Newspaper_Nick

Milton Keynes

Lambo doors only look good on Lamborghinis. Put them on anything else and it just looks like a poser.

KraneXL

We live in the 21st century; the technology is already there. We just need automakers to begin to apply it to cyclist.

I-Like-To-Bike

Apply what specific "21st century technology"? What specifically will this "technology" do to prevent dooring collisions? Any idea on how much this specific "technology" would cost to install and maintain in every new motor vehicle with doors, let alone retrofit into every registered vehicle in order to eliminate the dooring hazard for bicyclists?

njkayaker

Who claimed anything would "prevent" or "eliminate"? The person you reply to didn't say it (he was replying to someone else who said "would help").

The "every" is silly too.

You complained about somebody "fabricating" yet you are fine with fabricating "prevent" and "eliminate" yourself.

====================

In any case, there's technology that already exists in many cars that could be easy have reduce the risk.

I mentioned it 3 days ago.

I-Like-To-Bike

Given that you don't reference what existing technology you mentioned, I will guess that you are referring to blind spot detectors on mirrors. Does it include some sort of interlocking mechanism to prevent any of the vehicles doors from being opened when a bicycle is approaching from any direction, and how close would a pedestrian/cyclist have to be to activate it? How could the vehicle occupant override it if a cyclist or pedestrian was goofing off and preventing vehicle exit.

A practical reliable device using blind spot mirrors and mechanical interlocks that will work whether or not the vehicle motor is running seems like a pretty expensive piece of technology to mandate for the purpose of allegedly "reducing the risk".

Or perhaps you meant installing "Dutch Reach" mechanisms on every door on every motor vehicle, which presumably can still be flung open by a careless vehicle occupant, regardless of the presence of an approaching bicyclist. I doubt the general public would favor putting up with such an awkward mechanism that may be difficult to open for people with physical disabilities.

Seems like a wheel with a tiny squeak demanding a massive application of preventive "technological" grease in order to "reduce" the squeak a bit.

njkayaker

I mentioned what it was 3 days ago.

It seems you haven't been in a car newer than 10 years old!

The electric car locks work without the engine running. This is 40 year old (?) technology.

The blind spot detection doesn't use a lot of power. It can shut off automatically (just like how newer locks work).

The blind spot detection might not even have to enable an interlock to be useful.



This is just dumb. The "every" crap is saying that nothing less than perfection would have any use.

Nothing is going to be perfect.

Rollfast

uh-huh...

Rollfast

We're assigning that design to this guy, he's got some talent.

I-Like-To-Bike

Do these new-fangled blind spot detectors door locking mechanisms filter out all but bicycles approaching in the door zone, so that all occupants are locked in whenever bicycles/vehicles/pedestrians approach (at some undefined distance) in the vehicle's door zone (of some as of yet undefined width, known only by alleged bicycling safety experts; maybe even 14 feet!) but are free to exit otherwise?


Which car manufacturers currently install this new-fangled door zone/door locking technology as standard equipment or offer it as an option? If so at what cost to the consumer?

Good thing bicyclists won't have any interaction with older vehicles when this new fangled technology is mandated for implementation!

I-Like-To-Bike

Given that this new fangled bicycle in door zone detection system with associated door locking technology isn't currently installed in any production vehicle, I'd say it's safety record IS perfect. Just like Elon Musk's self driving fully autonomous vehicles.

I-Like-To-Bike

Just a new-fangled poser, here is what the real deal looks like.

Milton Keynes

That's not a car, that's a space ship with wheels.

Rollfast

It's a Lancia concept.

njkayaker

You can't really be this clueless.

Why would they need to filter out "all but bicycles"?

The detectors already detect cars in the door zone at highway speeds.

It's an idea.

Most of what's needed is already being installed in some newer cars. It might not really cost anything.

With your attitude, we'd still be living in caves.

This is more silliness.

Most of what's needed is already being installed in some newer cars.

I-Like-To-Bike

Why?

Because a detector system that is designed to detect cars in the mirror blind spot of cars driving at highway speeds would need to detect cars in the adjacent traffic lane and would not be restricted to detecting only those vehicles that would be in the narrow angle of approach of vehicles in the door zone of parked cars. Such a blind spot detection system could be activated by all approaching vehicles passing a parked car in the nearby adjacent traffic lane, even when not in the so-called door zone. Driver and all passengers in parked cars equipped with your "idea" of connecting currently installed blind spot detection system with automatic door interlocks may be stuck in their cars if parked on a busy street until such time as there is no traffic in the adjacent traffic lane.

