Conference noted::bicycle

I'm surprised there wasn't already a "Car Door" topic.  Continuing to search,
I find:

Note 1591.23 TALLIS::JBELL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are two car door bills in the statehouse (Mass).

    Bill H4848 is being sposored by Rep. Barbara Gardner of Holiston and
    H4855 is sponsored by Rep. Alvin Thompson of Cambridge and Vincent
    Ciampa of Somerville.  The two bills are identical with the exception
    that H4855 mandates a fine of not less than $25.

    They both instate section 11-1105 of the Uniform Vehicle Code,
    a section that Mass. has not yet adopted.  It reads:

        "No person shall open any door on a motor vehicle
         unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so
         and can be done without interfering with the
         movement of other traffic..."

    Let your representative know your feelings.

    -Jeff Bell

.1 discussed 1990 legislation which did not pass; reintroduced in 1991:

Note 1824.0 ULTRA::WITTENBERG "Uphill, Into the Wind"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]

    The Car Door bill requires motorists and their passengers to look
for traffic before opening car doors, as stipulated in the Uniform
Vehicle Code but not yet accepted in Massachusetts.  As many as
eight percent of car-bike collisions are with suddenly-opened car
doors.  In the Netherlands, driving students who don't look for cars
and bikes before opening the door fail the test. (refiled by Rep.
Barbara Gardner)

[...]

Did you have an accident, John?


Rod

    Massachusetts is different from the rest of the world as most of us
    know and unless they passed the car door bill this year, this is yet
    another difference.  [without the bill] If you hit the opening door
    it's your fault.  Much better you should ride 4 feet out from
    parked cars anyway.  Certainly watch for parked cars with persons
    in driver's seat.
    
    ed

Continuing my own research, there were two nearly identical bills introduced
this year: #3296 by Rep Thompson of Cambridge and, as previously mentioned,
#4397 by Rep Gardner of Holliston.

Both bills were killed in April.

re .4 "Massachusetts is different from the rest of the world"

Does anyone actually know the actual legal situation in other states?
It just may be that most states are just like Massachusetts.  As best as
I can tell, the bill is not passing because it would change what is
currently a cut-and-dried situation into a rather confusing one.

Currently, if a bicyclist hits a car door, that's it -- the bicyclist is
at fault for being too close.  If the bill were to pass, the situation
would be cloudy -- how long was the door open before the bicyclist hit
the door? -- is it still the bicyclist's fault for hitting a door that has
been open for, say, 20 seconds or more?  How do you determine what happened?

As a roller skater, I'm usually travelling slower than a bicycle.  When I
can't be more than 3-4 feet from parked cars, I keep on the lookout for heads
inside the car and slow down.  I'm probably not that likely to hit a door,
and if I do, I'll probably be going fairly slowly -- but a door may hit me.
Could be a car door, could be a door of a building.

/john

     I thought Ma had passed that bill about 15yrs. ago... Are you
    sure about it not being "in"?
    
       Chip 

    It's not 'in' in Mass.

I always thought that in the People's Republic of Massachusetts the operator
of the "moving" vehicle (in this case the cyclist) was at fault in a collision
with the non-moving vehicle (the parked car).

Reminds me of the scene in _Caddy Shack_ when Rodney drops his anchor through
Ted Knight's sailboat and proclaims "Hey, you scratched my anchor!"

    I don't  know  about  "most  of  the world", but the Uniform Motor
    Vehicle Code is widely used (in the US) as a basis for state laws,
    so  it  seems  likely  that something in the uniform code (and the
    requirement  to  look before opening a car door is in the UMVC) is
    probably in the state laws of at least a few states.

    As John  pointed  out,  currently  in  Massachusetts,  it  is  the
    responsibility  of  moving traffic to notice car doors opening and
    avoid them.

    While I like the simplicity which the current rule gives, I prefer
    the  requirement  that  the  person  taking  an  unexpected action
    should be the one who must avoid a collision.

--David

    
    
    I willing to acknowledge the right of the motorist to open their car
    door in front of me at anytime, just so long as I can close it when
    I pass by without regard to the occupant's protruding legs, fingers etc.
    
    Or why not help them open the door? Reach out and grap that door and
    and pull it right off the hinges.

How about a little less emotion and a bit more fact, OK?

    Sorry John.   I wasn't aware that sarcasm is prohibited in this notes
    file.

In California, it is the responsibility of the car occupant to make sure it's
safe to open the doors.

>How about a little less emotion and a bit more fact, OK?

this is inevitable everytime there is a discussion on regulating common 
sense.  it is a hopless task.

i was taught as a driver to always check before opening a door on a roadway.
also, to check if opening a door on the other side if there was a sidewalk 
there (i think my mother was responsible for this enlightening me to this
brilliant concept).  i'm sad to report that in my life i am sure i have 
slipped once or twice, just stayed lucky.

i was taught as a cyclist to stay a door's width out if possible.  if not 
to adjust the speed accordingly and study the cars and rearview mirrors for 
hints of impending doom.  i don't think i ever slip here.

that's it!  we don't need a law, it's common sense!  it wouldn't make people 
more aware.  it wouldn't stop accidents.  it would just punish someone like
me, who usually checks but didn't stay lucky. 

