Avoid the door zone.

With so many parked cars and cyclists being 'doored' by careless
motorists it pays to keep well out into the lane even if it means
delaying drivers.

Here is a USA police training video illustrating the point and it also
covers motorist intimidation of cyclists.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/25...the-door-zone/

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
With so many parked cars and cyclists being 'doored' by careless
motorists it pays to keep well out into the lane even if it means
delaying drivers.

Here is a USA police training video illustrating the point and it also
covers motorist intimidation of cyclists.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/25...the-door-zone/

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

I haven't watched it all yet, they are correct about the ;door zone'
being dangerous.
But a couple of things I did notice is 'bicycles belong in traffic not
the sidewalk' & 'They (cyclists)must obey all traffic laws'

The acting was not good & who would come up behind a cyclist & flash her
lights, unless the cyclist had mirrors (most don't) he would never see them.

--
Tony Dragon

On 13 Mar, 09:28, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
With so many parked cars and cyclists being 'doored' by careless
motorists it pays to keep well out into the lane even if it means
delaying drivers.

Here is a USA police training video illustrating the point and it also
covers motorist intimidation of cyclists.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/25...mb-by-avoiding...


I haven't watched it all yet, they are correct about the ;door zone'
being dangerous.

So cyclists should keep well out in the road then when passing parked
cars, even if it means delaying drivers?

But a couple of things I did notice is 'bicycles belong in traffic not
the sidewalk'

True but they use the sidewalk because of driver intimidation.

& 'They (cyclists)must obey all traffic laws'.

This is an interesting one. If they are to be treated as ordinary
traffic why are they often instructed to dismount and hence become a
pedestrian?

The acting was not good & who would come up behind a cyclist & flash her
lights, unless the cyclist had mirrors (most don't) he would never see them.

No here they would hoot impatiently instead.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On 13 Mar, 09:28, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
With so many parked cars and cyclists being 'doored' by careless
motorists it pays to keep well out into the lane even if it means
delaying drivers.
Here is a USA police training video illustrating the point and it also
covers motorist intimidation of cyclists.
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/25...mb-by-avoiding...

I haven't watched it all yet, they are correct about the ;door zone'
being dangerous.

So cyclists should keep well out in the road then when passing parked
cars, even if it means delaying drivers?

I have no objection to that if it makes things safer.

But a couple of things I did notice is 'bicycles belong in traffic not
the sidewalk'

True but they use the sidewalk because of driver intimidation.

So yet again you advocate breaking the law, & give no consideration for
pedestrians.

& 'They (cyclists)must obey all traffic laws'.

This is an interesting one. If they are to be treated as ordinary
traffic why are they often instructed to dismount and hence become a
pedestrian?

Oh, I see, you only want people to keep to laws that you like.

The acting was not good & who would come up behind a cyclist & flash her
lights, unless the cyclist had mirrors (most don't) he would never see them.

No here they would hoot impatiently instead.

So what.


--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.



--
Tony Dragon

On 13 Mar, 10:19, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 13 Mar, 09:28, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
With so many parked cars and cyclists being 'doored' by careless
motorists it pays to keep well out into the lane even if it means
delaying drivers.
Here is a USA police training video illustrating the point and it also
covers motorist intimidation of cyclists.
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/25...mb-by-avoiding...

I haven't watched it all yet, they are correct about the ;door zone'
being dangerous.

So cyclists should keep well out in the road then when passing parked
cars, even if it means delaying drivers?

I have no objection to that if it makes things safer.

But a couple of things I did notice is 'bicycles belong in traffic not
the sidewalk'

True but they use the sidewalk because of driver intimidation.

So yet again you advocate breaking the law, & give no consideration for
pedestrians.

No I am not advocating it, its a hassle with all that pavement
furniture and intersections without dropped kerbs, etc., I just
understand why they do it, from fear of drivers.

& 'They (cyclists)must obey all traffic laws'.

This is an interesting one. If they are to be treated as ordinary
traffic why are they often instructed to dismount and hence become a
pedestrian?

Oh, I see, you only want people to keep to laws that you like.

No I want the law to fit the mode of transport instead of being
applied across the board regardless and inappropriately.

The acting was not good & who would come up behind a cyclist & flash her
lights, unless the cyclist had mirrors (most don't) he would never see them.

No here they would hoot impatiently instead.

So what.

It intimidatory and provocative.


--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:

So cyclists should keep well out in the road then when passing parked
cars, even if it means delaying drivers?

I have no objection to that if it makes things safer.

Sod the "even if it means delaying drivers" bit. Any cyclist stupid enough
to be riding in the door zone should not complain when they collide with a
door. It's inevitable.

True but they use the sidewalk because of driver intimidation.

