HC update - opening motor vehicle doors ...

[661-Pete]

Cycling - when I can, I simply avoid the door zone by giving parked vehicles a wide berth. But that's not always possible on a busy road, [...]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but I can't find it quickly. I believe it's always possible to ride wide of parked cars, but sometimes people choose to play car door roulette in order to make faster progress - it's a choice.

Sorry, but I take exception to that choice of words. I do not, repeat, not, wilfully play any sort of games with erring car occupants.

Some (younger, perhaps?) cyclists seem to be under the impression that, because they are capable of cruising along in primary at 20mph, mixing it with the flow of traffic, all other cyclists can do the same.

I can not.

I have no wish to take primary for long stretches at my modest 10-12 mph, except when absolutely essential from safety considerations (e.g. when approaching bollards). At other times I have to let motorised traffic pass freely. I don't want to be labelled an "anti-social cyclist" and invite hostility thereby.

One understands the pressure of these tailgaters but that pressure is still preferable to being doored, especially since the dooring might also put you under the wheels of the tailgater.

I understand it only too well! And I prefer not to be in that situation.

[mjr]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but I can't find it quickly. I believe it's always possible to ride wide of parked cars, but sometimes people choose to play car door roulette in order to make faster progress - it's a choice.

Sorry, but I take exception to that choice of words. I do not, repeat, not, wilfully play any sort of games with erring car occupants.

Sorry if you find it exceptional. I still feel it's accurate. You take the risk of a car door because you won't take the risk of an unreasonable ignorant following motorist labelling you "anti-social" for cycling safely. I do take primary at 10mph when the alternative is the door zone. I rarely get trouble for it. Ironically, the last time I remember was in Cambridge. But ultimately, names and honks won't hurt but a car door in the face would.

But it's your choice at the end of the day. It shouldn't end badly if motorists obey the law, but until there's more widespread enforcement and compliance, I'd strongly suggest people avoid the very avoidable risk of dooring.

[Cugel]

Cycling - when I can, I simply avoid the door zone by giving parked vehicles a wide berth. But that's not always possible on a busy road, [...]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but I can't find it quickly. I believe it's always possible to ride wide of parked cars, but sometimes people choose to play car door roulette in order to make faster progress - it's a choice.

Sorry, but I take exception to that choice of words. I do not, repeat, not, wilfully play any sort of games with erring car occupants.

Some (younger, perhaps?) cyclists seem to be under the impression that, because they are capable of cruising along in primary at 20mph, mixing it with the flow of traffic, all other cyclists can do the same.

I can not.

I have no wish to take primary for long stretches at my modest 10-12 mph, except when absolutely essential from safety considerations (e.g. when approaching bollards). At other times I have to let motorised traffic pass freely. I don't want to be labelled an "anti-social cyclist" and invite hostility thereby.

One understands the pressure of these tailgaters but that pressure is still preferable to being doored, especially since the dooring might also put you under the wheels of the tailgater.

I understand it only too well! And I prefer not to be in that situation.

Happily the only place I must pass many parked cars is a long slightly downhill stretch where I can get in the middle of the lane, at least 2M from the parked cars, and go at 25-30mph. Nevertheless I am not only tailgated but often passed by loons doing 40mph or even more. Some take my speed at a challenge or even an insult, it seems, judging by the odd close pass despite yards of room to pass more safely (although "safely" is not the word for doing so at 40mph in a 30mph limit). I often pass them again (on the right) as they queue for the eventual roundabout or traffic lights.

Generally I'm with you - I avoid the clots & curdles of both parked cars and those thrust about the place by Mr Toad.

But I do see many, many cyclists "playing roulette" both when passing parked cars with just inches to spare and when charging down left-hand gutter "cycling lanes" despite the many and high risks of doing so. So many people (but especially motorists, it must be said) go by the mantra "I got away with this yesterday so I'll get away with it today". They are fools.

Cugel

[pete75]

Just tried and it does work. You must have exceptionally short arms if your face is pressed up against the window.

Car designs and people's flexibility vary a lot - there's a topic somewhere where people measured various car doors, showing a huge range. I suspect Dutch Reach works for some combinations and not others. The important thing is really the slow-open at the end, but calling this "Dutch Reach" de-emphasises that.

It works for nobody and has nothing to do with flexibility or arm length; it is a matter of simple geometry and the fact that light travels in straight lines.

If you are perfectly flexible, so able turn your head through 180 degrees and face backwards with you face pressed against the glass your left eye is still about 7cm inside the glass. The door post about 30cm behind extends a further cm outside the glass. This means that there is a blind spot extending in a wedge behind the door getting wider by ~25cm for every metre. By the time you are 6m back the entire width of a door zone cycle lane is impossible to see. A door zone cyclist approaching at 15mph will take less than a second to cover that distance so has no chance. (you can argue about the precise dimensions, but the principle remains there will always be a blind wedge that very soon becomes wide enough to conceal a cyclist.

