Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
aspiringcyclist
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 6:11pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by aspiringcyclist »

Mark1978 wrote:As we've been through here recently ; there is little point in cycle lanes which don't also have parking restrictions.


It as much a cycle lane as a bicycle symbol is a cycle lane - as in, it isn't. I don't think you can have a cycle lane and a bus lane occupy the same space. Does anyone know anything about this?
AlanD
Posts: 1733
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 1:29pm
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by AlanD »

I think the cyclist should have stayed where he was in the road and not got up. Once the taxi stopped, he was in no danger of being run over. He could have been seriously injured so should have kept still, to await the ambulance. With the Ambulance, comes a Police car, and once the Police are there, the offending driver gets his details taken.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by reohn2 »

My 2d worth:-
The blame is squarely with the driver who opened the door.

The cycle lane is the type I never ever ride in,and is a death/injury trap waiting for an unsuspecting victim.
In this instance the trap was sprung by a careless driver and set by an idiot highway designer :twisted: .

The designers of these abominations IMO should be sacked forthwith and prosecuted for even thinking of such idiotic designs :twisted: .

The taxi driver did well not to run over the cyclist and has no blame attached to him/her.

Anyone who terms this as an accident is waayyy wrong IMHO
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by Bicycler »

aspiringcyclist wrote:
Mark1978 wrote:As we've been through here recently ; there is little point in cycle lanes which don't also have parking restrictions.


It as much a cycle lane as a bicycle symbol is a cycle lane - as in, it isn't. I don't think you can have a cycle lane and a bus lane occupy the same space. Does anyone know anything about this?

Well technically it will be a lane subject to a traffic regulation order restricting use to certain classes of vehicle such as buses and cycles. Shared bus/cycle lanes are common in the UK. The blue paint is just blue paint, it has no legal significance whatsoever. What Mark says is correct though, the (debateable) benefit of such a lane is instantly nullified if it is allowed to be blocked by parked vehicles.

irc wrote:As for victim blaming - It is perfectly valid to point out all contributing factors while still recognising the primary blame is with the door opening motorist. That cyclist was entitled to ride in the doorzone. It doesn't mean he wasn't foolish to do it. Part of the blame does lie with him. If he had been further out it wouldn't have happened.

There is a choice between just trusting others not to make mistakes and doing all you can to to mitigate the consequences when they do.

You say mistake, I say criminal negligence.

This is the problem with victim blaming. Some people start going to some inconvenience to prevent becoming victims of crime and soon people who don't are considered partially to blame.

You talk as if the cyclist ought to have known better. But how was he to know? He was riding a bike where the road markings told him to ride it, where society expects him to ride it and where in all probability he had always thought cyclists were meant to ride their bikes. We can't hold everybody to the teachings of Cyclecraft (which very few will have read) and standards of cycle training (which few adults have received).

Ah, some might say, but it's so obviously dangerous that he should have realised! It may be obvious to we serious cyclists, graduates of Cyclecraft and members of internet forums but not necessarily to other people. I reckon I did my first 25 years of adult cycling without hearing about the 'door zone' or the need to avoid car doors. I recall David Hembrow once commenting that he'd had trouble explaining the concept of a dangerous 'door zone' to an experienced Dutch cycle campaigner who had never even considered the matter.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that vehicular cycling is a coping mechanism, it allows those of us who are willing to cycle on the roads and also confident and assertive enough to put up with the flack to make ourselves more safe whilst cycling. What it is not is a whole new set of rules of the road which cyclists must follow or else be criticised. That would genuinely raise the standard expected of a cyclist above that required of a driver
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by MikeF »

irc wrote:As for victim blaming - It is perfectly valid to point out all contributing factors while still recognising the primary blame is with the door opening motorist. That cyclist was entitled to ride in the doorzone. It doesn't mean he wasn't foolish to do it. Part of the blame does lie with him. If he had been further out it wouldn't have happened.
If he had chosen another route it wouldn't have happened. :wink: A lot of things don't or do happen "if"........... Isn't the purpose of a cycle lane to be safer for cyclists??
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by mercalia »

Mark1978 wrote:As we've been through here recently ; there is little point in cycle lanes which don't also have parking restrictions.

+1
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by irc »

Bicycler wrote:You talk as if the cyclist ought to have known better. But how was he to know? He was riding a bike where the road markings told him to ride it, where society expects him to ride it and where in all probability he had always thought cyclists were meant to ride their bikes. We can't hold everybody to the teachings of Cyclecraft (which very few will have read) and standards of cycle training (which few adults have received).


Yes the cyclist should have known better. He is an adult not a child. He is riding in urban traffic where there is a known, albeit low, risk of injury and death. It is up to him to educate himself about safe riding. If there had been an HGV close behind him he would quite possibly be dead now. A high price to pay for not spending a bit of time making yourself a better cyclist.

He has bought a helmet and is using a rear flasher in daylight. Maybe he thinks doing that makes him bullet proof.
Last edited by irc on 6 Aug 2015, 9:44am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by 661-Pete »

The simple fact of the matter is this: it must be the responsibility of the car occupant - be it driver or passenger - to check before opening a door. And there should be severe penalties for offenders. As for children - well I think it should be an offence to allow a child to be in a vehicle - even when stationary - without the childproof locks activated. Teaching cyclists to 'avoid the door zone' is effectively a workaround for someone else's problem.

Having said that, yes I do avoid the door zone - like the majority of cyclists - if I can't see into the vehicle to be certain it's unoccupied.