So yet again you advocate breaking the law, & give no consideration
for pedestrians.

They use the sidewalk because: they think it is safer, they think that they
should, and as a courtesy to angry drivers.

This is an interesting one. If they are to be treated as ordinary
traffic why are they often instructed to dismount and hence become a
pedestrian?

Oh, I see, you only want people to keep to laws that you like.

They are only instructed to dismount if they are using the pavements and
cycle lanes. If they cycle properly, on the road they do not need to become
pedestrians (apart from a few unusual situations where cyclists are not
allowed).

No here they would hoot impatiently instead.

So what.

My day is not complete unless I feel I have been hooted at. With every hoot
it confirms to me that I saved myself from what would have been a
potentially dangerous situation. As a bonus I would have also ****ed off an
angry driver. :-)

Doug wrote:
On 13 Mar, 09:28, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
With so many parked cars and cyclists being 'doored' by careless
motorists it pays to keep well out into the lane even if it means
delaying drivers.

Here is a USA police training video illustrating the point and it
also covers motorist intimidation of cyclists.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/25...mb-by-avoiding...


I haven't watched it all yet, they are correct about the ;door zone'
being dangerous.

So cyclists should keep well out in the road then when passing parked
cars, even if it means delaying drivers?

No, they should keep off the road.

But a couple of things I did notice is 'bicycles belong in traffic
not
the sidewalk'

True but they use the sidewalk because of driver intimidation.

So they can intimidate pedestrians?

& 'They (cyclists)must obey all traffic laws'.

This is an interesting one. If they are to be treated as ordinary
traffic why are they often instructed to dismount and hence become a
pedestrian?

Because they are a PITA.


The acting was not good & who would come up behind a cyclist & flash
her lights, unless the cyclist had mirrors (most don't) he would
never see them.

No here they would hoot impatiently instead.

Quite rightly.


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

Doug wrote:
On 13 Mar, 10:19, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 13 Mar, 09:28, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
With so many parked cars and cyclists being 'doored' by careless
motorists it pays to keep well out into the lane even if it means
delaying drivers.
Here is a USA police training video illustrating the point and it
also covers motorist intimidation of cyclists.
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/25...mb-by-avoiding...

I haven't watched it all yet, they are correct about the ;door
zone'
being dangerous.

So cyclists should keep well out in the road then when passing
parked cars, even if it means delaying drivers?

I have no objection to that if it makes things safer.

But a couple of things I did notice is 'bicycles belong in traffic
not
the sidewalk'

True but they use the sidewalk because of driver intimidation.

So yet again you advocate breaking the law, & give no consideration
for pedestrians.

No I am not advocating it, its a hassle with all that pavement
furniture and intersections without dropped kerbs, etc., I just
understand why they do it, from fear of drivers.

& 'They (cyclists)must obey all traffic laws'.

This is an interesting one. If they are to be treated as ordinary
traffic why are they often instructed to dismount and hence become a
pedestrian?

Oh, I see, you only want people to keep to laws that you like.

No I want the law to fit the mode of transport instead of being
applied across the board regardless and inappropriately.

The law fits the mode of transport perfectly. Roads are designed & paid for
by motorists, not cyclist scum.

The acting was not good & who would come up behind a cyclist &
flash her lights, unless the cyclist had mirrors (most don't) he
would never see them.

No here they would hoot impatiently instead.

So what.

It intimidatory and provocative.

Like riding a push bike in front of a tax paying motorist & causing him to
be delayed.


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.

On Mar 13, 10:09*am, Doug wrote:
On 13 Mar, 09:28, Tony Dragon wrote: Doug wrote:
With so many parked cars and cyclists being 'doored' by careless
motorists it pays to keep well out into the lane even if it means
delaying drivers.

Here is a USA police training video illustrating the point and it also
covers motorist intimidation of cyclists.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/02/25...mb-by-avoiding....

I haven't watched it all yet, they are correct about the ;door zone'
being dangerous.

So cyclists should keep well out in the road then when passing parked
cars, even if it means delaying drivers?

But a couple of things I did notice is 'bicycles belong in traffic not
the sidewalk'

True but they use the sidewalk because of driver intimidation.

& 'They (cyclists)must obey all traffic laws'.

This is an interesting one. If they are to be treated as ordinary
traffic why are they often instructed to dismount and hence become a
pedestrian?

Where are they asked to do that?


The acting was not good & who would come up behind a cyclist & flash her
lights, unless the cyclist had mirrors (most don't) he would never see them.

No here they would hoot impatiently instead.

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

The Medway Handyman sig:

"Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit. "


How amusing, the nearest the OED can offer is "Daver" To move or walk as
if dazed or stupefied, to stagger; also to be benumbed.

How appropriate