The reflections in the window show that the creators were not careful, since you can see the bike already placed on the ground during the simulated "dooring". In addition, during a dooring, the back and front of the bike trade places, so showing the bicyclist lying on the ground with the bike pointing in the direction it was in before the collision is just bad staging.
I was just passed by two cyclists while waiting at a red light, they meandered on through the lights talking to each other, totally unaware of what they'd done, so I am not surprised at one of their number being "doored"
The main problem that I see with avoiding the door zone is that a lot of cyclists have a defeatist attitude and see themselves as lesser road users!! We are not and have every right to use as much of the lane required to ensure our safety! It's better to annoy a few motorists then it is to get doored!
Taking the lane might frustrate some people but not doing so the cyclist runs a severe risk which could even be fatal (a careless door opening knocks the cyclist into the path of a car/ lorry). I know what I'd rather do! Upset a few muppets v potential death, its not a hard choice.
@HLaB75 what I'm concluding from all this is: every ride is a careful balance of risks each rider weighs, the gravity of factors of each differing by region due to topography, traffic congestion, driver's respect for us, the laws they face if they don't, as well as the laws that dictate how we ride- how much of the road we're given and the relative pecking order placing us between cars and peds. What works in London will get you killed in Texas, and that pertains to much more than cycling!
@HLaB75 You need to balance the various dangers but also throw in a healthy dose of consideration for others. I'm fully aware of the risk of doors opening, but as long as I can ensure it's minimal (I can clearly see the cars aren't occupied, which rules out vans and SUVs) I will at times move across to make it easier for motor vehicles to pass, particularly if I sense they are getting stressed.
@gadgetmind I like to think on the whole I do take a balanced approach and on the whole I'd say 99% of drivers don't show fustration but there's always tha 1% muppet population. I show plenty of consideration for that 99% but I admit I am less likely to show consideration for that 1%.
@HLaB75 I reckon that in Leeds we have a solid 5% of muppets, but it depends on area and time of night. In some places they are wall-to-wall, have no idea of the rules of the road, and no concept of consideration for others.
Dooring is a very real risk, and something that cyclists need to be aware of, but in none of the (many) studies on accident causes I have read has it appeared as anything other than insignificant noise. Interestingly, being hit from behind is also pretty low, whereas ROWVs by motorvehicles at junctions features very highly.
@gadgetmind "Interestingly, being hit from behind is also pretty low, whereas ROWVs by motorvehicles at junctions features very highly."
My recent research toward providing actual facts in the face of mikey's erroneous hysteria confirms that observation, and in fact being run down from behind is not the biggest risk in congested urban areas at all. It did weigh heavily in fatalities vs. serious accidents, the Cross Fisher report found it the top contributer in deaths- but in the US (ctd)
@gadgetmind and it is a study from the late 70's, though very thorough. Interesting to note one study in Texas found in that state the behind run down was by four times over the most common fatality, we can be sure that due to the contrasts in driver and road factors it's not terribly relevant in London nor is London relevant there. Many US cyclists don't yet have the luxury of favorable traffic laws, we are at the bottom of the pecking order.
I have been millimetres from being doored in the past myself. There was a narrow road, parked cars to my left and oncoming traffic. I had about a handlebars worth of space to filter through and some bloke in a 4x4 waited until the last second to throw the door open. He'd assumed because cars couldnt get though that it was safe. A motorcyclist would have taken the door clean off.
So like taking a lane, I could be in the right, by just walking into the intersection, but as they used to say, "you're in the right- dead right!"
Usually the 10th car or so will wake up and realize they have to stop for a pedestrian. You can tell many WILL run you down if you step out tho. Insane.
I was just thinking about a situation that allows you to envision US drivers: About 5 blocks from my house is a very busy but small (one lane each way) city street, used by many drivers who go through my area. So busy I usually dismount and cross as a pedestrian, which at an intersection they are required to yield to me. They rarely do, in fact I have to force them to stop by walking in front of them carrying my bike overhead- the other day a guy honked and cussed at me to get out of his way!
The cyclist shouldn't have been driving so close to the car. But as many times as I've been sideswiped and knocked over by some asshole cyclist, whilst walking, I've learned that many of them aren't really bothered about being considerate and watching where the fuck they're going.
i know people will fault this vid for being staged, but yeah, that's basically how it looks when you go down cuz someone can't take the nanosecond to check behind them
Just got doored for the first time today. My hand, knee, and shoulder got bloodied and my bike was somewhat damaged, but I was relatively unscathed. I totally ignored the dude when he asked if I was alright because I was afraid I was gonna flip and smash his head through a window. I bandaged myself up at the local store and pedalled on. I don't have time for cops, insurance, etc when its just skin wounds.
If you're gonna ride in the door zone, you should at least slow down. Door zones are usually near pedestrian areas anyways, where you have to watch out for people (especially children) as well.
Then why do hundreds of cyclists get doored each year? Are they all idiots? Or are they driving in busy urban roads where there isn't space to ride at a safe distance from the door?
@naughtyfeline Don't be silly, motor vehicles avoid the "door zone" because they don't have to share their lane with cars trying to drive over or through them! You've obviously never ridden a bicycle in traffic. If bicycles did what you're thinking and occupied a whole lane motorists would scream bloody murder.
@CyclingMikey How many streets do we ride on in the real world where you feel more safe "taking the lane" from traffic overtaking you from behind? How many deaths per year are there from cyclists being run down from behind VS getting doored? Probably 100 to 1! This "taking the lane" sounds good and all from the view of bike advocacy but some motorists feel we are something to drive over or around, not wait for. Many will nudge you off into the parked cars, it happened to me once & he kept going.
@batvette No, the single biggest cause of both deaths and serious injuries for cyclists is being doored.
I strongly recommend you take some vehicular cycling lessons, they will transform your riding life. They'll teach you when to take the lane, and when to be submissive, how to negotiate out into the traffic flow, looking back, and proper signalling, etc. See user "freddotu" here on youtube. He may be able to help you find suitable lessons in your area.
@CyclingMikey Where did you get that statistic? this is from the Cross-Fisher report:
"Although seven other problem types occurred more frequently than Problem Type 13, this problem type must be considered one of the most important because it accounted for nearly one-fourth of all fatal accidents in the sample—three times as many as any other problem type (p. 72). "
Anyway each area is unique for the rider, in Calif we don't allow window tint on driver's windows. I'm not riding (ctd)
@CyclingMikey out just to prove a point for advocacy when there isn't 7 ft to take without being run down by cars who only get more callous towards us if we're asserting our right to the road more than necessary.
@batvette Your comments are common from untrained riders. It's a perception failure, where you fail to appreciate the large danger from being doored, and the much much smaller risk of being hit by a vehicle from behind.
My data comes from London, UK. Yes, there are differences between cities and countries, but I maintain my point that you're unaware of just how dangerous it is to ride in the door zone. Don't do it, folks.
@CyclingMikey I'm 48 and I've never been without a bicycle, a day at your "school" wouldn't make me a genius or qualify my commenting here.
I've never hit a door but I HAVE been knocked into a parked car by an unpatient driver overtaking me.
Anway I cited an official study, you say your "data comes from London UK". I think you're pulling facts out of your arse here. Got a link? I'm not minimizing the dangers of car doors but if you have to make up statistics to support your position.....
