The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
<< Drug War Fail John McCain Was Never Tortured in Vietnam >>
Aren't Most Bike Lanes Illegal Then?

This story is just outrageous.  It shows the incredible stupidity that some police have:

Linda Willsey saw the car door opening a split second before it hit her. She was biking down Henry Street, on her way home from work at Community Pharmacy, when someone in a parked car swung open the door without looking.

"I think I yelled 'No!'" says Willsey, as the door hit her right side. "I went into the air and landed on my back."

She was taken to the emergency room with multiple contusions and a fractured vertebra. As she was waiting to have X-rays taken, Madison police officer Jean Papalia paid a visit.

"She said, 'Gee, I'm really sorry, but I have to issue you a citation,'" recalls Willsey. The $10 ticket cited a little-known state law that requires bicyclists passing a parked or standing vehicle to allow "a minimum of three feet" between themselves and the car.

Talk about adding insult to injury.  What's worse is that if this law actually exists, it would probably make most bike lanes in Milwaukee illegal... or at least obeying the bike lane lines would make all bikers criminals.  If you look at any of the newly made bike lanes in Milwaukee, they are generally not more than three feet across, and they are directly next to the parking lanes... which means that either a biker obey's bike lane laws, or they obey parked car laws.  In other words, in Milwaukee, it's illegal to ride on a street with a bike lane.

What's worse is this explanation:

But he notes that when a person is injured in a traffic accident, police are obligated to ticket someone, unless they get a supervisor's approval. And Hanson can't think of any law the motorist who hit Willsey violated. "There's nothing specific about opening a door."

Michael Rewey, a board member of the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin, disagrees. He thinks the driver should have at least been cited for obstructing traffic.

Clearly the car driver was at fault for being inattentive while opening the car door.  Had that door been opened in front of a moving car, instead of a bike, then the owner of the parked car would have been ticketed.  In this case, bikes should be treated no differently than cars.

Bikers already have the constant fear of getting a "door prize" as I call them.  We should have to fear being ticketed for our trouble as well.  Via Off the Couch.

# Posted at 1:23 PM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 9 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Stupid Laws

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:47:22 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I have no strong opinion on this one way or the other. I guess my thought is that bikers can't have their cake and eat it, too. I rarely see bikers obey the laws of the road.
jimi
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:57:38 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
While that may be the case, that simply means that enforcement against bikers for breaking those laws need to be ramped up. That does not make the case that bikers should be treated copmletely different from cars visa vi rules like this... especially when the roads are laid out in such a way that its impossible to comply with those laws.
Nick
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:52:14 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
True. I always thought the lanes were a bit of a joke. Not because of your post, but simply because I never thought bikers needed to be shown where to drive. Although, I was at the lakefront this summer and driving along Lakeshore Drive. As I got near Bradford Beach, 3 east side types pulled in front of me on their bikes . . . in the middle of the road! I was patient for a while. Then, I ran them down. Actually, after almost running them down, I pulled over after spotting a cop. I told him what had happened, and he shot them. No. Actually, he started toward them on foot. I left satisfied they'd likely be beaten . . . giving you something else to blog about.

I guess that didn't happen.

Just kidding.
jimi
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:44:58 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Sometimes, Google (specifically Google Streets) does serve a purpose. It allows someone like me 70-some miles away from the scene of the incident to do some basic investigating the presstitutes didn't do (or more likely, ignored in their rush to a preset conclusion). Namely, there are no bike lanes on Henry Street. At its widest, Henry Street barely supports 2-way traffic with cars parked on both sides.

Further, even though the ignoramous behind the wheel didn't bother to look before opening the door, it is likely, though not certain, that the bicyclist was within 3 feet of the car. The door on my car (2004 Subaru Outback Sport) opens out to exactly 36 inches. Admittedly, it's a 4-door (actually, wagon) design, and it's a small car, but it's what I have to work with.

As for the bike lanes angle, allow me to trot out some very-generalized math:

- Most parking lanes are at least 8 feet wide, so I'll go with 8 feet.
- Most cars are less than 6 feet wide, so let's go with 6 feet there.
- Since vehicles are to be within 1 foot of the curb, that gives, at a minimum, 1 foot between a parked vehicle and the right edge of a middle-of-the-road bike lane, and generally 1 1/2 feet between the vehicle and the right edge of the bike lane.
- Given a 3-foot-wide middle-of-the-road bike lane, the left 1/3rd to (at the extreme) 2/3rds of the bike lane would, if a vehicle is legally parked, give the bicyclist sufficient legal clearance from a parked vehicle within the bike lane.

I honestly don't see a need for a marked biking lane. Of course, I don't think like your average liberal urban planner, who abhors the idea of allowing motorized traffic use of the curb lane.
steveegg
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:46:50 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
A housekeeping note; in both IE and FF3, the text box on comments doesn't expand for comments left by those with names shorter than the Gravatar box.
steveegg
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:45:28 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I have to admit, isn't the responsibility of attentiveness shared in a case like this? I've seen many an idiot open their car doors without so much as a glance . . . with passing cars! It strikes me that cyclists would be wary of such an encounter therefore attentive about a vehicle's occupancy. No? I suppose tinted windows makes it impossible to tell if someone is in a car or not . . . all the more reason to get rid of tinted windows. Still, is the onus completely on the driver? Clearly the cop didn't think so.
jimi
Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:42:46 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
The responsibility of attentiveness should indeed be shared by both parties. But if a biker who is completely attentive, as much as one can be, comes up against a car, the car will always win. If some accident occurs between a bike and a car, with no one person being completely at fault or inattentive, the biker's the one that's dead while the car might have a scratch or two. A person on a bike can only react so much to a person driving a car. This is why a car driver really has to be aware of their surroundings.

And yes, I also get pissed off at bikers who don't follow the rules of the road. They should absolutely be ticketed.

But this does not diminish the importance of motor vehicle drivers being especially defensive where bikes are concerned.

Ally
Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:22:59 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Jimi... it's often times very difficult to determine the occupancy of a vehicle... especially there are a row of cars which you are passing. If the onus was completely on the biker, then he'd be looking at parked cars the entire time, and therefore not paying attention to vehicles to his right, or intersections, etc.

Not only that, but you have to consider the speed at which a car door opens, vs. reaction time to brake on the part of the biker, vs. speed the biker can stop. There is often just not enough time for a completely attentive biker to swerve (which might put him in danger because of traffic in the lane next to him) or to brake before getting his door prize.

The closest equivolent I can think of here is that opening a car door in front of a biker is almost like a driver crossing an intersection where he has to stop for a 2-way stop and gets t-boned. Where does the fault lie there? It would mostly fall on the driver who had the stop sign.
Nick
Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:11:00 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Yeah, I get that. I guess I'm torn because, again, I RARELY see bikers obey street laws. Does that mean this person had it coming? No. In fact, because I also see MANY people open their car doors with oncoming traffic, I think the driver should have been ticketed.

Part of the problem is visibility. You crankers can be difficult to notice. Especially on busy streets. It's possible one can be as attentive as possible and still not see on oncoming biker.

I'll say this, though. If a car will always win in a matchup, right or wrong, I think the biker is the one who "really needs to be aware of their surroundings".

Next time I will run them over. East side a$$holes.
jimi
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2009 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar