11 ms·

Wow, when I rode road bikes, the onus on avoiding suddenly opening car doors was on me. If bike riders won’t pay attention to avoid car doors, expecting drivers

Wow, when I rode road bikes, the onus on avoiding suddenly opening car doors was on me. If bike riders won’t pay attention to avoid car doors, expecting drivers to is a fools errand.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago
you can simultaneously encourage defensive biking and encourage drivers to use the dutch reach. not that hard!
daenney 9y ago
One does not exclude the other. If both are mindful about this, the chance of something going wrong goes way down. It's not that drivers have sole responsibility in this, it just helps to reduce the amount of injuries if they too adapt their behaviour.
kutkloon7 9y ago
Sometimes you just have to bicycle close to cars. Even if you take the effort to see inside parked cars (it is probably better to just watch the road), it is simply impossible to evade suddenly opening car doors if they are opened at just the wrong time. Its a bit like saying that cyclists just have to avoid you if you would suddenly jump on the biking line.
- valuearb 9y ago
  It is, I would never bike fast bear car doors that could open. I always biked defensively, trusting no one. Isn’t that common sense?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    It's also common sense as a pedestrian to look both ways when crossing a crosswalk. That doesn't mean it's not the driver's legal responsibility to stop. Also, injuries have occurred even at low speeds.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  When I'm on the freeway in the carpool lane which is flowing well, and the rest of the lanes are clogged and moving slowly, I slow down, too, as someone might suddenly pull into the carpool lane from the clogged lane. I have the right of way, but I'd prefer not to rear end anyone with at 50 mph difference in speed. The same when biking past a row of stopped cars. Slow down, as one might open their door. It's just self-preservation. What's the point of being in the right if you're dead?
  - ghostly_s 9y ago
    The point is both parties in these situations should be mindful of the hazard. Yet only one of them is not personally at any significant risk of injury (or, in most of the US at least, prosecution) so is it terribly surprising to find that party is the one that needs the most encouragement? And the difference between your scenarios is that many streets have nowhere for cyclists to ride except in the door zone, and bikes are much less visible to merging drivers/exiting pedestrians than cars, especially when those car users don't have a mindset that expects them. Personally I almost never ride in the door zone, but that's because I'm very aggressive about taking the lane from motorists, which is a skill many cyclists are not comfortable with (and frankly our infrastructure shouldn't require them to be).
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      Sure, both should be mindful of the hazard. But as you said, since the cyclist is the one who'll get hurt, he needs to take extra care, even if it is ethically and legally the other guy's responsibility. I've talked to many cyclists about this, and they invariably get angry with me about it. But like I said, what good does it to do be legally and ethically in the right when you get maimed or killed? When I ride my bike, I treat cars like they are going to kill me. So far, it has kept me alive. Riding fast in the door zone is simply foolish, and the cyclist does have a choice - slow down! The motorcycle community seems to have given up expecting cars to change, and they ride defensively as a result. The long time riders I've talked to all have a much more pragmatic view on this than the cyclists do. They ride on the assumption that they are invisible to cars.
enraged_camel 9y ago
As a cyclist you may have less than one second to avoid an opening car door. You can't always give a wide berth because bike lanes in the US are usually very narrow.
- valuearb 9y ago
  You can have all the time you need, if you slow down.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Do you apply the same logic to intersections? You never know when someone might blow through a red light, so you'd better go through every intersection at 2MPH so you have enough time to stop if they do.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      I do when I’m driving, I slow enough so I can clearly see both ways before I go through.
      - enraged_camel 9y ago
        You do realize that unexpected slow downs also result in many accidents, right? The behavior you just described is more risky than the default.
        valuearb 9y ago
        no it’s not, i’m not stopping in intersections. I’m not exceeding the speed limit, I’m going a little less. Fast enough to see oncoming traffic and not to be rear ended.
        mikeash 9y ago
        Going a little less than the speed limit is not nearly enough. If someone stopped at the perpendicular red light suddenly floored it, you wouldn't have enough time to stop. The maximum safe speed through a typical intersection is probably only about 10MPH. Less if there's not much room between the stopped traffic and your lane.

