It's Our City is a project that uses TV, Radio and Web
to promote civic engagement in the Philadelphia region.Getting “Doored”: More on the perils of bicycle commuting
Monday, January 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm - by Dan Pohlig. Filed under: Transportation.
Alan and I seem to have fallen into a pattern in which I defend the rights of cycling commuters while he takes the side of motorists. Mind you, neither of us are advocating for people in either group who wantonly disregard traffic laws or engage in any kind of activity that intentionally puts people in danger. However, our disagreements happen because I tend to take a pretty liberal view of how traffic laws should apply to cyclists and how the relationship between bikes and cars should work, while Alan is a pretty strict traffic law constructionist.
We also tend to leave pedestrians out of the conversation for simplicty’s sake, (though Alan’s quote of the hour is “they have sidewalks. What more do they want?”)
Well, this morning our conversations on issue - and my writing about it - became much more relevant as one of WHYY’s own experienced every cyclist’s worst nightmare - getting doored. After spending most of today in the ER, she’s ok, though a little banged up. For those of you not familiar with the term “getting doored,” it’s when a cyclist, using that thin slice of street between parked cars and the lanes of traffic, gets hit by a car door opened by a driver or passenger exiting their car without looking. This piece of the street is the only piece left to cyclist in parts of the city with a parking lane and two lanes of traffic going in one direction.
Vigilant cyclists can usually avoid most major accidents just by paying attention. For example, it’s easy to look both ways to avoid getting hit by a car running a red light or stop sign. Most cyclists also know to approach intersections with caution or avoid the blind spots of cars when riding on the right side of the street to avoid getting “right hooked.” Getting doored, however, can happen even when the cyclist is doing just about everything else right. And it almost never has the action-packed and hilarious consequences of this scene from The Tuxedo (about 6:37 into the clip). In fact, it can be tragic as this ongoing list of cyclists killed by dooring at BicycleSafety.com demonstrates.
At night or in traffic, it’s often hard to see drivers in parked cars and anticipate when a door might open. In fact cyclists in traffic are most often concerned with paying attention to the moving cars on their left and trusting that the parked cars on their right won’t hurt them. The onus, it seems, should fall on the exiting driver or passenger who could, with very little extra time or effort, check their side view and rear view mirror or turn and look back before opening the door. Most drivers wouldn’t open the door without checking to make sure a SEPTA bus wasn’t bearing down on them. Why should it be any different when checking for a cyclist? I happen to be a hybrid, spending roughly half my time getting around by bike and half by car, so I’m well aware of cyclist concerns and always check to make sure that I’m not going to take out a cyclist with my door.
In terms of my ideal view of the relationship between drivers and cyclists, the extra effort to look back seems like a small price for drivers to pay when you consider the alternative. BicycleSafety.com suggests that to avoid being doored, cyclists should essentially assert their rights as moving vehicles:
Ride to the left. Ride far enough to the left that you won’t run into any door that’s opened unexpectedly. You may be wary about riding so far into the lane that cars can’t pass you easily, but you’re more likely to get doored by a parked car if you ride too close to it than you are to get hit from behind by a car which can clearly see you.
We’ll also refer to this as the “Alan Tu” position though for reasons that are far more sinister and pro-motorist than I have time to go into here. (We’ll discuss this on our Crossfire-style podcast on this issue.)
Obviously, while this is technically the way traffic regulations would suggest we behave, the motorist side of my hybrid-commuting self recognizes the benefits for cars if bikes squeeze over and allow vehicles to pass them. In fact many of the benefits of getting more people on bikes and out of cars - including reducing congestion for the cars that are left - could be lost if bikes take up the same lane space as cars but at a slower speed. (Pedestrians would definitely be the big winners in this situation.)
This whole discussion has assumed that we’re talking about streets without clearly marked bike lanes. Let’s use Spruce and Pine as examples of Center City Streets that go in opposite directions but do not function as major arterials like Arch, Market, Chestnut and Walnut. Well, the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia has some really cool ideas:
The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Phila. reimagines Pine Street with a bike lane protected from traffic by the parking lane.
This would become part of an effort, as BCGP says, for a dedicated east-west route through Center City. The bike lane is sufficiently buffered from the parked cars to prevent doorings and totally separated from moving traffic. In fact, the only potential danger is for the driver who inadvertently steps into the bike lane without looking. But again, if your car were parked on the right side of the street pictured above, would you step into traffic without checking?
