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

461–470 of 612 posts

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

#461

Post by stephenr »

jstanley wrote: post #455
stephenr wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read about this supposed "solution" and the greatest thing I took away was that it trades side-of-car blind spots (which I can resolve by turning my head) for rear-of-car blind spots, which I can do nothing about, as my head doesn't rotate 180º.

You can't see behind your car using your wing mirrors, you need to use the rear-view mirror. Even if you have the wing mirrors pointing behind your car, the sides of the car obscure your view. I like to adjust the wing mirrors so that a tiny sliver of the car is visible in the mirror, that way I can be sure I'm not missing anything.

see the diagram on http://www.driveandstayalive.com/setting-exterior-mirrors-ca...

What you do is "normal". The suggestion from the comment I replied to is referring to the "new" way referenced on the linked page, where the mirrors are set wider.

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

#462

Post by hx87 »

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…

> I find it very interesting that commenters from countries where cycling is decidedly unsafe are going to lecture those from countries where the predominant mode of transportation is the bicycle on safe cycling practices.

We are lecturing you on the optimal way to cycle in /our country/, not yours. Sure, your country might have a thing or five to teach us about infrastructure, laws, and cultural norms regarding bike traffic, but when it comes to what an /individual bicyclist/ should do given the situation here, we absolutely have a better idea than you do. It's like comparing driving in a easygoing city and driving in an aggressive city--sure, the driving in the former is on the whole safer than in the latter, but driving in an easygoing manner in an aggressive city is much more likely to get you into trouble than driving aggressively will.

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

#463

Post by hx87 »

closeparen wrote: post #189
School-Cotton wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People shouldn't be trying to drive and park in major city centers. Exceptions can be made for deliveries. I live in a major city and I don't have a car. Parking is no issue for me at all :)

Ah, but - astronomical housing costs in the small radius of convenient non-driving commutes to the downtown business district - exposure to high crime and dysfunctional public schools (possibly requiring the purchase of private K12) in said radius - travel times to common destinations by public transit 2-3x driving, meaning less engagement with the rest of the world or less free time - One of a) standing on a lurchin…

I don't know about you, but if 2 hour commutes by car are acceptable for people, I don't know why 2 hour walks (~8 miles) or 2 hour bike rides (~20 miles) are not.

b) hasn't ever been a problem for me regardless of the weather--a wipe down with bath wipes and a change of clothes (plus a cold drink) was always sufficient.

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

#464

Post by dominotw »

jacquesm wrote: post #87
dominotw wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you'd likely return to a car without mirrors and wipers what happens to them?

Some people would get extremely upset at blocking the bike lane and forcing cyclists into traffic or over the sidewalk. A passing scooter might not make it in time and is likely to clip your mirrors in the process depending on how much room they have to maneuver (likely not a lot or you wouldn't be parking in the bike lane to begin with). As for the wipers, that would likely be vandalism, but it's still cheaper to fi…

Weird. Govt has to be complicit in supporting vandalism if its such a common occurrence.

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

#465

Post by hx87 »

vvpan wrote: post #110
Zanni wrote: post #51

The real answer is to get rid of street parking when you have a bike lane. They're incompatible. In fact, just get rid of street parking altogether. As a bicyclist, I've been doored. As a pedestrian, I find it difficult to see around parked cars to know if it's safe to cross the street in some locations. As a driver, I find it difficult to to see around parked cars to know if it's safe to enter the street AND I have…

That is unrealistic and has very bad consequences on the neighborhood. I've heard urban planners (in lectures) say that when there is not a row of parked cars between a street and the sidewalk, people are much less likely to walk and spend time there. So, for example, businesses close along a street when parking is suddenly prohibited. And, as others pointed out, in most cities it is unrealistic due to how little par…

> I've heard urban planners (in lectures) say that when there is not a row of parked cars between a street and the sidewalk, people are much less likely to walk and spend time there.

Have they considered replacing the parking lane with a bike lane instead of regular traffic?

> And, as others pointed out, in most cities it is unrealistic due to how little parking there is available.

That's purely a supply and demand issue--because of how cheap street parking is, the price of parking is very low and thus elevated parking garages are uneconomical. If only elevated parking is available, that changes.

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

#466

Post by mrsuprawsm »

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…

Cycling without lights and texting while driving is only really dangerous to the cyclist in question though, not really for other cyclists.

Turning without signalling is a bit of an annoyance though, I run into that fairly often.

Kids cycling two by two is also frustrating because you can't overtake, but it isn't directly dangerous.

The fact that cyclists here in NL can break the rules with impunity and still stay pretty safe is probably a consequence of how good our infrastructure is, imo

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

#467

Post by hx87 »

hueving wrote: post #133
School-Cotton wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where the interests of cyclists and drivers conflict, we should prioritize cycling, because it has no negative externalities, requires much cheaper infrastructure, is good for health, etc.

If it causes the drivers to do something extremely inefficient (e.g. drive around the block for a half hour looking for parking), then it's a negative externality. Cyclists do not exist in a vacuum.

> drive around the block for a half hour looking for parking

That would be a dumb thing to do, unless you value your time very little. Why not just park in the nearest garage?

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

#468

Post by qb45 »

lucb1e wrote: post #438
qb45 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say I'd just press my eyes tightly closed instinctively and press both brakes as hard as I can . You probably don't have much experience if you write things like that :)

Experience with what, biking or flying stuff in eyes? In the latter case you might be right, which is one of the reasons nobody wears goggles while biking (it doesn't happen that often). In the former case you're wrong about me.

Pulling brakes hard is a sure way to fly over the bar at least on some bikes. Never actually happened to me but I've seen one guy land on concrete sidewalk this way.

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

#469

Post by hx87 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #126
saulrh wrote: post #5

Getting it added to the driver's license test is probably the key here.

In the US being able to drive is culturally considered a human right. I think that's part of why standards for driving exams or so risibly low compared to Europe.

You would think it would be the opposite though--if driving were such an essential portion of our live, we would put much more practice and attention to it, not less.

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

#470

Post by hx87 »

Houshalter wrote: post #53
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that argument; effectively it boils down to "it is hard, so why try anything at all?" Even if it took thirty years and even if it was only ten percent effective, what is the negatives to this plan? One more minor skill to driving? One more bullet in the driving code?

Because by the time this plan actually works, humans won't even be driving cars anymore. And as I said I would be very surprised if it actually did work, given how quickly people lose the habits they are taught in driver's ed (how many people keep 4 seconds of distance, wear their seatbelt, never speed, adjust their mirrors correctly, look both ways for trains, etc.)

Even if the benefits are small, the costs are...what, exactly?
Post reply on HN