-craig

>In California, it is the responsibility of the car occupant to make sure it's
>safe to open the doors.

In California, how is a determination made, after an accident occurs, as
to who is at fault?

/john

     Although it may be quite useful to have all 50 states adopt the same
     uniform motor vehicle code, the respondents in this Note are way off
     base regarding MA Motor Vehicle Law as it currently exists.
     
     MA General Laws, Ch.   89  already  requires  that the motor vehicle
     operator use due caution in opening  a  car  door  into traffic.  It
     SPECIFICALLY  states  that  a motorist who opens  a  car  door  into
     traffic which results in an accident is contributory  negligent  AND
     is thus AT FAULT!!
     
     I  discovered this little known law while researching the  liability
     associated  with  having (knowingly) defective safety equipment in a
     motor vehicle,  etc.    [My Wife rear-ended another motor vehicle on
     Rte.  27  approaching  PKO,  when the other vehicle stopped suddenly
     and the driver admitted that she knew that her brake lights were not
     working.  We won the  surcharge hearing when I showed them a copy of
     the appropriate section of Ch.   89.] If you look in the index under
     defective safety equipment, you should be in the approximate area of
     the law.

     I  believe that the current law will adequately  protect  bicyclists
     and roller skaters.  We don't need more laws,  we  just need to know
     that the ones currently on the "books" exist...
     

     AHHH HA! I knew I wasn't losing it! Now I fell better about all
    those nasty things I generally yell when someone is being stupid.
    
     chip_who's_planning_a_cow_catcher_attachment_
    
               (titanium, of course)

    	re .16
    
    	How true, yet still difficult without a witness.
    
    	Without a witness, who is to say how long the car door was open?
    
    	The motorist could say he opened his door, reached back in for
    	some forgotten item, and then felt a "nasty", as his car door was
    	bludgeoned (or cyclist being bludgeoned by the door, whichever).
    
    	Blatant pessimistic opinion:
    	Maybe its just me, but lately, any blame in an auto/cycling mishap
    	is immediately placed on the cyclist, by the officer on the scene.
    
    	When a friend was injured several weeks ago, the attending officer
    	wanted to know why the injured cyclist was on the road in the first
    	place. Briefly stated, he said, if you weren't riding in the road,
    	you wouldn't have been hit.
    
    	The irony in this story is, when a lawyer was contacted, the above
    	statement was used as evidence against the driver, as in the words,
    	"you wouldn't have been hit". Thusly the officer unknowingly viewed
    	the accident as, the CYCLIST had been hit by the car, not the other
    	way around.
    
    	How do you prove the driver instantly opened his door in your path,
    	without a good witness to prove it?

    I've never experienced a car door problem - not even close. By far
    the most common (for me anyway) traffic related problem is when
    cars pass me and then take a right. This has happened so often that
    it makes no sense whatsoever to think that a car occupant will look
    for something *not already seen* before opening a door in traffic.
    I mean if drivers are stupid enough to cut off a bike in plain
    view, how can we expect them to "go out of their way" to look?
    
    John

    re .18
    
>    	How do you prove the driver instantly opened his door in your path,
>    	without a good witness to prove it?
    Wouldn't self-preservation be proof enough? If the door wasn't
    opened instantly, a cyclist would have time to stop, or go around
    it. I don't think many would see a door and continue towards it,
    as if in some wild variation of "chicken". :-)
    A cyclist needs to pay attention to the road - much moreso than
    a auto driver.  How a driver can argue otherwise (and win) is
    beyond me.
    
    John

��             <<< Note 2071.11 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
��     -< What is the actual and entire situation in other specific places >-

��How about a little less emotion and a bit more fact, OK?

    Where's the smiley face?  Fact in notes?  Irony and humor,
    that's why I read 'em.

     I think all the arguments of proving who is at fault are 
    all valid. But, any violation of the law that involves
    damages or fault for some monetary recovery requires this.
    
     Even murder (like justifying homicide of the individual
    that opens a car door on a cyclist).
    
      It's proof that is required and often the most common denominator
    is a witness...
    
        Chip

re .16

>     MA General Laws, Ch.   89  already  requires  that the motor vehicle
>     operator use due caution in opening  a  car  door  into traffic.  It
>     SPECIFICALLY  states  that  a motorist who opens  a  car  door  into
>     traffic which results in an accident is contributory  negligent  AND
>     is thus AT FAULT!!

I just read all of Chapter 89, and can find no reference to opening doors.
Would you please cite the specific reference.

It just doesn't seem to make sense (not that I always expect sense out of
the General Court of the Commonwealth) for two different representatives
to have submitted two different bills this year and one last year if the
law already addresses this issue.

/john

    
    re .14:
    
>i was taught as a cyclist to stay a door's width out if possible.  if not 
>to adjust the speed accordingly and study the cars and rearview mirrors for 
>hints of impending doom.  i don't think i ever slip here.
    
