So i got doored - advice please

happytramp

I feel we're making real progress here. We're not going around in circles whatsoever

beauf

happytramp wrote: »

I feel we're making real progress here. We're not going around in circles whatsoever

Its normal for these threads. lol

MrCreosote

cnocbui wrote: »

Clap....clap....clap.

Brilliant.

You have a side window that gives you a view to the rear of your car - lucky you. Mine is a bit more conventional and gives me a view to the side. A cyclist visible through it won't be there by the time you get the door open.

Here you go - swivel whatever part of your anatomy you like, for all the good it will do you or any cyclists coming up fast from behind:

The situation pictured in your photo closely approximates the third scenario described in my post (you did read the full post didn't you?). I'll repeat it for you though:
In the event of my view being obscured by panelling etc I will ask the driver of the vehicle to utilise his/her eyes, neck and lower back, with or without the use of mirrored devices, to perform the necessary checks. (To panelling I should have added situations with goods being carried, or in a vehicle with "sporty" style seating)

I should have added that I will then alight from the vehicle only when the expressed opinion of the driver is that it is safe to do so. This expression may take the form of a verbal iteration, or a physical cue such as a nod. Examples would include the words "okay", "yes", "go on now" or some combination of these. A response in the negatory should lead to a delay in any opening procedures! In this case a brief delay is to be expected before the process is repeated from the beginning.

buffalo

http://road.cc/content/news/97491-woman-who-doored-cyclist-fined-%C2%A3133

She was ordered to pay a fine of £133 for each offence. She must also pay £35 costs and the victim surcharge of £20.

According to the The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, “No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.”

So it exists as an offence in UK law as well as NYC.

mikom

........................................................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWHniL8MyMM

Spook_ie

buffalo wrote: »

http://road.cc/content/news/97491-woman-who-doored-cyclist-fined-%C2%A3133



So it exists as an offence in UK law as well as NYC.

So a summary ----

1 If you get doored get independent witnesses

2 If you get doored in Ireland make sure you are aware of SI 332/2012 and you aren't undertaking where you shouldn't

3 If you are going to get doored consider emigrating to USA or UK 1st

No Pants

I don't understand why it isn't considered an assault with a weapon. If I stood on the side of the road and swung a car door at people who passed by regardless of the manner in which they were passing, I'd be arrested. Why should it be different just because the car door is attached to a car.

Dermot Illogical

No Pants wrote: »

I don't understand why it isn't considered an assault with a weapon. If I stood on the side of the road and swung a car door at people who passed by regardless of the manner in which they were passing, I'd be arrested. Why should it be different just because the car door is attached to a car.

An assault is generally intentional.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

I don't understand why it isn't considered an assault with a weapon. If I stood on the side of the road and swung a car door at people who passed by regardless of the manner in which they were passing, I'd be arrested. Why should it be different just because the car door is attached to a car.

Because then you'd be charging every cyclist who went through a pedestrian crossing on red with assault as assault also covers threatening behaviour, and if they struck a pedestrian then charged with assault with a weapon.

As Dermot said unless it's intentional it's not usually assault

cnocbui

No Pants wrote: »

I don't understand why it isn't considered an assault with a weapon. If I stood on the side of the road and swung a car door at people who passed by regardless of the manner in which they were passing, I'd be arrested. Why should it be different just because the car door is attached to a car.

The cyclist assaulted the door.

Lusk_Doyle

cnocbui wrote: »

The cyclist assaulted the door.

Man jailed for assault on inanimate object!

Dermot Illogical

cnocbui wrote: »

The cyclist assaulted the door.

I'm affrayed that would be Criminal Damage, not assault.

