This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I am soooo sick of nearly being taken out by car doors while cycling. Yesterday's could not have been closer. I hit one before but was fortunately going slowly enough and braked correctly to hit it without going over my handlebars or even falling off.
In reply to ericinbristol:
Then don't cycle within a car door's width of parked cars.
Just like drivers and motorbike riders.
Then don't cycle within a car door's width of parked cars.
Just like drivers and motorbike riders.
In reply to wintertree:
Thanks for the ignorant comment. Doing that is frequently not possible because it puts you into the path of cars coming up behind you with antagonised drivers wanting you to get out of the way.
And in this particular case doing what you suggest would have put me right in the middle of the road into oncoming traffic. (line of parked cars my side, no room for parking on the oncoming side. Great idea.
Thanks for the ignorant comment. Doing that is frequently not possible because it puts you into the path of cars coming up behind you with antagonised drivers wanting you to get out of the way.
And in this particular case doing what you suggest would have put me right in the middle of the road into oncoming traffic. (line of parked cars my side, no room for parking on the oncoming side. Great idea.
Post edited at 10:14
In reply to ericinbristol:
That's never happened to me and I do it all the time, I either go faster or bob in to slow down and let them past when I can.
If you hit a car door you could damage property and injure someone else and it's likey to be found your your equal fault. Therefore if you believe you must cycle within the danger zone you once again do exactly the same as a car driver or motorbike rider as go slowly enough that it isn't a problem and use judgement.
You can't have it both ways. Out and fast or in and slow.
Then it's a textbook case for going out when oncoming is clear and going in and slow when it isn't, and assuming that every car door will try and wipe you out. Exactly like on a motorbike.
That's never happened to me and I do it all the time, I either go faster or bob in to slow down and let them past when I can.
If you hit a car door you could damage property and injure someone else and it's likey to be found your your equal fault. Therefore if you believe you must cycle within the danger zone you once again do exactly the same as a car driver or motorbike rider as go slowly enough that it isn't a problem and use judgement.
You can't have it both ways. Out and fast or in and slow.
> And in this particular case doing what you suggest would have put me right in the middle of the road into oncoming traffic. (line of parked cars my side, no room for parking on the oncoming side. Great idea.
Then it's a textbook case for going out when oncoming is clear and going in and slow when it isn't, and assuming that every car door will try and wipe you out. Exactly like on a motorbike.
Post edited at 10:19
In reply to wintertree:
The liability will be determined by the exact circumstances. Yes I go more slowly in the danger zone, which is why the time I hit an open car door I was going slowly enough not to come off etc. Equally, on that occasion and on yesterday's occasion I had virtually zero time to react. On both occasions it is obvious the driver did not think to look to see if it was safe. I am confident they would have been held wholly or mostly liable. I do indeed generally go out and fast or in and slow. But it is a waste of time replying to you as you have already made up your mind.
The liability will be determined by the exact circumstances. Yes I go more slowly in the danger zone, which is why the time I hit an open car door I was going slowly enough not to come off etc. Equally, on that occasion and on yesterday's occasion I had virtually zero time to react. On both occasions it is obvious the driver did not think to look to see if it was safe. I am confident they would have been held wholly or mostly liable. I do indeed generally go out and fast or in and slow. But it is a waste of time replying to you as you have already made up your mind.
Post edited at 10:35
In reply to ericinbristol:
Yes, as a cyclist I have long since made up my mind that I don't care who will be found liable, it's my own bloody stupid fault if I put myself I a position where someone else's entirely common carelessness causes me to crash and potentially injure myself or them. It's also easier to slow down to a safe speed when passing a bloody obvious hazard than it is to cycle with broken bones.
If your riding style and hazard perception combine to leave you hitting car doors it's just as well you're a cyclist and not a motorist, do it it a car and you could seriously injure a child.
Yes, as a cyclist I have long since made up my mind that I don't care who will be found liable, it's my own bloody stupid fault if I put myself I a position where someone else's entirely common carelessness causes me to crash and potentially injure myself or them. It's also easier to slow down to a safe speed when passing a bloody obvious hazard than it is to cycle with broken bones.
If your riding style and hazard perception combine to leave you hitting car doors it's just as well you're a cyclist and not a motorist, do it it a car and you could seriously injure a child.