    Then, also, "as a cyclist", you should know that this is not always
    possible.  Particularly on narrow city streets.  I assume you were
    also taught to move over to the right to allow moving cars and other
    faster-moving traffic the room to pass you safely?

>that's it!  we don't need a law, it's common sense!  it wouldn't make people 
>more aware.  it wouldn't stop accidents.  it would just punish someone like
>me, who usually checks but didn't stay lucky. 
    
    Maybe it was mentioned in this note, but I missed it.  Are you
    aware that a cyclist was KILLED by a motorist who opened their
    car door when it was not safe to do so back in May of 1990?
    This happened in the Roslindale area of Boston on a very narrow
    street with a high traffic volume with cars parked all along
    the side of the road.
    
    *Because* there is no law in Massachusetts, the cyclist's wife
    was and is COMPLETELY UNABLE under the law to collect damages
    or ANY compensation of ANY kind from the asshole's insurance
    company.  When it was a clear-cut case of whose fault it was!!!
    
    This is exactly *why* these bills have been introduced in the last
    year in the Mass. legislature.
    
    re .16:
    
>     I  believe that the current law will adequately  protect  bicyclists
>     and roller skaters.  We don't need more laws,  we  just need to know
>     that the ones currently on the "books" exist...
    
    This whole reply is UTTER BULLSHIT!!  And extremely offensive
    given the case of the man who died.  The current law did NOT
    protect this man!  Excuse me for screaming, but if the law
    *had* protected him, then his wife could have and would have
    received A LOT OF MONEY from his insurance company.  I'm discussing
    a REAL PERSON who died because it was CLEARLY someone else's fault
    and and whose wife CANNOT collect any damages for it!
     
    

    re .24
>    *Because* there is no law in Massachusetts, the cyclist's wife
>    was and is COMPLETELY UNABLE under the law to collect damages
>    or ANY compensation of ANY kind from the asshole's insurance
>    company.  When it was a clear-cut case of whose fault it was!!!
    
    Sorry, not true. There's no law that says you have to shovel
    your driveway, but if some sue-crazy idiot slips on it, and
    hurts himself, he can sue you and will most likely win. One
    does not need criminal laws to win in a civil case - it helps
    but it's not required. What probably happened in the case you
    cite was the car driver's lawyer was better than the wife's
    lawyer (if she had one).
    
    John

    
    Re.25
    
    	Why should it come down to who has got the better lawyer? If
    someone's being plain stupid, then they have no right to hide behind a
    lawyer in court. It should be a clear cut case.
    
    	Sorry, don't know who is responsible in Britain (have been meaning
    to check all week), but I BELIEVE that it's the driver.
    
    Graham.
    

   Did the Roslindale cyclist die of a head injury?

   And one really has to use some common sense.  I really take it easy
   when it's necessary to pass an area with traffic or parked cars.
   We don't know the circumstances of that accident.

   Also, I've skated on the Charles River esplanade and occasionally saw
   cyclists *hammering* along the walkways.  I also witnessed one of those
   cyclists crash into a skater and fall, apparently breaking his
   collarbone, he was eventually taken away on a stretcher.

   It seems reasonable to me though who is at fault if someone opens
   a car door into traffic; it's reasonable who is at fault if
   one runs a red light and causes an accident too, and there is a law
   for that, so what is the harm in spelling it out in the case of
   bozos opening their doors without looking?

   There should be some national consistancy in road laws, actually.

   - Jim

    What I was getting at, is that there is a case to be said for not
    writing a new law for every little thing that one could do that
    possibly could harm another person. The presence of such laws often
    doesn't prevent the act from happening, and often doesn't even aid in
    punishing the offender.
    Bottom line - if the driver was negligent, and it can be proven to
    a judge and jury, the cyclist's family should have won in count.
    If the driver wasn't proven negligent, the presence of a law wouldn't
    have made any difference - we'd never be able get out of a car
    otherwise.
    
    John

     John's point is "dead-nuts". The law will not prevent, nor is
    it designed to stipulate compensation in these cases. That is
    what civil courts, judges and juries decide. Proving the negligence
    is the key...
    
       Chip

>   -< laws don't determine negligence >-

    What does then?

    The current law is that when a moving vehicle hits a
    parked vehicle, the moving vehicle is at fault.

    This law makes perfect sense most of the time....

    Unfortunately, it  doesn't account for the fact that parked cars
    can effectively jump a meter to the side without warning.


    In any case, assigning blame is not as good as avoiding
    the accident.  If riding on the side puts you in range of
    car doors, then take the lane that you deserve.

    -Jeff

>>   -< laws don't determine negligence >-

>    What does then?
    Insurance companies mostly, if not, then judges and juries.
    