Posters on BF come up with all sorts of "ideas" about how current technology can provide alleged high tech solutions to whatever problem is being discussed. Your "idea" is just one of them.

It "might" not cost anything because no one is going to pay anything for developing and installing the rest of the hardware and software required to make your "idea" a viable practical vehicle in door zone-door interlock system solution; then again it "might" cost thousands of dollars per unit if any business actually took your "idea" seriously enough to develop and install a working system into a production vehicle with an expectation that many people will pay for a system like this with such a limited application.

njkayaker

Drivers on highways pass in the door zone.

The detectors already do the discrimination you think is impossible.

You have no idea how the blind spot detectors work.

You can't really be this dim. You must be trolling.

People shouldn't be opening doors into occupied lanes either.

And we have you. Someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I-Like-To-Bike

I know exactly what I am talking about and it is obvious that your principal means of supporting your "good idea" is to resort to insult, snark, and bogus factoids.

The vehicles traveling in the so-called blind spot of a vehicle are not limited to being only those that will pass within 3 or 4 feet laterally distant from left or right side of the vehicle.



The current blind spot warning systems used by the various car manufacturers are not all identical in operation; though none of them are associated in any way with the door locking mechanisms as proposed in your "idea", perhaps for good reasons.

They usually scan the entire adjacent lane for approaching passing vehicles and are designed to warn the vehicle operator before making a lane change into the path of a car in the adjacent lane. Some don't work at all unless the vehicle with equipment is traveling at some specified speed
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...warning-guide/

Your proposed idea of a detector system could often prevent people from safely opening car doors while parked on busy (lots of traffic in the adjacent travel lane) city streets that allow parallel parking.

Your proposed idea would also have to figure out how drivers and/or passengers can open the doors from the outside, if your proposed detector system is always active locking the doors whenever something is in the actual door zone near the car.

If you find entertainment value in discussions of over-the-top "ideas" allegedly related to bicycling and/or transportation issues, I recommend that you peruse the archives of the LCF list over the last several years, it should be right up your alley

Rollfast

Remember that they are really embarrassed as much as upset with you and just shrug it off. Life is not diplomatic.

njkayaker

You are making things up again.

You talked about locking doors. I did not. That might not be necessary to be useful.


​​
Cars already have no problem doing this. It's common.

I-Like-To-Bike

Perhaps you should stop tossing out insults and clarify what the heck are you talking about if your allegedly good idea incorporating some vaguely referenced blind spot technology system doesn't include any means of preventing careless/thoughtless vehicle occupants from opening doors in the immediate path of bicyclists approaching in the door zone?

Cars have no problem doing what?

mr_bill

BOGUS IMAGE DELETED.

Shame on you.

-mr. bill

dedhed

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=22517

CHAPTER 9. Stopping, Standing, and Parking [22500 - 22526]

( Chapter 9 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

22517.

No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

(Amended by Stats. 1963, Ch. 162.)

genec

At one point, the proposed idea of a "horseless carriage" was considered outlandish, as was "a distributed power network" or "electric candles."
At one time, a clock, stable enough to calculate latitude, was worthy of a king's prize... These days you can know your precise location nearly anywhere on earth, via a handheld device.

Try not to be such a naysayer of things could well come to be, within even your lifetime.

Leisesturm

While I can appreciate the sentiment, in this particular case ILTB is on the rational side of an argument that technology will be brought to bear on the fraught issue of bike lane doorings by careless motorists. I am hard put to calculate the number of fatal doorings in any given year, but I do know that around 818 cyclists were killed in collisions with motor vehicles last year. Surely the number of fatal doorings is significantly less than that? And that in itself is significant because somewhere around 6,000 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles last year and there is still no effective technological solution for that. Car makers will be occupied with the problem of saving lives lost due to the mass and speed of cars themselves for decades. They will never get around to addressing niche peeves like door zone incidents which are rarely fatal, in the lifetime of someone participating in this forum now. As long as alternatives exist to becoming a dooring victim: speed modulation, vigilance, door-zone avoidance even ... as long as a cheaper alternative to technology exists, that lower bar will be the one adopted. Cyclists stand a better chance of being written out of future Motor Vehicle Codes entirely than they stand to gain from advances in motor vehicle technology entirely on their behalf. Advocacy can have unintended consequences.