Fatal Doorer's Day in Court- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 52 of 52
  1. #1
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,685

    Fatal Doorer's Day in Court

    Charged with a traffic violation rather than manslaughter, she'll pay about $500 and be banned from driving for 6 months.

    Merseyside woman who caused cyclist to fall off his bike and die banned from driving for six months - Liverpool Echo

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    258
    It pays to kill if you have a motor vehicle. Amazing the underlying biases that society will not question as long as they can act rich and lazy by avoiding locomotion under their own power.

  3. #3
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    I am sorry, and I might get negative rep for this, but he was NOT wearing a helmet. Without a helmet on, you take that risk every time you get on your bike. Get doored and crash, hitting your head, and unfortunately it was a fatal crash. I can't help but think that a helmet may have prevented that. Not to excuse the woman for what happened, but a manslaughter charge? That would be kind of excessive in this case.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    The helment debacle is moot. Make motorist wear helments, neck braces, fire-retardent clothing, that'd reduce fatalities by the droves and reinforce the dangers of driving.

    Causing a negligent death by motor vehicle has nothing to do with helment use. Opening a door without due care is an offense in almost every vehicle code. Killing someone through negligent actions is manslaughter.

    Part of the bias that results in minor punishment for killing with a vehicle is supported by the helment myth. It's a, "They deserve it attitude," that is applied to everything from rape and assault, to riding a bicycle or motorcycle. That is BS victim-blaming. Stop it.

  5. #5
    755872
    Guest
    The issue with helmets is as relevant here as when a drunk driver kills another driver who doesn't happen to be wearing a seatbelt. In other words, not relevant. Helmets are not designed to prevent serious injury with a cyclist is struck by a car, they are designed to protect the cyclist in the event of a fall. You can slice the logic anyway you want, but the point remains that the cyclist died as a result of being hit by a car. Had the car not hit them they may have crashed later in the ride but it's irrelevant. The same argument could be used for every firearm homicide that could have been prevented if the victim had only worn a bullet proof vest.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    258
    Nested wrong again. Delete.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    258
    It is important to contextualize this discussion. Even when someone, especially in North America identifies as a "cyclist" they mean by that they cycle for hobby, enjoyment or sport. They generally tend to use a car for almost all their trips where they need to be something or get something done connected with anything other than recreation or exercise. Given that is NO SURPRISE that even on so-called cycling forums, that again and again we have this popular mitigating of circumstances and victim blaming: did the dead or injured wear a helmet? If they didn't it is partially their fault. As someone who is car-free, the blame should be placed on the lazy as3es who want to live like kings and queens who are murdering global eco-systems and shortening their own lifespans as well. The average American male land whale weighs about 200 lbs., and moves about any distance of note using a 4,009 lb. vehicle(Source: American cars are getting heavier and heavier. Is that dangerous? ). It is utter insanity when you state compare the weight of a person and the weight of the huge motor vehicle, but due to a priori cultural assumptions, I actually get accused of being a deviant for not having a car. Why are some blaming people who are not wearing a helmet, when even using popular. but untrue helmet myths, they are only endangering themselves, and not the people in the 4,000 lb. vehicles destroying habitat, eco-systems, who pass their extreme sedentarism onto their kids and familial relations causing burden to Medicare, Medicaid and raising insurance premiums, etc., etc.?

    The helmet issue is anyway not as clear-cut as the fair-weather, motor vehicle loving, so called "cyclists" make it out to be. Take rugby vs American football. Is Rugby really more inherently dangerous because of the lack of helmets and heavy body padding? Not really, because Rugby players don't accelerate as much as football players because they don't have illusion of that protection, which in the case of football players just allows them to hit each other harder, instead of the unprotected rugby players who compensate by actually not tackling or checking each other as aggressively. Would downhill mountain bikers go as fast and hard without a full face helmet and padding? Even when it comes to seat-belts there is argument to be made that they don't really save lives as much as perhaps export the hazard of motor vehicles because the perception of safety they provide just allows drivers to drive more aggressively and faster.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    225
    If a helmet isn't legally required it doesn't matter, its just victim blaming.

    The sad thing is this is way more than she'd get in the U.S. In 'merica, she could probably sue his estate for the body work to fix the dent in the door and win :/

  9. #9
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    I am surprised that I got negative feedback for posting my opinion. I guess that it is to be expected however. The article said this: "...for opening her car door which caused a cyclist to fall off his bike and suffer fatal head injuries." Now, it did not say if the act was done on purpose. If it was done on purpose, that would be extremely negligent. If done on accident, which it more than likely was the driver being distracted by kids, etc. the cyclist is partially at fault here. If he had been wearing a helmet, he may have not suffered the same injuries. Debating it is not really valid as he has already died.

