The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by frereubu » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 12:21 PM UTC

7952 wrote: post #121

mcv wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of brakes do you have? I've got the feeling that aggressive brakes on your front wheel make it more likely for you to go over the handlebars. I've also been cut off once by a car who didn't see me while I was going very fast, but while I braked, I also made a flat turn into the street the car was turning into, and that saved my from a collision.

That is a bit of a misconception. Your front brake is much more effective at stopping the bike than the rear. People go over the handlebars because they are not gripping well enough. They are not used to the force. With a bit of practice you will never go over the handlebars with the front brake. The rear brake is much more likely to cause a fall. When you apply the brake the bike tips forward and the rear wheel rise…

It happened so quickly that I didn't really get time to think about it - the car pulled out right in front of me with very little space. In hindsight I'd say the choice was to go head-first into the car or over the handlebars. I'm not sure there's much to choose between those two.

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

#172

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 12:22 PM UTC

Rizz wrote: post #165

pasta wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and the law: cars are always to blame. Even in The Netherlands this law was needed to keep bikers safe. And when introduced even the Dutch made fun of it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ivY06w83fKU Edit: if you want to look this up, the law is called: "Artikel 185 Wegenverkeerswet". It's very broad and is not only to protect cyclists. I think this law is more about making drivers of motor vehicles more responsibl…

No, cars aren't too blame, the car owner is only liable for damage, and why does that law exist? Because cars have mandatory liability insurance, bicycles and pedestrians do not. It's not about making drivers more responsible, although it helps most Dutch don't understand what liability means, it's too make sure there is always money to pay for damage, especially if the damage is severe.

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by buschkowitz » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #166

buschkowitz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now you are comparing race car drivers to the typical commuter driver, apples to apples. You can cite all the evidence you want. When shit hits the fan and you don't have protection, you can only wish for not regretting your decisions. For me this discussion is done. I have this particular perception, you have yours. We are both happy with it. Stay safe.

Had commuter cycling without helmet was really so dangerous as you claim, there would be way more head injuries of commuter cyclists. As is, they are quite rare. I understand fear of someone who actually was in one, but please stop forcing your fear on everybody else. Just because you are afraid does not mean not being afraid is irresponsible or any more irresponsible then not having helmet in car crash.

Do whatever the fuck you want. But please be careful with what accusations you are throwing at people.

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

#174

Post by atoav » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

Vinnl wrote: post #159

jernfrost wrote: post #58

I think the key to safety for bikers in the Netherlands is simply the sheer number of them. When you visit the Netherlands. Within 15 minutes you have gotten used to scanning for bikers everywhere. There are so many of them and they come so frequently that you cannot not get into the habit of looking for them. The importance of numbers is something often overlooked. I read an article discussing the different approach…

I'm quite sure that the primary factor for safety in the Netherlands is the excellent infrastructure. Separate bike lanes, crossings that take into account viewing angles, etc. - cyclist safety is so ingrained in road design here, and it directly affects how safe it is to cycle, even when you're a lone cyclist. The law is probably a second large factor, and only then do I think the number of cyclists comes into play.…

As somebody who cycled in nearly 15 different nations inside and outside of Europe, cycling in the Netherlands is a joy. For me it was mainly three factors:

1. Infrastructure: wide enough seperated lanes without potholes in a bright color, making it clear also to pedestrians. Most of the time very clear visibility on crossroads.

2. Motorized traffic is most of the time far less stressed than in other parts of europe

3. Other cyclists seem to be more educated about traffic rules than in other places where you often only have two types: the suicidal and the overly cautionous, barly going faster than a pedestrian

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

#175

Post by pasta » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 12:30 PM UTC

Rizz wrote: post #165

pasta wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and the law: cars are always to blame. Even in The Netherlands this law was needed to keep bikers safe. And when introduced even the Dutch made fun of it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ivY06w83fKU Edit: if you want to look this up, the law is called: "Artikel 185 Wegenverkeerswet". It's very broad and is not only to protect cyclists. I think this law is more about making drivers of motor vehicles more responsibl…

No, cars aren't too blame, the car owner is only liable for damage, and why does that law exist? Because cars have mandatory liability insurance, bicycles and pedestrians do not. It's not about making drivers more responsible, although it helps most Dutch don't understand what liability means, it's too make sure there is always money to pay for damage, especially if the damage is severe.

