Accident's involving Bicycles....

[Wheel]

If you read the wording of the law, it is saying that opening a door into a lane of traffic is inherently an unsafe action. (No person shall open any door on a motor vehicle unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic).

This is why the liability is placed on the door opening person. Traffic is expected to be travelling in the lane, cars, motorcycles, bikes, horses, whatever. Traffic is allowed for any reason, recreation doesn't enter into it. Just being out for a drive is also travelling for entertainment.

Originally Posted By: Gasbuggy

This shows the exact root of the problem, the rider consciously zips past parked cars and then when the obvious danger occurs, someone opens a door, the rider is oblivious and the car owner is still liable. If the area wasn't crowded then the rider should not be in the door swing zone. Entitled rider viewpoints aside, I would not have a problem with the danger if liability didn't default to the person in the car. Riders put drivers in danger for their own recreation. I take issue with that.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: supton
Many highway onramps have a sign prohibiting bicycles among other things. Limited access highway I believe is the term for most highways where non-motorized vehicles are prohibited.


Yes, my point is that this means the govt can restrict bicycles off of roads if they see fit, i.e. danger to themselves or other drivers. Why not state highways where the speed is not much different than Interstates?


As long as cyclists (and others) have a reasonable means of traveling the same route (feeder roads perhaps) then yes the local authorities could restrict cyclists.

 

[jeepman3071]

My comment early on was in no way a statement against all bikers. I think there are lots of riders who follow the rules and are just fine. I have just seen that unfortunately from an insurance stand point, the driver of the car is usually found at fault in cases involving bikes AND pedestrians. This is simply to avoid expensive drawn out lawsuits and to pass on the increased company expenses to their insured by raising premiums.

I remember a case where a pedestrian darted out in front of a car. This was in a business district (think mall or shopping center) and the person was not on a crosswalk. The driver stated they were not expecting the person to dart out and tried to stop. However, the driver ended up being found at fault for something stupid like "failing to use caution around pedestrians". Had the person been crossing the road when a cop was watching, it would be jaywalking, but since a motor vehicle was involved it was "failing to use caution around pedestrians".

 

[Gasbuggy]

Originally Posted By: Wheel
If you read the wording of the law, it is saying that opening a door into a lane of traffic is inherently an unsafe action. (No person shall open any door on a motor vehicle unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic).

This is why the liability is placed on the door opening person. Traffic is expected to be travelling in the lane, cars, motorcycles, bikes, horses, whatever. Traffic is allowed for any reason, recreation doesn't enter into it. Just being out for a drive is also travelling for entertainment.

Originally Posted By: Gasbuggy

This shows the exact root of the problem, the rider consciously zips past parked cars and then when the obvious danger occurs, someone opens a door, the rider is oblivious and the car owner is still liable. If the area wasn't crowded then the rider should not be in the door swing zone. Entitled rider viewpoints aside, I would not have a problem with the danger if liability didn't default to the person in the car. Riders put drivers in danger for their own recreation. I take issue with that.



Yea, no [censored] that is the law. Essentially the point behind my whole post was that the laws are biased against the drivers for which the roads exist. Unless Helen Keller is riding that bike, riders should assume some responsibility for their own stupidity, they are practically invisible and should ride as such.

Noticing a car or motorcycle is much easier than someone flying down on a bicycle alongside traffic. The car and motorcycle are likely not in your door swing area while driving, but the bicycle can be if he's riding along traffic. I see these idiots all over Philly, they will fly past blocks worth of parked cars with no concern. I guess they know if someone opens their door it's easy money.

 

[Wheel]

Again, you're making a double standard. You want the bikes to not hold up traffic, and not 'fly' past parked cars, nor can they be in the lane, nor traveling close to the parked cars. Which is it ? Is it any different than a car or motorcycle 'flying' past the parked car ? The person opening the door still bears the responsibility for that action. If it's too difficult to do it safely, the law says it shouldn't be done.

Considering how serious striking a door at 15-30 mph is, an average person wouldn't say that that would be earning 'easy money'.

Originally Posted By: Gasbuggy


Yea, no [censored] that is the law. Essentially the point behind my whole post was that the laws are biased against the drivers for which the roads exist. Unless Helen Keller is riding that bike, riders should assume some responsibility for their own stupidity, they are practically invisible and should ride as such.

Noticing a car or motorcycle is much easier than someone flying down on a bicycle alongside traffic. The car and motorcycle are likely not in your door swing area while driving, but the bicycle can be if he's riding along traffic. I see these idiots all over Philly, they will fly past blocks worth of parked cars with no concern. I guess they know if someone opens their door it's easy money.