J.P.M

What exactly are you looking for OP?

gtx

No Pants wrote: »

I don't understand why it isn't considered an assault with a weapon. If I stood on the side of the road and swung a car door at people who passed by regardless of the manner in which they were passing, I'd be arrested. Why should it be different just because the car door is attached to a car.

because your hitting people with the door! your the cause a them getting hit.

the cyclist cycled into the door of the car, in my opinion..
he hit himself with the door.

gtx

MrCreosote wrote: »

I normally turn my neck- a part of the body that connects my head to the rest of the body- and use my eyes to look out the window (that's the transparent part on the side of the vehicle). The eyes, being a special organ whose main function is light perception, allow me to assess whether or not a bicycular vehicle is approaching.
On some occasions, due to headrests or high backed seats, I also have to turn my lower back. In these circumstances my neck and eyes have the same function as before.
In the event of my view being obscured by panelling etc, I ask the driver of the vehicle to utilise a combination of his/her eyes/neck and lower back, with or without mirrored assistance, to perform the necessary checks

at least we know you will never door anyone. we should all take a leaf out of your book.

may be you should write a description of when you are cycling.
of how not to drive into a door, when someone is getting out of a car.

gtx

buffalo wrote: »

But now you're in a position where most drivers will not expect cyclists to be, and if they decided to swing a quick U-turn to escape the line of traffic, you're easily taken out of it. I know of one person to whom this happened.

And unless you're in the middle of the oncoming lane, you're probably still in the doorzone of the opposite of the car, and now people will be even less inclined to check.

then it would be the drivers fault, because the preformed an illegal U-turn. which is not a common practice in a town anyway.



U-turns
You should make a U-turn only when traffic conditions make it completely safe to do so.

• Check there are no signs or road markings prohibiting a U-turn, for example a continuous centre white line.
• Check that the road is not one way.
• Look for a safe place, where you can see clearly in all directions.
• Give way to all other road users.
• Check carefully for cyclists and motorcyclists.
• Do not delay or prevent pedestrians from crossing safely.
• Make sure there is sufficient room to complete your manoeuvre safely and smoothly.

gtx

buffalo wrote: »

Clearly the car was stopped to let someone out? Clearly?



Yes, sorry, you're right. Clearly the car was stopped to let someone out. I mean, from the OP's description, we can clearly assume that the car was pulled in tight to the kerb with the hazard lights on, and the OP forced his way up the inside where there wasn't enough room, scraping his pedals along the paintwork before throwing himself in the path of the opening door.

Clearly.

did you read the op description?
He never scraped the car with his pedals!
Where did you get that from?

buffalo wrote: »

Yes, sorry, you're right. Clearly the car was stopped to let someone out.

at least you got this bit right.:D

gtx

beauf wrote: »

As a passenger do you usually check the bus drivers mirrors before getting out?

Beauf he never said he checked the bus mirrors. he just made a comment about how the were bigger then a car mirror.

You really need to read previous posts before commenting.

:mad: it can be annoying.

beauf

gtx wrote: »

then it would be the drivers fault, because the preformed an illegal U-turn. which is not a common practice in a town anyway. ...

You must be kidding. It happens all day long around around Dublin. Especially by taxi's.

beauf

gtx wrote: »

Beauf he never said he checked the bus mirrors. he just made a comment about how the were bigger then a car mirror.

You really need to read previous posts before commenting.

:mad: it can be annoying.

Will you be selecting many old posts at random, and out of context like that.

Maybe you will answer the question since you raised it. What relevance are the size of mirrors on a bus. From the POV of a passenger getting out and need to check for cyclists if the bus lets you out in the middle of the lane, rather than at the kerbside.

JayRoc

I love boards.
Someone opens their car door and hits a cyclist coming up on the left,
and people argue almost twenty pages about who's in the wrong.

Next up ...the sky's blue.

gtx

beauf wrote: »

Will you be selecting many old posts at random, and out of context like that.

Maybe you will answer the question since you raised it. What relevance are the size of mirrors on a bus. From the POV of a passenger getting out and need to check for cyclists if the bus lets you out in the middle of the lane, rather than at the kerbside.

your away with it. re-read the previous posts!!

beauf

So not relevant.

Zyzz

gtx is nothing more than a troll out to stir sh*t, best option is to ignore him.