Most people have a liability insurance so I don't believe this is why the law exists.

This is a very old law from the age of drivers without license and cars made of concrete.

That's also why more and more people think the law is unfair and doesn't fit the current climate.

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

#176

Post by gpm » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 12:49 PM UTC

mook wrote: post #106

gpm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As an occasional driver (I take the transit more), yes please take up the whole lane; is safer for both sides. If I find you too slow I can overtake you when safe (either in a different lane or in the opposing lane when safe). Essentially, treat you like a slow moving farm vehicle. However, please do not lane split even when it's legal to do so. I can't see out the far side of the vehicle, so you're basically somewhe…

Switching to lane splitting at red lights isn't about tolerating you being slow to accelerate.

Cars usually accelerate much faster than cyclists. It can appear the other way because I'm watching for the light to switch much more carefully - so I can make sure the car to my left will see me before right turning.

It's generally about letting people behind me get in front of me. Once I pull over to the side though I need to act like a 'normal' bicycle and pull to the front of the line. That's where people expect me - and that makes sure everyone turning right has seen me so they won't hit me.

It can also be about using the vehicles moving in my direction as a shield against people turning left. I worry that people don't expect me when I'm riding in the lane at a light, and as a result won't properly see me.

That said, if you're use to farm vehicles you probably drive in very different places than I ride (downtown in a big city).

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

#177

Post by BrandoElFollito » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 1:07 PM UTC

ambentzen wrote: post #164

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good point. When I turn right I always check my right mirror. This is not something I was specifically taught, this is something I do because I also bike a lot and am often on the bike lane on the right. (yes, the design of the lens is such that this should not be an issue but a lot of cyclists will still stupidly cross the crosding instead of following the U shaped path)

You where NOT taught to check that you are not turning into/across some one? WTH? When doing a maneuver you check your mirror AND turn your head. If you are not taught this I shudder to think what else where left out of your so-called drivers education.

Of course we were told (30 years ago) to check all kind of things but bike lanes on your right did not exist at that time.

I am glad that you can comment on my so called driver education (which includes a L1 rally license) and it is a good thing that today the new driving context (with bike lanes all over the place are correctly taught).

All which of course has nothing to do with my comment about the extra awareness someone gains when being another user of the road (on another device, it goes both ways).

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

#178

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:10 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by pjmlp » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 2:19 PM UTC

scirocco wrote: post #152

jernfrost wrote: post #58

I think the key to safety for bikers in the Netherlands is simply the sheer number of them. When you visit the Netherlands. Within 15 minutes you have gotten used to scanning for bikers everywhere. There are so many of them and they come so frequently that you cannot not get into the habit of looking for them. The importance of numbers is something often overlooked. I read an article discussing the different approach…

This reminds me of Spain where a colleague said it was safer driving motorycle there, than in the UK. I asked why, and he said Spanish car drivers usually anticipate motorcycles passing on the inside when turning, overtaking etc.

Not only Spain, quite common on other Southern Europe countries as well.

We learn to properly use all three mirrors.

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

#180

Post by stretchwithme » Sun, Oct 07, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

stouset wrote: post #16

stretchwithme wrote: post #13

Training is great but making it impossible is better. Blind spot detection systems need to evolve the ability to keep the door closed when something is rapidly approaching a door.

And then that technology needs more technology to ensure that it doesn’t accidentally disallow egress in an emergency, or misfire due to a bad sensor and keep the door permanently shut.

Yes, that's important too. Such a system shouldn't work at all when there's no power. I imagine that can be accomplished with a mechanism that has to have power to stay in a position that interferes with opening the door.

What happens when power fails is pretty important. What happens to an automated vehicle when that happens, for example? If there's no driver, they'll a mechanical brake that isn't used whenever power IS available. When power fails, it would engage.

More to your point, I've heard the Tesla Model 3 rear doors can't be opened from inside when power is lost in an accident. That could be a serious problem in an accident. Maybe they've fixed that or will soon. They will definitely fix it before I would purchase one.