@batvette My facts come from an official Transport Research Laboratory study.
Your own anecdote does not data make, it's you making up stats. On the contrary, it's that riding submissively encourages drivers to pass too closely. Had you been a little further out, that driver most likely would have given you more, not less, room.
You can cycle with less than best practice and get away with it for years simply because cycling is so safe. Even in the USA, where it's less safe than the UK.
@CyclingMikey Which TRL report had that data in it? I didn't see a comprehensive study in the 59 results displayed in a reports search of the word bicycle on the TRL site, and I'd be interested in getting my facts straight before I fooolishly spout off about it in the future. :-P
I can't share your advice about riding less submissively, in the US the laws of physics do apply and my bicycle and his car could not occupy the same space. There was a car on the other side of him and he wanted by.
@batvette I forget which one now, but its subject was cycling collision causes in London, UK, and I distinctly remember surprising a local academic who thought that KSIs (both killed and seriously injured) were caused by lorries (trucks) foremost, when it was dooring in that study. Lorries were the biggest cause of fatalities.
@CyclingMikey well describing how you sold someone else on your bogus figures isn't quite showing me they are legit now, is it? HOWEVER I want to say over the last couple days I've been riding thinking about this issue and giving doors some extra room so I concede you have a good point on this. I will say the "take the lane" part bothered me more than the"avoid the door zone". Why? In the US there are drivers who hate cyclists and there are those who run them over with little remorse. (ctd)
@batvette Bogus figures? I don't think so, and, no, it's most definitely a real study. Whilst I make mistakes, I wouldn't mislead you on something like this. Perhaps you could be a little less conflict oriented?
@CyclingMikey I never thought you were intentionally presenting those numbers as fraudulent, they were probably presented to you by someone else long ago and you've had no reason to disbelieve them. Saying it's from a TRL report is pretty vague, as I indicated I went to their site and took some time trying to find a comprehensive report on bicycle accidents and fatalities- none were obvious and those jerks want 30 pounds to even look at most of their materials. I provided a passage from (ctd)
@CyclingMikey the Cross-Fisher study, a well known document,(there's only one so there is no ambiguity of hundreds of studies one must pay to even peruse) and it is verbatim. It says the number of fatalities from people being run down from behind is over three times higher than any other problem.
Did you read this "TRL study" yourself?
Conflicts? It was you that posted on me, and you did make some condescending comments including being "untrained". I love to argue when I believe I'm right!
@CyclingMikey Being dodgey won't prevent you from being owned on this. Google "TRL study bicycle fatalities Sydney" and click on the first hit, at the bottom of the page you will see a link to the latest comprehensive study by TRL on bicycle accidents. Page 37, table 7-6. cause 904... at 4%, indicates you aren't just a little bit wrong, you are hopelessly, incredibly, totally WRONG old chap!
Now that I've won an internet argument I will go tell all my friends and have a trophy made for myself.
@batvette google for this: Pedal-Cyclist-Casualties-04-05.pdf
Table 14 (serious) summary • 10% (the most common conflict)
involved the door of the other vehicle
being opened into the path of the P/C
and the cyclist either hitting it or
swerving to avoid it
It's not the exact study I recall reading, but is very close. Besides, it doesn't matter whether dooring is the most serious cause, only that it's ranked right up there to show that you really want to respect the door zone.
@CyclingMikey My original comment was "deaths". You went on to specifically claim that figure for fatalities several times, which is in error. Yet the table you cite is only for serious injuries, when you go to fatalities it drops to 3rd. I'd rather be hurt than dead! AS WELL that study is exclusive to the greater London area, obviously (as the TRL study which included the entire UK proves) getting doored occurs more often in London than elsewhere.
@CyclingMikey Typical liar, when caught you can only try and portray your opponent as a liar to bring him down to your level. Are you denying you said this?
" No, the single biggest cause of both deaths and serious injuries for cyclists is being doored."
you said nothing of HGVs until FOUR posts and FOUR DAYS later and that was ambiguous:
" thought that KSIs (both killed and seriously injured) were caused by lorries (trucks) foremost, when it was dooring in that study."
@batvette Excuse me? KSI - killed and seriously injured, in other words both deaths and serious injuries. If you interpreted that wrongly, I'm sorry. Now that you're adopting these tactics, I think it's time to bow out and leave.
You've at least conceded my point about staying out of the door zone.
@CyclingMikey "it doesn't matter whether dooring is the most serious cause"
It did before you were proven wrong!
You claimed your figures were for THE UK (not merely london)and included FATALITIES. Watching your video clips reveals practice in London is a unique situation irrelevant to elsewhere.
However BOTH studies reveal the biggest risk in the UK was NOT being run down from behind, so it's not surprising you don't recognize a risk that most studies in the US list as number one.
@batvette Rubbish. My point right from the very start has been that you should not ignore the risk of being doored as you suggested. It's a major risk to cyclists, which is why you should never ride in the door zone.
Good cycling practice in London is not unique to London. Vehicular cycling is just as well known in the US. I suggest again you go and get some cycling lessons. You might learn something, rather than carry on pushing your bias and poor practice.
@CyclingMikey No need to get angry just because you've been proven wrong.
"you should not ignore the risk of being doored "
Which I've conceded.
"you should never ride in the door zone."
and this is where I have to say if you focus on this one risk many of us are going to get killed. It's up to individual discretion to weigh risks, one study of Texas state I saw found getting run down from behind was 4 times more likely than any other fatality. London has a lot of streetside parking (ctd)
@batvette in business districts on narrow streets close to 1000 years old, people are parking and exiting their vehicles then returning to be replaced by another many times a day. New York City might be similar, not many others here in the US. US Bicyclists don't get the legal or driver respect you get where we can just "take the lane" and expect proper prosecution of negligence. You're trying to convince peoples' entire safety philosophy center on one niche factor you've had to skew to justify.
@CyclingMikey When did I suggest anyone ignore the risk? C/P the statement, please. You needn't provide more condescending remarks about my needing "training", what were you doing in 1967 while I was riding around the streets of San Jose when I lost the training wheels? Born yet? Your upload "R142BAR swerves at me" speaks 10,000 words, you're a PROBLEM RIDER, pal. You're 10 feet into the traffic lane with no reason to at all and filming it to criticize the guy. You'd be a dead man here (ctd)
@batvette I'm not the one with the anger and aggression problem. ;) At 30-40mph, you'd be pretty stupid to be riding in the gutter in that situation (R142BAR).
Here's my challenge to you - get a headcam, mounted on your head, and upload some footage of your cycling, and then let's discuss how you ride. I promise to be constructive, but I suspect you won't have the courage. If you don't have a camera, you can get an MD80 clone for less than $20 on eBay.
@CyclingMikey and I can't say anyone should weep for you is so because it appears you'd have been wanting it to happen in your twisted form of "advocacy". I'm not wishing you harm but you aren't trying to co-exist with autos, you are insisting they all recognize your right to share the road with them even when you don't need all you're taking. That endangers us all by breeding their contempt. Your riding in that video is stupid! You're forcing them into oncoming lanes to get by you!
@batvette That's simply because you're misinterpreting risk. It would be a very ignorant and careless rider who sits in the gutter at 40mph on a narrow road. Of course cars should overtake in the oncoming lane - that's how proper overtakes are done. I suggest you look at the picture in the "highway code rule 163" to show just how wrong you are. Google it.
