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”

#361

Post by ralfn » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:39 PM UTC

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #276

speleding wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wearing a helmet in your car would prevent a lot of injuries as well, and nobody does that. This is just a risk/reward trade off and I (as a Dutch cyclist) feel a few additional deaths on the total population is not worth the effort. And the things are uncomfortable and impractical: what are you going to do with it when you arrive on your destination? Lug it around all day? Bring a bag everywhere?

Don't you carry a bag around already? If your commute is one hour cycling in guessing you might sweat and need a shower? I cycle to work (in the UK, similar climate I guess) for about 15 minutes each way with no steep roads and I gotta be very careful with my pace if I don't want to sweat.

> If your commute is one hour cycling in guessing you might sweat and need a shower?

1. The weather is Holland is kind of optimal in maximizing not sweating.

2. We are not going that fast. The effort we put into it is identical to a normal walk. You just go three times as fast.

The difference between walking/running. Which is why you don't need a shower and why you don't need a helmet. So you go about 15 km/h at most. The bike is heavy (giving you much more stability). You sit up straight (giving you a much better view). You stretch your legs and you are standing still with a bike between your legs. You don't fall with a bike a holland, you loose balance and choose to stand.

For all intents and purposes, its just like walking and every non-dutch person keeps coming at it as if we are doing sprints or a marathon.

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

#362

Post by kristofferR » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:43 PM UTC

jgraham wrote: post #347

kristofferR wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "When you are not in The Netherlands you should most definitely wear a helmet no matter what kind of bike." Why? It's actually not statistically safer.

That is very unclear. Some studies suggest it isn't, but a recent metastudy reached very different conclusions [1]: > Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. [1] http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/06/…

Sorry, I should have been more clear. That helmets protect the head in a crash pretty obvious, and that metastudy seems to confirm it.

What I had in mind was that helmet users tend to risk-compensate, taking more risks in traffic.

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

#363

Post by lmm » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:43 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #292

lmm wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? A 60 year old lady would be safer in the main traffic lanes than in the gutter, for exactly the same reasons as anyone else - more visible from behind, more control over when cars pass them, no risk of hitting a car door etc.

Well, where I live a few million of those elderly lady cyclists (including my mom, 73, makes 100 Km trips on her bike) have reached that age simply because they know not to mix themselves with traffic faster than theirs. Living in a country where traffic has been educated to give cyclists room most definitely helps but I'd hate to see our older generation decimated because they decided to seek 'the middle of the road…

Whatever dude. You (evidently) know nothing about me or my country. Maybe your country has great numbers for safety of cyclists; good for you if so, but that doesn't mean everything you're doing is right, much less that it's so obviously right as to not even bear discussion.

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

#364

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:43 PM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #340

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…

No, some Americans don't. Some of my fellow countrymen are so self-absorbed it doesn't even cross their mind their actions might impact someone else. You'll also see people opening their doors into traffic on very narrow streets.

It's also such an easy and appealing gesture. It's a bit like drawing your gun out, you like it when you do it swift. Just reading the article I was thinking "aww noo, I can't tickle the handle and swerve out like a cat anymore. ... but they're so right I can't win"

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

#365

Post by saiya-jin » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:44 PM UTC

tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote: post #324

mcv wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just how you're treated. Research has shown that cyclists wearing helmets tend to put more trust in their helmet, whereas cyclists without helmet tend to be more careful.

There is also a study that shows other traffic participants engage in riskier overtaking when a cyclist wears a helmet. Instead of leaving 1.5 m space when the cyclist is on the side of the car, drivers leave an average of 0.5 m space for cyclists wearing a helmet. If I remember correctly, drivers see helmets as increased safety for the cyclist and feel they can engage in less safe behavior because it evens out. Edit…

although it seems to make some sense, I am never treating any cyclist differently, be it granny or some racer or anything between, whatever the dress and equipment. It's a moving obstacle to be overtaken asap, with some extra room around them necessary.

the only 2 things that matter - speed of the cyclist and the stability of their ride (ie keeping straight path close to side of the road which I do on bike is ideal, aholes driving 2-3 next to each other taking full lane and sometimes more, chatting together and going left to right is on the other side of the spectrum)

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

#366

Post by ralfn » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:44 PM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #211

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?

> 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…

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

You would think that would be true, but no.

1. The ground in Holland is flat.

2. The bike is heavy.

3. The bike is the type where you are sitting up (not leaning forward like a race bike).

So, when a dutch person bikes they are going no faster than 15 km/h. When they stretch their legs they are standing still. When they fall to the side they generally fall into grass or sidewalks (which are thin stones on top of moisty earth), that can actually absorb quite a lot of energy/momentum.

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

#367

Post by wobbleblob » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:45 PM UTC

ralfn wrote: post #355

tinco wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Citation needed

That is true for the original statement (that helmets provide safety on a bike) as well. I mean, you would expect some improvement, but (as a Dutch citizen), i expect it to prevent harm in the same way wearing helmet during sex would prevent harm. In general: if you taking those kind of risks (as a car, as a bike, etc.) that people on a bike need a helmet, you don't belong in traffic here. The effect on mentality may…

> if car and a bike have an accident, by law, it is automatically the fault of the car, no matter what. Even if the person on the bike is drunk, driving in the wrong direction, etc.

Both drivers and cyclists seem to believe this, but it is an exaggeration. The law says a court may decide to hold your (mandatory) liability insurance liable for some of the damage 'without having to prove your guilt'. It does not say you get the blame no matter what the pedestrian or cyclist does. At the same time, you can still sue the cyclist or pedestrian for damage to your car.

http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aanspr...

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

#368

Post by DavideNL » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:46 PM UTC

So am i the only one who uses a different technique? I always look in the side mirror (the one on the driver side=left side) before i open the door, where i can perfectly see incoming bikes/etc passing my car. When i got my drivers license i was taught to do this and it became a habit, so i've been doing it ever since. Works very well.

fyi i'm Dutch and i've never heard of the "Dutch reach" before.

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

#369

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:49 PM UTC

thwd wrote: post #222

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…

Don't know about the American thing but what I do know is that while in Europe they teach us to turn our heads and bodies when driving, the modern world caught up with blindspotless mirrors and teach you to use them. It's much safer as people tended to turn their hands together with their bodies, effectively steering a car to the left when looking out the left window.

I don't lean left when looking back, but I just can't look back confidently because I lose track of what's happening in front of us. My first and only accident occured because I was so anxious to check the blindspot I didn't see the traffic stopping and I rear-ended someone. Blindspotless mirrors are a no brainer (they should be mandatory tbh). There are even inner car blindspot checking mirror, so you avoid the confusing view of two mirrors with different field of view close to each other. Either this or a proximity sensor with a large red light so I can sense I should break no matter where I look, military style.

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

#370

Post by kutkloon7 » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 12:49 PM 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…

It suprises me that people, in this time of environmental problems, seriously want to deter even more people from riding bikes. Traffic accidents will always happen, and modern countries are only getting safer, but environmental problems are only getting worse.

How would you feel if you had to wear a helmet every time you walk outside? That's a bit like how the Dutch people would feel if they had to wear a helmet on their bikes. Arguably, it would help to avoid some injuries, but it is just not worth it. People in the Netherlands don't just bike to work or school; they bike when they go out (yes, even after drinking), when they visit friends, when they have a doctors appointment. Bringing a helmet every time would both be a major inconvenience and make you seem like a huge dork. People usually bike pretty slowly, and there are not many accidents. I live in one a city where the biker density is one of the highest in the Netherlands, and I have never been in an accident. I would never wear a helmet every time I would ride my bike. I would even argue it would reduce my quality of life.