In reply to ericinbristol:
i agree with wintertree cycle further out as daunting as it may seem. people are dumb and stupid.
i got a car door in the neck once doing about 12mph at the time, no damage luckily but since then i keep out further
i agree with wintertree cycle further out as daunting as it may seem. people are dumb and stupid.
i got a car door in the neck once doing about 12mph at the time, no damage luckily but since then i keep out further
In reply to ericinbristol:
Irrespective - they should not be harrasing you nor trying to overtake a vehicle (your bike) in the process of overtaking.
Highway code
2. Overtaking (162 to 169)
162
Before overtaking you should make sure
the road is sufficiently clear ahead
road users are not beginning to overtake you
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.
From your comment you did not make sure the road was sufficiently clear to overtake in a suitable position (ie middle of road by your suggestion) so there was a suitable gap.
> Doing that is frequently not possible because it puts you into the path of cars coming up behind you with antagonised drivers wanting you to get out of the way.
Irrespective - they should not be harrasing you nor trying to overtake a vehicle (your bike) in the process of overtaking.
> And in this particular case doing what you suggest would have put me right in the middle of the road into oncoming traffic. (line of parked cars my side, no room for parking on the oncoming side. Great idea.
Highway code
2. Overtaking (162 to 169)
162
Before overtaking you should make sure
the road is sufficiently clear ahead
road users are not beginning to overtake you
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.
From your comment you did not make sure the road was sufficiently clear to overtake in a suitable position (ie middle of road by your suggestion) so there was a suitable gap.
Post edited at 10:59
In reply to ericinbristol:
thats all well and good but logic is more practically applicable than the law
thats all well and good but logic is more practically applicable than the law
In reply to ericinbristol:
I'd always go wide or wait and check the other way is clear. This also gives me time to react when a pram appears in the road between two parked cars. You could argue that it's someone else's fault but given you are likely to come off broken on a bike I'd rather not argue with a solid object let alone a sold object containing a child.
I'd always go wide or wait and check the other way is clear. This also gives me time to react when a pram appears in the road between two parked cars. You could argue that it's someone else's fault but given you are likely to come off broken on a bike I'd rather not argue with a solid object let alone a sold object containing a child.
In reply to wintertree:
Driver pass within a doors width of parked cars all the time, but people tend to look out for other cars before getting out of theirs. They're not always looking out for bikes.
I agree that you should be aware that there may be idiots around, and that it's best to be pragmatic when it comes to your own safety rather than worrying only about liability, but if somebody opens their door into the path of an oncoming bike (or car, or motorbike) it is solely their fault.
Driver pass within a doors width of parked cars all the time, but people tend to look out for other cars before getting out of theirs. They're not always looking out for bikes.
I agree that you should be aware that there may be idiots around, and that it's best to be pragmatic when it comes to your own safety rather than worrying only about liability, but if somebody opens their door into the path of an oncoming bike (or car, or motorbike) it is solely their fault.
In reply to gazhbo:
I agree, but it is not clear to me where the legal fault actually lies. Obviously opening a door into any sort of traffic is fundamentally dumb and entirely preventable by engaging your brain (or your child locks if your passenger is lacking in this respect).
However rule 163 in the Highway code appears to lump parked cars into the overtaking rules, and states "not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake" - it never explicitly links it all together but it seems to take passing parked cars as overtaking. On the other more compelling hand 239 is much more direct "you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic" so perhaps I was wrong in believing there is scope for shared (legal) blame.
It's still dumb to put yourself in a situation where you could hit a parked car door, because you are then putting yourself in a situation where you could hit an out of control dog/child/pram emerging from between the parked cars, and the legal blame in a situation like that is going to be worse, as are potential consequences.
I agree, but it is not clear to me where the legal fault actually lies. Obviously opening a door into any sort of traffic is fundamentally dumb and entirely preventable by engaging your brain (or your child locks if your passenger is lacking in this respect).
However rule 163 in the Highway code appears to lump parked cars into the overtaking rules, and states "not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake" - it never explicitly links it all together but it seems to take passing parked cars as overtaking. On the other more compelling hand 239 is much more direct "you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic" so perhaps I was wrong in believing there is scope for shared (legal) blame.
It's still dumb to put yourself in a situation where you could hit a parked car door, because you are then putting yourself in a situation where you could hit an out of control dog/child/pram emerging from between the parked cars, and the legal blame in a situation like that is going to be worse, as are potential consequences.