    For arguments sake though, lets say that he flipped off the bike, and landed on his head. Had he been wearing a helmet, would the outcome be the same? If he landed face first, probably not as the helmet doesn't protect your face. There are several variables that are left out of the story, including why he wasn't wearing a helmet when he normally did. I hear of a cyclist dying of head injuries, and not wearing a helmet, and I can't help but blame the cyclist here especially in this case. I have seen the cycling videos shot in London, and some of England, and I will say that no one knows what in the hell they are doing, from cyclists to motorists.

    I will say this though, if I am riding near a parked vehicle, it is my responsibility to watch the vehicles and be 100% prepared to react if someone opens their door. Now, no one may agree with me, and that is fine because they don't have to, and they will probably dump more negative feedback on me which I think is totally asinine, but that is how it is.

    The entire accident is tragic, from loss of life to now this woman living with this for the rest of her life, and her family as well.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Straz85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,348
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    Now, it did not say if the act was done on purpose. If it was done on purpose, that would be extremely negligent.
    No, if she did it on purpose it would have been malicious, not negligent. What she did was negligent.

    a : marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably
    b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances
    2
    : marked by a carelessly easy manner

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by KentheKona View Post
    If a helmet isn't legally required it doesn't matter, its just victim blaming.
    Yup.

    Helmets are poorly tested, and poorly designed. Might as well blame the guy for not wearing a chamois.

  12. #12
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    I think that I need to clarify my point here after re-reading my posts. I am not blaming the cyclist here. I am also not blaming the motorist either. It is an unfortunate situation that happened and the loss of life is sad. I am also not saying that a helmet would have saved this guys life. I don't understand why he wasn't wearing one when he normally did according to that article.

    I do feel like cyclists need to take the appropriate safety measures and precautions because life does happen around us, and most people are pretty oblivious to cyclists unfortunately. Any time that you ride near a parked car, you are taking a risk, especially if you do not give yourself a buffer zone from being doored. There is one stretch of my commute that runs alongside parked cars, and I take the lane when I pass that area. No sense in putting myself in unnecessary danger when it could easily be avoided. I ensure that any cars behind me see me take the lane, and I get over as soon as I pass it. Never had an issue with it in the past. The door zone is basic cycling, and from the article, it appears as though this is not a rookie cyclist. Mistakes happen, on both ends, and in the end, the loss of life really cannot be blamed on either party.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    I am of two sides here.

    First if the women is getting out of her car then the car is not likely moving....

    She basically got rear-ended by a moving motor vehicle...

    On the other hand she did not check to the rear adequately before opening the door...

    Niether is manslaughter.

    My take away be damn sure when you pass parked cars have enough room for the door to open regardless of what or who you think is inside....

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    635
    I'll probably get negatively repped too. I'll ask you to hold your fire. I've been a bike commuter in both DC and now Madison WI. Madison is an awesome place to be a biker an any case and especially a commuter. Motorists are by and large extremely courteous.

    That's a preamble. Early in my commuting life I had a collision with a guard rail. I hit the back of my head hard enough to break a couple of teeth. My helmet cracked, but I had no ill effects (beyond serious dental work). I wear a helmet every time I get on a bike.

    That's just historical background. But if you're riding a bike and you're not wearing a helmet you turn any injurious outcome to a potentially fatal outcome. Serious head trauma is no joke neither is accidentally killing someone. You potentially cost our healthcare and/or insurance system a huge amount to save yourself $15 or the time it takes to put on a helmet.

    Yes a motorist that isn't aware of bicyclists is dangerous. However, accidents happen, I have been hit hard enough to snap a carbon frame by kind and pleasant folks who didn't see me ( I was unharmed and the person who hit me called the police and gave me a ride home). They were neither negligent nor malicious. How would their lives have changed if I had been killed because I wasn't wearing a helmet. They might have been haunted for a long time, maybe forever. All because I was selfish enough to think that I was the only person who mattered in the situation.

    It's usually not cyclists vs drivers, it's usually just people.

    Here's an idea, if you get serious, perhaps fatal, preventable head trauma because you didn't wear a helmet, your insurance company doesn't have to pay for any health care associated with the preventable injury. Further you're categorized as an automatic organ donor upon your demise.

