I can not agree with anyone who thinks that a - cycle licence - and throwing responsibility for being hit or doored on to a cyclist is at all realistic. Our cites are biased and our reading of "traffic law" is biased toward the current vehicle infrastructure. The law is black and white, the car drivers are at fault.

This level of thinking is about as far from the humanised form of cites previous generations designed as we could get. All we need to do is put motor vehicles in there proper place, instead of coming up inept solutions that completely ignore brilliantly successful solutions found in Europe.

Why is it a cyclist fault is someone opens a door on them?
Why do you need a cycle licence because of an infrastructure bias toward motor vehicles?

Please do your due diligence before commenting.
Here is a good starting point.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1BE9A8FAB3FDA95D

I don't think that's quite what the OP is saying - but close. Riders have a part to play in preventing accidents, and while they cannot prevent all doorings, they can ride defensively as a means of avoiding accidents, which I think was the thrust of the competency and training course suggestion.

Yes, a driver is almost always at fault in doorings, but nevertheless, confident skilled riders *can* sometimes make doorings less likely.

and please note, I only said "almost always" because, while I find it hard to come up with a scenario in which the rider is at fault, I'm sure there are *rare* scenarios where it's not the driver's fault. Such as, perhaps, night-time doorings when the rider hasn't been carrying lights

Jason - in law the driver dooring a cyclist, lit or not is at fault. No exception.
I admit carrying this type of bias once, but have now studied the issue of "Humanising Cities" and have a different perspective. A good place to start is this set of videos;

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1BE9A8FAB3FDA95D
My favourite is this design - "Junction design the Dutch - cycle friendly way"

We literally have been living this Utopian US Motor Vehicle Paradigm since the 1950s and it is about time we went back to the infrastructure that was "Australian Cities" for most of our history.

We are fed a steady diet of "spin" from the motor vehicle lobby like this;
http://goo.gl/vFucw

Naturally we do not see the truth.

I am aware of that, Paul. I *am* a cyclist. I'm not talking about the legal liability, I'm talking about very rare instances in which in *fact* if not in *law* the rider is at fault. Cyclists can be idiots too, and there are very, very rare scenarios in which cyclists might cause or "invite" (for want of a better word) an accident.

I thought that was relatively clear, but obviously not

I also agree that humanising cities would be marvellous, I really do. But that's a long-term solution and won't save anyone from being doored tomorrow.

What we can do as cyclists in the meantime, while politicos to-and-fro over what cities are really for, is take up the mantle of safety ourselves and ride as defensively as we feel comfortable doing. For me that usually means asserting control over the entire lane in order to avoid the door zone. For a more novice rider, it might mean getting some training, and buying bigger brighter lights.

There are things WE can do today, while we wait for pollies to pull their fingers out over tomorrow.

Jason - the whole point of the law is to show clear "responsibility".
If you were talking about an accident you would be right.
Dooring is preventable, the driver checks before creating a dangerous situation.
I am pleased you are aware of how do avoid idiots in cars who open doors. But personally, I have know plenty like you with injuries and compensation payouts from insurers to say your mindset is wrong on the issue. In law and reality, dooring is no different to than a driver at a stop sign hitting an vehicle with the right of way without lights. Your insurer still pays out for your error.All I can do is make you aware of motorists responsibility, but it is difficult when even the "police' suffer from the issue.

As for recommended patience and saying;
"..... obviously not I also agree that humanising cities would be marvellous"
that was a condescending remark and unworthy of a cyclist.
But forgivable, as the industry that has us all brainwashed into believing we can not change this scenario quickly has the floor. Our cites have been designed to be for humans, they can be again humanised.

Look what New York did very quickly!
http://youtu.be/RbB5p2KYtyw
http://youtu.be/eybnVOMEX6w?t=5s

We [my fathers] generation dehumanised our Streets, take a good look around and tell me we all want "gridlock".

Where I live in Brunswick, every afternoon Brunswick Rd is gridlocked 0730hrs 0930hrs - then 1430 hrs till 1830hrs, just down in Sydney Rd it is like that nearly all day. The traffic moves slower than most "shopping centre" car parks, and this is not an urgent issue?
Looking back at pre 1950s images of every Australian city it simply was not like this, we need to take the "Streets" back to what they are meant to be "Streets".

