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

511–520 of 612 posts

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

#511

Post by bduerst »

BurningFrog wrote: post #492
auxym wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are two credible reviews / meta-analyses stating the contrary, that is, that bicycle helmet use or legislation does, statistically, reduce head injuries. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500... http://www.cochrane.org/CD005401/INJ_bicycle-helmet-legislat... That said, despite personally wearing a helmet on my daily commute, I don't support legislation. I unfortunately don't have sources o…

The fun angle on that is that legislating helmet use makes people bike less, which is what really lowers bike accidents.

The studies discuss the rate of accidents, not the sum difference, meaning that even if there were more or less bicyclists on the road, the probability of them being injured with a helmet on is still less.

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

#512

Post by kbutler »

hx87 wrote: post #477
walshemj wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't you still have to pedal forward in order for the chainset to actuate the gear change?

You just push off with your foot from the ground, giving you enough forward motion to down shift.

It's easier if you downshift before stopping, but the only time it's a problem is if climbing a hill, in which case you probably downshifted anyway

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

#513

Post by rkangel »

ghaff wrote: post #487
rkangel wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. The people who don't stand out - and they're almost universally the older generation of serious skiers (>= retirement age) who are too stuck in their ways. To quote my Dad (who admittedly hasn't skied in years) "You wear a helmet? Why? I never needed one".

Yeah. For me, it's pretty much: I don't ski much these days. I don't ski particularly aggressively. I've never worn a helmet and I'm not about to start now. It's not that I think they're stupid or anything. And I do wear helmets for various other sports. I just never have for skiing and don't feel compelled to change.

But that's what the Natasha Richardson accident proved - it's not about your skiing, it's about other people's skiing. In much the same way as you wear a seatbelt even if you're a perfect driver - someone else can still crash into you.

Also, the fact that I've never had a potentially fatal car accident doesn't mean that I don't see the need to wear a seatbelt. The safety numbers made a risk obvious and the behavioural pattern changed to manage the risk.

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

#514

Post by kbutler »

mcv wrote: post #429
aeharding wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I applied for a permit (purely knowledge/eyesight test), and that allows you to drive any normal vehicle (class-A) as long as there is someone in the passenger seat over 25/at least 5 years possessing a driver's license (or something like that). I went home and took the family car out on public streets with my Dad. 6 months later, I applied for my license. Simple 15 minute public roads driving test in the same family…

That's quite a bit different from the Dutch situation. I've paid thousands of euros for lessons, with a professional instructor, teaching me from working the pedals and the clutch all the way through navigating complex double merges on the motorway, sending me from the motorway straight into a low-speed zone, and through every imaginable traffic situation. Before you get lessons in the car, you first need to get your…

My experience as a teenager and parent is similar to the GP - and my US license is valid in the Netherlands.

Note that we have the added complication that we live in areas with snow, and thus are driving on icy/snowpacked roads for a good portion of the year.

I wondered if it would be cheaper (or more fun!) for dutch residents to take a trip to the US, get a valid drivers license, and bring that back to Europe rather than pay directly for a license there.

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

#515

Post by ptaipale »

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #386
rwmj wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Well, no. I'm not wrong: Using helmets does not increase pollution. Forcing helmets onto people seems to increase pollution (by the reduced use of cycling), so the problem in fact should be: A lack of proper health and safety education leads (indirectly?) to more pollution. That's why I think that statistic is very good for a different discussion - I don't think it should belong into "Should people wear helmets while…

At least in [0], the reduced use of cycling was only an issue for teenagers. Children and adults cycled more after mandatory helmet law; people who most fiercely oppose putting protective gear on their head seem to be 12-17 years old.

I'm not really saying that helmets should be mandatory, but the attitudes and arguments remind me a lot about the time when mandatory seatbelt laws were coming to force. People will be trapped in burning cars and sink in vehicles and can't get out, and it will mess up the cothes, etc.