    I am not blaming the victim, but is the wind in your hair worth it? To me it's pretty irresponsible to decide that all accidents are someone else's fault, because their vehicle is larger and heavier. That rider may have easily survived by wearing a helmet and then the motorist might not have to live with the outcome, which is probably not fun.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    nbwallace, the helmet debate is a giant can of worms that has spawned multiple threads, but I'll try anyway:

    • The plural of anecdote is not data
    • Helmets are designed to break, so a broken helmet isn't proof of much
    • No one has come close to conclusively showing that helmets are actually a net benefit in a crash. The most often quoted 85% study has been thoroughly debunked for decades, but the press and advocacy groups still quote it like it isn't garbage


    If you want the pro-helmet camp try here: Helmets: Bicycle Helmets
    Or the helmet-skeptic camp: Cycle helmets: an international resource

    From the skeptic camp:

    US traumatic brain injury deaths per year - 1997 to 2007

    All causes 100%
    - Motorists 15%
    - Pedestrians 3.4%
    - Motorcyclists 2.6%
    - Cyclists 0.6%

    Canada - All head injuries 2003 - 2004

    Falls 45%
    Motor vehicle involvement (excl cyclists) 36%
    Assault 9%
    Other causes 10%
    Cyclists 5%
    If traumatic brain injury is such a serious concern, then it sounds like everyone should be wearing helmets at all times. (said as someone who never rides without a helmet)

  16. #16
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,685
    I avoid the door zone, unless traffic is backed up at a light, then I will ride between the parked cars and the backed up traffic - carefully, but not without risk. In my experience, it is the rare cyclist that feels obligated to sit through several light cycles when they could avoid it by passing the line and waiting at the light.

    While I don't expect drivers to check before opening there door, I don't think it is that hard to do, or an unreasonable expectation...and apparently one that was required by law in this case. Just as bad as running a red and hitting someone, in my book.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,373
    This rider wore a helmet on longer rides. So he did not object to any use of them. We must remember most accidents happen close to home. So we'd be better off wearing them on short rides than on long ones if we were not going to wear one all the time.

    I wonder if the wearing of a helmet says that you are concerned enough about your role as vulnerable road user that you will wear a helmet for whatever little good it might do, even if overblown. I saved my scalp judging by the scrapes on the helmet (yes it shattered) and possibly a face fracture as I opened the sutures a lot. Certainly I saved my scalp and a more serious concussion. I dislodged the vitreous in my left eye and have a floater the size of a minivan now. A harder hit might have dislodged both retinas (I am an extreme short sighted person at high risk for retinal separation). This is from a front tire blowout in a turn at about 19 mph. I see my spill as being very similar to this dooring. Though I did not walk away from it, I was not fitted for a coffin either. When your head hits pavement any extra help is much appreciated.

    I think this dooring is tragic for all concerned.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianMc View Post
    I wonder if the wearing of a helmet says that you are concerned enough about your role as vulnerable road user that you will wear a helmet for whatever little good it might do...
    For commuting, I wear it almost solely so that there will never be a newspaper article written about me that states "he was not wearing a helmet" (although crappy reporters might write that anyway).

  19. #19
    NDD
    NDD is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    My issue with this whole "he should have been riding far enough away to be out of dooring range" argument is this: cars aren't expected to. Would you open up your car door when you can see a car coming and say "well, s*it. He should have been further away". Nope, you'd say " well s*it. I owe this guy some money now".

    Here's what I'm getting at. Cars have mirrors through which you can see things coming behind you, to the side of you, and for that extra bit that can't be seen in either drivers are trained to turn their head and observe anything in the blind spot before turning onto a road, changing lanes, opening doors, etc.

    Helmets are a great idea. Wear them if you please, but there's little excuse not to. Not wearing one doesn't make it any one persons fault. There were a lot of safe guards here that just got ignored by both parties. It sucks big time. And for all intents and purposes she should be judged the same way as if it were someone on something like a motorcycle.

  20. #20
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    For the sake of argument.....

    Opening a car door into a biker vs. opening a car door into an oncoming vehicle. The biker will give way to the door, but the vehicle will do some serious damage vs that door.

    Cars do have mirrors, and if you are parallel parking, you should check it before exiting the vehicle, not only for cyclists, but for other vehicles that could potentially hurt or kill the driver that is exiting.