"A street is a paved public thoroughfare in a built environment. It is a public parcel of land adjoining buildings in an urban context, on which people may freely assemble, interact, and move about."
Name one Street that fits the definition of "street" in our country and you will it has been re-humanised.

After literally Billions of dollars support of the vehicle lobby where exactly are we? You are defending a slow change, seriously?
The motor vehicle industry makes "Big Tobacco" pale by comparison, this is serious, it's our children's future environment and as it stands now they are to frightened to ride bikes to school. We even put the fear of god into parents saying they must wear helmets.

As for the things "WE can do today" these are just common sense issues or are they uncommon sense? Maybe you are right and we are all brainwashed into ignorance. Guess it depends on your mindset. Personally I believe we can change this quickly.

Town planners are already aware of all these issues, plans are in place and being rolled out, people are just unaware of them. This article is typical of that kind of response to the centre of gravity on this issue.

*sigh*

Idealism meets pragmatism. The particles annihilate.

Jason - that is a cop out.

From my perspective you have read little of the on going town planning that is rolling out regardless of what the pre generation y believe. As for the "law', that is neither pragmatic or idealistic.

It is interesting I can understand your perspective, but you can not grasp the "humanising of cites" and the motor vehicle industries campaign against it.
But are content with tweeking, here and there, or business as usual.

What the? There is only two positions, for the vehicle lobby or against it. That is no straw man issue.
That is fence sitting.

WRONG.

This is not a black and white issue - nothing ever is. Such un-nuanced thinking is truly absurd.

My position recognises that there are good arguments on both sides and that a compromise needs to be reached, and that compromise cannot be found immediately, and that it may, in fact, never be found. Yours, it appears, is the Bush Doctrine of "you're with us or you're against us"

I understand bias like this, but there can simply be no compromise on human life and the risk a tone of metal posses to pedestrians and the public. There are no grey areas but those encouraged by sixty years of utopian motoring dream sold to the public.

"the risk a tone[sic] of metal posses to pedestrians and the public"

With that risk comes benefits. If you don't recognise this, then you're as blind as any other extremist.

In addition to being a cyclist, I'm also a driver.

I *need* my car because my partner is disabled. She cannot walk any appreciable distance and public transport options are woefully inadequate. Without it, We'd be forced to take taxis everywhere, or be confined to a small range of our local suburb. This is a benefit of motorised transport. Additionally, with my car I can carry loads that would otherwise be impossible, I can drive in relative safety over long distances and I can do what I really enjoy doing, and that's riding my mountain bike offroad in the wilderness, hundreds of kilometres away from where I live.

There are great benefits, social and economic, that come from well-ordered motor transport

It's all very well being a "pro-pedestrian idealist", but you're failing to recognise any grey area and that marks you out as a frootloop. This conversation is over.

"This conversation is over" that's ok. I am disappointed you chose to fall for the"fear"the automobile lobby put out.

"There are great benefits, social and economic, that come from well-ordered motor transport" Jason we are one mind on this and I challenge anyone to show me that the utopian dream exists in any Australian city.

For that you will have to go to the Netherlands Model started in the mid 60s, and that is a place you fear to go.

But hey that's your journey and thankfully it's all but over, as it is the turn of gen x and younger to deal with the mess that has been made of our beautiful Australian cities by the BB generation.

If you had bothered to look at the videos I put up, your awareness may have been raised, not to mention addressing the "fear" you clearly have of change.

For the record I am a F1, MotoGP, World Rally and general motor sports fan. Aside from being a cyclist and ex mountain biker competitor my field of study is foresight which deals future human directions.

I would be an idealist about humanising cites, but the people of the Netherlands beat Australian's to the model and built it first. Thankfully we have generation implementing it as we speak regardless of what you wish to believe.

Wait a minute. Just one more.

You take my outlining of some potential benefits of car ownership and spin that as my falling for propaganda from the auto lobby? Because no-one could possibly arrive at these conclusions logically, it has to be some kind of manipulation by the dark powers of big auto?

Did I read that right?

If so, you're also a conspiracy theorist, as well as being a denier of compromise. You're a frootloop, Paul.