    Say there was a law that said you can't open a car door in traffic.
    You're in a car, and you sit there and wait until you see no moving
    traffic. Fine, you get out, but before you close the door, you reach
    for a notebook in the passenger seat. Meanwhile a bike approaches
    and proceeds to slam into the door while fumbling for a cassette to
    pop into the walkman.
    Obviously, the cyclist is at fault. Oh, but we have this law. Well
    he's got to be negligent then, regardless of the facts. Throw him
    in jail.
    
    John

    
    re: 30
    > ..... If riding on the side puts you in range of car doors,
    > then take the lane that you deserve. 
    
    Exactly. Do this at red lights.... on busy streets where you will 
    need to make a left shortly, etc. If motorists want us to ride to the 
    right (even though that puts us at risk), then let them put a bike lane
    there. Let them put "No Parking" zones on heavily used streets. Let 
    them write their congressmen and senators to support bills which 
    make cycling safer. 
    
    doug
    

>>>   -< laws don't determine negligence >-
>>    What does then?
>    Insurance companies mostly, if not, then judges and juries.

    But they do ask on accident report forms whether
    either party was cited.


>    Say there was a law that said you can't open a car door in traffic.
>    You're in a car, and you sit there and wait until you see no moving
>    traffic. Fine, you get out, but before you close the door, you reach
>    for a notebook in the passenger seat. Meanwhile a bike approaches
>    and proceeds to slam into the door while fumbling for a cassette to
>    pop into the walkman.
>    Obviously, the cyclist is at fault. Oh, but we have this law. Well
>    he's got to be negligent then, regardless of the facts. Throw him
>    in jail.

    The proposed law would have required that you wait until it is
    safe to open the door.  It didn't say that you couldn't open the
    door at all.  Clearly, if you open the door and and have
    enough time to stand up and then a cyclist crashes into the car,
    then the cyclist was negligent.


    When you pull out from your driveway in the morning, you can't go
    until it is clear.

    But it seems like you got to work today anyways.

    -Jeff

    re:"When you pull out from your driveway in the morning, you can't go
    until it is clear."
    
    Ahh, but in NH there is a law that specifies that.  "No person shall
    attempt to move a vehicle which is stopped, standing or parked without
    first assuring that it is reasonably safe to do so."  Give or take a
    few words.  It's been a long time...
    
    ed

    re .33
    I was using an extreme example to point out that a presence of
    a law does not indicate negligence, nor does the absence of one
    remove negligence.
    The point is, regardless of laws, negligence has to be proved.
    Granted, being cited helps, but it's just as easy to wrongly
    cite someone, thereby implying negligence, as it is to correctly
    cite. I however, would sooner let the formal system of justice
    determine negligence, rather than a cop at the scene.
    
    Speaking of laws, in .34
    
>    Ahh, but in NH there is a law that specifies that.  "No person shall
>    attempt to move a vehicle which is stopped, standing or parked without
>    first assuring that it is reasonably safe to do so."
    
    I don't see why this could not be used for cases of opening car
    doors in traffic. By opening a door, you are essentially moving
    a vehicle.
    
    John

    Just yesterday, in fact, I did "take my lane" (moved to within about a
    foot of the double yellow, preparing to make a left turn.  This A5e
    driver (Massachusetts 101-PVA was his plate) comes from the right 
    yells obscenities at me, makes the left, cutting me off (and forcing me 
    into oncoming traffic).  Being only a block from home, I go that way.  
    
    He's there, waiting at the stop sign.  I pull up next to him and
    politely suggest "A bicylist on the left side of a lane might be 
    waiting to turn.  Please remember that next time."  He says "Buddy, 
    you're an A5e...".  Verbal abuse continues.  
    
    I check the guy out.  400 lbs.  Can barely fit between the seat and the
    wheel.  No weapons visible.  Traffic is backing up.  The window is
    down; I resist the urge to hit him with a full can of HALT! then and
    there, right in the face.  I move to the side of the road, where he
    can't ram with the car.  Unfortunately, I can't make it to the house
    without him being able to run me over from his current position.  "Why
    don't you step out of the car and say that?"  NO WAY am I going to go
    anywhere on this bicycle with him sitting in that car.  I stay out of
    his targeting zones as he moves the car.
    
    He starts to pull over.  Now I have a clear run to the house, and he
    can't hit me as I sprint into the house. (this happens right in 
    front of my house, remember!) and dial 911 on the cordless phone.   The
    police answer; I give them the address and ask for a patrolcar.  Guy
    sees the phone.  Says "Buddy, you're an "a5e".  I say "Would you like
    to talk to the police yourself?"  He sees the cordless phone; says
    "S2t, he called the police." and boogies (or should I say waddles?).  I
    tell the police the story, ask them to cancel the car but put the
    incident on the blotter, including the plate number.  Police say "No
    problem".  I thank them and take my shower.
    
    A moral victory?  Not hardly.  Would I do it differently next time?
    Maybe...  but I don't know what.  
    
    How the heck do you "educate" that kind of guy?  I don't know, but if
    you see plate 101-PVA on the road, be advised.  What you do with him is
    your business (and I don't want to know) but his behavior is
    *unacceptable* as far as I'm concerned.
    