Post edited at 15:02
In reply to wintertree:
100% of cars drive within a doors' width of parked cars or they wouldn't fit in the lane. 99% of cyclists cycle within a door's width of cars or they'd be causing unreasonable obstruction to cars. I think you are either living in planet cuckoo or deliberately trying to wind someone up who nearly got injured by a very inconsiderate and dangerous person this morning.
100% of cars drive within a doors' width of parked cars or they wouldn't fit in the lane. 99% of cyclists cycle within a door's width of cars or they'd be causing unreasonable obstruction to cars. I think you are either living in planet cuckoo or deliberately trying to wind someone up who nearly got injured by a very inconsiderate and dangerous person this morning.
In reply to ericinbristol:
I feel sorry for you man. I once got car doored when I was around 15. "You were in my blind spot" was the response. Like it was my fault or something. A lot of people just swing their vehicles door open and step out without looking.
That being said, I think I road more defensively from that point on and probably been fairly lucky in situations where you have no choice. I always pass junctions in the middle of the road when possible.
This whole "slowing down when in" is nonsense. A door could hit you whilst passing and knock you into traffic whatever speed you're going at. It's the text book 'something bad happened, so you must have been going too fast'. What wintertee is saying is that you should get off and push to be 100% safe.
It's nothing like a motorbike. A motorbike can stay in the middle of the road and doesn't have to occupy the left hand side of the road. Unless you ride your bike like a cyclist.
I feel sorry for you man. I once got car doored when I was around 15. "You were in my blind spot" was the response. Like it was my fault or something. A lot of people just swing their vehicles door open and step out without looking.
That being said, I think I road more defensively from that point on and probably been fairly lucky in situations where you have no choice. I always pass junctions in the middle of the road when possible.
This whole "slowing down when in" is nonsense. A door could hit you whilst passing and knock you into traffic whatever speed you're going at. It's the text book 'something bad happened, so you must have been going too fast'. What wintertee is saying is that you should get off and push to be 100% safe.
It's nothing like a motorbike. A motorbike can stay in the middle of the road and doesn't have to occupy the left hand side of the road. Unless you ride your bike like a cyclist.
In reply to ericinbristol:
I can't remember the last time I went closer than a door width to a parked car. If it means taking the primary position and antagonising a driver - tough.
It's that old chestnut again isn't it - choosing between pissing other people off or getting hurt. Simple choice.
E
I can't remember the last time I went closer than a door width to a parked car. If it means taking the primary position and antagonising a driver - tough.
It's that old chestnut again isn't it - choosing between pissing other people off or getting hurt. Simple choice.
E
Post edited at 16:48
In reply to trouserburp:
I must live in cloud cuckoo land.....
E
> 100% of cars drive within a doors' width of parked cars or they wouldn't fit in the lane. 99% of cyclists cycle within a door's width of cars or they'd be causing unreasonable obstruction to cars. I think you are either living in planet cuckoo or deliberately trying to wind someone up who nearly got injured by a very inconsiderate and dangerous person this morning.
I must live in cloud cuckoo land.....
E
In reply to wintertree:
Indeed the actually legislation is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made
Indeed the actually legislation is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made
In reply to ericinbristol:
Have to say, dispite cycling for years, ive never had an incident with a door. It might be because i live in ruralish areas of the south east, but generally ithink its because people openning car doors is relatively predictable i.e. people tend to get out soon after parking, and most of the time I see them park and so take appropriate caution.
Having said that, when passing a line of parked cars I do pay particular attention to whether they are occupied, as well as whether ther are people (kids especially) crossing the road between cars.
It doesnt change the fact that drivers are (or should be) held accountable for opening their doors unsafely. (one notable exception I am aware of in london that resulted in a cyclist dying, and the driver got off scot free)
Have to say, dispite cycling for years, ive never had an incident with a door. It might be because i live in ruralish areas of the south east, but generally ithink its because people openning car doors is relatively predictable i.e. people tend to get out soon after parking, and most of the time I see them park and so take appropriate caution.
Having said that, when passing a line of parked cars I do pay particular attention to whether they are occupied, as well as whether ther are people (kids especially) crossing the road between cars.