YES, cities need to be improved. We are, it seems, in agreement on this. But the topic at hand is no longer that cities are in need of improvement. The topic is your complete rejection of compromise and pragmatic approaches, your failure to recognise that the other side might, oh, I don't know, have some points worthy of considering, and your consistent mischaracterisation of my part in this absurd discussion. THAT is why the discussion is over, Paul. Not because I'm a dupe of the car lobby, but because you're armoured against debate by fallacious reasoning and a consistent reversion to the strawman.

Jason - thanks for the reply.
I will not rise to the "fruitloop" comment you are entitled to the vernacular. I respect the language of older Aussies and get what you mean, I have been accused of being "green" and "socialist" as well. So that is fine, very wrong but still no drama. My world view is not as narrow as those labels imply.

Our conversation has been one sided because as there has been a failure to grasp or comment on the European Model for transport infrastructure.

If that offends your jingoistic stance.
I challenge you to comment on what New York has done over last few years with Mayor Giuliani plan of humanising his city.
Can you please explain how Mayor Giuliani was wrong, and why we can not implement these ideas?

http://youtu.be/eybnVOMEX6w

"...conspiracy theory.." Jason
Maybe you might comment on what the US auto manufactures have given Australian's. We have certainly given them billions in tax and profit breaks. Conspiracy theory hardly, it's now in our history what they have taken and continue to as they lay off workers to implement robotic automation of vehicle manufacturing, during this time of wealth transfer from one sector to the other.

I value your perspective.

"I respect the language of older Aussies and get what you mean"

Whoah there tiger. What's that meant to mean? Who do you think you're talking to exactly?

Unwarranted assumptions on top of black-or-white thinking, strawmen and conspiracy? Are you going for the full set?

Jason - no comment on the actual subject.

Disappointing, but understandable. Humanising of cities encompasses, Form-based codes for buildings and that would be a leap to expect the discussion to go to that.

Form based codes mean, you and your disabled partner would not need to travel far to find a medical professional or facility, now essential in all Australian cities. Which circles back to transport infrastructure.

Paul, I don't know if you've noticed, but my last few post have not been about the original topic. That was dealt with some time ago. I agree on the aims - more livable cities - but differ on the achievability of those aims in a short time in Australian social conditions. End of story. Argument over. WE'RE DONE there.

No, my recent comments have been about your stunningly bad advocacy. You've argued almost exclusively with logical fallacies, from Black vs White, through Strawman, through assigning motives to me which I do not hold and you cannot possibly know for sure, calling me a victim of propaganda, dodging my questions in response and, weirdest of all, calling a mid-30s British male an "old australian" and "jingoistic".

It's laughable, Paul, it really is. But you've given me a nice topic to blog about, so thank you.

Jason - bad advocacy, interesting.

I have been having a dialog with you after you terminated our conversation, and I quote;
" ..This conversation is over.. "

I make no apologies for the call that your mindset was that of a baby boomer. Re read what you have written and tell me car advocacy is not the domain of the older thinker set in their ways? Sounding like Jeremy Clarkson is nothing to be ashamed of it is a legitimate position. Jeremy regularly takes the piss out of car owners with his tongue firmly in his cheek. It works.

We the public have no say on the roll out of humanised cities, Fremantle and Perth are well underway, Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide have agenda they are following. It is rolling out, and contrary to the lobby groups it actually improves our driving experience.

"Real collaboration is when the idea can no longer be traced to one person; It is legitimately ours."
Simon Sinek

If you gained and can blog go for it, feel free pay it forward. It is your interior, your "story" after all.

Mark - you nailed that it.

The Netherlands have proved that principle works, so we do not even risk anything implementing the Jan Gehl model of "humanising cites. The American's have gone further and recognised the European model of building infrastructure as well, you may find some reading on this subject interesting. At worst it will give you keywords to do research on the subject, it really is being done here by planners, it just goes unannounced.

Buildings and our Cites need to change also;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form-based_code
http://goo.gl/UPTtz

Humanising Cites Video List;
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1BE9A8FAB3FDA95D

How you deal with high volumes of cyclists in built up cities like Copenhagen, Sydney or Melbourne is one discussion. Making sensible road laws that protect cyclists EVERYWHERE is more important and needs to be sorted now.