    [yeah, it was a bad day all 'round.  Not only did I have to deal with
    this guy, but a friend got laid off from Prime, and the mechanical
    pencil leads I bought weren't there!  Somebody had stolen the leads and
    just left an empty (opaque) package!  The store was nice enough to give
    me more leads when I showed them the package.]
    
    	-Bill
                                           

re .24:

>    Then, also, "as a cyclist", you should know that this is not always
>    possible.  Particularly on narrow city streets.  I assume you were
>    also taught to move over to the right to allow moving cars and other
>    faster-moving traffic the room to pass you safely?

i move out if i'm near the speed of cars.  if not i move over, slow down, and
watch for door dummies. 
    
>    Maybe it was mentioned in this note, but I missed it.  Are you
>    aware that a cyclist was KILLED by a motorist who opened their

well excuse me, no i wasn't aware.  it doesn't change my opinion anyway.
    
>    *Because* there is no law in Massachusetts, the cyclist's wife
>    was and is COMPLETELY UNABLE under the law to collect damages
>    or ANY compensation of ANY kind from the asshole's insurance
>    company.  When it was a clear-cut case of whose fault it was!!!

i thought this was a go to jail type law.  what good would that do?
as far as compensation, it seems justified.  but i'm sure insurance companies 
would do anything to avoid paying anyone a dime.  if a law like this provided 
for compensation, and not sending nonmalicious dimwits to jail, then i'd 
probably back it.  but i do hate adding to all the petty laws already on the 
books.

regards,
craig

p.s. i'm really ashamed that the only time i write a note in here it's one of 
these rathole soapbox topics.  i feel like someone who buys the national 
enquirer.  but hey, my bikes working fine, i'm not looking to upgrade my 
pedals or anything, and all the winter maintenance i plan on is a little 
cleaning and a new chain.  

    
    I don't really think it's a rathole topic.... more like a
    sensitive,  inflamed nerve. It's amazing... when I'm on the bicycle 
    I hate cars.  They repeatedly violate my rights as a cyclist (some out of 
    ignorance, some are just malicious). Everyday, someone will speed up 
    to get around me, only turn right in front of me... or arrive at a four
    way stop 5 seconds after me and run the stop sign like I'm not already 
    in the middle of the intersection. Only three weeks after getting my 
    first road bike, and I hate cars! I haven't experienced the door thing
    yet, but at least now I'm aware of it. It's become clear to me that
    sometimes you have to "take the lane" when the alternative is more
    dangerous. I can see that this would be hard on a car lined street that 
    looks ( and generally is) safe. People teach their kids to avoid cars
    at all cost, and motorists believe that all bicycles will automatically
    yield the right of way (even when there is no legal obligation to do
    so).  In fact, have you ever noticed how bigger cars  will "push"
    smaller cars/motorcycles/bicycles around? Do you think that if you
    drove a cement mixer people would do this to you? I doubt it. As the 
    smallest things on the road , we have to be the most careful and put up
    with the most abuse. In general, we do this quite happily.... until
    someone opens a car door! 
    
    doug
                                                
    p.s.- On the trails, the shoe is on the other foot. Suddenly, were the 
    ignorant malicious bikers who terrorize hiking trails. Incredible...
    were run off the road (by cars) and off the trails (by
    hikers/equestrians who petition the parks).  

     Here's a cute one. Back in August I was on vacation in Maine
    (Ogunquit). Being the cement head that I am (and much to the
    dismay of my SO) I always drag my bicycle along. After all, I'm
    up there for ten days and don't want rigormortis to set in.
    
     Anyway, I usually run up Rte. 1 into Kennebunkport. So, I'm out
    one morning (weekday) about 7:00am. I'm in Kennebunkport heading
    back to the motel. I stop at a 4-way intersection (with traffic
    light). There are two lanes on my side. A right lane for a right
    turn (controlled by the light) and the lane that is used for left
    turns and continuing straight through. I'm heading straight through.
    
     The light is red. I stop... No one else is there at the moment. I'm
    sitting on the line that separates the right-turn/straight and left
    turn lanes (not taking any lane) so as not to impede anyone (autos).
    After all, I'm a tourist and know my place in a strange land.
    
     A station wagon pull up on the side of me in the staight-through-left
    turn lane. Waiting for the light to turn green. So far so good. The
    light turns green and we go. After I'm out of the middle of the inte-
    section I move over to the left and the station wagon passes. But,
    as the station wagon passes an older woman (there's one driving too)
    yells at me to "get the hell out of the road". Now, ordinarily I'm
    a sweet heart of a guy. Particularly to my elders, particularly elders
    of the female persuasion. Something went awry (synapse misfire or
    something) and I just calmly (not yelling) retorted s*ck. I guess it
    was loud enough because she heard me. Did a wicked head-snap and was
    facing me as the car was driving away. I could almost see the blue
    hair falling out as she was screaming and swearing at me at the top
    of her lungs. I camly and promptly displayed a manicured finger, just
    to show that I appreciated the kind words.
    