I think you shouldn't comment again until you've posted some video of your own riding, otherwise you're all mouth and no trousers.
@CyclingMikey I'd say no videos of my riding is safer to the cycling world than convincing other riders that taking a full lane for no reason whatsoever other than to piss off motorists so I can film their reaction and post it on youtube is a good idea.
BTW I can't see what kind of machine you're on but I'm pretty sure it's one of these:
watch?v=Ui4kI-RHS1Q
m I right?
Seriously, Mikey, I'm glad I looked at your clips to see what your brand of "safety" was about. Looking for trouble!
@batvette If you don't produce video, then we'll have to consider you yellow-bellied. No, I ride a number of different bikes.
Suggesting to ride in the gutter at 40mph, given that the most common cycling crash is a single vehicle one, dear oh dear. I suppose it's good that cycling is such a safe activity, as that's the main reason why riders can get away with poor practice like yours for so long.
@CyclingMikey It's my experience that people that realize they are being filmed, or put on head cams go on to make complete asses of themselves while undertaking otherwise completely safe endeavors, today convinced me even more so no thank you.
Can you copy and paste me telling anyone to ride in the gutter? That's a lie, as is your claim of 40 MPH. Joke! How could I suggest you do something like that? Maybe downhill with a stiff wind pushed by the lorry that flattens you for hogging the road?
@batvette Ahahahahahaahaahaa, I'm not the angry one here, nor the liar. Yes, you've exactly suggested I should ride in the gutter when you claim I'm "holding up the car" and needlessly taking the lane. Rubbish.
I'm doing 30mph at the start of the R142BAR video, and I'm doing 40mph in the fast section after his overtake. It's a slight downhill, and I'm also riding a very fast recumbent. I reach 40mph on almost every commute, although not usually more than 30-35 here on this section.
@CyclingMikey No I'm not "exactly suggesting", I either said it or I didn't and I did not.
Your lie: That "being doored is the number one cause of serious injury and fatalities in the UK."
Do not change any particulars, did you claim that or not?
Sad you have to summon a handful of gentlemen to back you up, none of whom seem to realize the obvious: If you are such a safe rider, why is it you have many dozens of videos of you nearly being killed and drivers shouting obscenities at you?
@batvette, I hear far too often that my riding in a safe manner is going to "piss off motorists" yet I've found the complete opposite to be true. A motorist is going to be looking in the lane, where I am, is going to see me and is going to make appropriate allowances in a safe, timely manner. He is not going to have to take evasive action to narrowly miss me because I'm off to the edge of the lane out of his line of sight.
I'm not sure what your style of riding is, but if it's based on "staying out of the way" when you should be controlling a sub-standard width lane, you've probably had your share of near-collisions, or close passes. It's fine to endanger your own life, but don't jump all over a safe cyclist because you imagine he's pissing off motorists. If you've not been trained in safe cycling practices, you aren't in a position to criticize.
@freddotu In the end can you explain to me why Mikey needs to be at least 10 feet from the edge, forcing that BMW into oncoming in that video? He's not staying out of any gutter, there is no gutter- most of his videos depict similar behaviour- provoking drivers into dangerous maneuvers so he can film their bad behaviour and post it here. I can stay within a 3 ft range of that painted line for miles with one hand and I suspect so can he. He caused that incident himself. You think this helps us?
@batvette, I'm not sure where you get the idea that he is provoking drivers for the sole purpose of recording their actions. My daily commutes involve plenty of drivers operating in an unsafe manner, including those on bicycles and in motor vehicles. I'm not provoking anyone, but they do appear on video. It happens, it gets recorded, there's no provocation involved.
@freddotu I haven't seen your videos, thus I'm not criticizing you. There are certainly bad drivers out there. Here's another example of foolishness: "D4N OK Aggressive overtake and road rage".
Okay, the driver was speeding and a tool. However what's the purpose of blasting an airzound, an obnoxiously loud horn, right at him as he's going by? If his window's open, this isn't a warning to see an unseen cyclist, it scares the bejeezus out of the driver at the moment precise control is vital.
@freddotu I'm sorry but I don't see people stopping, hopping our of their cars and shouting obscenities at me on my rides. In fact it's never happened to me in over 40 years of riding.
I can't help but feel if we all saw similar events on a regular basis we'd have a building bad sentiment amongst motorists who only wish to share the road with us and go about their business. Do you think that incident with the BMW would have ended that way had he been 1.5 meters- about 5 feet- from the edge?
@batvette I caused a driver to speed, to swerve at me, and to overtake in a careless manner? Of course not, a bad driver did that all on his own, and only he is responsible for that behaviour. Your post is nothing more than contemptible victim blaming.
@freddotu I can see where this is going, Cycling Mike is angry his attempt to portray me as a liar failed and was itself another lie. I don't know you or EdinberghFixed but the term "meatpuppets" is the common term for bringing ones' pals into an argument. Go back and read the whole thing if you wish to call me wrong, see how I had to find Mikey's study for him, after I cited my reference directly, and how I tried to concede the safety point to him but his vanity made him insist he was right.
@batvette again - getting vehicles to overtake properly, using the oncoming lane is recommended in government cycle training here, in the manual, and even in the Institute of Advanced Motorists' own material for cyclists (which you'd think would be all about "get in the gutter", but isn't).
My thought is perhaps this just represents a fundamental difference between the US and the rest of the world?
@batvette - for what it's worth, I don't think there's anything unique about riding in London.
Keeping away from the gutter and in the traffic flow is just simple common sense. So much so that it even made it into the government's official cycle training courses, their handbook and (bizarrely) is also recommended by the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
Yep - the motorists' own lobby recommends vehicular cycling. Who would have thought it?
@EdinburghFixed If by unique you mean nowhere else in the world I agree. If you mean there is not distinct differences in the safety risks and attitude of the drivers and the justice system prosecuting them between London and San Diego I would strongly disagree. Look at his video I cited below- he is at least 10 feet away from "the gutter" the entire time, I would suggest if he needs to ride that far out without falling off the road he get a tricycle or ride along on a tandem with his mum.
@batvette - agree (or at least, have no info) re: USA.
But on that video - it is literally out of the textbook. Since I have a copy, I will quote for you: "you should ride ... in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane ... here you will be well within the zone of maximum surveillance" This "should be your normal riding position" in situations such as that shown in the vid. (Cyclecraft - from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2007 ed)
@EdinburghFixed Thanks dude! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks batvette is wrong here. Freddotu is fairly telling in his untrained cyclist comment too.
@CyclingMikey I'm pretty sure Edinburghfixed saw several posts back where I said you had the legal right to that lane. Did he cite a different TRL study of UK cyclists fatalities and injuries other than the one I provided that matched your claim specifically and proved your claims were false? Didn't see that.
@batvette You're the liar sunbeam. You said I take the lane unnecessarily, holding up and provoking drivers. Everyone else here thinks your riding strategy is unwise and wrong.
Get some film up and show that you can walk the walk. Right now you're nothing more than an oxygen thief.
