The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored” • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by ptaipale » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

hx87 wrote: post #444

ptaipale wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in English that I could find now without spending more time. One thing about bicycle helmets is that they really need to have that shiny surface. Without it, i.e. with just a polystyrene surface, the friction of helmet vs. road surface will be so high as to cause a risk of neck injury when the head stops faster than the rest of the body, even if the helmet protects the head per se. Without the helmet, the hea…

I'm not sure what a smooth helmet surface will do the coefficient of friction between helmet and road if the road itself is still very rough. The benefits will probably hit diminishing returns long before the helmet is actually shiny.

I didn't mean the surface actually has to shine. But there's a reason for that hard smooth-surfaced plastic outside the EPS or whatever softer material.

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

#502

Post by et-al » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #175

et-al wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people in China don't wear helmets either. 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). Also, we have bike light laws in California, but there are plenty of cyclists that don't use them. Personally, if I had to choose between riding without a helmet,…

It's not hard to be going fast inadvertently. The worst bike accident I was in involved me coming down a hill, stopping at the bottom on what turned out to be an invisible bump, and flying over my handlebars. I broke my collarbone upon landing, but if I hadn't been wearing a helmet it would have been a lot worse. It just seems foolhardy to me to ride a bike without a helmet, like driving a car without a seatbelt.

> It just seems foolhardy to me to ride a bike without a helmet, like driving a car without a seatbelt.

Yes, this is the analogy I've always made. Thanks for emphasizing it.

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

#503

Post by antisthenes » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

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.

What you're describing is not an externality at all. It's an explicit cost to the driver that will hopefully make them alter their behavior.

It makes the parking (end goal) more expensive to them via both time (additional time to park) and money (gas wasted during finding the parking spot), so it is reflected in the cost of the good. Thus it is not an externality.

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

#504

Post by et-al » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

et-al wrote: post #172

dpark wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have little confidence in my ability as a biker to recognize which of the dozens of cars I bike past might h person in them. The car could appear empty because the driver is bent over picking something off the floor. Or their head might be blocked by the headrest. Or I might just not notice them. More to the point, what am I supposed to do if I see a car with someone in it? Slam on my brakes, assuming they will doo…

You can control how vigilant the other person is, but you can control how vigilant you are. In a bike lane, right as far away (to the left) of parked cars as possible. That already gives you a safety buffer. And if you happen to be in tight valley of parked cars, then slow down and be extra cautious, or ride fast and take the lane. And wave to a driver every now and then to say thanks. They're people with places to g…

Ugh, that was supposed to read: You cannot control how vigilant the other person is, but you can control how vigilant you are.

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

#505

Post by Someone » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #304

deanclatworthy wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nitpick: it is not 185 vs roughly 500, but 185 versus 621 in total, of which 225 were in cars.

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

#506

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:46 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #464

jacquesm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's not common at all. Nobody in their right mind would do this, those that do will get the message quickly, it's totally anti-social to block a bike path and dangerous to boot.

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

#507

Post by 314 » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #327

314 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's total nonsense. If someone throws a door in your way you're going to get hurt, no matter what, which was what started this whole discussion in the first place. See, 'safe braking' makes some assumptions about what other people will do and when they don't all bets are off. That's why we call them accidents to begin with. Cars turning without signaling, doors, swerving into the space occupied by a cyclist and so…

Your argument was that poor old dears were hurtling along unable to stop in a reasonable length, only able to "gently coast to a stop". You are now arguing against your own point.

I do drive, and when I do so I rely on the experience of cycling 2500km last year on public roads. You seem to be relying on experience of arguing pointlessly for the sake of noise on the internet.

All cyclists should travelling at a speed where they are capable of breaking before potential hazards. If this includes unexpected cardoors then they should be travelling slowly enough to respond to the danger.

Why do you think they travel above a speed where they have adequate breaking time? Why do you think they should deserve this special treatment that is not afforded to other vehicles?

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

#508

Post by 314 » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #327

314 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's total nonsense. If someone throws a door in your way you're going to get hurt, no matter what, which was what started this whole discussion in the first place. See, 'safe braking' makes some assumptions about what other people will do and when they don't all bets are off. That's why we call them accidents to begin with. Cars turning without signaling, doors, swerving into the space occupied by a cyclist and so…

Your argument was that poor old dears were hurtling along unable to stop in a reasonable length, only able to "gently coast to a stop". You are now arguing against your own point.

I do drive, and when I do so I rely on the experience of cycling 2500km last year on public roads. You seem to be relying on experience of arguing pointlessly for the sake of noise on the internet.

All cyclists should travelling at a speed where they are capable of breaking before potential hazards. If this includes unexpected cardoors then they should be travelling slowly enough to respond to the danger.

Why do you think they travel above a speed where they have adequate breaking time? Why do you think they should deserve this special treatment that is not afforded to other vehicles?

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

#509

Post by Someone » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

ralfn wrote: post #357

deanclatworthy wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Also, of those 185, 48 were 70-80 years old, and 51 were 80 years and older, so in total over half were over 70 (compared to only 17 who were under 20 years old)

It's a fairly safe bet most of those over 70's weren't going so fast that hitting a car or the ground hit much harder than a hit or a fall while walking would.

E-bikes may be changing that; that is being studied and may lead to changes in helmet laws. I think it is more likely it will lead to changes in road design and to recommendations to certain groups to wear a helmet.

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

#510

Post by elif » Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #454

hx87 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drivetrain matters too--I suspect many American bicyclists blow through red lights and generally don't respect road rules because with fixed/single speed bikes, it takes enormous effort to get started from a standstill, and with derailleurs it's impossible to downshift from a standstill (i.e. when you make a quick stop). If hub gears were standard, bicyclists wouldn't have as much reason to ignore signals.

No its not you can down shift with index shifters on the MTB very easily as you stop and you can always lift the back when and quickly shift that way Agree that fixies should be banned outside of a race track.

How about until such a time that society can provide a safe means of cycling, we let cyclists decide how they are most capable of staying alive. Riding a slow bicycle and stopping at every intersection is incredibly unsafe in many American cities.

Yeah, a fixed gear can be an encumberence to a poser, but to someone qualified, it can also be a means of greater control.