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

301–310 of 612 posts

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

#301

Post by rwmj »

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #282
rwmj wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more interesting statistic is: How many more people would have died through pollution / heart disease if everyone drove cars instead of cycling?

But wearing helmet doesn't cause more pollution, so I guess that statistic is very good for a different discussion :-)

You are partly wrong. Encouraging (or even worse, enforcing) cycle helmets is known to reduce the number of people cycling. Since they presumably still need to get around, they're going to use other forms of transport, some of which add pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws#Effects_on...

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

#302

Post by simongray »

sambe wrote: post #283
mpol wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is mostly just Amsterdam. In the rest of the Netherlands this behaviour is being frowned upon. And it is often not the Dutch people. Half the people in Amsterdam is tourists.

In Amsterdam at least, it is certainly not tourists who create most of the problems. Tourists are just a nuisance, usually clueless and going very slow and massively in the minority despite the overall popularity of the city. Dutch cyclists are substantially more likely to be running red lights without looking, at speed. They are more likely to be using their phone - meandering all over the path - or at night without…

Same exact situation in Copenhagen. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only cyclist who respects red lights.

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

#303

Post by hvidgaard »

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.

Blindspotless mirrors are not a replacement for checking your blind spot, at least I cannot reliabilily see cyclists with it.

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

#304

Post by mcv »

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…

185 bike deaths is a lot less than the roughly 500 car deaths every year. Keep in mind that people bike a lot here. I ride my bike every single day. I rarely use a car. Never had a meaningful accident.

In countries where helmets are mandatory, cyclists tend to run a much bigger risk of serious injury. Whatever Netherland is doing differently is clearly working. Claiming that Netherland should adapt to countries that are doing worse is ridiculous.

Netherland takes bike safety very seriously. Don't just assume that you know better than the country that has the highest bike density in the world. I have seen research about the effect of bike helmets, and while some research showed that helmets offered substantial benefit in very specific, artificial situations, other research showed that those benefit didn't translate to practical real life situations. And research that only tests how much a helmet protects your skill, tends to ignore the impact of the helmet in preventing the accident in the first place. Some research suggests that simply wearing a helmet can make people more reckless, putting more trust in their helmet than in their own carefulness.

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

#305

Post by 314 »

jacquesm wrote: post #225
314 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are only agile young males capable of steering to the left and right while cycling? Surely other categories of cyclist are capable of doing this. If any cyclist, regardless of age or gender, is unable to plot a safe path and follow it avoiding obstacles then they are endangering themselves through their choice to cycle on a road.

Because 'slamming on the brakes' is not an option for older cyclists, slamming on the brakes (especially on a wet road) is a small step away from falling for an older cyclist. They can however coast to a stop while braking. They can't swerve either and they can be forgetful (forget to indicate, forget to look around them). And still they are perfectly valid cyclists and should not have to worry about arriving in one…

Nobody should be travelling at a speed that is beyond their own ability to stop. Cycling at a speed beyond any individual's threshold for safely braking is putting themselves in danger. This applies equally across all levels of training, ability, age and gender.

People who cycle on roads expecting cars to take full responsibility for their safety are unlikely to last very long. A cyclist needs to operate within their own safety tolerances, rather than expect others to provide safety to them.

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

#306

Post by mcv »

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.

Very few people shower after entering the office. That's only for the fanatical long-distance racing-bike commuters. Most people ride their bike in their work clothes. A helmet would be a tedious and useless bit of extra luggage.

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

#307

Post by cerebellum42 »

cr1895 wrote: post #187
kvz wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the case anymore since ~5 years. The only motorized vehicels alllowed are those that cant travel fasher than 25km/h (bike speed)

Nominally they can't go faster than that. But they do.

I mean, plenty of cyclists go faster than that too, 30 km/h is not uncommon.

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

#308

Post by Freak_NL »

cr1895 wrote: post #234
ptaipale wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Helmets prevent brain injury, but generally you'd have to be going pretty fast, or get hit by a car really fast to land on your head to require one (and then you probably have other injuries to contend with). This is wrong. There's some research done on that over here (Finland). First of all, about two thirds of severe bicycle injuries happen without any third parties involved, cars or not. Head injuries are the wo…

Lights (rear and front) are compulsory by law in the Netherlands too, though many still do not use them.

That is mostly due to a lack of understanding of the added safety benefits (students and such just not caring enough) and a lack of enforcement though. Most people do agree with the necessity of bicycle lights in the dark, but take their chances when they are caught outside after dusk with a broken light or empty battery for the clip-on types.

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

#309

Post by namdnay »

rkangel wrote: post #266
Angostura wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm strongly against mandatory helmets for the reason that you suggest. But I'm one of the people (Im in the UK) who now wears helmets for both skiing and cycling. My cycle helmet almost certainly saved my life when a car gave me a knock and my head went onto the kerb. This was a slow collision in London traffic - probably doing about 10-12 MPh.

The transition on attitude towards skiing helmets (at least in European resorts) has been really interesting to watch. It has gone from being something that only children and the seriously hardcore off piste snowboarders. I never used to wear one, and neither did most of the people I ski with, but over the last 5 years its changed until we now seriously judge people for being reckless if they won't wear a helmet. The…

In France it has taken time, and there are still some holdouts (most notably the national ski school, ESF).

I believe it's mandatory already in several Swiss resorts, I know it is in Zermatt.

I really hope the ESF will mandate helmets for all instructors, this would go a long way to normalising them.

I don't think wearing a helmet when skiing is comparable to commute cycling. I think motorcycling would be closer. In both cases you're going at relatively high speeds with quite long breaking distances.

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

#310

Post by Freak_NL »

seszett wrote: post #147
jacquesm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty good list. Another major reason imo is that in an accident between a cyclist and a car the car is more or less automatically liable.

In France as well. Yet, if you go to the police station after a bike accident they will most likely refuse to take your claim unless you look seriously injured, and as long as the car did stop the police will just tell you to contact your insurance (which will do little more than reimbursing half the used value of your bike if you still have the invoice, after asking for a deductible amount several times that). I'm s…

Same in the Netherlands, but that is because you are liable for the (civil) damages, which are handled by the insurance companies of both parties. The police nowadays only get involved if one of the parties is criminally negligent, or drives off without decently handling the aftermath. Insurance claims do reimburse you for the damage though, and will claim them (successfully) with the other party's insurer.
Post reply on HN