    Both people were clearly at fault here, no one can deny that. Cyclist without a helmet and in the door zone and the vehicle owner didn't look before opening the door. I don't believe that her actions equate to a manslaughter charge however.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    For the sake of argument.....

    Opening a car door into a biker vs. opening a car door into an oncoming vehicle. The biker will give way to the door, but the vehicle will do some serious damage vs that door.

    Cars do have mirrors, and if you are parallel parking, you should check it before exiting the vehicle, not only for cyclists, but for other vehicles that could potentially hurt or kill the driver that is exiting.

    Both people were clearly at fault here, no one can deny that. Cyclist without a helmet and in the door zone and the vehicle owner didn't look before opening the door. I don't believe that her actions equate to a manslaughter charge however.
    No, the motorist who opened her door "without due care" caused a death through her negligence. Helment or not, and riding in the door zone, did not cause the cyclist's death.

    You're assertion that both parties are at fault is dangerous rationale and wrong.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,373
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    Opening a car door into a biker vs. opening a car door into an oncoming vehicle. The biker will give way to the door, but the vehicle will do some serious damage vs that door.
    Not in all bike-door incidents. In high school, a friend who delivered papers (a few decades ago) riding a balloon-tired Schwinn with big steel rack with papers hit and broke a T-Bird's door at the hinge pins. Hitting the door edge head on is generally fatal. So if you get doored, steer for the opening even if you hit the driver. That door edge is lethal. A bruised thigh generally is not.

  23. #23
    NDD
    NDD is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    For the sake of argument.....

    Opening a car door into a biker vs. opening a car door into an oncoming vehicle. The biker will give way to the door, but the vehicle will do some serious damage vs that door.

    Cars do have mirrors, and if you are parallel parking, you should check it before exiting the vehicle, not only for cyclists, but for other vehicles that could potentially hurt or kill the driver that is exiting.

    Both people were clearly at fault here, no one can deny that. Cyclist without a helmet and in the door zone and the vehicle owner didn't look before opening the door. I don't believe that her actions equate to a manslaughter charge however.
    I'm not going to make a judgment on the legal aspect. I don't know enough about law for that. But I do know that if you fail to pay attention and hurt or kill somebody for your negligence, then that's just wrong. That applies to anyone, not just people in cars. In a sense, maybe failing to wear head protection is negligent, but I think the greater burden falls on those who use more dangerous and death inducing means of transport.

  24. #24
    NDD
    NDD is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Also, I wouldn't neg rep you, ten speed, because we may disagree on the matter, but at least you're not being belligerent or rude about it.

  25. #25
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    I will agree with you on that. We are at least having a respectful and intelligent conversation over it. No one is right or wrong in this discussion, because no matter what we say or do, that person lost their life due to an unfortunate accident. We could argue this like the chicken and the egg and it could be discussed to death.

    I just want to reiterate that I am not blaming the cyclist here, however, I feel as though there were some preventable measures that he could have taken that could have avoided the situation entirely.

    BrianMc, I did not know that about the car door. If I am ever in that situation I will remember your advice. Really hoping to never have to deal with that but any time I get on my bike and ride on the road, I need to be prepared for everything.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianMc View Post
    So if you get doored, steer for the opening even if you hit the driver. That door edge is lethal. A bruised thigh generally is not.
    Thanks Brian. Not sure I'd remember that in the heat of the moment, but it's handy.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Straz85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,348
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    I will agree with you on that. We are at least having a respectful and intelligent conversation over it. No one is right or wrong in this discussion, because no matter what we say or do, that person lost their life due to an unfortunate accident. We could argue this like the chicken and the egg and it could be discussed to death.

    I just want to reiterate that I am not blaming the cyclist here, however, I feel as though there were some preventable measures that he could have taken that could have avoided the situation entirely.

    BrianMc, I did not know that about the car door. If I am ever in that situation I will remember your advice. Really hoping to never have to deal with that but any time I get on my bike and ride on the road, I need to be prepared for everything.
    Remember this though. Even if he WAS wearing a helmet, he still may not be alive. Bike helmets certainly aren't the safest head protection out there, because breathability and aerodynamics generally come first. That's why it was important to debunk the 85% myth, because that may push helmet manufacturers to work more on safety.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    635
    If traumatic brain injury is such a serious concern, then it sounds like everyone should be wearing helmets at all times.
    That last sentence is just the kind of overstatement that is used to validate not being safe when it's so simple to strap on a helmet. Why don't we all wear helmets to go to the bathroom? Tile is hard like asphalt.

