the person opening the door. Period. A cyclist, for their own protection, should assume that any door can be opened in front of them. But the opposite is also true, and carries an obligation under the law. Anyone opening a car door must assume another vehicle is coming until they have made sure that one isn't. Part of why Amsterdam is such a safe place to cycle is that the law is clear that in any accident involving a cyclist and driver, the driver is assumed at fault unless they can prove otherwise. It means that as a driver there are direct consequences to acting without regard for others. Absent such a rule, it is up to cyclists to be assertive about their rights and the responsibilities of others to hold people accountable for shirking their responsibilities. When, and only when, it is clear that if you act in a dangerous, illegal, and irresponsible manner, there will be consequences, will we see car drivers act with the courtesy that all users of the roads deserve.

howsteepisit

[Does anyone else wonder why the cyclist has 2 gopro type cameras running? I really think this is a sort of set up, where she is going to trap someone where dooring is common. Not that I necessarily think thats bad, law enforcment uses speed traps frequently. What I really suspect is that the infrastructure is so poor that dooring is real and constant danger, so the cyclist along with some like minded folks, set up a situation to be recorded as a cause celebre. The unwitting businessman was just a dupe who cooperated nicely.

And it was successful, look at the publicity being generated. Played nicely!

JonnyHK 

Hmmm...got a mirror at home?

Phone call lately from the pot calling the kettle black?

Really? Have you even watched the video?




Please, let me repeat it for the slow children at the back of the room...

"The cab has not pulled over, it has stopped in traffic."



No. An obvious dooring situation is being hit by a car that is parked on the curb side. This is not that.

The only connection I have - apart from having grown up in this city and knowing this bit of road - is that I can evaluate evidence properly.

What is more frustrating that reading your tripe is the fact that the censor won't let me type the r-tard word.

JonnyHK 

She probably has the cameras for a the same reason most of us run cameras: folks in cars sometimes do dumb stuff.

These business men aren't dupes, they are just plain common dopes. It's quite simple.

BSB

The cab was driving down the road in exactly the same lane position it stopped in right from the start of the video. At no point did it move closer to the curb.

Indeed.

howsteepisit

Interesting the class warfare thats come up here, Men in suits are somewhat despised. I don't think the wearing of a suit had anything to do with their reactions.

Keith99

This basically reverses everything I was basing things on. I was thinking the kiosks were for Busses implying street, not trains.

If that were in the U.S. there would be a red curb or no stopping signs everywhere if it were a through road.

Keith99

Actually where she was riding would not make such conclusions unreasonable. The typical door zone is to the traffic side of a parked car. Here she is riding between the stopped car and the curb. That typically is not considered anything as no one ever tries to ride there.

But where she is riding looks like it is exactly where the road markings pushed her.

I also just checked and it looks to me like there are no parking signs. Not as many as I'd expect here in Los Angeles for something similar, but about the number I would expect if this kind of situation is common, e.g enough to remind people for a common situation, which is fewer that there normally are for an unusual situation where they want to be sure you can't miss the signs.

If this is an area where it is not legal to stop (and the signs I saw were ones with an "S" with the line through it then the people exiting the cab were in violation of the law irrespective of checking. At least in the stated No Stopping is more restrictive than no parking.

delcrossv

+1. Seems like she was trolling for a dooring. The positioning on a narrow strip of pavement between a bunch of cabs and the kerb is idiotic. She should have been in the traffic lane.

I'll call this one a staged incident and mark it "fail".

BSB

Here's the video from the cyclist's headcam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=glU17uXDQXg

JonnyHK 

The man behind the door has been interviewed:
Cyclist-dooring man 'not proud' of reaction



If you pan left on the street view there is the sign - "No Standing". This means that not only can't you park, you can't pull over to do anything like a quick drop off or stop to read a map, take a phone call or anything.


Taking the lane would obviously be the best plan, especially if traffic was flowing.

Watch this journalist take the lane as he rides down this exact bit of road as part of a report:
Think you know your bike and road rules? Take the quiz

However, with the traffic slowing and coming to a halt at the traffic light, her choice to filter is not unexpected.


Then you'd be wrong. Watch the footage again - someone has provided a link to a longer version which shows more of the lead up to the incident.

howsteepisit

that longer video does offer a very different perspective. I retract that I thought she was looking for an incident to make a case. The street design is terrible, but thats the reality of old street layouts and such. Thanks for posting that, it really shows a different timing than the original.