It doesnt change the fact that drivers are (or should be) held accountable for opening their doors unsafely. (one notable exception I am aware of in london that resulted in a cyclist dying, and the driver got off scot free)
In reply to ericinbristol:
I'm getting wider all the time but am sure it's not going to avoid evasive action vs looking over the shoulder. To see if the swerve is dangerous is difficult in that split second. To avoid a mega road smash I may well hit the door since that unknown smash would maybe be very bad.
I've hit a door before. Driver was in a bus lane and threatened to get her boyfriend to do me in before any apology. Amazing.
I'm getting wider all the time but am sure it's not going to avoid evasive action vs looking over the shoulder. To see if the swerve is dangerous is difficult in that split second. To avoid a mega road smash I may well hit the door since that unknown smash would maybe be very bad.
I've hit a door before. Driver was in a bus lane and threatened to get her boyfriend to do me in before any apology. Amazing.
In reply to ericinbristol:
Sounds like you've had a few pretty frustrating experiences.
That said, my first thought was 'I wonder why I don't have that problem?'. Sounds like you cycle in a different place on the road to where I typically do, maybe due to busier/narrower roads or something. I often hold up traffic because I'm not in the 'out of the way' position. I'm sure this sometimes frustrates people who are probably going to get frustrated at something during every trip they make anyway, but ultimately everyone gets where they're going in pretty much the same time. I've never heard anyone say: "Sorry I'm late, I got stuck behind a cyclist". (I also get where I'm going because I've not cycled into any doors.)
Sounds like you've had a few pretty frustrating experiences.
That said, my first thought was 'I wonder why I don't have that problem?'. Sounds like you cycle in a different place on the road to where I typically do, maybe due to busier/narrower roads or something. I often hold up traffic because I'm not in the 'out of the way' position. I'm sure this sometimes frustrates people who are probably going to get frustrated at something during every trip they make anyway, but ultimately everyone gets where they're going in pretty much the same time. I've never heard anyone say: "Sorry I'm late, I got stuck behind a cyclist". (I also get where I'm going because I've not cycled into any doors.)
In reply to FreshSlate:
Cyclists don't 'have to occupy the left hand side of the road' either, especially not if it's a dangerous place to be.
> It's nothing like a motorbike. A motorbike can stay in the middle of the road and doesn't have to occupy the left hand side of the road. Unless you ride your bike like a cyclist.
Cyclists don't 'have to occupy the left hand side of the road' either, especially not if it's a dangerous place to be.
In reply to PM:
I will give you that. The phrase 'have to' should have been replaced with compelled to.
I will give you that. The phrase 'have to' should have been replaced with compelled to.
In reply to wintertree:
It's pretty clear in respect of fault the Road Traffic Act is fairly clear that it is an offence to open a vehicle door so as to injure or endanger. There does not have to be a crash, the act of opening the car door and endangering another road users is sufficient.
I always avoid the door zone and have my spider sense set to 10 when passing parked cars but sometimes it's unavoidable.
It's pretty clear in respect of fault the Road Traffic Act is fairly clear that it is an offence to open a vehicle door so as to injure or endanger. There does not have to be a crash, the act of opening the car door and endangering another road users is sufficient.
I always avoid the door zone and have my spider sense set to 10 when passing parked cars but sometimes it's unavoidable.
In reply to Enty:
No, but you do live in France, which makes a difference
> I must live in cloud cuckoo land.....
> E
No, but you do live in France, which makes a difference
In reply to Captain Fastrousers:
Nope - same when I rode with my club in Lancashire - I had to ride through Burnley and Accrington town centres and I'd never go close to a car door.
E
> No, but you do live in France, which makes a difference
Nope - same when I rode with my club in Lancashire - I had to ride through Burnley and Accrington town centres and I'd never go close to a car door.
E
In reply to ericinbristol:
Try not to take it personally Eric. Most road users are utterly clueless. Once saw a chap fling his door open into the path of a bright yellow double decker bus. Next thing it was folded flat against his front wing. Wondered if it was in his blind spot! I used to cycle competitively and with that training have covered tens of thousands of miles near misses still happen but experience being alert and a huge slice of luck tend to make them misses although friends have been seriously taken out. Notwithstanding the above still not sure i would commute in a big city. Roads are too crammed and far to many idiots.
Try not to take it personally Eric. Most road users are utterly clueless. Once saw a chap fling his door open into the path of a bright yellow double decker bus. Next thing it was folded flat against his front wing. Wondered if it was in his blind spot! I used to cycle competitively and with that training have covered tens of thousands of miles near misses still happen but experience being alert and a huge slice of luck tend to make them misses although friends have been seriously taken out. Notwithstanding the above still not sure i would commute in a big city. Roads are too crammed and far to many idiots.
