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

The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 196 posts

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#41

Post by mkingston »

Swizec wrote: post #34
emptybits wrote: post #14

The Dutch Reach is a reach to ask for, IMO. I write this as a cyclist living in Vancouver (one city named in the article) who has been doored and nearly doored. IME, shoulder checks while actually driving seem to be a dying art form. So asking for a while-parked check like the Dutch Reach ... seems optimistic. But no harm in trying. The illustration is great. I applaud all efforts to make this technique more known. F…

As someone who’s gotten doored once or twice and nearly doored all the time on my Boosted Board I make sure to shoulder check prodigiously when driving to the point it annoys my girlfriend. I also make sure to always open passenger doors with the wrong hand when Ubering. I don’t think it’s ever saved anyones life, but I do what I can. Biggest thing cars can do and I always do is don’t pass a cyclist only to turn righ…

That's awful reasoning for using the cycle lane to turn, but (having never used it) I prefer the rule itself. Assuming the driver acknowledges they're changing lanes when they move into the bike lane, and checks appropriately, it's a clearer indication of driver intent and therefore precludes bike undertaking, whether deliberate or accidental. It also means the driver can focus on one thing at a time, bikes when moving into the bike lane, then the side street as they turn into it. I say this as someone who until recently commuted by bike almost exclusively and believes bikes should be given much more favour on the road. I'd be interested to know whether it's been found to be safer.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#42

Post by rocqua »

mattlondon wrote: post #8
dep_b wrote: post #4

I'm always using the Dutch Mirror which is that shiny reflective thing attached to the driver's door which I cleverly abuse to see if something is coming from behind before I get out of the car. I've been testing it a lot in The Netherlands. Nobody died so far so it must work but YMMV. -- edit: I have a Dutch driver's license and definitely would've known about it.

You need to also check the "blind spot" (1) which is big enough to lose a truck in let alone a cyclist. 1 - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=car+blind+spots&t=brave&ia=images&...

Less needed when relative speeds are high, because with high relative speeds you don't remain in the blind spot for long.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#43

Post by mkingston »

sologoub wrote: post #29

Relying on an uncomfortable behavior change is one option, but as many have noted - really a “reach”. Why don’t we instead take the experience of cities that instead of trying to integrate cars and cyclists, integrated cyclists and pedestrians? Physics are more on your side here - a lot closer weight and size of objects. Possibly even closer speed differential. On a recent trip to Munich, the clear markings and cycli…

Many cyclists travel quickly enough they find that having to give way at every side road (like a pedestrian would) is a tremendous hassle. If these routes were unbroken (as they are in a few places) this would be a great solution.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#44

Post by jrnvs »

rgj wrote: post #19

I'm Dutch. I've never heard of this, nor has anybody I asked about this. I've never even seen someone in the driver's seat use their right hand to open the door. Dooring is not an issue here either since Dutch cyclists tend to anticipate very well. What we do have here in the Netherlands are bike lanes, so in a lot of places the bikes pass the parked/stopping cars on the right hand side.

I’m Dutch too. This technique was mentioned in the book I read to prepare for the theoretical part of the drivers license exam. I never saw anyone use it in practice.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#45

Post by twblalock »

wool_gather wrote: post #30
twblalock wrote: post #25

This "Dutch reach" thing is an example of a phenomenon I've seen several times before. People who promote a practice seem to think their argument will be more persuasive if the practice came from an admired foreign country, yet the people who live in that country have never heard of it and/or do not commonly do it. In this case it's the Dutch, but I've seen all kinds of similar nonsense about Japan.

The article explains clearly that it is a thing in the Netherlands; it's a standard part of driver education there. > “It’s just what Dutch people do,” said Fred Wegman, professor emeritus of Traffic Safety at Delft University of Technology and the former managing director of the National Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV in the Netherlands. “All Dutch are taught it. It’s part of regular driver education.”

Here come Dutch HN commenters who never heard of it. And there are more elsewhere in the thread.

The article is not accurate. It’s a perfect example of what I was talking about.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#46

Post by rocqua »

wool_gather wrote: post #36
holstvoogd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

weird, I wasn't, never heard of anyone who has. i should ask some colleagues if they were taught it.