As to technical solutions to the problem - or at least to reduce the risk - how about this for an idea which just occurred to me? When someone tries to open a car door from the inside, it won't open at first, instead the hazards start flashing. Only after they've been flashing for five seconds, will the door open. That way the cyclist gets some warning - and so does the motorist. Modern cars have so much electronics packed in them, I'm sure this could be contrived for future designs...
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by irc »

661-Pete wrote:The simple fact of the matter is this: it must be the responsibility of the car occupant - be it driver or passenger - to check before opening a door. And there should be severe penalties for offenders.


Is is the responsibility of the car occupant to check. Max fine £1000 if it hasn't been increased.'

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... 401061.pdf

But it is still up to all road users to use due care and attention.
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by AlaninWales »

Bicycler wrote:Let's not lose sight of the fact that vehicular cycling is a coping mechanism, it allows those of us who are willing to cycle on the roads and also confident and assertive enough to put up with the flack to make ourselves more safe whilst cycling. What it is not is a whole new set of rules of the road which cyclists must follow or else be criticised. That would genuinely raise the standard expected of a cyclist above that required of a driver

+1 !
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by AlaninWales »

irc wrote:
Bicycler wrote:You talk as if the cyclist ought to have known better. But how was he to know? He was riding a bike where the road markings told him to ride it, where society expects him to ride it and where in all probability he had always thought cyclists were meant to ride their bikes. We can't hold everybody to the teachings of Cyclecraft (which very few will have read) and standards of cycle training (which few adults have received).


Yes the cyclist should have known better. He is an adult not a child. He is riding in urban traffic where there is a known, albeit low, risk of injury and death. It is up to him to educate himself about safe riding. If there had been an HGV close behind him he would quite possibly be dead now. A high price to pay for not spending a bit of time making yourself a better cyclist.

He has bought a helmet and is using a rear flasher in daylight. Maybe he thinks doing that makes him bullet proof.

I strongly disagree, this is going down the 'compulsory training' route, you may as well say that adults have no right to ride on the road until they have received and passed Bikeability 3. Perhaps then they get a cycling licence (and registration tabs)?
Proper adherence to the law by the already trained and licenced road users would be the start, acceptance of the need for proper training in road design by the relevant professionals would allow untrained cyclists to ride safely in the designated areas.
aspiringcyclist
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 6:11pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by aspiringcyclist »

Mistakes will happen, but the infrastructure doesn't allow for mistakes. That is the problem. As has been said we can't expect cyclists to know that they shouldn't use the infrastructure that has been designed as it is unsafe for them. In fact, that very notion is absurd and would almost never happen with anything else.


https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/cut-the-crap/
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by reohn2 »

661-Pete wrote:The simple fact of the matter is this: it must be the responsibility of the car occupant - be it driver or passenger - to check before opening a door. And there should be severe penalties for offenders. As for children - well I think it should be an offence to allow a child to be in a vehicle - even when stationary - without the childproof locks activated. Teaching cyclists to 'avoid the door zone' is effectively a workaround for someone else's problem.

+1
Having said that, yes I do avoid the door zone - like the majority of cyclists - if I can't see into the vehicle to be certain it's unoccupied.

FWIW,I always avoid the door zone whether cars are occupied or not,and I've been honked at for doing so,but it won't change my riding.The door zone is the door zone,and I ride clear of it,I'm of the opinion that if every cyclist did then motorists would get used to it,and accept it.


As to technical solutions to the problem - or at least to reduce the risk - how about this for an idea which just occurred to me? When someone tries to open a car door from the inside, it won't open at first, instead the hazards start flashing. Only after they've been flashing for five seconds, will the door open. That way the cyclist gets some warning - and so does the motorist. Modern cars have so much electronics packed in them, I'm sure this could be contrived for future designs...

Which in itself sounds like a good idea but many's the time both whilst driving an cycling I think the vehicle with the hazard lights flashing is indicating to move off because it's nearside indicator is obscured by the vehicle parked behind it,which gives a false impression.
We have a situation in many towns and cities where the cycle lane design is a potential death trap for cyclists,that is the problem in all this and as myself and others have stated,it's a scandal,because the most vulernable are being put in danger for the sake of those safely belted up in motors who'll never been in danger at those speeds,and where their journey times will be hastened by a matter seconds due to other's lives and limbs being put at risk.
It's simply another form of 'might is right'
The bottom line is that motorists journey times are more important than vulnerable road users lives.

FWIW,the cyclist in the video will have a bent bike and some scrapes and bruises,and he'll get over it,but I bet he doesn't ride the done zone again.
However OTOH,one of the vets group I ride with had his life ruined due to the very same thing,he was a high mileage cyclist even in his late sixties riding upward of 150miles three or four times a week.He hit the opening door edge on with his left knee.
After numerous operations still only has very limited movement in it,and can no longer ride,or a whole lot of other things too,including driving a manual car.
To make matters worse the driver claimed it was his fault for riding too close to her car,there was a protracted legal battle which he won.But in his own words his life was ruined in an instant,and he's very bitter about the whole thing.
I certainly wouldn't have the courage to tell him shouldn't have been riding in the door zone.

Over the years I've on numerous occasions had car doors flung open in front of me when riding,and if I'd been in the door zone would've either been bought down or possibly,as a natural response,swerved to avoid the door only to be possibly hit by an overtaking car,which all to frequently overtake too close anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Doored cyclist almost run over - good driving?

Post by bovlomov »

reohn2 wrote:... but many's the time both whilst driving an cycling I think the vehicle with the hazard lights flashing is indicating to move off because it's nearside indicator is obscured by the vehicle parked behind it,which gives a false impression.

It's a fundamental problem with hazard lights, and I'm surprised it hasn't been tackled by the motor manufacturers. There is simply no way of knowing which of the two functions an indicator is performing. You'd think it wouldn't be beyond them to devise a different pattern (long on/short off, or irregular?) for the hazard mode.
Post Reply