 

[Gasbuggy]

Originally Posted By: Wheel
Again, you're making a double standard. You want the bikes to not hold up traffic, and not 'fly' past parked cars, nor can they be in the lane, nor traveling close to the parked cars. Which is it ? Is it any different than a car or motorcycle 'flying' past the parked car ? The person opening the door still bears the responsibility for that action. If it's too difficult to do it safely, the law says it shouldn't be done.

Considering how serious striking a door at 15-30 mph is, an average person wouldn't say that that would be earning 'easy money'.

Originally Posted By: Gasbuggy


Yea, no [censored] that is the law. Essentially the point behind my whole post was that the laws are biased against the drivers for which the roads exist. Unless Helen Keller is riding that bike, riders should assume some responsibility for their own stupidity, they are practically invisible and should ride as such.

Noticing a car or motorcycle is much easier than someone flying down on a bicycle alongside traffic. The car and motorcycle are likely not in your door swing area while driving, but the bicycle can be if he's riding along traffic. I see these idiots all over Philly, they will fly past blocks worth of parked cars with no concern. I guess they know if someone opens their door it's easy money.



I can't think of a more effective way to explain it. This isn't an if than argument. Bikes create the hazards for which drivers usually suffer the consequences of. Riders are treated more favorably than OJ Simpson being tried by a black jury. There is no double standard. If the rider holds up traffic he doesn't belong on the road, if the rider is flying past traffic, he is creating a hazard and doesn't belong on the road.

I swear people on bikes have less liability than pedestrians. If that changes so will my opinion about their place in traffic.

 

[Wheel]

It is just such an argument. They are considered legal vehicles by law. You not treating them in the same way is a violation of that. Yet, you complain that you are doing so to defend traffic laws. Breaking one law to defend another is still a double standard. There is a mechanism in place to change laws, use that, not bullying.

The roads where bicycles are permitted do not have minimum speed limits for cars, and thus also not bicycles. Cars are able to pass parked cars at speeds between the speed limit and barely moving. You are saying it is different from one to the other, and it is not.

Both road users break the law, which should be enforced by police and prosecuted by law. When it isn't, recourse is not found by enforcing laws here and there yourself.

Like I've been saying, folks need to be following the rules and being decent.

 

[The_Eric]

A bunch of complainers here. Whine about bikes being on the road, whine about them on the sidewalk, whine about them on the trails and whine that they aren't paying enough to support the infrastructure. They're either going too fast, too slow and/or a danger to others.

There's no winning with them. I get the impression that many would be happy to see all bicycles confiscated and crushed and their owners fined.

I ride roads a fair bit. From county highways to city streets. On the highways I'm never further than 1' from the white line and rarely have people buzz me. About half the time they do, it's because they are passing me while meeting an oncoming car. Too self important to slow down and wait. In the city, I ride side streets as much as possible, but am not afraid to boogie down a main road- and no, people aren't being held up. In fact, I was ahead of two guys on Harleys who came up behind me from their parking spot on the main road (next to the intersection) at a red light. When the light turned green they followed for a few moments then were going to pass me. But by that time I was already going the speed limit so they just followed along. we went a couple blocks, then I moved into a left turn lane and stopped for a red. They pulled up next to me and made a remark to the effect of "Well, at least you were going the speed limit".

 

[qwerty1234]

In downtown Chicago the bike messengers are required to carry some type of insurance. I suppose this is a car forum so folks are a bit biased but some of the attitudes towards bike riders is scary. "Dooring" a bike rider in Chicago will result in a hefty ticket every single time. It the drivers responsibility to look before they open the door.

 

[Wheel]

Exactly as it should. Laws have consequences as well as means of enforcement. The medium should be making no difference. People are responsible for their actions, and should be held so by rule of law, not personal whim.

I am a fan of cars and bikes when they are at their best. Unfortunately, bad choices abound.

 

[spackard]

A bicyclist died early Sunday after he was struck by a bus while riding a bike in the carpool lane of the 10 Freeway in Alhambra [CA], authorities said.

The fatal collision too place about 4:30 a.m. on the eastbound 10 Freeway, just west of Garfield Avenue, Officer I. Vivas of the California Highway Patrol’s East Los Angeles area office said in a written statement.

A Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority bus was heading east on the freeway in the carpool, with a 44-year-old man at the wheel, the officer said. The bicyclist, estimated to be 40 years old, was also riding east in the carpool lane.

“The (MTA) bus suddenly collided with the bicyclist,” Vivas said. “As a result of the impact, the bicyclist was thrown into the train track.”

 

[Gasbuggy]