The Chainlink

Anti-Dooring System Proposed

http://dooringalertsystems.com/

There is a new anti-dooring system proposed by inventors that is incorporated into a vehicle's technology.

Do you think that this dooring alert system, if it would be adopted in the future by the auto industry, would be effective in reducing doorings?

Views: 1436

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David P. on February 19, 2016 at 3:02pm

Mark,

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are ranting or venting, rather than conclude that you really believe that the quality of a person is determined by what kind of vehicle they drive. I like old cars as much as you do (and I also have an air-cooled, rear-engined German car) so I certainly understand the appeal of cars that weigh less than 3000 lbs. and don't have A-pillars the size of your thigh, but you are being ridiculous above.

Permalink Reply by Rich S on February 19, 2016 at 3:49pm

He lost me the moment he claimed a person could get hit by a 1,000 lb vehicle and walk away largely unharmed. 

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on February 19, 2016 at 3:42pm

Mark D, I'm not a fan of monster trucks and I do think larger vehicles disconnect people from their surroundings which may lead to accidents with pedestrians and cyclists. And we are all passionate about safety. I think that passion may have gotten the better of you with your last few responses. Please keep in line with our guidelines: please refrain from personal attacks and name-calling including profanity and words like "redneck" to fellow Chainlinkers. 

Please remember - it's best to pretend you are sitting in your local pub, having a pint with a fellow Chainlinker when typing your response. There are real people behind all of these accounts. I think you can state your case in a more productive and respectful way. 

Permalink Reply by Mark D on February 19, 2016 at 7:38pm

Ack!  Now I remember why I don't like posting to internet forums. 

I am not ranting or venting and I ABSOLUTELY believe that the quality of a person may be determined by what kind of vehicle they drive, with the key wording being "may" (sometimes people get temporarily stuck driving a vehicle that is not reflective of their personality).

Yasmeen, I'm not passionate about safety and that did not get the best of me and I don't know what you mean about "personal attacks and name-calling including profanity and words like "redneck" to fellow Chainlinkers".  I haven't attacked any chainlinkers or called them any names (although arguably some Chainlinkers have attacked me and yet you didn't call them out for it).

If you're open to constructive criticism, I do not agree with your statement that people should pretend that they're sitting at a local pub ...  The problem with face-to-face discussions is that most people don't feel comfortable expressing their true feelings when they may not jive with the people they're with.  Instead people should be encouraged, and feel free, to openly express their opinions on internet forums without worry of censorship or insecure easily-offended people getting offended.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on February 21, 2016 at 9:57am

Again, please read the guidelines and if this is something you don't feel you can respect, maybe this isn't for you. I think there's something to be said to owning one's opinion in a way that you can actually say it to someone's face, with respect and in person. If you don't agree, that's fine. I still need you to participate under the guidelines. 

Permalink Reply by mike w. on February 21, 2016 at 7:37am

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on February 21, 2016 at 10:03am
Dooring is a serious issue for the cycling community. I would really like to be moving down a path in the future towards minimizing or eliminating it. I might not be around to see if happen, but I would like to see some helpful system implemented along with increased driver awareness. A split second of terror in a near dooring situation is something that convinces you to want to advocate for some type of remedy.

So far here, with the usual thread drift, I'm counting about 7 think that this would be effective to reduce doorings, and about 2 seem to feel it would not be effective because they don't trust modern automotive technology and design.

Does anyone else have any useful suggestions? I still would like to hear more input from members if they feel that any visual awareness system along with increased driver awareness would be helpful to take us down the path in the future to reduce doorings.
Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on February 21, 2016 at 10:22am

I believe it's a combination of a number of factors that need to happen. I worry about relying too much on technology because people do need to be responsible and alert drivers. Here are a number of safety factors that should be worked on and are just as important:

1. Infrastructure - making cyclists safe and removing the risk of dooring as much as possible. As more bike lanes are created, it looks like it's being taken into consideration but then we also have to make sure to retrofit these improvements on older bike lanes.

2. Awareness of the drivers - drivers need to be aware and alert. Penalties and enforcement are critical to that awareness. Drivers don't really get the critical importance of looking before they open until it is too late. 

3. Awareness of cyclists - it's important not to hug the parked cars i.e. riding too close to the right. Yes, drivers need to look but also, please ride defensively. I could have been doored more than 40 times if I wasn't riding towards the left of the bike lane, giving myself a safer distance from parked cars. There are too many drivers that don't look.

4. Technology - if it's there, great. Let's implement safety mechanisms but 1-3 are more important and available to implement now. 

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on February 21, 2016 at 12:58pm

Rock on.  While I may disagree with you, I respect your right to your opinion so your status on the site is safe (and protected) when expressing your viewpoint. :-) 

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on February 21, 2016 at 1:50pm

I'm all in favor of infrastructure improvements, which would be the most effective but also the most expensive of the solutions you've listed.

Now, I will probably be banished from this site forever for spreading blasphemy, but I'm not against the idea of licensing adult bicyclists who live in and around our city who use our public thoroughfares. The revenues generated can help fund the infrastructure we want and give us a greater voice in the evolution of our city.

It can be argued that taxation is an assault on our liberty, to quote Ben Franklin:

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

I've often thought about that quote and although it's short and pithy, it never resonated well with me. Turns out, according to this link, Franklin was not only misquoted but the situation he was referring to was in complete opposition to what the quote states.

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on February 21, 2016 at 1:50pm

Furthermore, I think licensing bicyclists will confer upon us a little more respectability in the eyes of motorists.

Imagine driving a car and approaching a bicycle tagged with a City of Chicago license plate, just like a motorcycle. That motorist is likely to pause for at least a split second longer before passing.

I think part of the problem is that since bicyclists pay nothing to use our roadways, motorists give them less consideration.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on February 21, 2016 at 1:54pm

Cyclists do pay to use the roads. This is a myth. And cyclists are less hard on the road than driving a car. Here's some related reading:

http://www.bicycling.com/training/tips/best-responses-anti-cyclist-...

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service