Spook_ie

JayRoc wrote: »

I love boards.
Someone opens their car door and hits a cyclist coming up on the left,
and people argue almost twenty pages about who's in the wrong.

Next up ...the sky's blue.

or could be read as

Someone opens their car door and a cyclist coming up on the left hits it
and people argue almost twenty pages about who's in the wrong.

Next up ...the sky's not red

Y'see a lot of people aren't arguing who's right or wrong just that there is insufficient proof either way, mainly by the fact that the cyclist left the scene to seek treatment at his GP before the Gards arrived rather than stay on the deck and thus allowing a contradictory statement to be made while he wasn't there.

That statement having been made casting doubt on the sequence of events and the ultimate liability.

@OP Having hit something with sufficient force to break a collar bone was it a part of the car door ( I'd assume it would damage a car somehow ) or was it the kerb or other roadside furniture?

Cork24

JayRoc wrote: »

I love boards.
Someone opens their car door and hits a cyclist coming up on the left,
and people argue almost twenty pages about who's in the wrong.

Next up ...the sky's blue.

The sky is blue!!!!!

laraghrider

gtx wrote:

because your hitting people with the door! your the cause a them getting hit.

gtx wrote:

this makes you more visible then if your in a black jacket

gtx wrote:

BEAUF BEAUF BEAUF I am afraid your tough work

gtx wrote:

your away with it. re-read the previous posts!!

gtx wrote:

but what ever your happy with

Can you do us all one favour. Just one. Learn the difference between your and you're.

peepeewinkle

laraghrider wrote: »

Can you do us all one favour. Just one. Learn the difference between your and your're.

I've been following this thread for quite a while now. And felt that I should post a comment. However I did have to set up a secondary account, for fear that I may be blocked for having an opposite view (as has happened on other threads).

I believe that this thread has really gone downhill lately. When an argument resorts to who is using proper English and spelling, then you obviously have lost it. Gtx obviously isn't a friend of spellcheck, but even though I may not be the smartest person in the room, I can easily comprehend the point that he is making. Many of which I find to have been valid and very constructive to this thread.

This thread, and the other one about a Galway lad getting knocked of his bike do appear to be some sort of propaganda machine for the cycling community. In the other thread a person was banned for simply having an opposite view. Not very boards friendly now is it.

I am an avid cyclist, but I do have to say that some of your hard line fundamentalist do seem to go out of your way to spoil it for the rest of us. A little bit of respect to drivers is badly needed. The way I look at it is, I am extremely luck to live in the most beautiful part of this island, and even more lucky to have some of the finest roads available to me. However as I don't own a car and I don't pay car tax, I am full of gratitude and respect for those that do own a car and pay car tax, for without them I would not have the same quality of roads available to me to cycle on.

How do I show these individuals respect? I am courteous on the roads, I don't cycle more than two abreast, I stay inside the yellow line. Easy. I know it gets a little bit more difficult and dangerous in the city, but again a little bit of respect goes along way.

Lumen

peepeewinkle wrote: »

]However I did have to set up a secondary account, for fear that I may be blocked for having an opposite view (as has happened on other threads)...In the other thread a person was banned for simply having an opposite view.

Nobody gets "blocked" on boards for "simply having an opposite view".

peepeewinkle

Lumen wrote: »

Nobody gets "blocked" on boards for "simply having an opposite view".

Read the thread in question, and tell me what you think.

The gestapo are at work.

Dermot Illogical

peepeewinkle wrote: »

Read the thread in question, and tell me what you think.

The gestapo are at work.

Tombola!
231 posts to Godwin.

Dermot Illogical

Lumen wrote: »

Nobody gets "blocked" on boards for "simply having an opposite view".

And you have the post count to prove it.

Hmmzis

peepeewinkle wrote: »

Read the thread in question, and tell me what you think.

The gestapo are at work.

Are you questioning a mods decision? Don't think that should be done in this thread. There are appropriate channels for that on boards.