    The point is, if a cyclist doesn't care if they get seriously hurt, it would be fine by me. They problem is it may not be just them, there's witnesses that can't unsee what they've witnessed; the driver who might have been following all the rules of the road and lots of other unintended costs and consequences.

    I like to tell my kids, sure accidents happen, but could you have foreseen and reduced some of the risk with little effort? If you could have, and you didn't, isn't some of the responsibility yours?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by nbwallace View Post
    That last sentence is just the kind of overstatement that is used to validate not being safe when it's so simple to strap on a helmet. Why don't we all wear helmets to go to the bathroom? Tile is hard like asphalt.
    And that is genuinely a question I'd like people to answer.

    What makes bike commuting so very special that it absolutely requires a magic foam forcefield, while plenty of other activities don't? It's not the x-games. Compared to cyclists, 6x as many pedestrians and 25x as many motorists had fatal brain injuries in the US between 1997-2007.

    I'm sure that many of those dead cyclists were actually wearing helmets, while none of the pedestrians of drivers were. So why is one risk totally unacceptable, while the other is totally allowable?

    What about all the witnesses who can't unsee pedestrian and motorist fatalities? Could those pedestrian and motorist fatal brain injuries have been foreseen and reduced with little effort? If you could have, and you didn't, isn't some of the responsibility yours?

  30. #30
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,685
    ^^ But aren't there more than 6x as many peds as cyclists, and more than 25x more motorists? Meaning the statistical risk is actually lower for them even though there are more total incidents? Certainly I have used the bathroom many more times than I have cycled, and have yet to crash in there.

    On the other hand the worst bike accident I witnessed could have been significantly mitigated by a full-face helmet, as his face was what had to be reconstructed. But he was a tourist, on a paved bike path, so he was pretty "safe" in a regular helmet, and there was no expectation that he do more to protect himself.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    ^ why do you hate Safety, mtbxplorer? Because the argument for bike helmets is that any risk - no matter how small - is too great. If even a few pedestrian fatalities could maybe be preventable, then it is society's duty to attempt to prevent them.

    Cycling isn't particularly dangerous, but we must wear helmets.

    Bike helmets don't actually work particularly well (the evidence is depressingly iffy), but we must wear them anyway.

    Fullface DOT helmets might at least stand a chance of being useful in collisions, but we're not that concerned about safety. We're only concerned about the very specific and very limited safety provided by strapping a coffee cup to your head. Anything more than that would obviously be silly.

    And magical styrofoam bike helmets might actually help pedestrians, since those are the type of impacts that they are designed and tested for. But pedestrian-helmets? Who ever heard of such a thing? Pedestrians don't need to be safe. That's crazy! Stop talking crazy.

    The cult-of-helmet as it applies to bicycles is complete nonsense. Arbitrary. Hypocritical. Dangerous.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    So while I've been complaining about helmets, I will say that I'm really happy to see that some manufacturers are actually working on improving safety:

    My next helmet will have MIPS, and I'm glad to see more manufacturers getting on board (even if this one is out of my price range):
    Interbike: Smith Overtake helmet with MIPS technology | Mountain Bike Review

    And multi-impact bike helmets seem like a fantastic idea (although skate-style lids aren't the the most comfortable for commuting):
    Eurobike: Bell Full Flex and Reflex multi-impact skate-style helmets | Mountain Bike Review

  33. #33
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,685
    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    ^ why do you hate Safety, mtbxplorer?
    ...because I'm supposed to wear steel-toed shoes in the field to "stay safe" even when it's below zero and your toes will freeze off long before anything crushes them.

  34. #34
    NDD
    NDD is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    So while I've been complaining about helmets, I will say that I'm really happy to see that some manufacturers are actually working on improving safety:

    My next helmet will have MIPS, and I'm glad to see more manufacturers getting on board (even if this one is out of my price range):
    Interbike: Smith Overtake helmet with MIPS technology | Mountain Bike Review

    And multi-impact bike helmets seem like a fantastic idea (although skate-style lids aren't the the most comfortable for commuting):
    Eurobike: Bell Full Flex and Reflex multi-impact skate-style helmets | Mountain Bike Review
    I'd wear a helmet like that. Even though I'd probably look dorky. It's cool that they're making more safe helmets.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPunchCholla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    719

    Re: Fatal Doorer's Day in Court

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    ^ why do you hate Safety, mtbxplorer? Because the argument for bike helmets is that any risk - no matter how small - is too great. If even a few pedestrian fatalities could maybe be preventable, then it is society's duty to attempt to prevent them.

