Iride01 

One thing that angled parking has for it that opposed to simply a door opening, is that if the car is going to be backing out, the backup lights will be on. I routinely look for those and adjust as necessary while driving or cycling. There is no indicator for a door about to open.

However, I've been neither backed over or doored. So don't know whether angled parking is going to be safer or less safe statistically.

dedhed

When you have to call your kid to bring extra keys across town at midnight after a Christmas party at a bar.At least it was still open and I could go back inside.

CliffordK

There are a couple of bells and whistles that I can do without. Somehow my key fob has become hyper sensitive to locking the door. So, it tries to lock the door whenever it gets bumped.

But, I also had my cat roll down the window and escape. Then when I finally caught her, she locked the keys inside the pickup. Fortunately after a bit of stressing I coaxed her to also unlock the doors.

livedarklions

That's a good point, but I think the way it often works out in reality is that the brake/backup lights will be obscured by a longer vehicle parked closer to the cyclist or possibly by other vehicles in the traffic lane. There are indicators that a door is about to open--person sitting in a stopped car, seeing the car park in front of you, but there's a lot of randomness as to whether or not you're going to see those. I've never been backed into or doored, either, but I don't know if there's any studies of the comparative risk to cyclists. Angled parking is associated with higher levels of collisions generally, however, and actually narrows the road so that it's less likely that bike lanes can fit onto the road: https://sf.streetsblog.org/2020/09/0...uates-hazards/

Like I said, not a fan as a driver or a cyclist.

CliffordK

I don't find myself riding along rows of parked cars a lot. There is the occasional car that I'll carefully watch for activity inside the car, as well as outside the car, and give those vehicles (as well as commercial vehicles) some extra space.

I really don't know how many blocks ahead I would see a car parking. So, if a car parked, waited 30 seconds, and then a passenger got out it may be less predictable. Tinted windows?

I only know of angled parking in store parking lots (which can be a madhouse), as well as a few small towns. It doesn't seem to be the choice for parking in most larger cities. So far it hasn't been a major problem. One couldn't do a bike path behind them, but perhaps in front of the vehicles. Nonetheless, it would be unlikely where that parking style is used. Pedestrians would be the bigger problem.

Iride01 

I remember years ago being reprimanded (in a friendly way) by a neighbor for not waving to them as we passed each other. I think I was walking and maybe both of us being stopped at an intersection or something.

However the neighbor was in their car which was a common make, model and color. Their windows were so dark with aftermarket tinting that you'd never be able to see inside their car. Even the front and back windshields. Specific regulation of window tinting wasn't a thing back then.

jon c. 

They tried to solve that on a local street with angled parking that you back into. It does improve visibility, but in my limited experience there seems to be a high probability that that the car behind you will pull too close to let you back in. It's an usual parking style and drivers aren't used to it.

The street has sharrows indicating riders should take the lane, so that leaves them relatively protected from drivers pulling out of parking spots.

Daniel4

Basically, driver convenience takes priority over road safety.

And that's the reason why door handles aren't positioned for the Dutch Reach. Inconvenient for drivers and passengers.

livedarklions

The article I linked was about angled street parking in San Francisco, definitely not a small town. I have dealt with it on busy downtown streets in Manchester NH, small city, and it's a nightmare as a driver. There's no way to avoid having to back up with an obstructed view of oncoming traffic. I think anything that routinely causes cars and trucks to back up on a street is pretty high risk.

I'm definitely not talking about parking lots which, btw, are sites of a lot of fender benders. There really aren't a lot of alternative options to angled parking there.

livedarklions

People don't drive well in reverse, I'm going to guess this experiment won't end well.

flangehead

In my industry we have to back in to parking on work sites, which are controlled access. Some safety professionals recommend backing into “normal” parking places at all times.

In my experience, the practice works on controlled sites except for very light fender benders. (As noted, most of us are not skilled at reversing vehicles because we do it so infrequently.)

