Page 1 of 2

Doorings under attack

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:04 pm
by il padrone
Victorian state government has taken some actions requested by BNV on doorings (but not all).

Overall a good result.

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:45 pm
by Mulger bill
'Bout damn time!

Lack of the usuals comment from the usual suspects is more disturbing than reading them. Calm before the storm?

Wonder if I can get first comment in...

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:55 pm
by Aushiker
Good outcome. Thanks for sharing.

Andrew

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:00 pm
by il padrone
Mulger bill wrote:Lack of the usuals comment from the usual suspects is more disturbing than reading them. Calm before the storm?

Wonder if I can get first comment in...

Posted at 6.32pm. They've all knocked off and gone to the pub :P Get your comment in!!

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:14 pm
by zero
Until they make it a sackable offence for a police officer to fail to prosecute a dooring, its all a bit moot imo. They can't even manage it in a fatality situation.

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:49 am
by jindydiver
Why is it beyond them to apply demerits to a person in control of a car and not to a passenger? Weak as piss really

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:23 am
by il padrone
jindydiver wrote:Why is it beyond them to apply demerits to a person in control of a car and not to a passenger? Weak as piss really

Pretty basic legal principle really - you are only legally responsible for your own actions, not those of other people.

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:26 am
by PawPaw
38 serious injuries a year, and how many times have the police used their 'other enforcement options' against the offender?

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:44 am
by hannos
il padrone wrote:
jindydiver wrote:Why is it beyond them to apply demerits to a person in control of a car and not to a passenger? Weak as piss really

Pretty basic legal principle really - you are only legally responsible for your own actions, not those of other people.



Except (in NSW) the driver is responsible for those in the car not wearing seat belts and can get fined / demerit points for an infringement.
How is it different about opening the door of a vehicle the driver is in control of?

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:01 am
by Ozkaban
hannos wrote:
il padrone wrote:
jindydiver wrote:Why is it beyond them to apply demerits to a person in control of a car and not to a passenger? Weak as piss really

Pretty basic legal principle really - you are only legally responsible for your own actions, not those of other people.



Except (in NSW) the driver is responsible for those in the car not wearing seat belts and can get fined / demerit points for an infringement.
How is it different about opening the door of a vehicle the driver is in control of?


I agree - it works well for seatbelts. Why not doorings? If the driver tells people to be careful as they're liable it would improve awareness of the issue quite a lot.

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:05 am
by AndrewBurns
Ugh why did I read those comments. It's depressing because you know that no matter how clearly wrong they are there's no point trying to argue with them because they won't listen and they don't operate on a level capable of logic.

Good to see the fine has increased but to be honest it's not enough. I wouldn't blink at dropping $300, it's just not enough for injuring or potentially killing somebody. As the comments in that article clearly show there's a huge amount of mindless anger and ignorance out there that needs to be addressed, simply increasing fines will do nothing.

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:26 am
by Aushiker
Ozkaban wrote:I agree - it works well for seatbelts. Why not doorings? If the driver tells people to be careful as they're liable it would improve awareness of the issue quite a lot.


For starters the driver can refuse to drive off or if appropriate pull up an stop the car if someone is not wearing a seat belt /removes it. Unless the car has driver controlled door locking it is pretty hard to stop someone from opening the day when you are sitting in the drivers seat.

Somehow I suspect you wouldn't be too happy if a rear seat passenger, say sitting behind you as the driver, opened the door, doored a cyclist and you got the fine/demerits.

Andrew

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:46 am
by jindydiver
il padrone wrote:
jindydiver wrote:Why is it beyond them to apply demerits to a person in control of a car and not to a passenger? Weak as piss really

Pretty basic legal principle really - you are only legally responsible for your own actions, not those of other people.

Drivers are responsible for some actions of their passengers, but you miss my point completely.
Why can't the legislation specify that if a driver doors someone they are fined and lose points, and if a passenger doors someone they are just fined? It is just laziness to throw their hands up and say it is too hard so we wont do either.

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:55 am
by grasshopper
AndrewBurns wrote:Good to see the fine has increased but to be honest it's not enough.

Yep; needed to be far more to keep it burbling along. At this level, they get some ticks from the easy markers and it all vanishes. And as others have said, the cops have made it pretty clear they're not interested. I was talking to a couple of police staffing an awareness stand at a shopping centre not 5km away recently, and they didn't know there'd been a fatal. So much more awareness is needed, and it could be easily and cheaply driven through the internal comms machine. If anyone cared. I guess we're a poor second to drugs and drunks, both of which are peddled for profit. :(

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:06 pm
by g-boaf
Mulger bill wrote:'Bout damn time!

Lack of the usuals comment from the usual suspects is more disturbing than reading them. Calm before the storm?

Wonder if I can get first comment in...