Btw. How does that rant of yours relate to the topic of this thread?

Mr.Fred

laraghrider wrote: »

Can you do us all one favour. Just one. Learn the difference between your and your're.

Please edit. you're. It'll carry more weight

peepeewinkle

Hmmzis wrote: »

Are you questioning a mods decision? Don't think that should be done in this thread. There are appropriate channels for that on boards.

Btw. How does that rant of yours relate to the topic of this thread?

I have asked you gentlemen to read the thread and come back to me with your thoughts (pm me please).

My rant, as you describe it. Is my response to the posts on this thread.

peepeewinkle

laraghrider wrote: »

Can you do us all one favour. Just one. Learn the difference between your and your're.

Mr.Fred wrote: »

Please edit. you're. It'll carry more weight

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :D:D:

How did I not spot that

:D:D:D:

Gtx must be delighted.

laraghrider wrote: »

your're.

Dermot Illogical

peepeewinkle wrote: »

I've been following this thread for quite a while now. And felt that I should post a comment. However I did have to set up a secondary account, for fear that I may be blocked for having an opposite view (as has happened on other threads).

You were blocked for having an opposite view, so you've set up a new account?

Chips Lovell

Thread locked pending mod review.

Thank you for your patience.

Chips Lovell

Reopening now. I've banned one person for using duplicate accounts and general messing.

Can I remind everyone else that calling people out as trolls, correcting people's spelling and grammar and back seat moderation are all against the rules. If people had just reported posts rather than engaged in the above, this thread wouldn't have become quite the mess it did.

Cork24

OP,

I'm not going to start reading 16 pages of Posts.,

So what is the outcome

Lusk_Doyle

peepeewinkle wrote: »

I stay inside the yellow line.

Surely cycling inside, or rather outside of the yellow line means that one is not cycling on the road? This action, IMO, signals to other road users that one does not consider oneself to be entitled to cycle on the correct side of the yellow line.

Sure when there is a nice large hard shoulder one could cycle within it but that puts the rider more at risk of a puncture from road debris. It also puts one more at risk when coming to the end of the hard shoulder and the need to re-merge is there.

I think that riding in the hard shoulder sends the wrong message.

Edit: I'm aware the above is slightly off topic, but an interesting point was raised.

No Pants

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Surely cycling inside, or rather outside of the yellow line means that one is not cycling on the road? This action, IMO, signals to other road users that one does not consider oneself to be entitled to cycle on the correct side of the yellow line.

Sure when there is a nice large hard shoulder one could cycle within it but that puts the rider more at risk of a puncture from road debris. It also puts one more at risk when coming to the end of the hard shoulder and the need to re-merge is there.

I think that riding in the hard shoulder sends the wrong message.

Edit: I'm aware the above is slightly off topic, but an interesting point was raised.

Agreed. Aside from the psychological message and in addition to the general debris, the hard shoulder surface is generally rough and bumpy compared to the regular road surface.

Spook_ie

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Surely cycling inside, or rather outside of the yellow line means that one is not cycling on the road? This action, IMO, signals to other road users that one does not consider oneself to be entitled to cycle on the correct side of the yellow line.

Sure when there is a nice large hard shoulder one could cycle within it but that puts the rider more at risk of a puncture from road debris. It also puts one more at risk when coming to the end of the hard shoulder and the need to re-merge is there.

I think that riding in the hard shoulder sends the wrong message.

Edit: I'm aware the above is slightly off topic, but an interesting point was raised.

As you say off topic but surely regardless of the debris if you are on a country road ( assuming you are because not too many town roads have a hard shoulder ) with 80-100 Kph limit then the disparity between the cyclists speed and the motorist/lorry/bus speed makes it safer to be on the hard shoulder and to exercise caution when said hard shoulder ends and you merge with faster traffic flow

Frank Black

No Pants wrote: »

Agreed. Aside from the psychological message and in addition to the general debris, the hard shoulder surface is generally rough and bumpy compared to the regular road surface.

