don't get complacent

On Jun 14, 4:19 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 14, 11:52 am, Jeff wrote:



catzz66 wrote:
This morning I almost got backed into by a car pulling out of a slot in
a strip center. If she'd gotten me, it would have totally been my own
fault. I was riding too close to the backs of the cars, didn't even
have my hands on the brakes, was clipping along pretty fast. All I
could do was yell and try to get the heck out of the way in time, which
luckily I did. I have avoided many accidents by just being alert, but
this reminded me that I need to be alert all the time, try not to do
anything stupid, and by all means try not to let my mistakes come in a
cluster.

I'll second the reminder. I was cycling home from the gym this morning
and a left-side rear-seat passenger opened a car door. Had I been
within a meter of the car, I would have been doored. Fortunately, I'm a
little paranoid about being doored, so I generally keep a meter between
me and parked cars. I wasn't hit, but it was close enough to catch my
attention.

Good thing there was no mandatory bike lane keeping you within reach
of that door!

- Frank Krygowski


I've never actually seen a 'door zone bike lane' that didn't have at
least some portion of it outside the door zone, meaning that it's
possible to ride outside the door zone but still inside the bike lane.
That's no excuse for putting bike lanes even partially in door zones,
however.

wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:19 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Good thing there was no mandatory bike lane keeping you within reach
of that door!

I've never actually seen a 'door zone bike lane' that didn't have at
least some portion of it outside the door zone, meaning that it's
possible to ride outside the door zone but still inside the bike lane.
That's no excuse for putting bike lanes even partially in door zones,
however.

The bike lane through my fair town is clear of door zones.

Unfortunately (especially in winter), motorists don't always
park their cars inside the inner bike lane line.

But the lane itself is wide enough (maybe 4 feet) to eliminate
"dooring" possibilities even among parking motorists with a
bit of depth perception challenge.


SMH

wrote:

I've never actually seen a 'door zone bike lane' that didn't have
at
least some portion of it outside the door zone, meaning that it's
possible to ride outside the door zone but still inside the bike
lane.
That's no excuse for putting bike lanes even partially in door
zones,
however.

Frank posted a link to some pictures of particularly problemmatic
bike lanes -- including at least one with a door open all the way
across it. There are some bad designs out there.

There was a fatality earlier in the month in which a cyclist was
doored and thrown into the traffic lane -- then hit by a moving
vehicle. According to the spring, 2008 bike map there's no bike
lane on this street.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1344357.story

Around here (Chicago) you have to ride on the inner side of the bike
lane. In fact, the city bike map specifically warns against riding
on the outside of the bike lane (near the parked cars). But in many
cases you can't put the lane farther out, because then the traffic
lane would be so narrow cars would just completely ignore the bike
lane. Eliminating parking can be done in spots, but aldermen do
this as their electoral peril. Politics is the art of compromise.

I personally favor the chevoned signage for sharing -- basically
bike lane signage without the white stripes. Cyclists don't get into
the feeling they are in some sort of protective cocoon. I'd be all
in favor of protective cocoons if they worked, but bike lanes don't
work that way and we all know you need to be aware of your
surroundings at all times.

On Jun 15, 2:56 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

On Jun 14, 4:19 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Good thing there was no mandatory bike lane keeping you within reach
of that door!


First of all, ask Frank about his mythical "mandatory" bike lane. (Hint:
there aren't any.)

Bill, you offer us daily doses of your ignorance. Here's the
applicable section of Oregon law:

" 814.420: Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.

" (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a
person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if
the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not
a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is
adjacent to or near the roadway."

There are other states with such laws. (IIRC, North Dakota is one,
and some of it's mandatory facilities that I rode on were truly
garbage.)

Secondly, as you correctly point out, any smart cyclist
knows to avoid door zones, with or without bike lanes.

"Any smart cyclist"? The problem is there are _many_ who consider
themselves "smart" but don't realize the danger. There are many
cyclists who become "bicycle advocates" and actually promote the
installation of door zone bike lanes, confident that they are smart in
doing so. How would a novice know that using a professionally
advocated, professionally installed bike facility is more dangerous
than specifically avoiding it?

BTW, Oregon allows some exceptions to that section of law I quoted. A
further quote from their law:

"A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the
person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the
purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a
pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot
safely be made in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into
a private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is
authorized."

The problem is, many cyclists do NOT know to treat doors that may pop
open as "other hazardous conditions." And since many cops are
similarly ignorant, a cyclist might end up having to justify his
action in court.

I have ridden in several places with obviously dangerous bike lanes.
Some were mandatory, some were not. But why on earth should we accept
a special "bike facility" that actually puts cyclists in danger? Why
would someone be so blasted stupid as to defend such a facility?

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 14, 6:11*am, catzz66 wrote:
Bob wrote:

I think one of us is misinterpreting catzz' "riding too close to the
backs of cars". I interpreted that to mean that she was too close to
the rear of the *parked* cars when one of those cars started to back
out of their parking space. If that's the case, she's right in
accepting the responsibility.

I was zipping along too close to the backs of the cars for any of the
drivers to see me. *It was one of those strip centers with right angle
parking spaces. *I realize I got lucky this time. *As much as anything,
I am writing it down to remind myself not to do anything that dumb again. =]

I'm a grandfather. *My screen name relates to a school mascot from
decades ago.

My apologies for the incorrect pronoun.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:11 am, catzz66 wrote:

Bob wrote:


I think one of us is misinterpreting catzz' "riding too close to the
backs of cars". I interpreted that to mean that she was too close to
the rear of the *parked* cars when one of those cars started to back
out of their parking space. If that's the case, she's right in
accepting the responsibility.

I was zipping along too close to the backs of the cars for any of the
drivers to see me. It was one of those strip centers with right angle
parking spaces. I realize I got lucky this time. As much as anything,
I am writing it down to remind myself not to do anything that dumb again. =]

I'm a grandfather. My screen name relates to a school mascot from
decades ago.


My apologies for the incorrect pronoun.

=

No problem. It is easy to do with screen names.