     They drove off. The end. Then I started thinking. The more I thought,
    the p*ssed I got. Then I started thinking, what would I do if they
    stopped, got out and confronted me. It wouldn't have looked good for
    having to duke-it-out with a couple of golden-agers. Eeven though I
    was outnumbered, I don't think the courts would that as a serious
    defense in this situation. 
    
     I guess the point is that more often than not, we're at a great
    disadavantage in most situations. It's frustrating and that only
    adds to the temper/anger that flares... 
    
     No answers here... Just trying to survive and enjoy.
    
         Chip

   RE: "What would you do if they stopped, got out, confronted you?"
    
    Probably have broken helmet, torn jersey, scratched bike like someone
    elsee we know.  Oh you said it was two women, then they might have done
    some real damage.  :-)
    
    ed

    
>>     No answers here... Just trying to survive and enjoy.
    
	With motorists, I don't know what one's harder to do...
    
    Graham.
    

        <<< Note 2071.36 by CTHULU::YERAZUNIS "Pyramid Shipping Co." >>>
                            -< Another incident... >-

     don't sweat it... in a few years fatso will likely be dead of heart
     disease while you'll be healthy and enjoying life.

     - Jim

    Hey John;
    I have to agree with you.  I unfortunetly do many miles on car infested
    roads, and have not hit a door in 10 years. Just watch the drivers
    seat.    
    I also can not see a police officer with any brains saying that a
    cyclist hit a car door intentionally.  But as we have seen in the 
    very near past, there are SOME brainless police officers in this 
    U.S.of A.
    Bob
       

>I also can not see a police officer with any brains saying that a cyclist
>hit a car door intentionally.

Does whether it was intentional or not have any bearing on whether it was
the cyclist's fault?

It's probably not usually intentional when a vehicle hits another vehicle
from behind when the vehicle in front is stopped at a traffic light.  But
the fact that it's not intentional doesn't change whose fault it is.

/john

    MY EXPERIENCEs in PRM are that whoever was there first had the ROW
    and is not at fault.  This would make the cyclist negligent in all
    such cases.
    
    ed

re .44
>Does whether it was intentional or not have any bearing on whether it was
>the cyclist's fault?
    Nope. I don't think many cyclists would intentionally ride into a door.
    However if one weren't paying attention, or through some other
    circumstance out of the driver's control rode into an open door, I
    wouldn't want a law to pin fault on the driver in all cases.
    
    John

     Re; intentionally riding into car doors... Don't knock 'till
    you've tried it... Although tailgates are a lot of fun too...

>    Maybe it was mentioned in this note, but I missed it.  Are you
>    aware that a cyclist was KILLED by a motorist who opened their
>    car door when it was not safe to do so back in May of 1990?
>    This happened in the Roslindale area of Boston on a very narrow
>    street with a high traffic volume with cars parked all along
>    the side of the road.
>    
>    *Because* there is no law in Massachusetts, the cyclist's wife
>    was and is COMPLETELY UNABLE under the law to collect damages
>    or ANY compensation of ANY kind from the asshole's insurance
>    company.  When it was a clear-cut case of whose fault it was!!!
>    

	It might not be so clear cut!  I don't know anything about this
	other than what I read here, but I could easily see how the
	cyclist might be partly (maybe even largely) at fault.  If this
	was a very narrow Boston street with high traffic volume, I
	can't imagine that the cars were moving very fast.  Yet the 
	cyclist was moving fast enough to get himself killed by an
	opening car door.  Could it be that he was screaming along
	between the slowly moving cars and the parked cars?  If so,
	that sounds *real* dangerous and might even be illegal since
	isn't a bike supposed to obey motor laws in general?  It
	could be that even an "opening door into traffic" law wouldn't
	have helped this guy's poor wife.

	chris 

   Re:                 <<< Note 2071.48 by SOLVIT::LANDRY >>>
                      -< ya gotta know the circumstances >-

    We certainly don't know, but it is possible he hit the door and
    fell under the wheels of a fairly slowly moving vehicle alongside.

    I'm extra careful on streets like that and just take it easy...

    But you know, one time I was on my way home and while riding a short
    stretch of 2A/119 near the Nagog shopping center (where the Scupper is)
    some rattlehead teenager leaned way out of a passing car and tried to
    grab at my handlebars!!  He narrowly missed - no matter how careful
    you are some idiot thing can happen anyway.

    - Jim

    	That is very unfortunate.
    
    	That cyclists are sometimes the target of mischief.
    
    	Like, when a vehicle (pickup truck, with front bumper at eye-level)
    	perched on a side road waiting to enter traffic, waits for you to
    	cross his front-end? And then quickly releases just enough pressure
    	from his brake pedal so that the front-end moves in your direction?
    	Causing you to spazz at the last moment, to try and avoid death?
    	And his buddies howl uncontrollably, pointing at you like you're
    	some sort of circus side-show?
    
    	I hate it when that happens...

    
    re .28:
    
>    What I was getting at, is that there is a case to be said for not
>    writing a new law for every little thing that one could do that
>    possibly could harm another person.
    