When the chap from America first started to promote this nonsense I thought that it sounded like a good idea so I tried it. The video made it look straight forward, lean over look back and every thing was clear. So I tried it and quickly realisied that it didn't work - and worked out why it couldn't possibly work. So I went back to look at the video again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzIf80eSfCg&feature=youtu.be
The critical bit is at about 1:05 onwards. The video supposedly giving the clear drivers view of an approaching cyclist works because...
it is pushed through the open window!
And even then the front wheel only comes into view very close to the car. Carry on to 1:25 and watch him get out of the car and shut the door with the window still open (which of course it has to be if you need to poke your head through it immediately before opening it). Perhaps the video should be retitled "The Dutch guide to car security".

Of course this means that video is deliberately misleading. Even if he believed the technique was effective before he made the film he must have realised it was rubbish by the very fact that he needed to open the window to make it appear to work.

And to those who still claim to be able to see through door posts. Try it again, but this time take a friend with you. Arrange for the car to be parallel parked and get them to stand just next to the rear of the next but one car. Now try to see them directly through the side window. The only way you will see them is in the mirror and that will be adjusted for your normal sitting position - not for leaning towards the door.

Te Dutch reach is a very simple manoeuvre to carry out correctly. The mind boggles at the sort of person incapable of doing so.

[thirdcrank]

My concern about things like this isn't whether they are physically possible or not but rather whether they achieve the object, which in this case is to ensure that people about to open car doors check if anything is coming before doing so. Engaging in a ritual automatically and without thinking may not ensure that. I think that people in a rush to get out will be the least likely to look. I'm thinking here of things like passengers wanting to jump out when their car is briefly stopped, or drivers parking on yellow lines and quickly nipping into a shop.

I don't claim to know the answer or the extent to which reaching across with the other hand works or not, and anything is better than nothing, but I don't see this as more than a partial answer. The conscientious people who look carefully will probably adopt it as a reminder to look, but those who don't care may not.

[The utility cyclist]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but I can't find it quickly. I believe it's always possible to ride wide of parked cars, but sometimes people choose to play car door roulette in order to make faster progress - it's a choice.

Sorry, but I take exception to that choice of words. I do not, repeat, not, wilfully play any sort of games with erring car occupants.

Sorry if you find it exceptional. I still feel it's accurate. You take the risk of a car door because you won't take the risk of an unreasonable ignorant following motorist labelling you "anti-social" for cycling safely. I do take primary at 10mph when the alternative is the door zone. I rarely get trouble for it. Ironically, the last time I remember was in Cambridge. But ultimately, names and honks won't hurt but a car door in the face would.

But it's your choice at the end of the day. It shouldn't end badly if motorists obey the law, but until there's more widespread enforcement and compliance, I'd strongly suggest people avoid the very avoidable risk of dooring.

Roulette is a gamble to make a gain, you infer cycling near cars is akin to 'russian' roulette, again high stakes gambling to win something.
Your choice of words is objectionable because people simply want to go from A-B, there's no gamble to win anything, maybe you would describe a women who wears a low cut dress, short skirt and walks down a poorly lit street at night on her own 'rape roulette'?

[reohn2]

Sorry, but I take exception to that choice of words. I do not, repeat, not, wilfully play any sort of games with erring car occupants.

Sorry if you find it exceptional. I still feel it's accurate. You take the risk of a car door because you won't take the risk of an unreasonable ignorant following motorist labelling you "anti-social" for cycling safely. I do take primary at 10mph when the alternative is the door zone. I rarely get trouble for it. Ironically, the last time I remember was in Cambridge. But ultimately, names and honks won't hurt but a car door in the face would.

But it's your choice at the end of the day. It shouldn't end badly if motorists obey the law, but until there's more widespread enforcement and compliance, I'd strongly suggest people avoid the very avoidable risk of dooring.

Roulette is a gamble to make a gain, you infer cycling near cars is akin to 'russian' roulette, again high stakes gambling to win something.
Your choice of words is objectionable because people simply want to go from A-B, there's no gamble to win anything, maybe you would describe a women who wears a low cut dress, short skirt and walks down a poorly lit street at night on her own 'rape roulette'?

I don't understand this reasoning,out of the door zone is safer than in it,approaching cars from behind can see a cyclist better,and the chances of them overtaking and squeezing past in some situations lessened.