@CyclingMikey you know you've got to be the faggiest little child I've encountered on youtube in ages. You made a factual claim you were dead wrong about and have yet to concede after I brought the study to you for inspection- you clearly lied and have only since tried to call me a liar repeatedly to even the score- EVEN when I tried to be a gentleman and concede the overall point, you pressed your "facts". Then bringing a handful of mates to meatpuppet yourself-what a girl. Now with this (ctd)
@CyclingMikey Now why would I attempt to compile a collection of clips of me puttering about on a cycle so low nobody can see me, occupying entire lanes on smooth pavement because I cannot steer straight enough to stay out of "the gutter", forcing motorists into near head on collisions to avoid me and unnerving them with freight train blasts of a horn as they go by- then shouting obscenities at each other when we catch up? You're the expert at "jackass advocacy", I am no match for you, sir!
@batvette I expected you to have spotted at least one of my mistakes on video by now, but you haven't. I'm far from perfect, so it should be easy to find a couple to comment on. All your "criticisms" so far do nothing more than show your ignorance and lack of training.
@CyclingMikey That BMW video was enough to convince me your daily ride is a mission to enrage drivers in your twisted version of advocacy. So you got caught with your pants down getting your stats wrong and haven't gotten over it, good for you.
I hope you forget your tools and patch kit and get a flat tommorrow. Haha.
@CyclingMikey nonsense that if I am not willing to spam youtube with a match to your dozens of ventures looking for trouble and finding it- you're a real ambassador of goodwill for the cycling world to the motorists out there-I am to feel obligated to match. Don't put your mates up to things they didn't say, when their riding is not in question here.
You think dozens of videos of your near misses and shoutdowns by angry motorists you encounter proves your safety record? It displays a jackass.
@CyclingMikey Note you're so "right" that when I commented in a civil and pointed manner on my opinion of the cause of the incident with the BMW in that clip, you didn't post up the comment-rather protect your vanity, huh? I'm not the only one to see the problem:
"I ride in southern California USA.. and in spite of the number of cars we have here... I have never experienced the close calls, rude drivers and hatred against cyclist comments you get."
@EdinburghFixed I conceded he is in the legal right to "take the lane". Looking at the clip however, does he need to be where he is, when he sees that car in his rearview? He's not giving an inch and is at least 3 meters or more from the edge when he could be 1 meter in complete safety. Do all of you ride center lane on a 2 lane road all the time?
I searched for clear wording on UK law for cyclists on lane position, does it have any specifics on allowing cars by on a 2 lane?
@EdinburghFixed I only needed to watch up to 2:10 of that video. From 1:20 up to then you are riding where I and every sane cyclist rides at, you're about 2 feet from the edge of the road and holding position. No motorists stopped to call you a fucking stupid ass bloke, nor nearly caused a fatality driving into oncoming traffic to clear you.
I have no quarrel with you nor do I think cyclingmike could ever provoke me into one, as much as I'm sure he'd like to. You're also a lot faster than I!
@batvette Here's a good video of best practice from your part of the world, or near enough anyway. It's not confirming your world view at all. Again, I suggest you get some lessons. Despite your experience, you might learn something.
@batvette Physics applies regardless - by riding too close to the edge, you're encouraging motorists to give you as much space as you give yourself. I'm not suggesting you take the lane all the time, but only when necessary, such as through pinch points and junctions, past parked cars, etc. When riders learn to look back and negotiate out, this causes drivers to leave time and space that they otherwise wouldn't. It's playing the odds in our favour, and herding car drivers.
@CyclingMikey Seems the ones you hear about are the riders who have a name for strong advocacy. They are asserting their rights and often getting killed for expecting the cars to respect that. I don't think you have this problem across the pond, in New York there are documented cases of drivers who watch the same cyclist blow by them stuck in traffic for months, then one day for jealous revenge they veer across three lanes & run them down & flee. I saw your clips, you'd get run down here.
1. I think you're citing bogus figures, but that is really irrelevant so let's forget it.
2. I think you are right about the overall point and I've been negligent about riding too close to doors- however I've always been eagle eye about "headhunting" as I approach them. I'm adjusting my riding a bit.
3. UK is different than US, not just traffic situations but driver agression and courtesy, and laws if we get hit are lax here.
@batvette Just looking inside cars for occupants reduces the risk a little, but it's not the ideal solution. It's not unknown for us to miss occupants, or even for a driver to be bending over getting something out of the footwell whilst opening the door. I think the attention and focus of looking in cars is better spent on the rest of the situation around you, and this is why folks are taught to ride right out of the door zone so that there is no risk of being doored.
@CyclingMikey Overall though recognize I'm conceding the point to you that I have long ignored a risk I probably should have paid more attention to. However I am also not going to place that above all other dangers and stubbornly insist I have the same right to a traffic lane as cars when there is room to the right, the law may be with me doing so but the drivers don't care. Stats I can check show there's 3 times more risk for dying from that danger, and I've been clipped once already.
@batvette Oh, I'm not saying to always take the lane, but only when needed. Sometimes you'll make it easy for drivers to pass you, and other times you'll negotiate out into the traffic stream in advance of passing parked cars, junctions, or pinch points for example.
The order of priority should be for all road users:
My safety
Your safety
My convenience
Your convenience
Negotiation is the key point - looking, signalling, and waiting for that kind driver to let you out.
@batvette I ride this way for around 7,000 miles a year in London, and was trained as a cycling instructor. It works, because it's both sensible and safe.
@naughtyfeline In fairness, many drivers don't bother to drive outside of the door zone, perhaps because if someone doors them it's only a dent in the car, rather than serious injury or death as for a cyclist.
Makes me think of that police episode where the cops pulled over some hapless idiot, who stopped and opened his door, only to have it taken off by a tank transporter on the motorway.
Hey cyclists... get off the fucking road.
archon808 3 months ago
I'll waste some of my time in order to waste the time of others...
car776 3 months ago
gay and fake
philiphuynh 4 months ago
as fake as your balls in ur pants
Eiki7 5 months ago
The reflections in the window show that the creators were not careful, since you can see the bike already placed on the ground during the simulated "dooring". In addition, during a dooring, the back and front of the bike trade places, so showing the bicyclist lying on the ground with the bike pointing in the direction it was in before the collision is just bad staging.
CyclistLorax 5 months ago
fake and gay
everlastcro 8 months ago 7
I was just passed by two cyclists while waiting at a red light, they meandered on through the lights talking to each other, totally unaware of what they'd done, so I am not surprised at one of their number being "doored"
4meself 8 months ago
The main problem that I see with avoiding the door zone is that a lot of cyclists have a defeatist attitude and see themselves as lesser road users!! We are not and have every right to use as much of the lane required to ensure our safety! It's better to annoy a few motorists then it is to get doored!
maskofsan1ty 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
learn defensive riding. amateurs.
moldero 1 year ago
Let's hope that fewer cyclists ride so close to parked cars. this sort of thing is avoidable by riders.
EssieP 1 year ago
ahaha
undftdx10 1 year ago
And a door opening on me earlier this year, although thanks to cycle training I was out of the zone.
IJcwSCHavXE
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
Here's a good instructional door zone video for those riders like batvette who're a little unsure of the relative dangers:
1TQ7aID1jHs
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
Taking the lane might frustrate some people but not doing so the cyclist runs a severe risk which could even be fatal (a careless door opening knocks the cyclist into the path of a car/ lorry). I know what I'd rather do! Upset a few muppets v potential death, its not a hard choice.
