Anti-dooring!

right,
Road Vehicles (construction &use)
Regs 1986 Reg 105
"no person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person"
and
Road Traffic Act 1988 Sect 42 makes contravening above reg an offence.

Ill shut up now.

I still think car drivers would pay us a little more respect if we were all tooled up. Just saying.

Lol that is funny. I think anyone thinking this is serious probably needs a humour readjustment. This is obviously written as a parody of four-wheel chauvinism.

I'd like to think that if it was a parody, it was a little too subtle for me, but it seems more in keeping with US anti-cycling rhetoric, bumper stickers and t-shirts such as: "One less cyclist and the day ain’t over yet..." or "If you can’t see my mirrors, it means I’ve hit another cyclist" or "I don't share the road" (accompanied by a pic of a cyclist flying over a bonnet).

Here's a sharp bit of satire: "Why I hate Pedestrians":

http://bamboobadger.blogspot.com/search?q=pedestrian

^ driving barefoot, partridge stylee FTW

This smells to me of sarcasm. Or even worse, carsasm. I don't like it. I never have. I will have no truck with it. If you can't say something directly why say it at all. Nuance and subtlety are sicknesses that should be wiped out. And don't get me started on irony. Irony is a gateway trope that leads directly to the open sewer of sarcasm.
People must stop saying one thing when they mean another just because they assume some other people will figure it out. Some people will not! The fucking meaning will be lost on them. It sucks. It sucks big time and it also blows and stinks.
Be literal!

nice work, Will

This is more or less how I solve the deering problem. I have a shotgun loaded with slugs mounted. Deer opens in front of me...closes right back with one pull of the trigger.

Doors, not deer.

The one on the left looks like its still alive...
But the antidooring is reasonable, you shouldn't have to use your eyes when in a car.

Did you guys get this?
"Switching to public transportation also enables cyclists to perspire less on their way to work or school, reducing the likelihood that coworkers and others will be exposed to foul odors often associated with excessive perspiration."
This can't be a serious website.

This can't be a serious website.

Well, quite.

Wiganwill, you are on very good form recently.

...as opposed to your usual shite.

This smells to me of sarcasm. Or even worse, carsasm. I don't like it. I never have. I will have no truck with it. If you can't say something directly why say it at all. Nuance and subtlety are sicknesses that should be wiped out. And don't get me started on irony. Irony is a gateway trope that leads directly to the open sewer of sarcasm.
People must stop saying one thing when they mean another just because they assume some other people will figure it out. Some people will not! The fucking meaning will be lost on them. It sucks. It sucks big time and it also blows and stinks.
Be literal!

I sense a subtext. Something about house prices.

Section 42 of the 1988 road traffic act ... section 42 of the 1988 road traffic act 1988 ...

Must remember that when it happens (tynan forbid) and I call the cops.

I wear Dainese motorbike gloves with titanium knuckles.........they leave a big fuck off mark across anything
doors, foreheads ect...............

An interesting case from Germany. A Prinzessin von Bayern (Princess of Bavaria--yes, really) doors a cyclist in Munich and sues the rider for €1,000 compensation (damage to her car door).

The judgement against her was fairly devastating; it was re-affirmed that she was entirely at fault, that her claim that she carefully used her mirrors is both not credible and irrelevant (her claim that her car door had been opened for some time before the crash was not believed and the simple fact the collision occurred proved her negligence), her allegation that the cyclist should have been on a footway cycle path was irrelevant as no duty to use this was in place (possibly the result of a recent victory against the duty to use cycle paths by Germany's ADFC), and her grounds for going to appeal (no investigation into the collision by an independent expert had been commissioned) was also irrelevant, as no other findings than those already available to the court could have been arrived at.

Altogether a bit of a pasting with a strong whiff of wasted court time, as the legal situation is very clear here, but perhaps this also establishes a precedent that might prevent cases like this from coming to court in Germany again and is useful for that reason.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/wegen-kaputter-autotuer-prinzessin-verklagt-unfallopfer-1.2621069

I love google translate.

"Motorists are required when getting to behave so that a danger to other road users shall be excluded"

A story that stinks of arrogance and entitlement. Glad she got what was coming to her.

Low tech way to avoid dooring. I wish it was on car designers' radars and on driving tests.

http://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-workaround-keep-cyclists-getting-doored/

I used to teach that, although I don't think it was widely taught.

I'm sorry but that article's title about The Dutch Reach, using the word 'workaround' just automatically makes me think of 'reacharound' ...

1 Attachment

Used to teach that too.

Definitely about six years late to the Party, but I love the punning title of this thread.

Would it not be possible to put sensors on the inside door handle that would strobe the indicators giving perhaps a split second warning?

ha ha, that is a bit late! I suppose it could work if it flashed when the seat belt was unclipped, then you'd only get hit by those predators that sit in their cars for ages before pouncing.

I'd prefer if it worked the other way around as well though - a camera on the mirror that could see objects and so would make a beep that the driver could hear as well as a strobe for drivers and cyclists.