    This is not a case of "writing a new law", but Massachusetts
    simply *adopting* one small section of the Uniform Vehicle Code
    that every other state in the nation has!
    
    re .31 (and 37):
    
>    Obviously, the cyclist is at fault. Oh, but we have this law. Well
>    he's got to be negligent then, regardless of the facts. Throw him
>    in jail.
    
    Don't be absurd.  People don't get "thrown in jail" for breaking
    other parts of the Uniform Vehicle Code.  Do you think you'd get
    thrown in jail for running a red light?  Of course not.  Do you
    think you'd get hit up for damages should you damage another
    person's car or body if you had done so?  Darn right you would,
    and *rightfully* so.  *That's* the issue here
    
    re .37:
    
>>    Then, also, "as a cyclist", you should know that this is not always
>>    possible.  Particularly on narrow city streets.  I assume you were
>>    also taught to move over to the right to allow moving cars and other
>>    faster-moving traffic the room to pass you safely?

>i move out if i'm near the speed of cars.  if not i move over, slow down, and
>watch for door dummies. 
    
    But this was the problem in this case!  This street is a four-lane
    road, with two lanes being taken up with parked cars on each side
    of the street, with a high volume of traffic on the other two lanes
    going quite fast.  Get the picture?  It's a dilemma - either you're
    going to piss off a whole bunch of motorists and incur their wrath
    should you travel in the middle lane (look at some descriptions in
    this note for some good harassment stories), or risk getting "doored".
    At least, it'd be nice to know that you or your spouse could collect
    damages should you get the door!
    

    RE .51
>    This is not a case of "writing a new law", but Massachusetts
>    simply *adopting* one small section of the Uniform Vehicle Code
>    that every other state in the nation has!
    
    You really checked them all? :-)
    It's been said before. With or without a law, negligence has to
    be proven. One can be negligent without a law, and still get
    nailed in court.
    
>>    Obviously, the cyclist is at fault. Oh, but we have this law. Well
>>    he's got to be negligent then, regardless of the facts. Throw him
>>    in jail.
    
>    Don't be absurd.  People don't get "thrown in jail" for breaking
>    other parts of the Uniform Vehicle Code.  Do you think you'd get
>    thrown in jail for running a red light?  Of course not.  
    
    Of course I wasn't serious there. It was just an extreme example
    of letting the presence of a law determine fault.
    Just as that would never happen, it is also absurd to think that
    *without* a law, a driver will *never* be at fault for opening
    a door in traffic.
    
    >Do you
>    think you'd get hit up for damages should you damage another
>    person's car or body if you had done so?  Darn right you would,
>    and *rightfully* so.  *That's* the issue here
    
    True, but you don't need a law to do it.
    If you refuse to shovel your driveway in the winter, and someone
    slips and breaks their neck, they can sue you and will most
    likely win - even tho there is no law that says you have to
    shovel, get it?
    
    John

    
    re: .52:
    
    -< I'd rather prevent that legislate to punish >-
    
    How does the UVC "punish" anyone?  How on earth does having
    a section in the UVC against going through red lights punish
    someone?  Could you please tell me?
        
    BTW, John, do you live in Mass?  I've yet to hear one half-way
    convincing reason that you have against Massachusetts fully
    adopting the UVC - which every other state in the nation has done.
    
    re "How do I know this?"  I'm a member of Boston Area Bicycle
    Coalition (BABC) and they keep me informed on this issue and
    many other issues related to bicyclists' rights.
    
    If you live in Massachusetts, perhaps you'd like to join BABC
    to work to protect bicyclists' rights?  Then again, maybe
    you don't think it's worth it.
    

    
>    How does the UVC "punish" anyone?
    I didn't say it did. You are implying that adding this will allow
    cyclists to sue drivers who open doors in their path. There's no
    need to legislate that. Negligence is something one can attack
    with or without laws.
    Tell me what will be different if this is added? What will be gained?
    
    >  How on earth does having
>    a section in the UVC against going through red lights punish
>    someone?  Could you please tell me?
    Do you call a $50.00 fine a punishment?
        
>    BTW, John, do you live in Mass? 
    No. Irrelevent anyway.
    
    > I've yet to hear one half-way
>    convincing reason that you have against Massachusetts fully
>    adopting the UVC - which every other state in the nation has done.
    
    Requiring reasons *not* to add laws is backward (though not
    for Mass generally). Laws should be added if there is convincing
    evidence that they are necessary, and will solve problems, not
    because we can't think of a reason *not* to!
    However, if you must, it's because it won't help the situation!
    In fact, it'll probably hurt it. Say a door opens in your path.
    The driver is at fault. The cop doesn't see it that way, and
    doesn't issue a ticket. You sue, but the driver's lawyer points
    out that no ticket was issued. The jury assumes the driver wasn't
    at fault. Heck, they weren't there - the cop was. He must know
    better that we do.
    Now tell me why we need it. "Just because everyone else has it"
    it is not what I'd call convincing...
    