Hard shoulders are constructed to the same build-up, surface regularity and standards as the rest of the carriageway. Given they are not subjected to the same levels of trafficing, they are likely to be in a better condition on avaerage than the rest of the road .

By all means, continue to engage in ignorant cycling behaviour by not using the h/s, but please don't use hard shoulder conditions as your excuse.

Plastik

Frank Black wrote: »

Hard shoulders are constructed to the same build-up, surface regularity and standards as the rest of the carriageway. Given they are not subjected to the same levels of trafficing, they are likely to be in a better condition on avaerage than the rest of the road .

By all means, continue to engage in ignorant cycling behaviour by not using the h/s, but please don't use hard shoulder conditions as your excuse.

Perhaps this is the case with roads that have been constructed or resurfaced in the more recent past. If you cycle many of the N road network however you will soon find out that this is not the case. The hard shoulder is, in many cases, an inferior surface.

No Pants

Frank Black wrote: »

Hard shoulders are constructed to the same build-up, surface regularity and standards as the rest of the carriageway. Given they are not subjected to the same levels of trafficing, they are likely to be in a better condition on avaerage than the rest of the road .

By all means, continue to engage in ignorant cycling behaviour by not using the h/s, but please don't use hard shoulder conditions as your excuse.

Yeah, that's what I thought too, but it simply isn't the case. Maybe the surface wear from traffics smooths and flattens it out. I use the hard shoulder when it suits me, but please don't describe my using of the actual road as "ignorant cycling behaviour". Given that driving on the hard shoulder is generally prohibited, am I even allowed to use it?

I'll happily lend you one of my bikes and drive you to a couple of sections so that you can experience it for yourself. Two sections that spring to mind are the N2 (or whatever it's called now) northbound from Ward Cross (now roundabout) to Ashbourne and the other the road between Baldoyle and Portmarnock. That second section is quite short, but it should still illustrate my point quite well.

Kav0777

No Pants wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I thought too, but it simply isn't the case. Maybe the surface wear from traffics smooths and flattens it out. I use the hard shoulder when it suits me, but please don't describe my using of the actual road as "ignorant cycling behaviour". Given that driving on the hard shoulder is generally prohibited, am I even allowed to use it?

I'll happily lend you one of my bikes and drive you to a couple of sections so that you can experience it for yourself. Two sections that spring to mind are the N2 (or whatever it's called now) northbound from Ward Cross (now roundabout) to Ashbourne and the other the road between Baldoyle and Portmarnock. That second section is quite short, but it should still illustrate my point quite well.

Is there a hard shoulder on that stretch?

No Pants

Kav0777 wrote: »

Is there a hard shoulder on that stretch?

The yellow lines are well worn almost to the point of being invisible, but yes, for a short distance coming out of Baldoyle past the roundabout and the development called "The Coast" or something similar. Generally I don't see the yellow lines and it's only when I start thinking to myself, "This is uncomfortable" that I realise I'm on the wrong side of it.

Kav0777

No Pants wrote: »

The yellow lines are well worn almost to the point of being invisible, but yes, for a short distance coming out of Baldoyle past the roundabout and the development called "The Coast" or something similar. Generally I don't see the yellow lines and it's only when I start thinking to myself, "This is uncomfortable" that I realise I'm on the wrong side of it.

I wouldn't call that a hard shoulder, sure there's only about 10 inches to a foot between the yellow lines and the grass verge, and sometimes no space at all.

Macy0161

Frank Black wrote: »

Hard shoulders are constructed to the same build-up, surface regularity and standards as the rest of the carriageway. Given they are not subjected to the same levels of trafficing, they are likely to be in a better condition on avaerage than the rest of the road .

Is it not the opposite - less traffic means poorer quality. Our N road network is still generally chip and tar finished, and the chips don't get worked into the same degree in the hard shoulder. Plus, that's where the man hole covers etc generally are too. You can feel all that in a car, never mind on a bike.