HLaB75 1 year ago
@HLaB75 what I'm concluding from all this is: every ride is a careful balance of risks each rider weighs, the gravity of factors of each differing by region due to topography, traffic congestion, driver's respect for us, the laws they face if they don't, as well as the laws that dictate how we ride- how much of the road we're given and the relative pecking order placing us between cars and peds. What works in London will get you killed in Texas, and that pertains to much more than cycling!
batvette 1 year ago
@HLaB75 You need to balance the various dangers but also throw in a healthy dose of consideration for others. I'm fully aware of the risk of doors opening, but as long as I can ensure it's minimal (I can clearly see the cars aren't occupied, which rules out vans and SUVs) I will at times move across to make it easier for motor vehicles to pass, particularly if I sense they are getting stressed.
gadgetmind 1 year ago
@gadgetmind I like to think on the whole I do take a balanced approach and on the whole I'd say 99% of drivers don't show fustration but there's always tha 1% muppet population. I show plenty of consideration for that 99% but I admit I am less likely to show consideration for that 1%.
HLaB75 1 year ago
@HLaB75 I reckon that in Leeds we have a solid 5% of muppets, but it depends on area and time of night. In some places they are wall-to-wall, have no idea of the rules of the road, and no concept of consideration for others.
gadgetmind 1 year ago
Dooring is a very real risk, and something that cyclists need to be aware of, but in none of the (many) studies on accident causes I have read has it appeared as anything other than insignificant noise. Interestingly, being hit from behind is also pretty low, whereas ROWVs by motorvehicles at junctions features very highly.
gadgetmind 1 year ago
@gadgetmind "Interestingly, being hit from behind is also pretty low, whereas ROWVs by motorvehicles at junctions features very highly."
My recent research toward providing actual facts in the face of mikey's erroneous hysteria confirms that observation, and in fact being run down from behind is not the biggest risk in congested urban areas at all. It did weigh heavily in fatalities vs. serious accidents, the Cross Fisher report found it the top contributer in deaths- but in the US (ctd)
batvette 1 year ago
@gadgetmind and it is a study from the late 70's, though very thorough. Interesting to note one study in Texas found in that state the behind run down was by four times over the most common fatality, we can be sure that due to the contrasts in driver and road factors it's not terribly relevant in London nor is London relevant there. Many US cyclists don't yet have the luxury of favorable traffic laws, we are at the bottom of the pecking order.
batvette 1 year ago
I have been millimetres from being doored in the past myself. There was a narrow road, parked cars to my left and oncoming traffic. I had about a handlebars worth of space to filter through and some bloke in a 4x4 waited until the last second to throw the door open. He'd assumed because cars couldnt get though that it was safe. A motorcyclist would have taken the door clean off.
It doesnt take much just to look.
downfader2 1 year ago
So like taking a lane, I could be in the right, by just walking into the intersection, but as they used to say, "you're in the right- dead right!"
Usually the 10th car or so will wake up and realize they have to stop for a pedestrian. You can tell many WILL run you down if you step out tho. Insane.
batvette 1 year ago
I was just thinking about a situation that allows you to envision US drivers: About 5 blocks from my house is a very busy but small (one lane each way) city street, used by many drivers who go through my area. So busy I usually dismount and cross as a pedestrian, which at an intersection they are required to yield to me. They rarely do, in fact I have to force them to stop by walking in front of them carrying my bike overhead- the other day a guy honked and cussed at me to get out of his way!
batvette 1 year ago
he dead
cmmdrsquid 1 year ago
stay off the road.
chopperkeith 1 year ago
The cyclist shouldn't have been driving so close to the car. But as many times as I've been sideswiped and knocked over by some asshole cyclist, whilst walking, I've learned that many of them aren't really bothered about being considerate and watching where the fuck they're going.
Libbathegreat 1 year ago
i know people will fault this vid for being staged, but yeah, that's basically how it looks when you go down cuz someone can't take the nanosecond to check behind them
bikegeek6666 1 year ago
Just got doored for the first time today. My hand, knee, and shoulder got bloodied and my bike was somewhat damaged, but I was relatively unscathed. I totally ignored the dude when he asked if I was alright because I was afraid I was gonna flip and smash his head through a window. I bandaged myself up at the local store and pedalled on. I don't have time for cops, insurance, etc when its just skin wounds.
ctrlaltdlt01 1 year ago
If you're gonna ride in the door zone, you should at least slow down. Door zones are usually near pedestrian areas anyways, where you have to watch out for people (especially children) as well.
firstlearnbalance 1 year ago
If you're that close to a car, then you're an idiot. Motor vehicles avoid car doors constantly, and motor vehicles are 4x wider then a bicycle.
naughtyfeline 2 years ago
Then why do hundreds of cyclists get doored each year? Are they all idiots? Or are they driving in busy urban roads where there isn't space to ride at a safe distance from the door?
MartinBarryLadder 2 years ago
@MartinBarryLadder I'd say they're idiots.
naughtyfeline 2 years ago
Many people are too intimidated by cars to ride outside the door zone. They're no idiots, they just need some education and confidence.
Gavreeli 2 years ago
@naughtyfeline Don't be silly, motor vehicles avoid the "door zone" because they don't have to share their lane with cars trying to drive over or through them! You've obviously never ridden a bicycle in traffic. If bicycles did what you're thinking and occupied a whole lane motorists would scream bloody murder.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette So should bicycles. Take the lane is what is taught in National Standards/bikeability when passing parked cars - 7 feet of space.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago 5
@CyclingMikey How many streets do we ride on in the real world where you feel more safe "taking the lane" from traffic overtaking you from behind? How many deaths per year are there from cyclists being run down from behind VS getting doored? Probably 100 to 1! This "taking the lane" sounds good and all from the view of bike advocacy but some motorists feel we are something to drive over or around, not wait for. Many will nudge you off into the parked cars, it happened to me once & he kept going.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette No, the single biggest cause of both deaths and serious injuries for cyclists is being doored.
I strongly recommend you take some vehicular cycling lessons, they will transform your riding life. They'll teach you when to take the lane, and when to be submissive, how to negotiate out into the traffic flow, looking back, and proper signalling, etc. See user "freddotu" here on youtube. He may be able to help you find suitable lessons in your area.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey Where did you get that statistic? this is from the Cross-Fisher report:
"Although seven other problem types occurred more frequently than Problem Type 13, this problem type must be considered one of the most important because it accounted for nearly one-fourth of all fatal accidents in the sample—three times as many as any other problem type (p. 72). "
Anyway each area is unique for the rider, in Calif we don't allow window tint on driver's windows. I'm not riding (ctd)
batvette 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey out just to prove a point for advocacy when there isn't 7 ft to take without being run down by cars who only get more callous towards us if we're asserting our right to the road more than necessary.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Your comments are common from untrained riders. It's a perception failure, where you fail to appreciate the large danger from being doored, and the much much smaller risk of being hit by a vehicle from behind.
My data comes from London, UK. Yes, there are differences between cities and countries, but I maintain my point that you're unaware of just how dangerous it is to ride in the door zone. Don't do it, folks.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey I'm 48 and I've never been without a bicycle, a day at your "school" wouldn't make me a genius or qualify my commenting here.
