Near Miss of the Day 172: Chip-eating driver almost doors cyclist

vonhelmet wrote:

Am I the only one that thinks the “Dutch reach” sounds like a tricky sex move?

Probably NSFW: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dutch+reach

vonhelmet wrote:

Am I the only one that thinks the “Dutch reach” sounds like a tricky sex move?

With very little chance of anyone getting pregnant.

don simon wrote:

My point is to not cycle in the door zone when you have plenty of space to avoid it. Other examples may be different.

For the previous pass there was an oncoming vehicle in the other lane.  Arguably even for the one before that there was visible oncoming traffic.

Sod's law I suppose says that it's the pass where there was no oncoming traffic at all and he could easily have avoided the door-zone that some idiot opens the door.

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room.

I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room. I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room. I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

Yes, I do and so did this cyclist although he evidently decided to use even more caution after not leaving quite enough space for his comfort whilst passing that car.

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room. I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

Yes, I do and so did this cyclist although he evidently decided to use even more caution after not leaving quite enough space for his comfort whilst passing that car.

That's exactly my point, on this road there is space to pass cars without fear of being doored, as the rider demonstrated, but until that point they were content riding in the dooring zone. At least the rider has learnt that passing parked cars so closely is not the best of ideas. Yes the muppet who opened the door deserves a slap, but the cyclist was passing parked cars too closely up until that point.

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room. I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

Yes, I do and so did this cyclist although he evidently decided to use even more caution after not leaving quite enough space for his comfort whilst passing that car.

That's exactly my point, on this road there is space to pass cars without fear of being doored, as the rider demonstrated, but until that point they were content riding in the dooring zone. At least the rider has learnt that passing parked cars so closely is not the best of ideas. Yes the muppet who opened the door deserves a slap, but the cyclist was passing parked cars too closely up until that point.

I'm sure the rider will use a bit more caution in the future, but it's quite clearly the driver's responsibility to not swing a lump of metal into the path of traffic. I think you're being too picky with the cyclist's choices.

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room. I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

Yes, I do and so did this cyclist although he evidently decided to use even more caution after not leaving quite enough space for his comfort whilst passing that car.

That's exactly my point, on this road there is space to pass cars without fear of being doored, as the rider demonstrated, but until that point they were content riding in the dooring zone. At least the rider has learnt that passing parked cars so closely is not the best of ideas. Yes the muppet who opened the door deserves a slap, but the cyclist was passing parked cars too closely up until that point.

I'm sure the rider will use a bit more caution in the future, but it's quite clearly the driver's responsibility to not swing a lump of metal into the path of traffic. I think you're being too picky with the cyclist's choices.

We already know that it's a drivers' responsibilty to not swing the door open without looking, equally the rider should have been aware of this and not ridden in the danger zone, especially on a road where there's space to pass safely.

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room. I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

Yes, I do and so did this cyclist although he evidently decided to use even more caution after not leaving quite enough space for his comfort whilst passing that car.

That's exactly my point, on this road there is space to pass cars without fear of being doored, as the rider demonstrated, but until that point they were content riding in the dooring zone. At least the rider has learnt that passing parked cars so closely is not the best of ideas. Yes the muppet who opened the door deserves a slap, but the cyclist was passing parked cars too closely up until that point.

I'm sure the rider will use a bit more caution in the future, but it's quite clearly the driver's responsibility to not swing a lump of metal into the path of traffic. I think you're being too picky with the cyclist's choices.

We already know that it's a drivers' responsibilty to not swing the door open without looking, equally the rider should have been aware of this and not ridden in the danger zone, especially on a road where there's space to pass safely.

I don't think it's "equal" at all. Riding in the door zone isn't recommended, but sometimes can't be avoided (though plenty of room in this example) and is often encouraged by shitty infrastructure. Opening a door into the way of traffic is clearly illegal.

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room. I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

Yes, I do and so did this cyclist although he evidently decided to use even more caution after not leaving quite enough space for his comfort whilst passing that car.

That's exactly my point, on this road there is space to pass cars without fear of being doored, as the rider demonstrated, but until that point they were content riding in the dooring zone. At least the rider has learnt that passing parked cars so closely is not the best of ideas. Yes the muppet who opened the door deserves a slap, but the cyclist was passing parked cars too closely up until that point.

