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

351–360 of 612 posts

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

#351

Post by l33tbro »

msandford wrote: post #19
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #15

Or, as a bike rider one can simply look into a cars cabin and see if a person is inside. I assume everyone is a terrible driver, have no idea I'm on the road. I am a regular bike commuter on traffic heavy Los Angeles. I'll never understand the mentality of bicyclists who are more concerned with asserting their rights as opposed to exercising caution and restraint. Graveyards are full of people who had the right of wa…

Cyclists are already second class citizens on the roads. People who ride bikes are upset about this and would prefer not to become third or fourth class. It's also very frustrating to have to assume everyone is so ignorant that they wouldn't mind accidentally killing you for the sake of saving a second or two. I completely agree that being aggressively paranoid is the way to stay alive. But agreeing that it is the sm…

> Cyclists are already second class citizens on the roads. People who ride bikes are upset about this and would prefer not to become third or fourth class.

True. But it's worth pointing out that cyclists aren't always the angels they often make themselves out to be. I sometimes refer to them as "the motorists of the walkway".

This came after having quite a few spandex-clad baby-boomers zip by me on their sleek fixies yelling "get out of the way" when I'm walking on a shared path. Gosh, it's almost as if this behavior was identical to the berating these same people complain about from motorists.

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

#352

Post by DanBC »

jacquesm wrote: post #131
laurencerowe wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in practice some drivers will see it as an aggressive move to take 'their' lane. [...] In a car centric society the last thing you want to do is to occupy a full lane sized for vehicles but going 1/3rd their speed. I think this overestimates the antagonism car drivers feel towards cyclists and underestimates the danger of simply not being noticed. When I cycled, I usually found that cars would give me as much s…

I've had (full) beercans thrown at me in traffic in the USA just for cycling, I'd rather avoid playing dodgem with SUVs and pick-up trucks driven by people that feel that roads are not for sharing with vehicles other than cars. To boldly occupy a whole lane is something that might work in a few cities that have considerable bike traffic but I don't think that is a universal rule to live by as a cyclist.

Even in the parts of the US that have said in their laws that cyclists should occupy the whole lane when it's unsafe for them to do otherwise you'll find police giving them tickets because those police don't understand the law and don't understand the safety of it.

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

#353

Post by c3833174 »

juiced wrote: post #239

Bullshit. I'm Dutch, never heard of or exercised this "Dutch Reach" behaviour and I was not tested for it when getting my driver's license. Instead, you just look around and in your mirrors to see if other traffic is coming before blindly and like an asshole opening your door, it doesn't matter how you open the door after you became aware of what is going on around you. I call this behaviour the "Dutch Common Sense".

This, I was only taught that looking over the shoulder is preferred to mirrors but not much else.

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

#354

Post by tqkxzugoaupvwqr »

analog31 wrote: post #344
tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Citation?

It seems to have been “Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender”[1] (doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.010).

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457506...

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

#355

Post by ralfn »

tinco wrote: post #326
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.

* 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 be as important, if not more important.

Also, interesting to realize, 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.

So, although bikers are betting their life going out, cars are betting their wealth, money and freedom.

It turns out, instead of focusing on 'who is at fault' and 'who is right', it is much safer to focus on 'lets make sure we don't hit each other' and turn accidents into a mutually-assured-destruction kind of deal. This way, every actor in traffic has a natural tendency to compensates for mistakes of the other actors. And this attitude is the one that prevents most accidents.

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

#356

Post by ekidd »

Symbiote wrote: post #181
deanclatworthy wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends entirely on how you fall off your bike, which depends on your speed and numerous other factors. The problem here is that it's pretty hard to tell after the fact whether a death would have been prevented by a helmet. We can guess, speculate but it's hard to measure the exact forces exerted - and also how someone's biological material will react to that (the brain). In all my reading around this issue, tho…

> I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks like. Do you wear one while walking? Or hiking? There's also an increased risk of brain injury from these activities. Most people I know don't wear one, because the combination of the discomfort, hassle, inconvenience and appearance aren't worth the perceived low increased risk of cycling compared to, for example, walking.

I wear a helmet for bicycling, in-line skating, snowboarding and whitewater kayaking. In the case of the first three sports, the helmet has saved me from nasty head hits:

- Two over-the-handlebars crashes on my bike at relatively low speed (one when mountain biking).