Wow, when I rode road bikes, the onus on avoiding suddenly opening car doors was on me. If bike riders won’t pay attention to avoid car doors, expecting drivers to is a fools errand.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago

you can simultaneously encourage defensive biking and encourage drivers to use the dutch reach. not that hard!

daenney 9y ago

One does not exclude the other. If both are mindful about this, the chance of something going wrong goes way down. It's not that drivers have sole responsibility in this, it just helps to reduce the amount of injuries if they too adapt their behaviour.

kutkloon7 9y ago

Sometimes you just have to bicycle close to cars. Even if you take the effort to see inside parked cars (it is probably better to just watch the road), it is simply impossible to evade suddenly opening car doors if they are opened at just the wrong time. Its a bit like saying that cyclists just have to avoid you if you would suddenly jump on the biking line.

valuearb 9y ago
It is, I would never bike fast bear car doors that could open. I always biked defensively, trusting no one. Isn’t that common sense?
- icebraining 9y ago
  It's also common sense as a pedestrian to look both ways when crossing a crosswalk. That doesn't mean it's not the driver's legal responsibility to stop. Also, injuries have occurred even at low speeds.
WalterBright 9y ago
When I'm on the freeway in the carpool lane which is flowing well, and the rest of the lanes are clogged and moving slowly, I slow down, too, as someone might suddenly pull into the carpool lane from the clogged lane. I have the right of way, but I'd prefer not to rear end anyone with at 50 mph difference in speed. The same when biking past a row of stopped cars. Slow down, as one might open their door. It's just self-preservation. What's the point of being in the right if you're dead?
- ghostly_s 9y ago
  The point is both parties in these situations should be mindful of the hazard. Yet only one of them is not personally at any significant risk of injury (or, in most of the US at least, prosecution) so is it terribly surprising to find that party is the one that needs the most encouragement? And the difference between your scenarios is that many streets have nowhere for cyclists to ride except in the door zone, and bikes are much less visible to merging drivers/exiting pedestrians than cars, especially when those car users don't have a mindset that expects them. Personally I almost never ride in the door zone, but that's because I'm very aggressive about taking the lane from motorists, which is a skill many cyclists are not comfortable with (and frankly our infrastructure shouldn't require them to be).
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Sure, both should be mindful of the hazard. But as you said, since the cyclist is the one who'll get hurt, he needs to take extra care, even if it is ethically and legally the other guy's responsibility. I've talked to many cyclists about this, and they invariably get angry with me about it. But like I said, what good does it to do be legally and ethically in the right when you get maimed or killed? When I ride my bike, I treat cars like they are going to kill me. So far, it has kept me alive. Riding fast in the door zone is simply foolish, and the cyclist does have a choice - slow down! The motorcycle community seems to have given up expecting cars to change, and they ride defensively as a result. The long time riders I've talked to all have a much more pragmatic view on this than the cyclists do. They ride on the assumption that they are invisible to cars.

enraged_camel 9y ago

As a cyclist you may have less than one second to avoid an opening car door. You can't always give a wide berth because bike lanes in the US are usually very narrow.

valuearb 9y ago
You can have all the time you need, if you slow down.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Do you apply the same logic to intersections? You never know when someone might blow through a red light, so you'd better go through every intersection at 2MPH so you have enough time to stop if they do.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    I do when I’m driving, I slow enough so I can clearly see both ways before I go through.
    - enraged_camel 9y ago
      You do realize that unexpected slow downs also result in many accidents, right? The behavior you just described is more risky than the default.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        no it’s not, i’m not stopping in intersections. I’m not exceeding the speed limit, I’m going a little less. Fast enough to see oncoming traffic and not to be rear ended.
        mikeash 9y ago
        Going a little less than the speed limit is not nearly enough. If someone stopped at the perpendicular red light suddenly floored it, you wouldn't have enough time to stop. The maximum safe speed through a typical intersection is probably only about 10MPH. Less if there's not much room between the stopped traffic and your lane.