opening car doors on cyclists....

[reohn2]

I haven't read all the thread so forgive me if this has already been covered.
Trying to look at this incident and it's related problems dispassionately:-
I can see the argument for not undertaking/nearside passing,by car drivers as overtaking is supposed to be on the offside so when that rule is abandoned by cyclists things become confused.
From the cyclists POV cycle lanes are on the nearside between curb and other traffic and as any cyclist knows cycle lanes can stop abruptly leave a cyclist on the inside of stationary or very slow moving traffic,worse than that the cycle lane can then start again just as abruptly within a few hundred metres or less.
So what is thee cyclist supposed to do?
Sit in traffic going nowhere?
Swap sides and overtake the standing/slow moving traffic on the offside,where there's no cycle lane and back to the nearside when it's reinstated?

Neither of these situations is ideal or even good,and very much worse for the cyclist who will always come off worst in situations such as these.
That said given the known situation of traffic flows and cyclists habits in London and other big UK cities,a person exiting a car on the nearside when the car is stationary in traffic and not parked up to the kerbside should have the wit to look before opening the door,likewise the driver should have checked the nearside mirror and indicated to the passenger if it wasn't safe to exit the car.
It's not rocket science to imagine the situation in the car,the passenger seeing the traffic is at a standstill decides he's be quicker on foot saying to the driver "I'll get out here it'll be quicker" the driver then replying,whilst looking in his nearside RVM "OK sir,just be careful getting out there are cyclists coming up the nearside wait until it's clear".
Or the passenger just thought,'I be quick walking' and simply opening the door without looking,onto the cyclist as he's passing.

Overtaking slow moving or stationary traffic on a bike is a hazardous manoeuvre which needs caution and forward thinking,overtaking on the inside is even more hazardous,and IMHO those who do it regularly should be all the more vigilant especially in cities and where taxis are abundant and traffic is stationary.
I won't overtake on the inside as my urgency weighed against possible injury or worse isn't worth it.

All that said in the situation being discussed IMHO the car passenger is at fault and the driver is responsible for his passengers,especially a professional driver who drives in the the city regularly.
It's situations like this that beg the questions why isn't there better cycling infrastructure?
Why aren't people,both cyclists and drivers/passengers,more careful in situations such as these?

I listened to this subject being discussed on Radio2 yesterday lunch time,what very quickly became apparent to me was the prejudice quite a few callers and the motoring journalist defending Chris Grayling's actions have about cyclists,with the usual diatribe of no VED,insurance,numberplates,no accountability for their actions,RLJing,shouldn't be on the road,etc,etc.
I find it quite sad as one of the callers did,that there's so much anti cycling sentiment,as she explained people should see the positives of cycling within cities as a bike is one less car,so in turn cause less congestion on the roads and zero pollution,it's more healthy so saves on NHS costs in the long run both for cyclists and non cyclists alike,and in the short term the benefits of stress relief of cycling over driving,is apparent to anyone who cycles.
I find the prejudice against cycling both surprising and intolerable.

Whilst I'm on a rant I may as well say I also find the paltry amount of government finance for cycling and ease by which even those monies are siphoned off into other projects up and down the country other than cycling very depressing,whilst motoring infrastructure runs into the billions of £'s

EDITED for typos and clarity.

[ChrisButch]

I wonder if this apparently trivial incident is going to take on a life of its own, with unforeseeable ramifications: like the Andrew Mitchell 'plebgate' saga, which also involved a cabinet minister and a bicycle?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
R2 puts its well.
We are all responsible for our actions, and to also take a look at what others are doing, and take appropriate safe action to avoid problems, even if it means biting your tongue and modifying your stance for the good of all.
We cyclist need to be good at that, as a cyclist of now some 50 years like others here I have modified my stance so I don't stick out so much in traffic if not for others then for my own survival.

[gaz]

.

[Stevek76]

As someone who prefers filtering on the outside i tend to consider such 'infrastructure' as a health hazard and ignore it.