I've never hit a door but I HAVE been knocked into a parked car by an unpatient driver overtaking me.
Anway I cited an official study, you say your "data comes from London UK". I think you're pulling facts out of your arse here. Got a link? I'm not minimizing the dangers of car doors but if you have to make up statistics to support your position.....
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette My facts come from an official Transport Research Laboratory study.
Your own anecdote does not data make, it's you making up stats. On the contrary, it's that riding submissively encourages drivers to pass too closely. Had you been a little further out, that driver most likely would have given you more, not less, room.
You can cycle with less than best practice and get away with it for years simply because cycling is so safe. Even in the USA, where it's less safe than the UK.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey Which TRL report had that data in it? I didn't see a comprehensive study in the 59 results displayed in a reports search of the word bicycle on the TRL site, and I'd be interested in getting my facts straight before I fooolishly spout off about it in the future. :-P
I can't share your advice about riding less submissively, in the US the laws of physics do apply and my bicycle and his car could not occupy the same space. There was a car on the other side of him and he wanted by.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette I forget which one now, but its subject was cycling collision causes in London, UK, and I distinctly remember surprising a local academic who thought that KSIs (both killed and seriously injured) were caused by lorries (trucks) foremost, when it was dooring in that study. Lorries were the biggest cause of fatalities.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey well describing how you sold someone else on your bogus figures isn't quite showing me they are legit now, is it? HOWEVER I want to say over the last couple days I've been riding thinking about this issue and giving doors some extra room so I concede you have a good point on this. I will say the "take the lane" part bothered me more than the"avoid the door zone". Why? In the US there are drivers who hate cyclists and there are those who run them over with little remorse. (ctd)
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Bogus figures? I don't think so, and, no, it's most definitely a real study. Whilst I make mistakes, I wouldn't mislead you on something like this. Perhaps you could be a little less conflict oriented?
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey I never thought you were intentionally presenting those numbers as fraudulent, they were probably presented to you by someone else long ago and you've had no reason to disbelieve them. Saying it's from a TRL report is pretty vague, as I indicated I went to their site and took some time trying to find a comprehensive report on bicycle accidents and fatalities- none were obvious and those jerks want 30 pounds to even look at most of their materials. I provided a passage from (ctd)
batvette 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey the Cross-Fisher study, a well known document,(there's only one so there is no ambiguity of hundreds of studies one must pay to even peruse) and it is verbatim. It says the number of fatalities from people being run down from behind is over three times higher than any other problem.
Did you read this "TRL study" yourself?
Conflicts? It was you that posted on me, and you did make some condescending comments including being "untrained". I love to argue when I believe I'm right!
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Yes, I read this study myself.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey Being dodgey won't prevent you from being owned on this. Google "TRL study bicycle fatalities Sydney" and click on the first hit, at the bottom of the page you will see a link to the latest comprehensive study by TRL on bicycle accidents. Page 37, table 7-6. cause 904... at 4%, indicates you aren't just a little bit wrong, you are hopelessly, incredibly, totally WRONG old chap!
Now that I've won an internet argument I will go tell all my friends and have a trophy made for myself.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette That doesn't match the study I saw, where the biggest cause of fatalities came from HGVs, and the biggest cause of KSIs was dooring.
I'm glad you've conceded the point though.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@batvette google for this: Pedal-Cyclist-Casualties-04-05.pdf
Table 14 (serious) summary • 10% (the most common conflict)
involved the door of the other vehicle
being opened into the path of the P/C
and the cyclist either hitting it or
swerving to avoid it
It's not the exact study I recall reading, but is very close. Besides, it doesn't matter whether dooring is the most serious cause, only that it's ranked right up there to show that you really want to respect the door zone.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey My original comment was "deaths". You went on to specifically claim that figure for fatalities several times, which is in error. Yet the table you cite is only for serious injuries, when you go to fatalities it drops to 3rd. I'd rather be hurt than dead! AS WELL that study is exclusive to the greater London area, obviously (as the TRL study which included the entire UK proves) getting doored occurs more often in London than elsewhere.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette No I did not. I've talked about KSIs right from the start. Fatalities only in relation to HGVs. Please don't debate so dishonestly.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey Typical liar, when caught you can only try and portray your opponent as a liar to bring him down to your level. Are you denying you said this?
" No, the single biggest cause of both deaths and serious injuries for cyclists is being doored."
you said nothing of HGVs until FOUR posts and FOUR DAYS later and that was ambiguous:
" thought that KSIs (both killed and seriously injured) were caused by lorries (trucks) foremost, when it was dooring in that study."
Deny this?
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Excuse me? KSI - killed and seriously injured, in other words both deaths and serious injuries. If you interpreted that wrongly, I'm sorry. Now that you're adopting these tactics, I think it's time to bow out and leave.
You've at least conceded my point about staying out of the door zone.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey "it doesn't matter whether dooring is the most serious cause"
It did before you were proven wrong!
You claimed your figures were for THE UK (not merely london)and included FATALITIES. Watching your video clips reveals practice in London is a unique situation irrelevant to elsewhere.
However BOTH studies reveal the biggest risk in the UK was NOT being run down from behind, so it's not surprising you don't recognize a risk that most studies in the US list as number one.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Rubbish. My point right from the very start has been that you should not ignore the risk of being doored as you suggested. It's a major risk to cyclists, which is why you should never ride in the door zone.
Good cycling practice in London is not unique to London. Vehicular cycling is just as well known in the US. I suggest again you go and get some cycling lessons. You might learn something, rather than carry on pushing your bias and poor practice.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey No need to get angry just because you've been proven wrong.
"you should not ignore the risk of being doored "
Which I've conceded.
"you should never ride in the door zone."
and this is where I have to say if you focus on this one risk many of us are going to get killed. It's up to individual discretion to weigh risks, one study of Texas state I saw found getting run down from behind was 4 times more likely than any other fatality. London has a lot of streetside parking (ctd)
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette in business districts on narrow streets close to 1000 years old, people are parking and exiting their vehicles then returning to be replaced by another many times a day. New York City might be similar, not many others here in the US. US Bicyclists don't get the legal or driver respect you get where we can just "take the lane" and expect proper prosecution of negligence. You're trying to convince peoples' entire safety philosophy center on one niche factor you've had to skew to justify.
batvette 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey When did I suggest anyone ignore the risk? C/P the statement, please. You needn't provide more condescending remarks about my needing "training", what were you doing in 1967 while I was riding around the streets of San Jose when I lost the training wheels? Born yet? Your upload "R142BAR swerves at me" speaks 10,000 words, you're a PROBLEM RIDER, pal. You're 10 feet into the traffic lane with no reason to at all and filming it to criticize the guy. You'd be a dead man here (ctd)
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette I'm not the one with the anger and aggression problem. ;) At 30-40mph, you'd be pretty stupid to be riding in the gutter in that situation (R142BAR).
Here's my challenge to you - get a headcam, mounted on your head, and upload some footage of your cycling, and then let's discuss how you ride. I promise to be constructive, but I suspect you won't have the courage. If you don't have a camera, you can get an MD80 clone for less than $20 on eBay.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey and I can't say anyone should weep for you is so because it appears you'd have been wanting it to happen in your twisted form of "advocacy". I'm not wishing you harm but you aren't trying to co-exist with autos, you are insisting they all recognize your right to share the road with them even when you don't need all you're taking. That endangers us all by breeding their contempt. Your riding in that video is stupid! You're forcing them into oncoming lanes to get by you!