Unfortunately, you spoke too soon. :roll: The comments are just ridiculous on there. Good on the Government to try and do something about it. And how about using their influence to get the radio and newspaper shock-jocks to get on the bandwagon and start blasting people responsible for the doorings?

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:15 pm
by Mulger bill
Not surprised by the comments from the great unbrained :? A quick look shows that the majority of negs think this is a new, cycling specific law instead of a boosted penalty for an existing law designed to protect ALL road users from unthinking idiots. I'd have no problems with points for minors going onto the driver, I drummed the need for care when opening doors into my ruggies from the moment the kid lock on the back doors got disabled, why can't everybody?

They actually published one of me comments :shock: Hasn't happened for years, musta had something to do with me not using me normal name and addy :twisted:

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:56 pm
by Big_Red
Wow, the cyclist hate in the comments for that HS article made me cringe. The comments only just stop short of accusing cyclists that it is their own fault if they get doored. I see the rego for cyclists whinge / all cyclists are rabid red light runners / we mow down peds on the footpath critiques were trotted out yet again... What doesn't help is that so called "bike lanes" are largely viewed by the average motorist as a carpark/slipway and how dare that a cyclist (who btw are not contributing to traffic congestion) would actually use it and get in their way. Most motorists would have no idea how far their door swings out and the incredible amount of damage a dooring can do to someone passing by if the door is hit or the cyclist has to swerve inadvertly into the traffic and is run over. Even my 7 year old son knows to look out before opening the car door, to be careful of other parked cars in a carpark so as to not cause damage to someone elses property, or hit a ped/cyclist, as he has had it drummed into him that it is the right thing to do ever since he was able to open the car door himself. What is wrong with people today that they have little or no care for others?

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:16 pm
by find_bruce
Mulger bill wrote:They actually published one of me comments :shock: Hasn't happened for years, musta had something to do with me not using me normal name and addy :twisted:

If you had listed your address as Eaglehawk, would it have given the game away ?

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:42 pm
by KonaCommuter
Here's what happens in Japan. Maybe an option for drivers here should the penalty for dooring a cyclist ever carry an appropriate penalty



Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:02 pm
by KonaCommuter
Oxford wrote:interesting, on the moto forums they're up in arms about it wondering how cyclists can get so much positive action. like cyclists moto riders suffer from SMIDSY but law enforcement thinks its always the moto riders fault, sound familiar?



Tell them it's cyclists awesome calves. They're awe inspiring 8)

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:04 pm
by jules21
zero wrote:Until they make it a sackable offence for a police officer to fail to prosecute a dooring, its all a bit moot imo. They can't even manage it in a fatality situation.

+ 1

why are people getting excited about this? police make their own decisions about whether to issue a fine or not. i know cases where cops have point blank refused to fine drivers for dooring, and not just in james cross' case. this will probably achieve little

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:27 pm
by Mulger bill
Oxford wrote:interesting, on the moto forums they're up in arms about it wondering how cyclists can get so much positive action. like cyclists moto riders suffer from SMIDSY but law enforcement thinks its always the moto riders fault, sound familiar?


I'd be happy to ally with the moto riders in advocacy as downtrodden two wheelers but I see two problems...
1 Moto advocacy in this country is horribly horribly fragmented at state level, let alone national.
2 Govt would probably see it as an excuse to nail cycling clubs under anti bikie legislation.

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:42 am
by Percrime
Mulger bill wrote:2 Govt would probably see it as an excuse to nail cycling clubs under anti bikie legislation.


Pretty sure that they can already do that.

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:37 am
by Cheesewheel
jules21 wrote:
zero wrote:Until they make it a sackable offence for a police officer to fail to prosecute a dooring, its all a bit moot imo. They can't even manage it in a fatality situation.

+ 1

why are people getting excited about this? police make their own decisions about whether to issue a fine or not. i know cases where cops have point blank refused to fine drivers for dooring, and not just in james cross' case. this will probably achieve little


for what its worth, insurance issues weigh it otherwise.

Had a friend who was involved in a dooring incident (motorvehicle on motorvehicle) and it seems to be the closest thing you can come to for a 100% at fault payout. From what he was telling me, even if a person leaves a door open just a little bit and leaves it unattended, they are liable for whatever damages it causes (of course if it kills you you probably won't be in a state to receive compensation)

Re: Doorings under attack

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:54 am
by jules21
Cheesewheel wrote:for what its worth, insurance issues weigh it otherwise.

Had a friend who was involved in a dooring incident (motorvehicle on motorvehicle) and it seems to be the closest thing you can come to for a 100% at fault payout. From what he was telling me, even if a person leaves a door open just a little bit and leaves it unattended, they are liable for whatever damages it causes (of course if it kills you you probably won't be in a state to receive compensation)

i don't understand your point cheesewheel. i agree that fault lies with the door opener, but that hasn't stopped police from refusing to issue fines. the latter isn't an indication police blame the victim, probably more that they sympathise with the perpetrator.