    Cycling isn't particularly dangerous, but we must wear helmets.

    Bike helmets don't actually work particularly well (the evidence is depressingly iffy), but we must wear them anyway.

    Fullface DOT helmets might at least stand a chance of being useful in collisions, but we're not that concerned about safety. We're only concerned about the very specific and very limited safety provided by strapping a coffee cup to your head. Anything more than that would obviously be silly.

    And magical styrofoam bike helmets might actually help pedestrians, since those are the type of impacts that they are designed and tested for. But pedestrian-helmets? Who ever heard of such a thing? Pedestrians don't need to be safe. That's crazy! Stop talking crazy.

    The cult-of-helmet as it applies to bicycles is complete nonsense. Arbitrary. Hypocritical. Dangerous.
    Helmets for bicyclists and not drivers our pedestrians is neither arbitrary dangerous. It is a combination of two factors, the risk of getting into an injury accident during bicycling vs the other activities and the risk of a head injury if you are in an accident. In both cases the risk is higher for bikes in both cases (as measured in people miles in the case of getting into an accident), the probability of a head injury is much higher for bicycle injuries than for pedestrian injuries or auto injuries due to the nature of how bicycle crashes put bodies into contact with the ground pedestrian falls are at a slow enough speed that people are usually able to keep there had from hitting the ground. In an auto accident had injuries really only come from contacting the dude if the car (assuming you're buckled in) limiting opportunities for head injuries. In addition I believe newer cars are sold with side impact air bags which are essentially helmets built into the vehicle.

    So bicycling is an activity that is likelier to injure you and those injuries are likelier to involve your head, hence helmets.

    And there is no safety downside other than perhaps a false sense of security in that they are only really protecting you from laceration and certain limited types of impacts and that perhaps diverts see you as les vulnerable and drive closer. (Only one study for this)

    Should they be required? Not in my opinion. But having had two head injuries out of the three crashes I have had on bikes not wearing a helmet and no head injuries in the 10+ major crashes I have had wearing them, I will always wear mine while in a moving bike.

    That being said, it is never the victims fault that they were the victim. No one is under any responsibility to mitigate the damage caused to them by either negligence or malfeasance.
    It's just a flesh wound!

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,091
    The interesting thing about this case is that prosecutors considered manslaughter. There have been calls in the UK for people who kill by dangerous driving to face manslaughter penalties if convicted. For the drunk, text / cell phone, excessively speeding drivers there is no question in my mind that these negligent acts have a very real and known possibility of causing death and that a sentence equivalent to manslaughter is appropriate. It cannot be argued that 1 ton of metal at speed is not potentially a deadly weapon.

    What had to be decided here was whether opening a parked car door without looking was not only negligent ( undoubtably it was negligent) but whether the act itself could reasonably be expected to kill somebody and is therefore criminal.
    In this case I don't think that it was manslaughter and they got it right. The driver got punished for the negligence but it wasn't criminally negligent therefore not manslaughter.
    I hope that they will be dishing out manslaughter sentences to reckless drivers who kill in future though; that would be a big step in the right direction.

    I don't think the helmet discussion has any particular relevance in this case. As stated by others the Tompson case control study that showed a correlation between helmet use and fatalities of cyclists has been widely discredited and the effectiveness of hemets and their design standards in preventing serious brain trauma has not in anyway been established. It is pure speculation whether a helmet would have saved the guys life or not. More importantly it detracts from the discussion as to whether the driver was criminally negligent or not and whether careless / reckless driving constitutes criminal negligence and whether the authorities have the balls to start treating it as such even though it would be hugely unpopular to begin with.
    Last edited by SimpleJon; 09-12-2014 at 04:13 AM.

  37. #37
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,685

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    ^ it's honestly not something I want to watch.

    But the comments section is fun! One of the commentors is (basically) saying the cyclist deserved to be doored because earlier he'd almost hit pedestrians who were jaywalking in the bikelane. And then a whole long discussion about the rights of jaywalkers over cyclists.

    I dunno about anyone else, but I do genuinely enjoy buzzing jaywalkers. (I also genuinely enjoy jaywalking, but would never put myself in a position to be buzzed).

  39. #39
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Glad that I am not the only one who likes buzzing jaywalkers. I only do so when it is safe to do, like they are just about across the street or whatever. 90% of the time they are ass deep in their phone or iPod or whatever electronic device demands their attention. I usually have some choice comments for jaywalkers especially the ones that cross right near the crosswalk instead of at the actual crosswalk.

    I was honestly nervous to watch that video knowing full well that he would get doored. The crash didn't look that bad but then again I wasn't the one getting doored. No one really wanted to accept the blame on that one and it was interesting to watch that discussion go down.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,373
    ^ Yeah. The ones stepping out between parked cars face in the phone deserve a waking up! They are really going to feel it if they step directly into my path and take my momentum. I consider it a teaching moment.

    Watch the second video especially if you enjoy The Stones. Even if you fold the door back, you end up cockroaching in the middle of the near lane. Ready to be squashed like a bug! This is mental armament for any driver who does not like my taking a lane to avoid the door zone and chastises me. "Have you seen crash test dummy video on bikes and car doors? No? Then shut up. I am riding safely. You are required to deal with that in a safe manner."

  41. #41
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    My personal favorite is the college student that steps out into the road with their head down looking at their phone. They are lucky that I am just on a bike and am not a cement truck barreling down the road. I am also very lucky that on my commute, I spend little to no time in the door zone. I think that I pass maybe 15 parallel parking spots and I usually just take the lane as it is a 25 mph zone through there so the light traffic is usually moving fairly slowly.

    I watched the second video and that last one, oof, doored by the police. Oh, and I see what they did there, using the Doors in a video about getting doored.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,373
    ^ The Doors no. Though Break on Through (to the Other Side) or People are Strange or The End might have worked.

    Paint it Black by the Rolling Stones:

    THE ROLLING STONES LYRICS - Paint It Black

    Of course, I grew up on these. Have the vinyl still.

  43. #43

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    That's pretty crazy. But she should have given out the ticket, and then tweeted about that. It's probably one of the few times a driver would actually get a ticket for a bike-related infraction. As it is, this sends the completely wrong message.

  45. #45
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianMc View Post
    ^ The Doors no. Though Break on Through (to the Other Side) or People are Strange or The End might have worked.

    Paint it Black by the Rolling Stones:

    THE ROLLING STONES LYRICS - Paint It Black

    Of course, I grew up on these. Have the vinyl still.
    I apologize for the mix up.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    617
    Quote Originally Posted by TenSpeed View Post
    I am surprised that I got negative feedback for posting my opinion. I guess that it is to be expected however. The article said this: "...for opening her car door which caused a cyclist to fall off his bike and suffer fatal head injuries." Now, it did not say if the act was done on purpose. If it was done on purpose, that would be extremely negligent. If done on accident, which it more than likely was the driver being distracted by kids, etc. the cyclist is partially at fault here. If he had been wearing a helmet, he may have not suffered the same injuries. Debating it is not really valid as he has already died.

    For arguments sake though, lets say that he flipped off the bike, and landed on his head. Had he been wearing a helmet, would the outcome be the same? If he landed face first, probably not as the helmet doesn't protect your face. There are several variables that are left out of the story, including why he wasn't wearing a helmet when he normally did. I hear of a cyclist dying of head injuries, and not wearing a helmet, and I can't help but blame the cyclist here especially in this case. I have seen the cycling videos shot in London, and some of England, and I will say that no one knows what in the hell they are doing, from cyclists to motorists.

    I will say this though, if I am riding near a parked vehicle, it is my responsibility to watch the vehicles and be 100% prepared to react if someone opens their door. Now, no one may agree with me, and that is fine because they don't have to, and they will probably dump more negative feedback on me which I think is totally asinine, but that is how it is.

    The entire accident is tragic, from loss of life to now this woman living with this for the rest of her life, and her family as well.
    As Rogbie said in his reply to your first post: If a drunk driver causes a collision and kills someone in another car who wasn't wearing a seatbelt the drunk driver is still at fault. It doesn't make the non-seatbelt wearing driver any less stupid for not putting their seatbelt on but it doesn't absolve the drunk driver of their crime.

  47. #47
    NDD
    NDD is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Surestick Malone View Post
    As Rogbie said in his reply to your first post: If a drunk driver causes a collision and kills someone in another car who wasn't wearing a seatbelt the drunk driver is still at fault. It doesn't make the non-seatbelt wearing driver any less stupid for not putting their seatbelt on but it doesn't absolve the drunk driver of their crime.
    That's true. There was this guy who I went to high school with who hit some girl who wasn't wearing her seatbelt. He was on heroin or something, swerved into the opposite way of traffic. He went to jail...
    Last edited by NDD; 09-16-2014 at 05:12 AM.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Careful, there are some contradictions showing in this thread.