I'm sure the rider will use a bit more caution in the future, but it's quite clearly the driver's responsibility to not swing a lump of metal into the path of traffic. I think you're being too picky with the cyclist's choices.

We already know that it's a drivers' responsibilty to not swing the door open without looking, equally the rider should have been aware of this and not ridden in the danger zone, especially on a road where there's space to pass safely.

I don't think it's "equal" at all. Riding in the door zone isn't recommended, but sometimes can't be avoided (though plenty of room in this example) and is often encouraged by shitty infrastructure. Opening a door into the way of traffic is clearly illegal.

But we're only talking about this example.

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

I'm guessing that he almost shat himself with how close he was to getting doored and thus gave himself a bit more room. I don't really follow you with the passing of a stationary vehicle.

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

Yes, I do and so did this cyclist although he evidently decided to use even more caution after not leaving quite enough space for his comfort whilst passing that car.

That's exactly my point, on this road there is space to pass cars without fear of being doored, as the rider demonstrated, but until that point they were content riding in the dooring zone. At least the rider has learnt that passing parked cars so closely is not the best of ideas. Yes the muppet who opened the door deserves a slap, but the cyclist was passing parked cars too closely up until that point.

I'm sure the rider will use a bit more caution in the future, but it's quite clearly the driver's responsibility to not swing a lump of metal into the path of traffic. I think you're being too picky with the cyclist's choices.

We already know that it's a drivers' responsibilty to not swing the door open without looking, equally the rider should have been aware of this and not ridden in the danger zone, especially on a road where there's space to pass safely.

I don't think it's "equal" at all. Riding in the door zone isn't recommended, but sometimes can't be avoided (though plenty of room in this example) and is often encouraged by shitty infrastructure. Opening a door into the way of traffic is clearly illegal.

But we're only talking about this example.

Okay, so we're agreed on the driver being an asshat and that the cyclist was initially cycling in the door zone. I don't really see what point you're trying to make other than "don't cycle in the door zone".

don simon wrote:

The vehicle that nearly doored him was stationary. surely you pass parked cars with caution, in case there is a muppet inside who wants to open the door.

Of course you do, but as the op pointed out, it's on a bend with fast on-coming vehicles.  Of course, if the government (how can such utter chaos have that name?) had followed Cycling UK's suggestion of making drivers do the Dutch reach, the situation wouldn't have occurred.

don simon wrote:

This is likely to get shouted down, but why did the cyclist give more room to the last pass than the car outside the chippy on Sealand Rd and the first car on Southview? Neither pass was a doors' width. Secondly, there is plenty of distance to see oncoming cars going up Southview until you get to the aforementioned Telford's Warehouse and while I agree they do come down there quickly and in the centre of the road due to the traffic calming measures, it's not so bad that giving the cars a wider pass is impossible.

Yes the car is parked illegally, unless he was loading, and yes the driver shouldn't have opened the door like that, but the rider didn't help themselves. Wouldn't we be lambasting a driver who just had to get past?

Hi, my video there - Sorry but I disagree with you on how far you can see up the road at that point. Yes if you brought up google maps it would show a view high over the walls and bushes but bring that down to a normal cycling or car bonet level: https://imgur.com/AhKn721. The junction is a bad one since the traffic calming bumps espcially from downhill, have very little affect on car speed - the central speed bumps are lower and narrower than usual to the point almost no car would feel them plus the wide bump you see the cyclist go up is almost smoothed over on the other side. Cars regulary do 40mph+ down that hill, its super hard to pull out from the "Water's Edge/Earls Port" side of the road as these speeders would catch you half way pulling out into the road (happened to me enough times).

With regards to the closeness of passing, how far would you say is enough? I myself thought about 1.5m would do (pause the video at 17seconds and you'll see thats about where I was) but did you know car doors average 1.8m at full reach? I do now hence the extra dodging. If the guy had been holding the door just enough to get out it would probably have been fine. With a safe 1.8m-2m putting you across the white line, that range of movement across the road would surely catch out many drivers thinking they can still overtake you on busy roads or in this case, put you at risk from oncoming traffic. I definately think we should be teaching more drivers the dutch reach technique alongside the close pass initiative - with e-bikes taking off and better cycling infastructure being requested by the masses in cities, we're only going to see more accidents.