If I remember correctly, the cycle lane in the video leads to a kerb-protected lane with its own traffic lights that release you into Parliament Square before motorists (well, unless they jump a red light). It's worth using. The flaw is that there's a gap in the cycle lane where the road is narrowed by Parliament's security barriers jutting into the road. The authorities should have marked a wide advisory lane there IMO, to remind everyone there will obviously be cyclists on the left.

Looking on street view there's a 'gap' since way back at lambeth bridge roundabout.

Regarding the kerbed lane ahead, my own default strategy would be filter on the right and use the latest gap possible in stationary traffic to nip into the cycle lane before the kerb starts. It the traffics moving at that point the just stay with that in lane.

But if there's a wide cycle lane as shown in the original post most cyclists will be using it. I wouldn't regard it as filtering.

I wouldn't regard that as wide. But yes I'm well aware that many will use it, that's why I consider such half buttocked efforts of infrastructure as dangerous.

Is this a good idea?

Don't see why not, he broke the law, for all the discussions about filtering and placement I don't think anyone's suggesting the cyclist is at fault. What he did was in accordance with the highway code, what grayling did is not and has a very specific law about it, the least he deserves is the rather token £1000 fine plus compensation to the cyclist.

[MikeF]

From the cyclists POV cycle lanes are on the nearside between curb and other traffic and as any cyclist knows cycle lanes can stop abruptly leave a cyclist on the inside of stationary or very slow moving traffic,worse than that the cycle lane can then start again just as abruptly within a few hundred metres or less.
So what is thee cyclist supposed to do?
Sit in traffic going nowhere?
Swap sides and overtake the standing/slow moving traffic on the offside,where there's no cycle lane and back to the nearside when it's reinstated?

Yes, it's a major problem. If I'm in slow moving traffic I very rarely pass on the inside. However on some roads it's not safe to pass on the outside either, so you're stuck between the metal cages. Occasionally I've ridden on a little used pavement to reach the front of a 400yd queue. I've no doubt conformed to the motorists' stereotype of cyclists. In slow moving traffic (average speed 15-20mph I usually keep the primary position, but I don't feel that comfortable with doing that. I know other people who cycle or want to cycle won't do that.
However in central London cycling is different (I haven't experience, but only from observation)

That said given the known situation of traffic flows and cyclists habits in London and other big UK cities,a person exiting a car on the nearside when the car is stationary in traffic and not parked up to the kerbside should have the wit to look before opening the door,likewise the driver should have checked the nearside mirror and indicated to the passenger if it wasn't safe to exit the car.

Have the wit? That's a bit harsh for the minister of transport? What he should have concluded from the incident is that this indicates there is a tremendous need for cycling infrastructure, in London and elsewhere so that these sort of incidents don't happen. But that doesn't seem to have occurred to him. He is quite pleased to announce £75 million per year for the next 4 years will be spent on cycling, but just what does he think can be built with £75million? The railway strike which he blames on unions and not on a company with appalling staff relations, apparently costs £10million a day to businesses without counting the lost fare revenue, that goes directly to the Government, and compensation packages etc. That demonstrates what a paltry sum is allocated for cycling.
Edited to add
He also apparently said the "cyclist was travelling too fast". The cyclist wouldn't have been travelling faster than some of the moving cars! What he meant the cyclist should have been held up too. It appears many motorists * and the minister) think cyclists travel at just over walking speed. If they go faster then they are going too fast. Even I cycle regularly at over 20mph . Many non cyclists will be shocked by this and no doubt many motorists will be annoyed I'm travelling as fast as them in traffic. The problem is they are clueless about cycling.

[MikeF]

Hi,

So when you are approaching a cycle lane which is on the left or are in an interrupted left hand cycle lane you overtake on the offside where there isn't a lane, but then cut back in to join the cycle lane?? That's effectively what you saying.

As someone who prefers filtering on the outside i tend to consider such 'infrastructure' as a health hazard and ignore it.

