Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

99percentinvisible.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 612 posts

Re: The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

#161

Post by et-al »

djsumdog wrote: post #132
smartbit wrote: post #55

It is true that getting doored is not part of the Dutch vocabulary as it is not something that happens often. But there are more reasons than grabbing the handle with the opposite hand. A non extensive list: 1) Dutch car drivers all have been bicyclist before they get their driver license, everyday to school more than an hour being nothing being frowned on. 2) Major transit bike routes have separate bike lanes, the t…

The amount of bicycles in The Netherlands is absolutely surreal. Both in major cities and out in the suburbs, bicycles are everywhere. I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets. Large cities in Germany or the UK or anywhere else I've seen cannot compare to the magnitude of people on bicycles in The Netherlands.

Most people in China don't wear helmets either. Helmets prevent brain injury, but generally you'd have to be going pretty fast, or get hit by a car really fast to land on your head to require one (and then you probably have other injuries to contend with).

Also, we have bike light laws in California, but there are plenty of cyclists that don't use them. Personally, if I had to choose between riding without a helmet, or riding without lights; I'll take the lights. Lights prevent accidents whereas a helmet is only needed after an accident has occurred.

(It's getting dark sooner; if you don't have lights on your bikes, please buy some. Planet Bike has a nice two light set. Get some, and get some for your friends. Stay seen, stay safe.)

Re: The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

#163

Post by Etheryte »

carterehsmith wrote: post #106

Perhaps we could add radars that block the door if there is a risk of dooring, either by a bike, or another car. The car manufacturers have just agreed to put collision mitigation systems in all cars (by 2020 or something), and that requires radars and cameras. Even better, some cars have radars in the back, too, to identify cross traffic & c. So, identifying potential dooring event as well, might be quite doable usi…

While this could prevent some of the accidents, I'm not sure if the sum effect would be better. Allow me to explain:

According to Google, the average cycling speed is 15.5km/h and the average car length is 4.5m. Surely these will differ a lot from area to area, but they're good for a ballpark measure. This means it takes a cyclist about one second (4.5m / 15.5kmh = 1.05s) to pass a parked car.

Even if you have a car with sensors, if the cyclist is out of your sensors' reach (behind the corner of the previous car), once you open your door, that one second will not be enough for the cyclist to either stop or change course.

What might happen, however, is having sensors could lead to more reckless behavior along the lines of "why do I need to look, I have sensors?".

Re: The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

#164

Post by mooneater »

Great, a solution that boils down to "bikers can be safe from just one of many mortal dangers, if and only if every single driver learns this new habit and does it right every time".

I want solutions in which safety doesn't depend on perfect behaviour from people at minimal risk (drivers), like physical separation of lanes.

Re: The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

#165

Post by deanclatworthy »

mafribe wrote: post #159
deanclatworthy wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd that you say this about helmets. It only takes one mistake, one cyclist not paying attention, one mechanical fault, one swerving car or an obstacle in the road - and you'll be landing face first into the tarmac wishing you wore a helmet. 185 cyclists died last year in the Netherlands [1]. I wonder how many of those weren't wearing a helmet. I also found this interesting article [2] going into a lot more detail on…

Typical bicyle helmets don't help much with a face-first landing on the tarmac, your chin takes most of the pounding. I can confidently say that from repeated ... 'experiments'. In contrast, a motorcyle helmet that also wraps around the chin would be of great use in most bicycle accidents. 185 cyclists died A more interesting statistic would be: how many of those deaths would have been prevented by a bicycle helmet?

That depends entirely on how you fall off your bike, which depends on your speed and numerous other factors. The problem here is that it's pretty hard to tell after the fact whether a death would have been prevented by a helmet. We can guess, speculate but it's hard to measure the exact forces exerted - and also how someone's biological material will react to that (the brain).