Mark H - agreed, one issue here is the sheer volume of vehicles. In the Netherlands last I looked the year round commuter figures were over 44% and they have snow!

This video illustrates why we are behind, but the good news is the model is there in Europe to copy.
http://youtu.be/aK-ESyajHLY

As for sensible road laws, if you take the time to read the road traffic acts and I have read those of WA, SA, and Victoria. You will find the laws are not the issue. The cyclist of the last two centuries are largely responsible for those laws, as the cycling lobbies are on record as being very strong before the 1950s.

Today the battle is with the level of thinking or value system of the drivers and the law enforcement agencies that implement the laws. People actually believe cars have the right of way over pedestrians and cyclists.

This is not the case as we follow the English / European view of humans value in cites. The sad thing is we adopted the US values of vehicle freedom and attached their vehicle rights. Which is wrong

Shane Warne demonstrated that recently with his mindset, and in fairness to him he actually believed he was right in law. If he was, his silence on the issue would not be deafening. He just found out after the event and like you believe the laws favour the motorist and they do not. Motorists on the whole bully pedestrians and cyclists particularly in WA.

Paul, are you serious???

Believe it or not I do actually read the road rules.

Rule 144 Keeping a safe distance when overtaking
A driver overtaking a vehicle—
(a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance
to avoid a collision with the vehicle or
obstructing the path of the vehicle;

How can you say the road rules are not the issue when they allow a car to overtake a bicycle as close as they want provided they don't cause a collision? As for Shane Warne, are you seriously saying he was unaware it was illegal to block an intersection with his car and then deliberately drive his car into a cyclist when he tried to get past? Get real.

"Paul, are you serious??? Believe it or not I do actually read the road rules. Rule 144 Keeping a safe distance when overtaking A driver overtaking a vehicle" - Mark H.

Really, so what is the issue?
Yes, if an officer of the law is biased and sees 2 cm as appropriate there is an issue, which is my point.
The mindset of the public, including law enforcement is the issue. We don't need new legislation, we need a new direction and outlook toward motor vehicles.

Currently there are far to many suffering the delusion they have special privileges over pedestrians and cyclists.

Yes, you are right there are drivers who deliberately block cyclists. But I see drivers regularly running red lights and speeding. Worse even, how is legislating more going to help, it is a Furphy. Just like speeding cameras, the major reason road deaths have fallen since the 1970s high, is car dynamics and infrastructure.

Laws have been in place and car drivers break the law, accepting this reality and moving on to better design and fostering a good transport culture. will do more than most.

By the way quoting a law from my sphere of knowledge of three states does not help if I do not know which state the act was written in. But I appreciate the comment and responded to the principle.

As for Shane Warne, who are we to disbelieve him, I was working and quoting his belief system, he has earned the right to be taken literally. It still didn't help him when the law was applied though, did it?

Did you have time to see any of the video?

Paul, you may not mind cars missing you by inches at speed but I do and I suspect so do all the cyclists who have been hit by cars who misjudged it. Shane Warne was not charged, fined or, to the best of my knowledge, even spoken to by the police over that incident so exactly was the law "applied" to him?

Mark H. - Where did you read I don't mind being missed by centimetres?

That is a blatant misrepresentation of my point.

The point is write new laws by all means.
But when it comes to applying them, the same group will make the judgement and write the fine.

In other words no law needs to change, it is the mindset of the idiot behind the wheel and the fine writer. As it stands now if somebody hits a cyclist by coming close, and the full weight of the current law will fall on them when and "if" it is applied!

Which goes right to the heart of the matter I am trying to make.

In the Netherlands it is the driver who has to prove he has not broken the law, by default the driver breaks the law hitting pedestrians or cyclists. It is he or she who has to prove he was not in the wrong.
Can you imagine the change in driving culture if we went to driver fault application of our law?

So my point if you are still with me is our law enforcement defaults the cyclist and makes them prove the car was at fault.

Subtle difference I know but can you see why I am advocating a cultural change. We actually need the law to default drivers to explain.

As for the legal issue wit Shane Warne, that is now a civil matter and rightly kept private. It may have been settled already, after all the law was firmly on the cyclists side with so many witnesses it was not funny.

Apologies for not assuming you understood the legal issues around Warne.