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette That's simply because you're misinterpreting risk. It would be a very ignorant and careless rider who sits in the gutter at 40mph on a narrow road. Of course cars should overtake in the oncoming lane - that's how proper overtakes are done. I suggest you look at the picture in the "highway code rule 163" to show just how wrong you are. Google it.
I think you shouldn't comment again until you've posted some video of your own riding, otherwise you're all mouth and no trousers.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey I'd say no videos of my riding is safer to the cycling world than convincing other riders that taking a full lane for no reason whatsoever other than to piss off motorists so I can film their reaction and post it on youtube is a good idea.
BTW I can't see what kind of machine you're on but I'm pretty sure it's one of these:
watch?v=Ui4kI-RHS1Q
m I right?
Seriously, Mikey, I'm glad I looked at your clips to see what your brand of "safety" was about. Looking for trouble!
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette If you don't produce video, then we'll have to consider you yellow-bellied. No, I ride a number of different bikes.
Suggesting to ride in the gutter at 40mph, given that the most common cycling crash is a single vehicle one, dear oh dear. I suppose it's good that cycling is such a safe activity, as that's the main reason why riders can get away with poor practice like yours for so long.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey It's my experience that people that realize they are being filmed, or put on head cams go on to make complete asses of themselves while undertaking otherwise completely safe endeavors, today convinced me even more so no thank you.
Can you copy and paste me telling anyone to ride in the gutter? That's a lie, as is your claim of 40 MPH. Joke! How could I suggest you do something like that? Maybe downhill with a stiff wind pushed by the lorry that flattens you for hogging the road?
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Ahahahahahaahaahaa, I'm not the angry one here, nor the liar. Yes, you've exactly suggested I should ride in the gutter when you claim I'm "holding up the car" and needlessly taking the lane. Rubbish.
I'm doing 30mph at the start of the R142BAR video, and I'm doing 40mph in the fast section after his overtake. It's a slight downhill, and I'm also riding a very fast recumbent. I reach 40mph on almost every commute, although not usually more than 30-35 here on this section.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey No I'm not "exactly suggesting", I either said it or I didn't and I did not.
Your lie: That "being doored is the number one cause of serious injury and fatalities in the UK."
Do not change any particulars, did you claim that or not?
Sad you have to summon a handful of gentlemen to back you up, none of whom seem to realize the obvious: If you are such a safe rider, why is it you have many dozens of videos of you nearly being killed and drivers shouting obscenities at you?
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette, I hear far too often that my riding in a safe manner is going to "piss off motorists" yet I've found the complete opposite to be true. A motorist is going to be looking in the lane, where I am, is going to see me and is going to make appropriate allowances in a safe, timely manner. He is not going to have to take evasive action to narrowly miss me because I'm off to the edge of the lane out of his line of sight.
freddotu 1 year ago
I'm not sure what your style of riding is, but if it's based on "staying out of the way" when you should be controlling a sub-standard width lane, you've probably had your share of near-collisions, or close passes. It's fine to endanger your own life, but don't jump all over a safe cyclist because you imagine he's pissing off motorists. If you've not been trained in safe cycling practices, you aren't in a position to criticize.
freddotu 1 year ago
@freddotu In the end can you explain to me why Mikey needs to be at least 10 feet from the edge, forcing that BMW into oncoming in that video? He's not staying out of any gutter, there is no gutter- most of his videos depict similar behaviour- provoking drivers into dangerous maneuvers so he can film their bad behaviour and post it here. I can stay within a 3 ft range of that painted line for miles with one hand and I suspect so can he. He caused that incident himself. You think this helps us?
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette, I'm not sure where you get the idea that he is provoking drivers for the sole purpose of recording their actions. My daily commutes involve plenty of drivers operating in an unsafe manner, including those on bicycles and in motor vehicles. I'm not provoking anyone, but they do appear on video. It happens, it gets recorded, there's no provocation involved.
freddotu 1 year ago
@freddotu I haven't seen your videos, thus I'm not criticizing you. There are certainly bad drivers out there. Here's another example of foolishness: "D4N OK Aggressive overtake and road rage".
Okay, the driver was speeding and a tool. However what's the purpose of blasting an airzound, an obnoxiously loud horn, right at him as he's going by? If his window's open, this isn't a warning to see an unseen cyclist, it scares the bejeezus out of the driver at the moment precise control is vital.
batvette 1 year ago
@freddotu I'm sorry but I don't see people stopping, hopping our of their cars and shouting obscenities at me on my rides. In fact it's never happened to me in over 40 years of riding.
I can't help but feel if we all saw similar events on a regular basis we'd have a building bad sentiment amongst motorists who only wish to share the road with us and go about their business. Do you think that incident with the BMW would have ended that way had he been 1.5 meters- about 5 feet- from the edge?
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette I caused a driver to speed, to swerve at me, and to overtake in a careless manner? Of course not, a bad driver did that all on his own, and only he is responsible for that behaviour. Your post is nothing more than contemptible victim blaming.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@freddotu I can see where this is going, Cycling Mike is angry his attempt to portray me as a liar failed and was itself another lie. I don't know you or EdinberghFixed but the term "meatpuppets" is the common term for bringing ones' pals into an argument. Go back and read the whole thing if you wish to call me wrong, see how I had to find Mikey's study for him, after I cited my reference directly, and how I tried to concede the safety point to him but his vanity made him insist he was right.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette again - getting vehicles to overtake properly, using the oncoming lane is recommended in government cycle training here, in the manual, and even in the Institute of Advanced Motorists' own material for cyclists (which you'd think would be all about "get in the gutter", but isn't).
My thought is perhaps this just represents a fundamental difference between the US and the rest of the world?
EdinburghFixed 1 year ago
@batvette - for what it's worth, I don't think there's anything unique about riding in London.
Keeping away from the gutter and in the traffic flow is just simple common sense. So much so that it even made it into the government's official cycle training courses, their handbook and (bizarrely) is also recommended by the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
Yep - the motorists' own lobby recommends vehicular cycling. Who would have thought it?
EdinburghFixed 1 year ago
@EdinburghFixed If by unique you mean nowhere else in the world I agree. If you mean there is not distinct differences in the safety risks and attitude of the drivers and the justice system prosecuting them between London and San Diego I would strongly disagree. Look at his video I cited below- he is at least 10 feet away from "the gutter" the entire time, I would suggest if he needs to ride that far out without falling off the road he get a tricycle or ride along on a tandem with his mum.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette - agree (or at least, have no info) re: USA.
But on that video - it is literally out of the textbook. Since I have a copy, I will quote for you: "you should ride ... in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane ... here you will be well within the zone of maximum surveillance" This "should be your normal riding position" in situations such as that shown in the vid. (Cyclecraft - from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2007 ed)
Let's be fair- that is the published advice.