In all my reading around this issue, those that don't want to wear helmets don't tend to wear them for fashion reasons, and interpret the stats they read to insinuate that helmets don't save lives. They don't like how it looks, feels, or that they will be teased for wearing one. I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks like.

And one other point to end on, it's not just deaths we're talking about here. Many people have suffered brain injuries from the impact of falling off their bike. Imagine there was something you could put on your head that would prevent that impact.

Re: The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

#166

Post by gpvos »

jacquesm wrote: post #123
ptaipale wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili... : > It is a myth that is really only believed outside the Netherlands: “Because there is strict liability in the Netherlands, drivers are more cautious around cyclists, and that leads to more cycling” > There are a number of (false) assumptions that lead to such an assertion. The first being that drivers are always at fault when they are in a…

Yes, you can legally split hairs about it. But the practical upshot is that if you're involved in an accident with a cyclist as a motorist it is extremely likely that you will be held responsible. That the actual law is more complex is obvious from the 'more or less' bit in the sentence above, it's not black and white but in the vast majority of accidents between cars and cyclists the driver of the car will be held r…

>official provider of traffic signs

They used to be, but it's all tendered now; they lost the national contract, but still provide to most provinces and municipalities.

Re: The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

#167

Post by aequitas »

Arnt wrote: post #154
tluyben2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets. Good or bad; I am Dutch and I would confidently say that all people I know would never ride a bike again if they have to wear those silly helmets. More likely if it would be mandatory, they just would refuse and not do it, but if largely enforced they would just not use bikes anymore.

You learn to appreciate a helmet if you share roadspace with a certain subset of vehicles and drivers. Which you, blessedly, don't.

Although there are separated roads for bikes and cars we do still share roadspace.

The major difference I think is that in the Netherlands there is a law which gives vulnerable road participants (pedestrians, bicycler) the benefit of the doubt whenever there is an accident. Even if the guilt is proven to be with the bicycler, the car driver should have paid more attention.

One way this is good for bicyclers because they are protected but on the other side they do tend to be more aggressive and reckless in their driving.

Re: The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

#168

Post by kvz »

rosege wrote: post #156
smartbit wrote: post #55

It is true that getting doored is not part of the Dutch vocabulary as it is not something that happens often. But there are more reasons than grabbing the handle with the opposite hand. A non extensive list: 1) Dutch car drivers all have been bicyclist before they get their driver license, everyday to school more than an hour being nothing being frowned on. 2) Major transit bike routes have separate bike lanes, the t…

There are other risks though - I always found it odd that motorised scooters are allowed on the bike paths. My Dutch neighbour had a very bad accident when one hit him on his bike and was off work for quite some time.

This is not the case anymore since ~5 years. The only motorized vehicels alllowed are those that cant travel fasher than 25km/h (bike speed)

Re: The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored”

#170

Post by tluyben2 »

deanclatworthy wrote: post #155
tluyben2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets. Good or bad; I am Dutch and I would confidently say that all people I know would never ride a bike again if they have to wear those silly helmets. More likely if it would be mandatory, they just would refuse and not do it, but if largely enforced they would just not use bikes anymore.

Odd that you say this about helmets. It only takes one mistake, one cyclist not paying attention, one mechanical fault, one swerving car or an obstacle in the road - and you'll be landing face first into the tarmac wishing you wore a helmet. 185 cyclists died last year in the Netherlands [1]. I wonder how many of those weren't wearing a helmet. I also found this interesting article [2] going into a lot more detail on…

Like said; most accidents I have seen with near fatal results (mostly in Amsterdam where that happen(s)(ed) quite a bit), the helmet would've helped nothing at all. It's usually someone falling and then getting driven over/into. But yeah, I have no stats; not sure if anyone has, about if they do any good.

I also said for good or bad; like smoking or drinking or processed meat eating; you collect the info you can and believe, interpret it and make your choice; it's your life. I'm just saying that most people I know wouldn't be caught dead (...) with one of those things on even if it would mean they are less safe.

Post reply on HN