    John

from :       <<< Note 2071.54 by WUMBCK::FOX >>>

>>    BTW, John, do you live in Mass? 
>     No. Irrelevent anyway.

Can you tell us how terrible it is to be living in a state
that has adopted the UVC?


>    .... You are implying that adding this will allow
>    cyclists to sue drivers who open doors in their path. There's no
>    need to legislate that. Negligence is something one can attack
>    with or without laws.

So long as there aren't bad laws overrulling them.

The current law puts the operator of the moving vehicle at fault,
ehther the door opened or not.

Would you support the repeal of this law?

-Jeff Bell

    
>Can you tell us how terrible it is to be living in a state
>that has adopted the UVC?
    I see. Keep on adding laws until it becomes terrible, whether
    they are needed or not.

>The current law puts the operator of the moving vehicle at fault,
>ehther the door opened or not.
    Could you quote the specifics on that? 
    That's not a hard and fast rule, btw. If I come to a screeching halt
    sideways on 495 and 20 cars crash into me, me being stopped
    at the time doesn't mean I'm not at fault.
    Also, opening a door requires moving it. It's the same as moving
    your car, then stopping, in the path of traffic.
    
>Would you support the repeal of this law?
    If it didn't allow for the support of my above statement, yes.
    
    John

     John, just an FYI... It is a violation to be stopped in either the
    travel or passing lane of a highway. I know. In my younger years I
    got caught drag racing on Rte. 2 by a state cop and it was one of
    the fines I had to pay... It would be your fault unless you could
    prove that your stopping was due to some "good" reason.
    
     I almost got clipped twice Tuesday. The first time shooting down
    Mile Hill Road. A car pulled out from the Wachusett ski lodge.
    Okay, I was doing about 50mph, but the idiot stopped, looked at me,
    then pulled out when I was approx. 50ft. from him. I had to swing 
    left into the other lane (thank God no cars were coming). No way
    way could I have even slowed down and let him go ahead. BTW, I had the
    lane... I did  make a remark, but did not get vulger... No response.
    
     Next, I was goingby a plaza. A van was waiting to pull out. I swear
    this guy looked right at me. The funny thing about this one was he
    started pulling out when I was exactly in front of him! I was going
    fairly slow uphill (15mph). When he started pulling out he saw me
    and had this amazed look on his face as he slammed on his brakes.
    
     Twice in one day! People who think the majority of drivers are paying
    attention out there are pretty presumptuous. I'm reminded of the fact
    every time (and frequently) I'm scooting around safety glass or plastic
    reflector lenses from a fender bender!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
     Chip 

    
    John, then according to your twisted "logic", we should
    eliminate as many sections of the UVC as possible until
    it becomes unbearable.  Is that what you'd like to see?
    
    Which part would you like to start with?  Perhaps your
    state should do away with red lights?  Every man and woman
    for themself in the intersection.  If you were there first,
    you've got the right of way!
    

    
    Come on, John, take the bait!  Let's continue this spleen-venting
    note another dozen replies.  I'm sure we're all enjoying it.  :-)
    
    -john

    
    Thanks, John (Ellis).
    
    I am bowing out of this discussion for now because I do feel
    that John Fox isn't listening to me.  It's really tough to argue
    that the UVC is a bad thing because it is so widely accepted by
    our society (I mean, who ever heard of anyone arguing seriously
    that having a law against running a red light was a bad thing?).
    What John is arguing amounts to this, though, IMO.  And I will
    admit that it's hard for me to take that argument seriously.
    
    I have no hope of convincing John Fox any more, but I can hope
    I've convinced everyone else who has been reading thus far that
    adopting the full UVC in Massachusetts would be a very good thing,
    and not at all a bad thing.
    

    Hey John, it's been pouring up here for 2 days. You know what that
    does to people!
    Besides, my hidden identity as an anarchist and destroyer of
    democracy has been exposed! :-)
    
    John

>    I've yet to hear one half-way convincing reason that you have against
>    Massachusetts fully adopting the UVC - which every other state in the
>    nation has done.

In both this topic and one I created in ASKENET, I asked for specific
citations from the lawbooks of states which have adopted this provision,
so that I could see how this UVC provision has been turned into law in
various states.

I haven't gotten a single one yet.

    	Re - .58
    
    >	Which part would you like to start with?  Perhaps your
    > state should do away with red lights?  Every man and woman
    > for themself in the intersection.  If you were there first,
    > you've got the right of way!
    
    	Dude!
    
    	Actually, this is road etiquette sanction numero uno!
    
    Crazed maniacs everywhere in this state (gets worse closer to Boston)
    use this rule daily! When sitting at a traffic light, whomever is
    first on the gas pedal is the first through the intersection!
    
    If anybody hits him/her/it, then they be at fault. Only because they
    did the hitting.
    
    In ALMOST any rear-end collision, the rear-ender is at fault, simply
    because they are faulted for not being cautious enough.
    
    Just a thought, no argument intended...

    
    re .62: I must have missed it.
    
    I have a call logged to the BABC for this question right now.