In the public setting it poses problems because backing in is unexpected behavior. Turn on signals and wave all you want; many motorists still won’t understand that you are backing into a space so the practice creates confusion.

In the “angled for back-in” case I’d expect more fender benders. Also, the motorist can leave parking much faster and with less warning.

My preference as a cyclist on an angle-parking street is the current nose-in practice. I treat a lit back-up light as a loaded weapon.

livedarklions

Like I said, I think the unequal size of vehicles make the visibility of backup lights from a rider's perspective really hit or miss (much like tinting of windows does for observing driver in seat, btw). I think the only systematic advantage angled parking has over parallel parking with a buffer zone is that you can fit more parking spaces in per block using angled parking. I don't think this is generally a good thing for cyclists, it just multiplies the number of drivers we might encounter exiting the space in one form or the other.

I think the other poster has it exactly wrong, angled parking is really a measure that promotes more street parking than it is about safety.

billew

Sixty two replies and not one states the obvious: Stay out of the door zone! Stay away from back-out parking! "The Dutch Reach" doesn't work and fantasizing about changing human nature or moving door handles is never going to be as easily as taking the lane.

livedarklions

You realize one generally doesn't need to state the obvious because, y'know, it's obvious.

Daniel4

Drivers and passengers will complain that it will be too difficult to open the door.

livedarklions

If we don't ride in the door zone? Not sure why you're quoting me here.

I don't think there's any place you can put the door handle that would actually make a Dutch reach easier than a straight shot. Where exactly do you think the door handle should be?

I-Like-To-Bike

Yep nothing easier than declaring that "Take the Lane" is obviously the best, if not only, correct answer to riding in a dense urban region regardless of street/parking design and existing traffic conditions.

livedarklions

Oh no, I'm agreeing with you!

TBH, that's not even the most vacuous advice--"stay away from back-out parking"?! How far is "away"? 10 feet? Next street over? If someone is going to back into traffic, how would I have any idea how far they're going to back up?

Daniel4

Maybe a simpler solution would be for car manufactures to install horizontal 3 foot flags sticking out the sides of cars that say "Don't ride in the door zone".

That would mitigate the problem of drivers and passengers suffering the inconvenience of being careful.

livedarklions

So should I take that to mean you don't have an answer for a very straightforward question? Where exactly do you think the door handle should be? You're asserting that there's an engineering fix that will make it necessary for people to use the Dutch reach but it's not being implemented because it would be inconvenient for drivers and passengers. Seems to me you're begging the question whether there is such a fix.

I'd like such a fix as a driver, a passenger and a cyclist, so let me know where I could get it or how it could even be done. Otherwise, knock off this "convenience" nonsense.

GhenghisKahn

It's an easy fix. Simply mandate only sliding doors be allowed on vehicles traveling within the limits of a given city. That includes the front driver and passenger doors, too. Eliminates the need for the Dutch Reach. Eliminates possible doorings, too. One could get 'peopled' like hitting a pedestrian when someone slides their door open and steps out into the path of a cyclist. But, ultimately nothing is going to completely eliminate the danger of cycling in traffic. NOTHING. Especially now when pensioners are buying ebikes whose speed capabilities far outstrip their reaction time abilities. Those things need to be registered as motor vehicles, licensed, insured and a competency operation test given.

livedarklions

I suspect that I don't really need to explain why cities aren't going to ban virtually all existing passenger vehicles, but that points out another reason this redesign cars solution won't work--even if every vehicle being produced from today on had the redesign, the existing cars would still be the most common on the streets for many years to come.

I'll leave the obvious impossibility of sliding doors on reasonably sized cars to someone else. Basically, you'd be requiring a rather large vehicle size to travel in a city. Again, I think your cure is worse than the disease. There's already too many big vehicles in cities, now you'd be encouraging people who drive in cities to replace their cars with vans, mahing that problem worse.