This discussion is stupid and I'm outta here

Brilliant, Tom. One of those 'why didn't I think of that?' ideas that seem so obvious in retrospect.

Your picture doesn't show the other side of the car, but I presume you'd envisage lights on both sides blinking?

Given most modern cars already use their indicator lights whenever a car has been remotely locked or unlocked I can't see why any driver could reasonably complain about such a design, and it would be relatively cheap and easy for every car manufacturer to implement.

Greg - it is good to have a positive comment about "Copenhagen". Both Denmark and the Netherlands transport infrastructure is also based around "form based" architecture and automatic driver fault in a traffic incident with pedestrians or cyclists. On many levels their culture has transport right, and they serve as a brilliant model for us.

Because this article is based on the dooring issue and law, there has been a running battle here with those who want tougher laws.

Marilyn's article puts the responsibility onto pedestrian, cyclist and car driver equally, I have taken a opposing a stand. Although all her points are valid, they highlight the cultural difference between the "Copenhagen model"and ours.

Although many car drivers here believe they have right of way over pedestrians and cyclists, this is not how our law is biased. This is actually an American bias in their law not ours, it is understandable we have absorbed these beliefs give their cultural reach.

Australian laws are actually biased to protect, pedestrian, cyclist first and vehicles must give way to them at all times. Your observation is accurate, having cycled in four states we are in agreement, the Australian driver and law enforcement see the application of our law "flexibly" or as you said;

"...never seen any evidence of the police prosecuting or even warning against such bad practices" - Greg JB

I do not see new laws need to be written, however see the Netherlands legal systems "driver fault" law being our way forward. With drivers being "automatically at fault" in the case of an incident with pedestrians or cyclists.

In Denmark and the Netherlands this "driver fault legislation" has been the main driver of a healthy road culture.

The reason we have not seen "evidence of the police prosecuting", is the law requires we prove the car was at fault. Given them the job of deciding guilt or innocence on the spot or when writing incident reports and fines. The system in Denmark and the Netherlands takes this responsibility out of their hands and keeps it simple. After all the physics of the situation and logic dictates 1-2 tonnes of steel, plastic, glass and rubber really is a dangerous object and the operator needs to use due diligence.

Sadly, the those that have argued for stronger laws, fail to see this basic principle of how law is applied and a core reason for the European success with their transport culture over the last forty years.

I would value your view as a cyclist on the driver being "automatically being at fault" in any road incident and the use of our laws to back this up.

I will warn you though, Jason B and Mark H opposed this principle.

Paul, Never did I oppose the principle of Strict Liability so stop talking rot. I opposed your argument that we don't need new laws to protect cyclists and that all we need is strict liability like your beloved Netherlands. Strict liability is fantastic AFTER a cyclist has been hit but it will do nothing to change the bad behavior motorists display in this country. This is not Copenhagen and we are never going to have separated bike lanes on all public roads in this country. We need laws to protect our right to our space on the road. The rules we are under at the moment are all about how motor vehicles interact with other motor vehicles so stop this nonsense about our laws being biased towards cyclists. All cyclists need law reform now and zealots like you arguing against that for a system that only apportions blame after the event helps no one.

Judith O - I agree with your observations. It is disappointing to know some cyclists bring the "driver culture" to the cycle path, but this goes to my argument we do not need new laws but a new mindset.

Our traffic culture is poor and and truly an un-evolved set of values goes with it. No amount of punitive measures will matter if there is no will to enforce them.

I recommend we adopt the European principle of "automatic driver fault" or Tort - Strict Liability
"The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases."

If drivers were conditioned to using the roads and correctly their behaviour would transfer to being cautious toward pedestrians on our dual use paths.

This video from Europe demonstrates how cyclists and pedestrians have integrated.
With the heir-achy opposite to our mindset or driver culture ;

First | pedestrian
Second | cyclist
Third | motorcycle
Fourth | motor vehicle
Fifth | large commercial vehicles / trucks

http://youtu.be/rstEWMD89L8?t=2m27s

I see a lot of value in your argument Paul, and agree there needs to be a change in mindset. I think this goes a whole lot deeper than simply how we use our roads and paths.

The video was very interesting, and the ideas are certainly worth looking at, thank you for posting it.