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

211–220 of 612 posts

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

#211

Post by ptaipale »

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?

>A more interesting statistic would be: how many of those deaths would have been prevented by a bicycle helmet?

If we assume that this Canadian study would apply as such to Netherlands:

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/10/15/cmaj.120988.full...

the figure would be

(71/129)×185×(100-65)% = 35 of these people would have not have been killed.

Of course, the figures are probably not quite right for Netherlands. For instance, in Canada a majority of bicycle fatalities involve another vehicle, whereas where I live (Finland), this is not true because we have separate bike/pedestrian paths in many places. Like the Netherlands. This actually increases the effectiveness of helmets, because fewer of the accidents are about being crushed by a big vehicle, and more of them are falls.

And the physics of falling off your bike are not that different and the ground is about as hard in Canada as in Netherlands.

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

#212

Post by Scarblac »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #205
Scarblac wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The downside of that is that getting a license costs a lot more - think in the range of €1500 - €2500. But that too helps with having people take it seriously, and losing your license due to e.g. excessive speeding to hurt more.

And it's not as crucial to have one here, I only got my license at 35 (and now that I have kids, I'm really happy with it). That's not completely normal of course, but it'd be much harder to do in the US.

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

#213

Post by tribby »

1) this is not a clever workaround, this is common sense. if you don't do this already, you're a terrible motorist and shouldn't be allowed to drive.

2) do high end cars have proximity sensors for this sort of thing yet? comparable to the way that large vehicles alert you if you're about to back into something.

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

#214

Post by johanvts »

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…

In Denmark. The percentage of people here wearing helmets seems to be dropping again after having been on the rise for the past few years (based on my anecdotal evidence of biking around copenhagen), but it's still relatively rare. I know at least 3 people who had simple accidents while not wearing helmets and while they did not die they suffered severe concussions that take years to fully recover from (if ever). One guy was unable to work for close to a year, and still 3 years later suffer frequent intense headaches. You don't have to die in an accident in order for it to be something you really should try to avoid.

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

#215

Post by stephenr »

I'm not quite sure I understand. Do Americans not look at what's coming from behind them before opening a slab of metal and glass a meter out the side of their cars?

Kind of reminds me of when I first moved to Thailand. My (now) mother-in-law asked her daughter why I kept looking over my shoulder when driving her car, and why/if I couldn't use the side mirrors. She had literally never heard of nor understood the concept of a blind spot.

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

#216

Post by gfodor »

stephenr wrote: post #215

I'm not quite sure I understand. Do Americans not look at what's coming from behind them before opening a slab of metal and glass a meter out the side of their cars? Kind of reminds me of when I first moved to Thailand. My (now) mother-in-law asked her daughter why I kept looking over my shoulder when driving her car, and why/if I couldn't use the side mirrors. She had literally never heard of nor understood the conc…

eh, depending on the car, often times a blind spot is just due to someone failing to adjust their mirrors properly. if you actually do it right, you should not have a blind spot. if you can see your own car in your side view mirrors, you've adjusted them wrong. if they are adjusted correctly, cars approaching on either side of your vehicle will pass from the rear view, to the side mirror, into your peripheral vision with no gap of visibility.

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

#217

Post by cr1895 »

fuckbicyclists wrote: post #173

Bicyclists should not be able to share the road with drivers in the cities unless they vote to become a primarily bicycle-based cities. Bikes were not meant to share the road with cars. I often see bicyclists ambling along in front of me at 20 m.p.h. and even if they're to the side of the road I still have to slow down to avoid any risk of hitting them, with cars coming up behind me. I'm usually forced to change lane…

Gosh, your username really instills confidence that you'll think about this reasonably.

In the 70s the people of Amsterdam decided exactly that: cars were too dangerous and cycling infrastructure should be prioritized. It's worked out exceptionally well.

http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/visiting/plan-your-trip/getting...

>I'm usually forced to change lanes on short notice, which is dangerous.

Slowing down and waiting for a safe opportunity to pass is usually a better option than making abrupt and dangerous lane changes.

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

#218

Post by stephenr »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #44
Houshalter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take decades for new drivers learning this technique to fully replace the current driving population. And I suspect most people wouldn't keep up the habit anyway.

I hate that argument; effectively it boils down to "it is hard, so why try anything at all?" Even if it took thirty years and even if it was only ten percent effective, what is the negatives to this plan? One more minor skill to driving? One more bullet in the driving code?

It's the exact reason the US still doesn't use the metric system.

The Homer Simpson of excuses, if you will:

"Trying is the first step to failure"

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

#219

Post by DanBC »

fuckbicyclists wrote: post #173

Bicyclists should not be able to share the road with drivers in the cities unless they vote to become a primarily bicycle-based cities. Bikes were not meant to share the road with cars. I often see bicyclists ambling along in front of me at 20 m.p.h. and even if they're to the side of the road I still have to slow down to avoid any risk of hitting them, with cars coming up behind me. I'm usually forced to change lane…

You've described why you're an unskilled car driver, which just makes me think that car drivers need better training.

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

#220

Post by johanvts »

tluyben2 wrote: post #136
djsumdog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

When I was in primary school and maybe high school I remember not wanting to wear a helmet because it looked silly. As a adult I think it would be a lot more silly to loose my life, health, ability to focus or to walk just because I didn't want to look silly. I'm not saying you are wrong, but that all people you know are. Besides the helmets these days really do look better, the producers have moved on from a purely utilitarian focus to actually having someone think about the visual aspect as well.
Post reply on HN