Interesting; perhaps this Traffic Safety professor does not have a realistic view of driving instruction. I.e., it's part of the official curriculum but not actually taught?

There is a theory test to a drivers license as well. It's never mentioned there. If it is a part of testing, it is probably a generic line 'Be mindful when getting out of the car'. Perhaps some instructors teach the 'dutch reach' as a trick for that. There are many such heuristics that are taught. For example, family of me was advised to wear contacts instead of glasses for the test because the legs of the glasses could block the instructors view of the eyes. Apparently, they want to see you check all angles.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#47

Post by NeedMoreTea »

Symbiote wrote: post #24
twblalock wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This particular "dutch reach" idiom is not related to the Pennsylvania Dutch in any way.

None of the "Dutch" idioms will be from Pennsylvania Dutch, they all come from being the neighbour country to England.

Pennsylvanian "Dutch" is a corruption of "Deutsche", and the community German is it not? As I understood it many of American "Dutch" idioms were originally meant to be referencing German.

You do get cookie from Dutch though. Cookie comes from the Dutch keokje.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#48

Post by childintime »

rocqua wrote: post #39
chki wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Dooring is not an issue here either since Dutch cyclists tend to anticipate very well. Two points to this: Obviously (and you probably implied this but I want to make it clear:) it is first and foremost the duty of the car driver opening a door to make sure that there is nobody endangered. Secondly: It is not always possible to anticipate car doors opening, even if you are following traffic very carefully. People si…

I think a large part of this is that dutch people expect bikes. Therefore, we notice them a lot easier. Scanning for cyclists is very much part of our system. Another part of this is probably that cyclists are essentially never sandwiched between parked cars and traffic. The sandwiching requires you drive a lot closer to the parked cars. Without it, you can take a lot more distance.

Also, dutch cyclists tend to ride at modest speeds (11-15mph) that do not warrant helmets and protective measures. Bike lanes are explicit, so anyone parking knows to not blindly throw a door into the bike lane.

Also never heard of this in the Netherlands.

Note: this was featured on HN several times already.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#49

Post by rocqua »

I'm dutch, and I've only ever heard about this on the internet, never here. Notably, I don't recall this whilst getting my driving license only 2 years ago.

To check, I got my theory book. It says the following:

> After the part about doing visual checks > When it is visually safe, hold the door handle with the left hand, and open the door using the right hand as far as is necessary and exit the vehicle.

So it explicitly states that one should grab the door handle with the left hand, not the right. Moreover, one should check visually (using mirrors and an over the shoulder check) before doing 'the reach')

I can't find the year of publishing, but it seems quite old, 2005-ish. The ISBN is: 978-90-72967-03-9 (26th printing)

The original dutch: > Als het veilig is houdt u met uw linkerhand aan de handgreep het portier vast en opent u met uw rechterhand het portier zover als u nodig hebt en stapt uit.

Re: The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

#50

Post by everyone »

gpm wrote: post #35
emptybits wrote: post #14

The Dutch Reach is a reach to ask for, IMO. I write this as a cyclist living in Vancouver (one city named in the article) who has been doored and nearly doored. IME, shoulder checks while actually driving seem to be a dying art form. So asking for a while-parked check like the Dutch Reach ... seems optimistic. But no harm in trying. The illustration is great. I applaud all efforts to make this technique more known. F…

As a cyclist - just don't ride in reach of car doors. If that means taking the lane and blocking cars, do so. At any speed trying to figure out whether or not someone is in it in time to slow down is impossible. Even if you slow down to a crawl as you pass someone sitting in the car you are still relying on them not opening it into your side. If you are right beside the cars you have no space whatsoever to swerve, be…

This. On a bike you are a road user. Take as much space as is safe.. Also be as visible as possible.

A motorist is many many times more likely to kill you unintentionally through negligence, rather than intentionally through psychopathic rage induced by having to slow down behind you.

Also. You payed for those roads via taxes, use them (no, road vehicle tax does not cover a fraction of road building and maintenance in any country)

Post reply on HN