4 ms·

Cyclists are supposed to follow the same rules as cars. If a car takes out another cars door, the moving vehicle is at fault. If you are going fast enough with

by donatj 5y ago

Cyclists are supposed to follow the same rules as cars. If a car takes out another cars door, the moving vehicle is at fault. If you are going fast enough within the arc of a door that you don’t have time to slow down, you're going faster than you are able to safely control. You are putting yourself and others in danger. You are a missile on the road, slow down or leave more room... It’s irresponsible to cycle that fast by doorways.

zenexer 5y ago
In reality, bicycles are often trapped between fast-moving traffic and parked cars for the majority of their travel. At the end of the day, the goal here is to save lives, regardless of who would be at fault. Although, from another user’s comment, it sounds like the person opening the car door would be at least partially responsible, and that was already the case: > It is already an offence to open a car door, or cause or permit it to be opened, so as to cause injury, punishable by a maximum fine of £1,000. Furthermore, getting out of a car can be dangerous. This just seems like a sensible habit. There are no disadvantages.
jffry 5y ago
Maybe your jurisdiction has different road rules, but this seems precisely wrong. How can a driver be expected to stop on a dime for a door that opens into a travel lane with zero warning? The responsibility for not thrusting a car door into the path of another vehicle must lie with the only person who is capable of preventing a collision - the person opening the door. Anything else would be a ridiculous policy.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Either traffic participants of all forms are required to avoid causing a higher speed traffic flow to take evasive action or they're not. I don't care if you're jaywalking, opening a car door, incapable of using the skinny pedal in sufficient quantity when entering the street, whatever, don't do it in front of other faster moving shit that will have to take evasive action regardless of what that type of traffic that other shit happens to be. You wanna jump into a traffic flow that you have no business being in on account of your speed, go ahead, but whatever happens after that is on you. A cyclist is no more at fault for hitting a car door extended 0.2sec of distance in front of them than a train is for hitting whatever tried to beat it to the crossing.
dddw 5y ago
Sure, you tell yourself that if it is a loved one smacked at your cardoor. Instead of taking 2 extra seconds to improve safety. We are all traffic.
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
Cycling out of the "door zone" is generally considered to be a good idea for obvious reasons. However, in the UK at least, it can be extremely difficult to be conclusively far enough from all parked cars to ensure that someone flinging a door open won't hit you. Roads simply are not wide enough, and double parked streets of cars are ubiquitous, as are impatient cars who will harass cyclists trying to stay out of the door zones. On top of that, cycle lanes are often directly next to parked cars with little door zone allowance[1]. The bikes don't have to cycle in the lane, but if you don't, you may get punishment-passed by motor vehicles. You also do not have to be going very fast to die in a dooring. Even leaving aside the effect of a metal and glass slab on a human face, car doors are actually extremely good at bouncing cyclists directly and rapidly into adjacent or oncoming traffic at almost any speed - even if the door hits the cyclist from the side by being opened as they pass. It's also very unlikely that a bike injures someone exiting a car anyway, as opening the door and climbing out into the road are two very separate actions. If the bike doesn't see the door opening and someone getting as they approach, then it is indeed likely they were cycling unsafely. But that doesn't happen very often because that will also be very bad for the cyclist (as opposed to to car taking off a door and a person next to it, which doesn't injure the driver), and it would have been happening for the last 40 metres of the cyclist's approach. It's also untrue that if you are driving down a narrow road with a single traffic lane and double parked cars (very common in UK urban areas) and someone flings a door open and you hit it that it's necessarily your fault. It's impossible to drive such that you could always stop in time, someone could even open the door while you're alongside when you're doing 1mph. [1]: https://i.imgur.com/xIuYbc0.png https://i.imgur.com/xIuYbc0.png
- anonymou2 5y ago
  Then the problem really is the car drivers that expect you to keep off what they think is their road, even if that puts you in danger (that expectation is given official support by the segregated bike path). If I am riding in a narrow lane I ride in the center of the lane. If they don't like it they can suck it up. I don't like their smelly fumes either or their horn blowing for that matter. The problem is a society that gives all the privileges to car drivers.
dncornholio 5y ago
> Cyclists are supposed to follow the same rules as cars. Cyclists are not surrounded by a metal cage so should not be held to the same rules. Where I'm from, the cyclist is (almost) never responsible.
- anonymou2 5y ago
  Care to explain why not being surrounded by a metal cage has anything to do with the rules of the road? What rules should cyclists follow then?
  - dncornholio 5y ago
    There should be rules to protect cyclists.
chpatrick 5y ago
I don't think it's legal to open your car in the middle of the street either. The one time this happened to me was when someone jumped out of a taxi in the middle of the road without looking.
aconbere 5y ago
This is such a heartless response. This response puts both property and a narrow understanding of the law in front of lives. First let’s just acknowledge that the article is describing a small change in driver habit to save lives. Not the lives of drivers, but the bicyclists. Second, while bicyclist are often treated like other vehicles by default there are many exceptions made for bicycles, this is a reasonable one. Finally this comment seems to demonstrate a deeply fundamental misunderstanding of the design flaw of putting a bunch of parked cars directly next to a bike lane with no safety gap. There is almost no safe speed to bike next to a car where you can practically avoid a door that could open any second. This is why lanes are given a wide berth of parked cars. This same affordance has not been given to most bike lanes as cities have attempt to squeeze bike lanes into existing roads. It leaves bicyclists a sophie’s choice: ride in the road with the cars, or in the bike lane with the doors.
- adhesive_wombat 5y ago
  > This is why lanes are given a wide berth of parked cars. If only that was always true: this[1] kind of lane is far too common. It's completely counter-productive as it actually encourages the cyclist into the door zone without being wide enough to keep passing traffic at a safe distance (also a dashed-line means cars may enter the lane anyway, so it's indicative only). The safest place to cycle here is probably so far right that a car won't be able to pass without a full overtake in the oncoming lane, moving to the left only when there are no door hazards. also you should keep right though the choke-point island, as you do not want a car to overtake you there, unless you want a taste of one of those bollards - imagine being a bike next to the black oncoming car. However, such an assertive riding position tends to upset cars who may instead punishment-pass the cyclist. Understandably, many cyclists prefer not to open themselves to such bullying and will instead stick to their lanes, and risk doorings instead. Even quite wide, well-marked and "safe-looking" lanes can still be mostly within the door zone[2]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/4zm6VwB.png https://i.imgur.com/4zm6VwB.png [2] https://i.imgur.com/vVh7fUP.png https://i.imgur.com/vVh7fUP.png
  - aconbere 5y ago
    Totally agree! It’s hard to summarize the many ways to die as a bicyclist in a single comment. I learned the hard way that I was safer taking the lane and having some angry drivers (I guess OP would be happy to treat me like a car?) than to put myself in poorly designed bike lanes.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
By the "any accident caused by something in the traffic flow hitting something jumping into that traffic flow is the fault of the former object going too fast" logic that is wildly popular on any discussions of traffic/transportation on HN you are not at all wrong. That said, I think that sort of logic is deeply flawed and the people peddling it to be asinine. Traffic participants have an obligation to not obstruct other traffic flows (like opening your door into a bike lane, or pulling a car into traffic at insufficient speed) without appropriate care to ensure it does not require other traffic participants to take evasive maneuvers.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
I expect you will be complaining about cyclists riding in the middle of the road to avoid opening car doors in your next rant.