Once we solve this in the city, then we can turn our attention to the suburbs. Because of something I read this weekend, I intended to write about cyclist/pedestrian and transportation issues today even before I learned of my colleague’s unfortunate accident. This editorial in Saturday’s New York Times refers to some of the highway and parkway dependent suburbs of Long Island, but the image of a working class cyclist commuting to work from his or her affordable suburban home fits just as easily in Newtown Square along West Chester Pike, or in Abington along Rt. 611 or in Bucks County on Route 1.
Feel free to take a side in Alan’s and my motorist-cyclist debate. I realize I haven’t sufficiently laid out Alan’s positions but let’s just leave it at “pro-motorist” and let you interpret that however you want. We’d also appreciate it if someone wants to take up for the pedestrian. We welcome your thoughts in the comments section.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
may i just add that the dooring was perpetrated not by a driver getting out of a parked car, but by a passenger hopping out of a car that was in the middle of the street. are there any laws governing where and when passengers exit vehicles?
January 12th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I’d say, in that case, Mad Maxx rules apply and cyclist should be allowed to fashion weapons out his or her mangled front wheel or handle bars and exact the appropriate justice. Anyway, I don’t know how you reacted but I think I would have reached into some of my more choice vocabulary words to communicate with the offending passenger.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Dear victim. Please get better. This should serve as a lesson why bikes don’t belong on the roads in a busy metropolitan area. Unfortunately city planners forget to incorporate cyclists. But until Philadelphia has the money to develop a true city bike path system, I’d suggest putting your bike in the rack conveniently placed on many Septa buses.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Yep… Tu and Pohlig… like the Hannity and Colmes of cyclist issues… except that means I have to be squirrelly looking Alan Colmes.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Alan: If you’re going to take an attitude of “screw the other guy”, one could just as easily take the other position. For example, if the driver was liable for damages when opening the car door, and it wasn’t only the cyclist that had something to lose (IANAL. Is that the case?): “Leave your car at the Park & Ride. The city wasn’t originally designed to accommodate cars, just pedestrians, horses and cyclists.”
January 12th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Here, here Anonymous Coward! That’s the EXACT point that I made to Alan. Horses, buggies, bikes THEN cars. Cars are the interlopers here. (not so much in the burbs or other cities)
January 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Dear A.C. My point is sidewalks are for people, streets are for cars. I am aware that current law allows for bicyclists to operate as cars do. But this simply doesn’t work because the roads are too narrow and I’m having a hard enough time navigating my SUV (small one) in Society Hill. I don’t want to be responsible for running over a bike rider. Some of my best friends rode bikes (in 8th grade).
January 12th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
@Alan in re an earlier post…do you imagine the bike will be used at some city-authorized biking area once the Septa bus arrives?
i wonder what the dooring rates are here…i’ve never lived in a place where all i needed to get anywhere was a bike. that lifestyle is so wonderful that it’s worth the risks (even after fully understanding the consequences (*ouch*)). i bet other injured bikers feel the same way.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Since we’re making arbitrary rules so you can hold important calls with your grown-up friends while driving, should my motorcyclist and scooter-riding friends just play in the Walmart parking lot, or can they play with the grown-ups too?
January 12th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
To avoid getting doored, you’ve got to get away from the door zone. It’s safer.
Regarding traffic laws: Paul Dorn (the guy who wrote “The Bike Commute Guide” book) has his observations on why traffic laws exist. And Tom Vanderbilt in his book _Traffic_ discusses the taboos that motorists have regarding traffic laws, and why it infuriates many motorists so much when they see cyclists and pedestrians take a more relaxed attitude toward stop signs. If you don’t have the book, here’s a hint: When a motorist runs a red light, somebody can die.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Forgot one final reality check: If cyclists should avoid public roads because they’re too dangerous, perhaps motorists should do the same: 40,000 motorists and their passengers die each year in the United States, compared to 700 cyclists.