[0] Effects of the compulsory bicycle helmet wearing law in victoria during its first three years, Cameron, Newstead, Vulcan, Finch / http://114.111.144.247/Presto/content/GetDoc.axd?ctID=MjE1ZT...

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

#516

Post by sbov »

gfodor wrote: post #216
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…

eh, depending on the car, often times a blind spot is just due to someone failing to adjust their mirrors properly. if you actually do it right, you should not have a blind spot. if you can see your own car in your side view mirrors, you've adjusted them wrong. if they are adjusted correctly, cars approaching on either side of your vehicle will pass from the rear view, to the side mirror, into your peripheral vision…

I like to be able to see a tiny sliver of my car. This way I always know how they're adjusted. Without being able to see that piece of the car, they might be adjusted too far out and I have no easy way to tell.

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

#517

Post by jandrese »

ralfn wrote: post #355
tinco wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* 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…

> 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.

Isn't this because the motorist has insurance while a bike rider does not? I've never seen cyclist insurance, although maybe the Dutch have it? There's no point trying to get blood from a stone by assigning blame to the uninsured party.

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

#518

Post by Someone »

mcv wrote: post #319
Scarblac wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also getting taught by amateurs, that just isn't a thing in the Netherlands. You learn to drive in a modified car (extra set of brakes, extra mirrors) with a qualified instructor next to you.

Wait, do people in the US not use professional driving instructors in modified instruction cars? Doesn't that cause a lot of accidents?

It varies by state, but often you can get some license without professional instruction. Many states have a learner's permit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learner%27s_permit#United_St...) that allows any over 25 (or even 21) year old with a driver's license to teach you to drive in an unmodified car.

A step up is a provisional license that may (depending on state) allow you to drive certain routes (typically to school or work and back, but also sometimes to do essential shopping) unaccompanied.

That makes some sense in areas where traffic is light and distances large.

I think that, in some states, you even can get a provisional license without ever having driven a car (you may have had a learner's permit for a certain period, but they don't check whether you actually used it), but of course, that's extremely unlikely to happen.

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

#519

Post by dwaltrip »

canes123456 wrote: post #478
jerf wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you make a long list like that, the human intuitive norm is to start by assigning a roughly equal responsibility for each of them. However, it is rare to encounter a situation where some effect is obtained by 10 distinct factors all providing an equal contribution. (Think about it from an entropic point of view; that is one very specific configuration of contributions, vs. all the others in which they are not ba…

You have it backwards. There is not one practice that you can just extract and implant into a new culture. They avoid accidents because they have a culture that has grown and valued riding bikes. This culture has manifested in many practices that are taught and reinforced by the culture. The actual individual things are of little significance individually. It is about the awareness and culture pressure to make effort…

Or maybe both perspectives have some truth to them?

Such as:

1) Yes, the Dutch have a great, deeply embedded culture around biking which promotes high levels of safety.

2) But, it is also possible to learn from and integrate a few of the most impactful & compact aspects of that culture to increase safety in other nations.

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

#520

Post by michael_h »

dpark wrote: post #432
michael_h wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not mandatory in every state, I believe. However, even when not required, it is very common to use professional driving instructors with modified cars.

This is very uncommon in the United States. Probably 99% of driver training in the US is driving a family car with mom or dad in the passenger seat. Most people get very little and often no professional instruction. Certainly, when receiving professional instruction, the modified car with at least an extra brake is typical. It's just that most people never get much of this instruction.

From dmv.org:

If you are under eighteen, states requiring driver's education from a professional driving school (with behind-the-wheel instruction): CA, DL, HI, ID, IA, KS, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MT, NH, NJ, NM (waiver available), NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI,

Require the course, but not professional, behind-the-wheel instruction: CT, GA, FL, IL, KY, ME, MO, ND, RI, VA,

Professional instruction not required: AL, AK, AR, CO, IN, NE, NV, OK, OR, SD, TN, WV, WY, DC

So, about half of the country is required to have professional, in-car instruction. Quite common.

Post reply on HN