by donatj 5y ago

zenexer 5y ago

In reality, bicycles are often trapped between fast-moving traffic and parked cars for the majority of their travel. At the end of the day, the goal here is to save lives, regardless of who would be at fault. Although, from another user’s comment, it sounds like the person opening the car door would be at least partially responsible, and that was already the case: > It is already an offence to open a car door, or cause or permit it to be opened, so as to cause injury, punishable by a maximum fine of £1,000. Furthermore, getting out of a car can be dangerous. This just seems like a sensible habit. There are no disadvantages.

jffry 5y ago

Maybe your jurisdiction has different road rules, but this seems precisely wrong. How can a driver be expected to stop on a dime for a door that opens into a travel lane with zero warning? The responsibility for not thrusting a car door into the path of another vehicle must lie with the only person who is capable of preventing a collision - the person opening the door. Anything else would be a ridiculous policy.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Either traffic participants of all forms are required to avoid causing a higher speed traffic flow to take evasive action or they're not. I don't care if you're jaywalking, opening a car door, incapable of using the skinny pedal in sufficient quantity when entering the street, whatever, don't do it in front of other faster moving shit that will have to take evasive action regardless of what that type of traffic that other shit happens to be. You wanna jump into a traffic flow that you have no business being in on account of your speed, go ahead, but whatever happens after that is on you. A cyclist is no more at fault for hitting a car door extended 0.2sec of distance in front of them than a train is for hitting whatever tried to beat it to the crossing.

dddw 5y ago

Sure, you tell yourself that if it is a loved one smacked at your cardoor. Instead of taking 2 extra seconds to improve safety. We are all traffic.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