That ratio just about matches the modal share, so in reality, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
In the cars vs. bikes vs. pedestrians issue, most people seem to care only about themselves. Cars stop in crosswalks because it lets them get through the intersection a tenth of a second faster. Pedestrians cross streets wherever and whenever it suits them. Bicyclists ride wherever they can, following whatever rules they want. Common courtesy is dead.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
@ A.C. Thank you for bringing up Scooters and Motorcycles. Both these motorized versions of bikes should be allowed full access to the roads. The reason is that their motors allow them to accelerate and cruise and speeds similar to cars. They work because they the don’t impede traffic. While bicyclists have the legal right to the roadways they can’t keep up with cars. So it’s a problem if they try to fill a full lane, and if they try to hug the edge in some imaginary bike lane, then they get door’ed. I say those who have a need to pedal should take a bus to a YMCA and use the stationary bikes. Now I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I’m anti-bike. I just think that having laws that say bikes and cars are equal is fine until someone gets flattened by a Septa bus.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Ah but Alan, if you’re suggesting that all of the bikers take to driving… each in their own car… then you as a motorist would actually end up getting slowed down in your commute to work. I’m perfectly willing to make the sacrifice of riding a bike to work but now I think I want to cash in on the positive externality that I’m generating by sparing the world of CO2 and relieving congestion on the streets.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Dan you are very perceptive. I see that Ivy League loan you’re still paying off is finally showing some dividends. This is true that more cars will create more congestion. But since I’m “pro-life” in this debate over bikes on the roads and you are pro-choice in this debate, I’m happy to spend 15 minutes more in the car to ensure that our co-worker a/k/a “the victim” can live to see her children drive Hummer 7’s. I do advocate public transportation as a way alleviete congestion and reduce pollution. I am the proud owner of a monthly Septa pass, which should at least show I’m not a card carrying AAA member.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am
@victim. Yesterday you wrote “do you imagine the bike will be used at some city-authorized biking area once the Septa bus arrives?”
Answer: Yes, these are called Parks. Many of these have paved bike paths that make a complete circle. I was recently in Amsterdam, which as we know is a progressive city, and they let bicyclists roam like buffalo. Do you know how dangerous this was as a cash-carrying tourist? This made it quite difficult for me to cross the roads to spend my money. I think the better solution is for bike enthusiasts would be to spend Saturdays at a government sanctioned energy farm where stationary bikes are used to generate additional kilowatts into the Grid. For every household’s worth of energy you produce, you would lose 10 lbs and receive a coupon from Baskin Robbins.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Alan, I’m not sure where you come off thinking that cities were designed for you and your SUVs…
Cities are concentrated areas for urban living and commerce. Not SUV’s, lawns, huge gardens, cul de sacs, and highway-like driving.
Complex systems of mass transportation can take you in and out of the city. Maybe you’re the one who should reconsider.
Cities are IDEAL places for those who walk and bike. Have you ever been to Europe? Bikes are everywhere. Whether there is a bike lane or not, the bike is respected. You say you went to Amsterdam, the bike is the least of a tourist’s worries. How about the tram? How about the disease-riddled whores? How about the high, drunk hooligans? Bikes? Dangerous? Seriously?
Respect the biker. You are not any better because you live in Society Hill and have a sports utility vehicle.
The roads are for everyone. If you come up on a bike in the middle of the lane on Spruce St, slow down. We’ll eventually get out of the way, we just don’t want to get door’ed. If you can’t deal, move to Ambler…or a driving city like Phoenix or LA.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I had my fill of city biking when I worked for the museums in Philadelphia for 10 years. It was a great but dangerous way to get around but cars don’t look out for you in Phila. Now I live in a place where they converted another old rail line into a bike path - our town has over 15 miles of paved bike path that is a commuting route through town and not on the roadways.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
@Rich,
Can you blame them? The result of failing to look out for ones own self can be death. It’s not to do a favor for your fellow man and to follow the law, but if the law puts you in danger then: Forget the law.
That’s going to be the attitude of most cyclists and I can’t blame them for it. I do what I can to help traffic flow around me, but I’m not going to flirt with the most common kind of injury bike accident (dooring) to allow easier passing. If this causes congestion then it will be up to the city to fix that.
I already have a reason to look for a less busy route where I’m out of the way: It’s very stressful to be “in the way.” But if that stress is less bad then the extra distance, or if there’s no other route, then I’ll take it.
I actually rather like the idea of streets with less rules and more give and take. I think people drive better when they’re afraid of everyone else on the road. I’m a big fan of round-a-bouts. I think traffic lights are massively over-used, especially in the ‘burbs.
Ride out of the door zone: Better rude then hurt. Let the city fix it if your legal use of the road is a problem.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Best thing the bicyclists can do is get a Utility Bike, with a heavy duty cargo box one the front, mounted to the frame and not the handlebars.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/hotbike/photo003.jpg
If you don’t have a hard box like this, you’d better either stay out of the door zone, or go slower, and be prepared to stop.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:35 am
[...] I know it is a broadcast outlet of some kind) has a discussion of he “door prize” Getting “Doored”: More on the perils of bicycle commuting They seem to have a resident troll in their comments section. I have to say that I have never gotten [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I respect bicyclists, but their respect for the rules of the road is deplorable. Bicyclists run red lights and stop signs, ride against traffic, ride on sidewalks and basically disobey every traffic law. Getting doored is a potentially devistating accident, but a driver may have looked before getting out of a parked car and not seen the bike that just made a right at high speed through a red light. So, there is blame to go around.