EdinburghFixed 1 year ago
@EdinburghFixed Thanks dude! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks batvette is wrong here. Freddotu is fairly telling in his untrained cyclist comment too.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey I'm pretty sure Edinburghfixed saw several posts back where I said you had the legal right to that lane. Did he cite a different TRL study of UK cyclists fatalities and injuries other than the one I provided that matched your claim specifically and proved your claims were false? Didn't see that.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette You're the liar sunbeam. You said I take the lane unnecessarily, holding up and provoking drivers. Everyone else here thinks your riding strategy is unwise and wrong.
Get some film up and show that you can walk the walk. Right now you're nothing more than an oxygen thief.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey you know you've got to be the faggiest little child I've encountered on youtube in ages. You made a factual claim you were dead wrong about and have yet to concede after I brought the study to you for inspection- you clearly lied and have only since tried to call me a liar repeatedly to even the score- EVEN when I tried to be a gentleman and concede the overall point, you pressed your "facts". Then bringing a handful of mates to meatpuppet yourself-what a girl. Now with this (ctd)
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Insults and personal attacks? LMAO!!
Put up your video, or carry on with nothing more than hot air and lies.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey Now why would I attempt to compile a collection of clips of me puttering about on a cycle so low nobody can see me, occupying entire lanes on smooth pavement because I cannot steer straight enough to stay out of "the gutter", forcing motorists into near head on collisions to avoid me and unnerving them with freight train blasts of a horn as they go by- then shouting obscenities at each other when we catch up? You're the expert at "jackass advocacy", I am no match for you, sir!
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette I expected you to have spotted at least one of my mistakes on video by now, but you haven't. I'm far from perfect, so it should be easy to find a couple to comment on. All your "criticisms" so far do nothing more than show your ignorance and lack of training.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey That BMW video was enough to convince me your daily ride is a mission to enrage drivers in your twisted version of advocacy. So you got caught with your pants down getting your stats wrong and haven't gotten over it, good for you.
I hope you forget your tools and patch kit and get a flat tommorrow. Haha.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette That's the mature way you behave at 48? I'm sure you're a little nicer in real life.
I fixed a cycling bus driver's puncture on Saturday. ;)
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey nonsense that if I am not willing to spam youtube with a match to your dozens of ventures looking for trouble and finding it- you're a real ambassador of goodwill for the cycling world to the motorists out there-I am to feel obligated to match. Don't put your mates up to things they didn't say, when their riding is not in question here.
You think dozens of videos of your near misses and shoutdowns by angry motorists you encounter proves your safety record? It displays a jackass.
batvette 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey Note you're so "right" that when I commented in a civil and pointed manner on my opinion of the cause of the incident with the BMW in that clip, you didn't post up the comment-rather protect your vanity, huh? I'm not the only one to see the problem:
"I ride in southern California USA.. and in spite of the number of cars we have here... I have never experienced the close calls, rude drivers and hatred against cyclist comments you get."
Hatred against cyclists. Great "advocacy"
batvette 1 year ago
@EdinburghFixed I conceded he is in the legal right to "take the lane". Looking at the clip however, does he need to be where he is, when he sees that car in his rearview? He's not giving an inch and is at least 3 meters or more from the edge when he could be 1 meter in complete safety. Do all of you ride center lane on a 2 lane road all the time?
I searched for clear wording on UK law for cyclists on lane position, does it have any specifics on allowing cars by on a 2 lane?
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette - for example you can see me ride on PqKgvt7PFQ. No point being too far out when well under the speed limit (but still, not in the gutter).
On the other hand when I am not going slowly, I do ride far enough into the road to become part of the traffic stream, yeah.
The only law really that comes to mind, is that if causing an obstruction, you have to periodically pull over to let queues clear.
EdinburghFixed 1 year ago
@EdinburghFixed I only needed to watch up to 2:10 of that video. From 1:20 up to then you are riding where I and every sane cyclist rides at, you're about 2 feet from the edge of the road and holding position. No motorists stopped to call you a fucking stupid ass bloke, nor nearly caused a fatality driving into oncoming traffic to clear you.
I have no quarrel with you nor do I think cyclingmike could ever provoke me into one, as much as I'm sure he'd like to. You're also a lot faster than I!
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Here's a good video of best practice from your part of the world, or near enough anyway. It's not confirming your world view at all. Again, I suggest you get some lessons. Despite your experience, you might learn something.
v2RZMANlHls
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@batvette Physics applies regardless - by riding too close to the edge, you're encouraging motorists to give you as much space as you give yourself. I'm not suggesting you take the lane all the time, but only when necessary, such as through pinch points and junctions, past parked cars, etc. When riders learn to look back and negotiate out, this causes drivers to leave time and space that they otherwise wouldn't. It's playing the odds in our favour, and herding car drivers.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey Seems the ones you hear about are the riders who have a name for strong advocacy. They are asserting their rights and often getting killed for expecting the cars to respect that. I don't think you have this problem across the pond, in New York there are documented cases of drivers who watch the same cyclist blow by them stuck in traffic for months, then one day for jealous revenge they veer across three lanes & run them down & flee. I saw your clips, you'd get run down here.
batvette 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey So in closing:
1. I think you're citing bogus figures, but that is really irrelevant so let's forget it.
2. I think you are right about the overall point and I've been negligent about riding too close to doors- however I've always been eagle eye about "headhunting" as I approach them. I'm adjusting my riding a bit.
3. UK is different than US, not just traffic situations but driver agression and courtesy, and laws if we get hit are lax here.
4. Thanks for your advocacy.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Just looking inside cars for occupants reduces the risk a little, but it's not the ideal solution. It's not unknown for us to miss occupants, or even for a driver to be bending over getting something out of the footwell whilst opening the door. I think the attention and focus of looking in cars is better spent on the rest of the situation around you, and this is why folks are taught to ride right out of the door zone so that there is no risk of being doored.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@CyclingMikey Overall though recognize I'm conceding the point to you that I have long ignored a risk I probably should have paid more attention to. However I am also not going to place that above all other dangers and stubbornly insist I have the same right to a traffic lane as cars when there is room to the right, the law may be with me doing so but the drivers don't care. Stats I can check show there's 3 times more risk for dying from that danger, and I've been clipped once already.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette Oh, I'm not saying to always take the lane, but only when needed. Sometimes you'll make it easy for drivers to pass you, and other times you'll negotiate out into the traffic stream in advance of passing parked cars, junctions, or pinch points for example.
The order of priority should be for all road users:
My safety
Your safety
My convenience
Your convenience
Negotiation is the key point - looking, signalling, and waiting for that kind driver to let you out.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@batvette I ride this way for around 7,000 miles a year in London, and was trained as a cycling instructor. It works, because it's both sensible and safe.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
@naughtyfeline In fairness, many drivers don't bother to drive outside of the door zone, perhaps because if someone doors them it's only a dent in the car, rather than serious injury or death as for a cyclist.
Makes me think of that police episode where the cops pulled over some hapless idiot, who stopped and opened his door, only to have it taken off by a tank transporter on the motorway.
CyclingMikey 1 year ago
I almost got doored a year ago. The guy that got doored in this video could have at least groaned in pain.
kebobo 2 years ago
@kebobo let's say he almost groaned then.
batvette 1 year ago
@batvette yes, let's
kebobo 1 year ago
I know the message is important, but it just looks so fake it hilarious!
theoneandonlygames 2 years ago
Let's hope that if more drivers see this they'll look in the side mirror before opening the door
MartinTBarry 3 years ago