In reply to ericinbristol:
Don't cycle within door opening range. Yes they are liable fun they hit you, but why run the risk?
Don't cycle within door opening range. Yes they are liable fun they hit you, but why run the risk?
Post edited at 22:25
In reply to ericinbristol:
Everyone is right on this thread. You should leave more room. Drivers should be aware when opening doors. you cant guarantee either.
Everyone is right on this thread. You should leave more room. Drivers should be aware when opening doors. you cant guarantee either.
In reply to trouserburp:
well put.
Bristol also has fairly poor cycle infrastructure. Allegedly it's Britain's first 'cycle city'. Which puts it on a equal footing to amsterdam. Which winds me up as the reality of the gap between the two is staggering.
The French have a beautiful attitude to two wheels. As a cyclist there, people would give me a huge birth. Most roads have plenty of room for bicycles. And as a motorcyclist, they were even better! People would literally drive themselves off the road to give you room to over take. viva la France!
well put.
Bristol also has fairly poor cycle infrastructure. Allegedly it's Britain's first 'cycle city'. Which puts it on a equal footing to amsterdam. Which winds me up as the reality of the gap between the two is staggering.
The French have a beautiful attitude to two wheels. As a cyclist there, people would give me a huge birth. Most roads have plenty of room for bicycles. And as a motorcyclist, they were even better! People would literally drive themselves off the road to give you room to over take. viva la France!
In reply to ericinbristol:
I can only agree with others here, cycle further out from the cars, the highway code recommends the secondary position is circa 1 metre from the curb, if there is parked cars then I'd still aim for about the same, one metre out from the car edge. Of course you have to be aware of oncoming traffic but the cars behind can frankly swing, I'd rather be safe than worry about delaying somebody by 10 seconds. assertive not aggressive position, take the road and protect yourself should be your first concern.
I can only agree with others here, cycle further out from the cars, the highway code recommends the secondary position is circa 1 metre from the curb, if there is parked cars then I'd still aim for about the same, one metre out from the car edge. Of course you have to be aware of oncoming traffic but the cars behind can frankly swing, I'd rather be safe than worry about delaying somebody by 10 seconds. assertive not aggressive position, take the road and protect yourself should be your first concern.
In reply to ericinbristol:
As others have said, those drivers will just have to wait, won't they? Your right of way. Take it.
The other thing is, if you have to cycle within opening range of a series of car doors, then it makes sense to slow down a bit, cover your brakes, and watch the cars very carefully for activity inside. Be paranoid. Be very paranoid.
No doubt you've worked all this out. Sorry you had a numpty on your case.
> because it puts you into the path of cars coming up behind you with antagonised drivers wanting you to get out of the way.
As others have said, those drivers will just have to wait, won't they? Your right of way. Take it.
The other thing is, if you have to cycle within opening range of a series of car doors, then it makes sense to slow down a bit, cover your brakes, and watch the cars very carefully for activity inside. Be paranoid. Be very paranoid.
No doubt you've worked all this out. Sorry you had a numpty on your case.
In reply to ericinbristol:
That's a choice, granted not a very good one but if you've had a run of near misses with car doors perhaps it's time to reconsider which is actually the greater risk?
So slow down, as you would in a car or on a motorcycle.
There's not much else you can do (assuming you're visible), moaning at the internet won't stop it happening. Airhorn?
jk
> Thanks for the ignorant comment. Doing that is frequently not possible because it puts you into the path of cars coming up behind you with antagonised drivers wanting you to get out of the way.
That's a choice, granted not a very good one but if you've had a run of near misses with car doors perhaps it's time to reconsider which is actually the greater risk?
> And in this particular case doing what you suggest would have put me right in the middle of the road into oncoming traffic. (line of parked cars my side, no room for parking on the oncoming side. Great idea.
So slow down, as you would in a car or on a motorcycle.
There's not much else you can do (assuming you're visible), moaning at the internet won't stop it happening. Airhorn?
jk
Post edited at 10:23
In reply to Kemics:
Good old 'cycle friendly' Edinburgh continues cycle lanes hard up against parking bays so that if you stay in them, you are within door opening range.
Nice one.