Cycling out of the "door zone" is generally considered to be a good idea for obvious reasons. However, in the UK at least, it can be extremely difficult to be conclusively far enough from all parked cars to ensure that someone flinging a door open won't hit you. Roads simply are not wide enough, and double parked streets of cars are ubiquitous, as are impatient cars who will harass cyclists trying to stay out of the door zones. On top of that, cycle lanes are often directly next to parked cars with little door zone allowance[1]. The bikes don't have to cycle in the lane, but if you don't, you may get punishment-passed by motor vehicles. You also do not have to be going very fast to die in a dooring. Even leaving aside the effect of a metal and glass slab on a human face, car doors are actually extremely good at bouncing cyclists directly and rapidly into adjacent or oncoming traffic at almost any speed - even if the door hits the cyclist from the side by being opened as they pass. It's also very unlikely that a bike injures someone exiting a car anyway, as opening the door and climbing out into the road are two very separate actions. If the bike doesn't see the door opening and someone getting as they approach, then it is indeed likely they were cycling unsafely. But that doesn't happen very often because that will also be very bad for the cyclist (as opposed to to car taking off a door and a person next to it, which doesn't injure the driver), and it would have been happening for the last 40 metres of the cyclist's approach. It's also untrue that if you are driving down a narrow road with a single traffic lane and double parked cars (very common in UK urban areas) and someone flings a door open and you hit it that it's necessarily your fault. It's impossible to drive such that you could always stop in time, someone could even open the door while you're alongside when you're doing 1mph. [1]: https://i.imgur.com/xIuYbc0.png https://i.imgur.com/xIuYbc0.png

anonymou2 5y ago
Then the problem really is the car drivers that expect you to keep off what they think is their road, even if that puts you in danger (that expectation is given official support by the segregated bike path). If I am riding in a narrow lane I ride in the center of the lane. If they don't like it they can suck it up. I don't like their smelly fumes either or their horn blowing for that matter. The problem is a society that gives all the privileges to car drivers.

dncornholio 5y ago

> Cyclists are supposed to follow the same rules as cars. Cyclists are not surrounded by a metal cage so should not be held to the same rules. Where I'm from, the cyclist is (almost) never responsible.

anonymou2 5y ago
Care to explain why not being surrounded by a metal cage has anything to do with the rules of the road? What rules should cyclists follow then?
- dncornholio 5y ago
  There should be rules to protect cyclists.

chpatrick 5y ago

I don't think it's legal to open your car in the middle of the street either. The one time this happened to me was when someone jumped out of a taxi in the middle of the road without looking.

aconbere 5y ago

This is such a heartless response. This response puts both property and a narrow understanding of the law in front of lives. First let’s just acknowledge that the article is describing a small change in driver habit to save lives. Not the lives of drivers, but the bicyclists. Second, while bicyclist are often treated like other vehicles by default there are many exceptions made for bicycles, this is a reasonable one. Finally this comment seems to demonstrate a deeply fundamental misunderstanding of the design flaw of putting a bunch of parked cars directly next to a bike lane with no safety gap. There is almost no safe speed to bike next to a car where you can practically avoid a door that could open any second. This is why lanes are given a wide berth of parked cars. This same affordance has not been given to most bike lanes as cities have attempt to squeeze bike lanes into existing roads. It leaves bicyclists a sophie’s choice: ride in the road with the cars, or in the bike lane with the doors.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago
> This is why lanes are given a wide berth of parked cars. If only that was always true: this[1] kind of lane is far too common. It's completely counter-productive as it actually encourages the cyclist into the door zone without being wide enough to keep passing traffic at a safe distance (also a dashed-line means cars may enter the lane anyway, so it's indicative only). The safest place to cycle here is probably so far right that a car won't be able to pass without a full overtake in the oncoming lane, moving to the left only when there are no door hazards. also you should keep right though the choke-point island, as you do not want a car to overtake you there, unless you want a taste of one of those bollards - imagine being a bike next to the black oncoming car. However, such an assertive riding position tends to upset cars who may instead punishment-pass the cyclist. Understandably, many cyclists prefer not to open themselves to such bullying and will instead stick to their lanes, and risk doorings instead. Even quite wide, well-marked and "safe-looking" lanes can still be mostly within the door zone[2]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/4zm6VwB.png https://i.imgur.com/4zm6VwB.png [2] https://i.imgur.com/vVh7fUP.png https://i.imgur.com/vVh7fUP.png
- aconbere 5y ago
  Totally agree! It’s hard to summarize the many ways to die as a bicyclist in a single comment. I learned the hard way that I was safer taking the lane and having some angry drivers (I guess OP would be happy to treat me like a car?) than to put myself in poorly designed bike lanes.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

By the "any accident caused by something in the traffic flow hitting something jumping into that traffic flow is the fault of the former object going too fast" logic that is wildly popular on any discussions of traffic/transportation on HN you are not at all wrong. That said, I think that sort of logic is deeply flawed and the people peddling it to be asinine. Traffic participants have an obligation to not obstruct other traffic flows (like opening your door into a bike lane, or pulling a car into traffic at insufficient speed) without appropriate care to ensure it does not require other traffic participants to take evasive maneuvers.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

I expect you will be complaining about cyclists riding in the middle of the road to avoid opening car doors in your next rant.