    How can some of you condemn dangerous actions by drivers and cyclists not wearing helments, then in another breath say you enjoy participating in risky actions? Jaywalking laws are BS (lobbied for by the auto-industry to make roads "free and clear" for more autos and faster travel) and no one deserves to be "buzzed" by anyone. That is imprudent, callous, negligent behavior. Dick is as dick does.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,320
    ^ from the context of this thread it should be pretty clear that the jaywalking being discussed is of the idiotic, brainless, nose-in-phone variety. And an idiotic, brainless, nose-in-phone jaywalker who steps into the path of a cyclist is not much different from an idiotic, brainless, nose-in-phone doorer. So it's perfectly consistent.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,373
    ^ And "buzzing" in my book requires steering clear of the idiot enough so no harm can occur to either of you, but close enough they can hear you through the ear buds and see that, save for your diligence, they'd have been hit. I like "On your Left!" or the errand bike's Airzound for this duty. They are doing something unsafe and illegal besides, and are not participating in the sharing of the road by actually looking before crossing. Pedestrian deaths are up 7%. We may save that person's life if they remember the next time.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    89
    If I die in a dooring accident, I would hope the perpetrator isn't charged with manslaughter. I figure if I'm ever doored, it is MY fault. It is very simple to avoid--simply steer wide.

    I EXPECT drivers to door me. It's simply not in their world view to avoid trying to kill me, so I take responsibility for it myself and avoid it, and that's the advice I give my loved ones.

    It isn't "victim blaming" to point out that a helmet could save a life here. I view it as a necessary lesson learned---what can we all do better to not have this happen? Let us examine the actions every party takes to build a safer system. To do otherwise seems dishonest.

    I have bike commuted every day for several years in addition to my off road biking. I am acutely aware of cyclists when I am driving. Yet, I have suffered inattention whereby I opened my door into a traffic lane, thank god I didn't kill someone--I don't think this very understandable type of mistake deserves a manslaughter charge. Hopefully I will never make this mistake again but I don't expect others to be that perfect, so I must take steps to protect myself!

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by WillN View Post
    I figure if I'm ever doored, it is MY fault.
    Though I agree with the principles of taking responsibility for your own safety, and forgiving mistakes in others, I think you are taking them too far. While in an ideal world we would punish actions and not results, when you take a life due to someone's carelessness some punishment is warranted. Maybe not a manslaughter charge, but not a pass either.

    Quote Originally Posted by WillN View Post
    It is very simple to avoid--simply steer wide.
    There are places where the bike lane goes straight trough the door zone and it's illegal to ride on the other lanes. You can also get doored when not even on a door zone, for example when someone pulls over next to a bike lane and opens the driver-side door. I was riding a small downhill a couple of months ago and a car passed me and then stopped at the right bus/bike lane (on a major road with no parking signs all over the place) just in front of me, and immediately opened the driver-side door into traffic. If I hadn't been experienced and alert enough to have very quickly taken the middle lane in anticipation (not yet illegal here) I might not be alive (he still got me a bit off balance as I swerved an extra foot). The cherry on the frosting was that as I was retaking the bus/bike lane I got buzzed (Tony Stewart-style) by inches (as in it felt like less than two) by a dump truck going maybe 50 mph for having trespassed on "his" lane (to be fair to him, he did kindly honk at me just before as a bit of a heads-up).

    If we want anyone other than the current mix of overwhelmingly young single men to commute on bikes, drivers must be taught to be more careful. And that does involve, to a degree, them paying for their mistakes, particularly when they turn out to be fatal.

Similar Threads

  1. Doorer Apologizes for Belligerance...
    By mtbxplorer in forum Commuting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-19-2014, 08:10 AM
  2. Nearly fatal Anaphylaxis
    By Wherewolf in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 12:12 PM
  3. Nearly fatal Anaphylaxis
    By Wherewolf in forum Rider Down, injuries and recovery
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 07:27 PM
  4. Is it fatal?
    By Bruce in SoCal in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-14-2013, 03:02 PM
  5. Questions about the fatal accident at McDowell
    By The Prodigal Son in forum Arizona
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-20-2012, 06:18 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.