The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored” • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by unicornporn » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:21 AM UTC

deanclatworthy wrote: post #165

mafribe wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, tho…

Wearing a helmet is of course never a bad thing. But studies has also shown (on mobile, can't find now) that people see helmets as really cumbersome, and that many of the potential cyclists chose another mode of transporation if they have to use a helmet. Seems strange to me, I ride with a helmet every day. But each to his/her own.

You should take a look at this:

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-...

And this:

[…] In contrast, despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%. The percentage of cyclists with head injuries after collisions with motor vehicles in Victoria declined by more, but the proportion of head injured pedestrians also declined; the two followed a very similar trend. These trends may have been caused by major road safety initiatives introduced at the same time as the helmet law and directed at both speeding and drink-driving. The initiatives seem to have been remarkably effective in reducing road trauma for all road users, perhaps affecting the proportions of victims suffering head injuries as well as total injuries. The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, have been estimated to outweigh the hazards by a factor of 20 to 1 (Hillman 1993; Cycle helmets—the case for and against. Policy Studies Institute, London). Consequently, a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation. Despite the risk of dying from head injury per hour being similar for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, cyclists alone have been required to wear head protection. Helmets for motor vehicle occupants are now being marketed and a mandatory helmet law for these road users has the potential to save 17 times as many people from death by head injury as a helmet law for cyclists without the adverse effects of discouraging a healthy and pollution free mode of transport.[1]

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/00014575960...

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

#192

Post by Scarblac » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:22 AM UTC

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…

Note that many accidents happen with people going very fast on race bikes, and those people do wear helmets.

Normal Dutch bikes for everyday use go much slower (say 15-20 km/h), and you sit in an upright position. That gives you a much better overview of the road (you look over all the cars) and it also makes it easier to recover from a near fall.

Also 185 dead isn't much given that the 17 million Dutch use the bicycle on average 300 times per year for a total mean distance of 878 km per person per year (http://www.fietsersbond.nl/de-feiten/fietsen-cijfers#1)

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

#193

Post by closeparen » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:25 AM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #125

ams6110 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not get rid of bike lanes where you have street parking?

Where the interests of cyclists and drivers conflict, we should prioritize cycling, because it has no negative externalities, requires much cheaper infrastructure, is good for health, etc.

Making driving worse has the pretty significant negative externality of decreasing the n minutes to downtown land area, forcing people to spend more money on housing or more time in transit.

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

#194

Post by _ph_ » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:28 AM UTC

Interestingly, the bike lane shown in the first picture of the article rather marks the region that by German law cyclists are required to avoid. Cyclists are required to keep about a meter distance from parked cars to prevent dooming. That of course does not stop local authorities from creating bike lines exactly as shown in the article :(.

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

#195

Post by zelos » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:29 AM UTC

CorbenDallas wrote: post #157

Amsterdam resident here. Such a good infrastructure and laws for the bycyclists make them not giving a single shit about the way they are actually driving their bycicles. And their behaviour and driving style is often very offensive to both pedestrians and car users. So it's not that straight and black and white.

I notice that whenever I visit Amsterdam. I love cycling in the Netherlands, but the cyclists are awful.

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

#196

Post by Scarblac » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:31 AM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #140

dpark wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is far more believable than the claim that using the far hand will force you to turn 90 degrees inside the car and scan fully before getting out. It might serve as a good habit/reminder, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient to create this behavior. I think much of the US is unaware of how seriously some other countries take driver's training. Our standards are appallingly low.

Letting 16 year olds drive is probably part of the problem. In more bicycle-friendly countries, kids start drinking before they start driving. Cycling to and from parties until they're at least 18. Hell, want to go anywhere at all? Cycle. It's a pretty effective cycling motivator.

Also getting taught by amateurs, that just isn't a thing in the Netherlands. You learn to drive in a modified car (extra set of brakes, extra mirrors) with a qualified instructor next to you.

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

#197

Post by closeparen » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:32 AM UTC

lucaspiller wrote: post #101

BoringCode wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where should the cars park then? Parking is a real issue in large cities and we won't solve it by removing even more spots. Other solutions (which are potentially more expensive) should be looked into before we consider removing street parking.

The other day somebody posted something saying how more lanes in a road will just cause more people to drive, so won't do anything to reduce traffic. I'd imagine it works the same for parking and even in reverse.

>will just cause more people to drive

They obviously preferred to do so (since they chose it), and maybe the new lane let some more people afford the house/commute-time pair they wanted.

It's true that induced demand means aggregate travel times don't go down, but more people getting where they need to go in the same amount of time is a victory too.

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

#198

Post by jdietrich » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:34 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #186

jdietrich wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking the lane is precisely what allows you to make room for motorists. If a motorist makes a close pass when you've taken the lane, you just steer away from them and create some space. If a motorist makes a close pass when you're already hugging the kerb, you have nowhere to go. The best case scenario is that you'll crash into something without too many sharp edges. Taking the lane doesn't mean acting as an immovab…

There are more cyclists than young agile males. And your advice only applies to those. I'm trying to imagine a 60 year old lady on a bike applying this advice and fail to see any happy endings. And where I live old ladies on bikes are extremely common. Cycling advice should apply to all cyclists, not just to those giving the advice.

It's not about youth or agility, it's about skills and confidence. Young men innately have the confidence to ride assertively, but all cyclists should feel empowered to protect themselves.

The obvious example is fatal accidents involving large goods vehicles and cyclists in London. Women are vastly disproportionately likely to be involved in this class of accident, despite being under-represented in overall accident statistics. The leading theory is that women ride less assertively, putting them in dangerous situations at junctions. They're more likely to undertake and less likely to take the lane, jump red lights or bang on a window to make their presence known. They vanish into the large blind spots that surround large goods vehicles. In all likelihood, these cyclists are dying of politeness.

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

#199

Post by closeparen » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:34 AM UTC

lukaslalinsky wrote: post #158

I'm honestly surprised this is such a common problem in the US. Most of the parallel parking spaces here are next to the road, so if you open your door without looking, some other car will crash into you. We have been trained since we were children to always look when exiting a car parked on a street. We were not even allowed to exit from the road side of the car most of the time. As a driver, you have to be super ca…

>some other car will crash into you

Most roads I've encountered have some space between the travel and parking lanes, big enough for a door and person, but this is also the space bikes use. Only on the narrowest streets do you have to watch out for cars.

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

#200

Post by javier2 » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 7:36 AM UTC

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?

I think the more interesting stats would be in the are of non-fatal injuries. If you die, the hit was probably pretty hard, but there are loads more people getting injured but not life-threatening. Breaking boths legs and a concussion would not be part of that stat.