As for the "rape roulette" analogy,unfortunately the chances of a woman being attacked on the street at night are heightened by a lake of effective policing,similarly so motorists being brought to book and handed down a harsh enough sentence by the same lack of policing,plus courts unwilling to hand down such harsh sentences.

[thirdcrank]

I wonder if we are getting carried away with the metaphors. (Or should that be analogies? ) What can you win playing Russian roulette? AIUI it's a glorified form of playing chicken.

Let's agree that dooring should be stopped.

The thread title includes the HC and apart from anything else, it's a good ten years since I replied to a consultation saying that following drivers should be advised to be alert to cyclists who may be complying with Rule 67:-

Rule 67
You should
.... Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
...

Neither Rule 212 or 213 mentions this.

Rule 212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Rule 213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make

.
I'm not suggesting that's the magic bullet, but it would highlight to drivers - or those who bothered to read the HC what cyclists are doing, and the authorities place a lot of weight on the HC.
====================================================================
Rule 162 includes:

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

[Cyril Haearn]

I must start a thread about names of driving schools

Saw a driving school vehicle today, "Schulterblick", that is "look over your shoulder", learners are taught to look

Seems a good idea, the word becomes ubiquitous, it must be on all documents, invoices etc

[reohn2]

TC
The rules are clear to anyone who chooses to read them,the problems begin when cyclists and it's particularly cyclist are treated with contempt by those drivers who choose to in the full knowledge,due to a lack of police and harsh enough sentences (should they ever be caught) handed down by weak courts.
The criminal motorist is all to often not treated as a criminal IMHO

[thirdcrank]

I'm just suggesting something where they could be even clearer.

On the subject of people who only comply with what suits them, I did say:-

... it would highlight to drivers - or those who bothered to read the HC what cyclists are doing ...

[mjr]

It works for nobody and has nothing to do with flexibility or arm length; it is a matter of simple geometry and the fact that light travels in straight lines.

If you are perfectly flexible, so able turn your head through 180 degrees and face backwards with you face pressed against the glass your left eye is still about 7cm inside the glass. The door post about 30cm behind extends a further cm outside the glass. This means that there is a blind spot extending in a wedge behind the door getting wider by ~25cm for every metre. By the time you are 6m back the entire width of a door zone cycle lane is impossible to see.

I'm not sure yet exactly what part of your maths is wrong (I suspect it's the door post position as well as the width), but I tried this today. At 6m behind the car, the width of the impossible wedge is about 20cm out from the line of the side of the car, so even a narrow aero road cyclist doing 20mph in the worst ever door zone cycle lane should be visible over 15m back from the car's back bumper. I'll take pictures or video when the car's next parked not on a secure site or in a tight garage.

Door zone cycle lanes are wrong and should be corrected one way or another, but the Dutch Reach is merely imperfect and missing the point, rather than impossible for everyone in every car.

Arrange for the car to be parallel parked and get them to stand just next to the rear of the next but one car. Now try to see them directly through the side window. The only way you will see them is in the mirror and that will be adjusted for your normal sitting position - not for leaning towards the door.

Car length about 4m, so 2 cars back is 8m - I'm confident I'd be able to see them. Have you actually tried this in a modern small car with windows that cover its door pillars (Mini, Mito, ...) or at least whose pillar doesn't extend 1cm outside? How many current small-cars have such protruding pillars? It suggests one is willing to bend the numbers to reach the desired conclusion if you're always picking the worst cases of a substandard cycle lane width and a fat-pillared limo.

[meic]

Not that any of this geometry matters one single bit.
If the pillar is in your way, or any other problem somebody wishes to manufacture. The Dutch reach is still in full operation if you open the door a tiny crack and peep out through that. Instead of flinging it open and stepping out.
The video I linked to, much earlier, demonstrates to do it in that way.

[reohn2]

I'm just suggesting something where they could be even clearer.

On the subject of people who only comply with what suits them, I did say:-

... it would highlight to drivers - or those who bothered to read the HC what cyclists are doing ...

Point taken.
There was a time when a public information film broadcast on prime time TV would explain the why's and wherefore's of such riding,not anymore.
It's not that long ago Jeremy Vine's altercation with an obnoxious driver lead to her being jailed as a result IIRC,because he chose to ride out of the door zone.
Drivers have short memories along with short fuses it seems

[mjr]

Not that any of this geometry matters one single bit.
If the pillar is in your way, or any other problem somebody wishes to manufacture. The Dutch reach is still in full operation if you open the door a tiny crack and peep out through that. Instead of flinging it open and stepping out.
The video I linked to, much earlier, demonstrates to do it in that way.

Yes, I agree. That would be the point that I feel the "Reach" name is missing.