- A low tree limb and several backwards falls when inline skating.

- Countless backwards falls when learning to snowboard.

For whitewater kayaking, a helmet is effectively mandatory because head strikes against underwater rocks may knock you unconscious in rapids (and because very few groups will paddle with somebody lacking standard safety gear). I once saw a guy paddling in a hockey mask with a cage, which is non-standard for whitewater kayaking. I later learned he had bounced that face cage off an underwater rock once.

As for cars, well, I once hit my head against the door frame in a car accident (no side air bags in that vehicle) and ended up needing to work half time for over 6 months. Even minor concussions can be no fun at all. Happily I made a full recovery.

I like my helmets. I earn my living using my brain, and I intend to strictly minimize the risk of future concussions.

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

#357

Post by ralfn »

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 cyclists died last year in the Netherlands [1].

Of the almost 8+ million people biking almost every day. Just to put that in perspective.

And that's not even counting the tourists, which likely skew the results a bit (since they will have less experience and likely won't be sober at all)

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

#358

Post by invernomut0 »

pjmlp wrote: post #174
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.

Not only in The Netherlands, in most European cities actually. And if you go down to the Mediterranean countries even on motorbikes, not everyone wears on at least on city traffic. Regarding bike helmets, they usually only protect if you fall vertically on your head, making their protection capability highly questionable. They offer zero protection over getting hit by a car or falling off the bike.

If you ride a motorcycle even following the speed limit and you fall, even if you don't hit any vehicle you are risking: - hitting the ground (front or back) so having a concussion or smashing all your teeth - hitting sidewalks or guard rails Moreover the helmet lowers the noise given by air flowing, helps you see better at sunrise/sunset, protects you from insects. I think there's no good reason to avoid wearing an helmet while riding a motorcycle.

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

#359

Post by saiya-jin »

kristofferR wrote: post #296
tinco wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is important in how it shows biking is totally different in The Netherlands. The first type of bike most non-Dutch think of when they hear 'bicycle', where the rider sits hunched forward poised to race is not even considered a regular bike here. If you go faster than 15mph you are basically considered to be comparable to a moped and doing it without a helmet is frowned upon even here. When you are not in…

> "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.

Anecdotal evidence - i never wore helmet when growing up, nobody did. once had an accident on small bmx bike when I fell head first on tarmac, but didn't land on head and apart from scratches and being shaken all good (if parents only knew...).

few years ago decided to buy new cross country (ie all-rounder) one, lightweight and blazing fast for what it is. Decided to go for a helmet for the first time. After 2 weeks, had a head-first fall because of my GF stopped on some narrow forest path uphill, behind the corner and I hit brakes full power when I saw her with no place to avoid.

I miss few seconds of memories, just waking up laying in the grass, picking my head from sharp pointy stone sticking out of the ground - helmet hit it in forehead area. Have I not worn it, it's more probable than not I would die there, I was still badly shaken from impact force on my head, and I was driving slowly when it happened (10-15 kmh).

Fiancee works on emergency, the stuff she sees daily makes her wear helmet too. Link all articles you want, we're keeping our helmets where they are, on our heads, thank you.

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

#360

Post by stephenr »

grecy wrote: post #311
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…

> She had literally never heard of nor understood the concept of a blind spot. I've done a good amount of driving in the undeveloped and developing world (40k miles AK->Argentina, now 10k miles in West Africa, going to do about 80k) Blindspots are not considered here. Driving is much more fluid, and you really only need to watch what is happening in front of you. After all, the car behind/beside you can see you much…

> It really is a different way of thinking, and it's immensely impressive that everyone is paying enough attention to make it work really well (Traffic accidents are not common, and the driving conditions are so, so much more hectic than the developed world.)

Thailand has all that you mentioned, as well as novel things like vehicles driving the wrong way on the hard shoulder on divided highways.

Thailand is #2 behind Libya when ranked by traffic accident deaths / inhabitant: 36 per 100K. On the same list USA has just under 11 per 100K. To put that another way. USA had 34K road deaths from ~324M residents. Thailand had 24K road deaths from 67M residents.

So, you'll understand if I don't quite agree with the concept that doing what the fuck you want so long as you pay attention to every other fucker "works really well".

Post reply on HN