Dodgiest time for me is going up the inside of standing traffic. Spontaneous passenger egress is the least predictable door opening scenario. And they are least likely to check behind, as the mirror is set for the driver.
Good old 'cycle friendly' Edinburgh continues cycle lanes hard up against parking bays so that if you stay in them, you are within door opening range.
Nice one.
Dodgiest time for me is going up the inside of standing traffic. Spontaneous passenger egress is the least predictable door opening scenario. And they are least likely to check behind, as the mirror is set for the driver.
Post edited at 10:24
In reply to ericinbristol:
In cases like this the only thing you can change to make yourself safer is your behavior, but strangely some people never get this.
To get doored again after a couple of near misses in the past would put you in line for a Darwin award: so don't go in the door zone! Monitor the road behind you, move out early, predictably and assertively and its unlikely you will get trouble from the car behind for leaving enough room. If you do get hassle, move out the way and let the angry person go.
Can you modify your route to minimize exposure to this hazard?
In cases like this the only thing you can change to make yourself safer is your behavior, but strangely some people never get this.
To get doored again after a couple of near misses in the past would put you in line for a Darwin award: so don't go in the door zone! Monitor the road behind you, move out early, predictably and assertively and its unlikely you will get trouble from the car behind for leaving enough room. If you do get hassle, move out the way and let the angry person go.
Can you modify your route to minimize exposure to this hazard?
In reply to wintertree:
I know this is American data, but to give you an idea of door sizes (opened) from http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-277607.html
4 door
1996 Saturn wagon, 35"
1997 Ford Taurus, 35"
1998 Town & Country van, 35"
1999 Suburu Legacy wagon, 36"
2001 Honda CRV, 36"
2001 Escort, 36"
1995 Honda Civic, 37"
1999 Jeep Gr. Cherokee, 39"
1995 Nissan Maxima, 40"
1995 Lincoln Town Car, 40"
2 door
1988 Chevrolet C1500, 37"
1994 Geo Metro, 39"
1996 GMC 3/4 ton, 39"
1990 Tempo, 44"
1991 LeBaron, 44"
1996 Chevrolet Z28, 44"
1996 Monte Carlo, 45"
1999 Cavalier, 45"
They suggest about 5 feet gap is required from car body to where you cycle. 44" is just under 4 foot. Being realistic I would generally be about 2'6" to 3 foot, not 4 foot from the vehicle in town. It seems like a huge distance, but I'll certainly think about increasing it...
I know this is American data, but to give you an idea of door sizes (opened) from http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-277607.html
4 door
1996 Saturn wagon, 35"
1997 Ford Taurus, 35"
1998 Town & Country van, 35"
1999 Suburu Legacy wagon, 36"
2001 Honda CRV, 36"
2001 Escort, 36"
1995 Honda Civic, 37"
1999 Jeep Gr. Cherokee, 39"
1995 Nissan Maxima, 40"
1995 Lincoln Town Car, 40"
2 door
1988 Chevrolet C1500, 37"
1994 Geo Metro, 39"
1996 GMC 3/4 ton, 39"
1990 Tempo, 44"
1991 LeBaron, 44"
1996 Chevrolet Z28, 44"
1996 Monte Carlo, 45"
1999 Cavalier, 45"
They suggest about 5 feet gap is required from car body to where you cycle. 44" is just under 4 foot. Being realistic I would generally be about 2'6" to 3 foot, not 4 foot from the vehicle in town. It seems like a huge distance, but I'll certainly think about increasing it...
In reply to Dave B:
Thank you.
And now some stats, please, about the size of child-seat that is going to be swung out of said opening car-door.
Thank you.
And now some stats, please, about the size of child-seat that is going to be swung out of said opening car-door.
In reply to ericinbristol:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jan/13/jeremy-clarkso...
This Guardian piece here explains the problem very nicely, car drivers who dont ride, read it and learn.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jan/13/jeremy-clarkso...
This Guardian piece here explains the problem very nicely, car drivers who dont ride, read it and learn.
In reply to ti_pin_man:
There's a lot of reasonable points there but it should work both ways. This bit for example
"That is why I have remarkably little patience for campaigns like the recent one by police in London in which, among other things, officers pulled over cyclists who were not breaking the law to “advise” them to wear high vis jackets. If I’d been on the receiving end of such advice my response would have been pretty robust: it’s not the tiny number of drivers who don’t properly see me that worry me as a cyclist, it’s the significantly greater numbers who do, but just don’t give a damn."
can surely not be written by someone who drives regularly? As per the other thread it really is hard/impossible to see bikes without decent lights, especially when the rider has dark clothing. It's not a tiny number of driver that find it hard; all drivers do. The advice from the police was spot on.