+1
If you doing a clean overtake (when its safe for you) you are not traveling in the same lane, this to me is safer than any other undertake option.

A clean overtake? Not sure what you mean. The problem is in many congested areas over or undertaking is not ideal. If you overtake you could be in danger from vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.

[reohn2]

Rewritten post below.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I think we all only overtake when its safe ( I always get to right of centre line) to travel on the opposite side of road, this is a clean overtake, if you overtake in your lane whilst a car is there, can be a bit problematic.
I say safe meaning that there are not any close traffic coming straight at you, if so pull over and stop your side.

Any getting in front if there is no dedicated good width cycle lane means sharing one lane with other road users, isn't this where problems occur

Once the car lobbyist get wind that undertake is left passing and that's illegal for them they will stamp on us

[reohn2]

MikeF
I couldn't agree more.
The problem isn't cycling it's the government who couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery other than to keep their multinational financiers in high profit margins!

The answer is real money spent on decent infrastructure that separates cyclists from motor traffic in congested towns and cities and not the dogs dinner,hotch potch of woefully inadequate crap currently on offer.

What concerns me most is that at sometime in the not too distant,crap infrastructure will be deemed compulsory whatever cyclists might think or how dangerous and inadequate such rubbish might be.


Make way,make way,the might car must come first

[MikeF]

Any getting in front if there is no dedicated good width cycle lane means sharing one lane with other road users, isn't this where problems occur

Well yes. I think you're saying the cyclist should stay in line with all the stationary motor traffic. I think they should all pull over and let me past. That's what many of them would expect me to do when I'm cycling in front of them and travelling slowly. I'm obviously the faster vehicle in a long line of semi stationary motor traffic.

[MikeF]

So you're travelling on in your car and the lane you are travelling along just abruptly stops with no warning. The tarmac is still there, but it's now just unmarked.

Do you a) continue to where you can see the lane marking another twenty metres along the tarmac or b[i][\i]) stop, waiting for some workers to come and put some more paint down?

Obviously if you're in a car you should stop and walk.

[sapperadam]

Having come to this late as I haven't been online since last week, I have however read the entire thread with some interest.

First of all, what do I do? Answer - it depends. MickF, I live in Plymouth and know the area you are talking about very well. Sometimes I "undertake", sometimes I filter in the middle (between two lines of traffic going in the same direction), other times I overtake - it all depends on the road, the road conditions, weather, visibility and lots of other factors. All of these approachs are also perfectly legal as well.

Out of interest, I grabbed my two "How to Cyle" books. Cyclecraft and the IAM Advanced Cycling. The IAM book basically states "undertaking" is bad - don't do it. Nothing else. The Cyclecraft book says the preference should be overtaking on the right. It goes on to say however:

But on congested roads where there is insufficient clearance from oncoming vehicles, or where there is more than one lane in your direction, this may be impractical and it is acceptable to pass on the left.

It goes on to talk about the risks and being aware etc, etc. But then we should all know this anyway.

The one I like however is the "motoring journalist" quoted on the BBC news report

"Motorcyclists would never dream of undertaking on the left hand side because ... somebody is going to open a car door and you are going to be knocked off.

What a load of rubbish - I've had motorcyclists following me up the inside of traffic on several occasions. It's about time cyclists took the Government to task for making a very large percentage of the population ignorant of the rules by changing them on a regular basis but not forcing people to update themselves - any other industry would not get away with it, so why should the general public just because they hold a driving licence?

[Flinders]

The door could have hit an old lady, or small child on the pavement. The fact that the person was hit was a cyclist has nothing to do with it. It is the job of someone getting out of a car to check they won't knock anyone over before they open it. So it is clearly the fault of the person opening the door, and that's the end of it.

[Flinders]

.....................he broke the law, for all the discussions about filtering and placement I don't think anyone's suggesting the cyclist is at fault. What he did was in accordance with the highway code, what grayling did is not and has a very specific law about it, the least he deserves is the rather token £1000 fine plus compensation to the cyclist.

+1