There's a lot of reasonable points there but it should work both ways. This bit for example
"That is why I have remarkably little patience for campaigns like the recent one by police in London in which, among other things, officers pulled over cyclists who were not breaking the law to “advise” them to wear high vis jackets. If I’d been on the receiving end of such advice my response would have been pretty robust: it’s not the tiny number of drivers who don’t properly see me that worry me as a cyclist, it’s the significantly greater numbers who do, but just don’t give a damn."
can surely not be written by someone who drives regularly? As per the other thread it really is hard/impossible to see bikes without decent lights, especially when the rider has dark clothing. It's not a tiny number of driver that find it hard; all drivers do. The advice from the police was spot on.
Post edited at 15:17
In reply to MG:
Its easy to get confused by the remit of the various organizations and the smoke screening that goes on in these situations.
The spate of cyclist deaths and inquests (latterly the Mary Hassel inquests)that the recent police operation was responding to was dominated by "left hook" and similar large vehicle blinds spot danger. In these cases the lorries NEVER see the cyclist: High vis doesn't protect the cyclist.
The mayor put pressure on the police "do something". The police deal with the "problem": the cyclists. This is a) an easy target; b) sloppy thinking c) the police can only police the roads rather than fix the problem. The problem is lorries in the city and poor cycling infrastructure, both beyond police control.
The mayor likes this because its: a)popular ("they are fining those bl00dy cyclists") b) it looks like they did something. Actually nothing was done to fix the problem, the same accidents will reoccur because telling cyclist to wear Hi-Vis is not fixing the problem.
The difficulty for cycling is that nobody can really argue with Hi-Vis on bikes. Yes, it probably IS a good idea! But it doesn't actually protect against one of the biggest problems on London's roads. Its a distraction all the while from the real problem, which is lorries and poor infrastructure.
> There's a lot of reasonable points there but it should work both ways. This bit for example
> "That is why I have remarkably little patience for campaigns like the recent one by police in London in which, among other things, officers pulled over cyclists who were not breaking the law to “advise” them to wear high vis jackets. If I’d been on the receiving end of such advice my response would have been pretty robust: it’s not the tiny number of drivers who don’t properly see me that worry me as a cyclist, it’s the significantly greater numbers who do, but just don’t give a damn."
> can surely not be written by someone who drives regularly? As per the other thread it really is hard/impossible to see bikes without decent lights, especially when the rider has dark clothing. It's not a tiny number of driver that find it hard; all drivers do. The advice from the police was spot on.
Its easy to get confused by the remit of the various organizations and the smoke screening that goes on in these situations.
The spate of cyclist deaths and inquests (latterly the Mary Hassel inquests)that the recent police operation was responding to was dominated by "left hook" and similar large vehicle blinds spot danger. In these cases the lorries NEVER see the cyclist: High vis doesn't protect the cyclist.
The mayor put pressure on the police "do something". The police deal with the "problem": the cyclists. This is a) an easy target; b) sloppy thinking c) the police can only police the roads rather than fix the problem. The problem is lorries in the city and poor cycling infrastructure, both beyond police control.
The mayor likes this because its: a)popular ("they are fining those bl00dy cyclists") b) it looks like they did something. Actually nothing was done to fix the problem, the same accidents will reoccur because telling cyclist to wear Hi-Vis is not fixing the problem.
The difficulty for cycling is that nobody can really argue with Hi-Vis on bikes. Yes, it probably IS a good idea! But it doesn't actually protect against one of the biggest problems on London's roads. Its a distraction all the while from the real problem, which is lorries and poor infrastructure.
In reply to Kemics:
I know you meant berth, but the imagery that what you did say conjured up, of some massive party when a new cyclist is born, seems to fit with France even more nicely. Nice thought. : )
> The French have a beautiful attitude to two wheels. As a cyclist there, people would give me a huge birth. [...]
I know you meant berth, but the imagery that what you did say conjured up, of some massive party when a new cyclist is born, seems to fit with France even more nicely. Nice thought. : )
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...