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

591–600 of 612 posts

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

#591

Post by et-al »

astrodust wrote: post #554
et-al wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your points, but the reality is that we live in a town where everyone else is distracted, so the onus is on us (bikers) to be aware. That's it. Things are improving, and maybe one day biking in an American city may be as relaxing as a European bike path, but until that day, I think it's extremely important for cyclists to realise the dangers that are out there, and how to minimise that risk. And for some…

The ultimate responsibility for your safety falls on you, but the risk you're exposed to can be minimized by encouraging people to do things that don't expose others to high levels of risk. Asking drivers to open their doors a new way to minimize hazards is good for both drivers and cyclists. Nobody wants to be hit with the insurance tab for dooring someone.

Agreed. I'm all for broadcasting this PSA, but as others have pointed out, blinker usage is a good predictor of how widely the "Dutch reach" would be adopted.

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

#592

Post by hueving »

antisthenes wrote: post #503
hueving wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, if they don't care it's not entirely reflected in the good. This happens quite frequently with emissions. If you do something that causes a bunch more people to produce emissions (e.g. Lower the cost of gasoline by 90%), you are partially responsible for those externalities.

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

#593

Post by hueving »

hx87 wrote: post #467
hueving wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most people don't value their time that highly. Most middle class Americans for example would rather waste the half hour rather than spend $40 or whatever to take a cab from the suburb into the city.

This disconnect is the reason a lot of silicon valley startups flounder outside of silicon valley. Most of the US population can't afford to throw away $10 to save 20 mins.

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

#594

Post by developer2 »

dpark wrote: post #545
developer2 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that hard to believe? The human brain is not a perfect system. We operate on autopilot when performing menial tasks. Exiting a car is absolutely a zero-effort task that is habitually performed without any thought involved. Reaching with the opposite hand naturally turns your head far enough that you're looking at your blind spot - or at least 80% of the head turn required. The point is you can consciously forge…

> Reaching with the opposite hand naturally turns your head far enough that you're looking at your blind spot - or at least 80% of the head turn required. Only if you have so little shoulder mobility that you're unable to move your arm across your body while retaining your upper body position. I can reach across my body to open the door with no upper body movement. If I reach casually and let my body move loosely, I…

>> Time and time again on Hacker News, intelligent people can't seem to understand that the average citizen is not a Hacker News visitor.

> This is out of place and pointless.

The typical HN visitor is going to have, on average, a brain that operates differently than the average citizen. Not necessarily "better", just different. It's not supposed to be an ego boost for us, or an insult to the general population; it's just fact. It is unrealistic to expect that every person is going to be hyper-aware of their surroundings and behaviour at all times.

Ten years ago I thought that "average people" were missing basic common sense, that made them incompetent in their decision processes. With every year that goes by, I've come to realize that these people are completely normal. They are neither unintelligent nor stupid, or careless, or any other derogatory term. If anything I now resent my analytical thought process, and wish I could adopt a different set of mental priorities. Where's the off switch? ;)

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

#595

Post by ralfn »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #578
ralfn wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This focus on helmets is ridiculous, because you only have to types of bikes: 1. Death traps 2. Dutch bikes You want less people to die in traffic while riding a bike? Don't make a helmet mandatory. Make the dutch bike mandatory. Your bike needs to be heavy. You need to sit up straight. And if you stretch your legs you have to stand. Whenever i see the images of americans on rice bikes and mountain bikes in NYC, i to…

“If i would hit a door with a dutch bike, i wouldn't fall, i would just stand still. And the door will likely be a bit broken.” I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Even if it weighed five hundred pounds, as long as the handlebars are on a lubricated pivot, forward motion and striking the handlebar will knock the bike over. p.s. as a NYC cyclist, whenever I see a Dutch bike I think it looks incredibly inefficient. But tha…

>Even if it weighed five hundred pounds, as long as the handlebars are on a lubricated pivot, forward motion and striking the handlebar will knock the bike over.

The weight point is different. You really don't flip 'over'. That direction is as likely as flipping 'under'. Given enough momentum and a very heavy/strong object you ride into, your front wheel will collapse.

Again, on a dutch bike, all this has to happen at at most 15 km/h. You put your feet down and you are standing still.

>p.s. as a NYC cyclist, whenever I see a Dutch bike I think it looks incredibly inefficient. But that’s cool, whatever, all bikes are good as long as they're ridden safely.

They don't just look inefficient. They are. By design. They are faster than walking, and that's enough. Our trips on average are about 10 to 30 minutes at at most 15 km/h (Why? Because that's how they build the cities. If you ride at that speed, you wait for a green light just once (and then follow the wave though-out town). You can go faster, but then you have to wait at the next intersection. Also: you don't want to get to work/school/friends needing a shower. The amount of energy put into it, needs to be identical to walking for the same amount of time.

People move children, groceries, even furniture by bike. So they pick a bike based on durability, size, stability and how well you can stand still while remaining seated on your bike.

They turn a distance you can safely walk in an hour, into a safe 20 minute ride. And like most cities in the world, the cities are designed around the 30min travel time from any point A in the city to any point B in the city. This is by bike or public transport. By car it generally takes twice that time.

Why? Because cars are more likely to get stuck in traffic. They often have to take detours (many streets are just one direction). They have a problem finding parking space, etc. And then you pay about 1 to 5 euro per hour to park your car.

But if police sees a race bike going 30 km/h (20mph) they would stop it.

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

#596

Post by tripzilch »

smartbit wrote: post #55

It is true that getting doored is not part of the Dutch vocabulary as it is not something that happens often. But there are more reasons than grabbing the handle with the opposite hand. A non extensive list: 1) Dutch car drivers all have been bicyclist before they get their driver license, everyday to school more than an hour being nothing being frowned on. 2) Major transit bike routes have separate bike lanes, the t…

The biggest reason is, I think, that it's the car driver's responsibility to pay attention when then open their door on the side of traffic. There's no excuse if you hit a bike, or anything, it's the car driver's fault and most onlookers would consider them huge assholes for creating such a dangerous traffic situation.

Bicyclists are considered at least equal participants in traffic. And culturally, depending on the particular spot and the "what are you doing trying to get around here by car in the first place"-factor, bikes nearly almost but not quite have a de facto right of way, because they're way more numerous and more agile, cars need to be on their toes anyway.

Oh and don't forget that most cars in the US are about 1.5x the size of cars here? I'm having a bit of a chuckle imagining if you'd scale up bikes by the same factor haha :-) But maybe it'd help with getting doored? :) Oh, oh! and don't forget to scale up yr bikehelmets too :) :)

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

#597

Post by tripzilch »

And this is what most Dutch people will take away from this article:

looks at the taxi-GIF and images -- wait, who does that? did they do that on purpose?? the bike was like this close before they opened the door, how could they not see it?

reads on -- so hold up, in the US people open their car doors without looking. Yes, no wonder bikes are getting "doored" left and right .. mostly right, I guess.

I'm a bit at a loss for words, actually. It's like backing into a parking spot without looking.

This isn't rocket surgery, I don't think you need a "clever workaround" :)

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

#598

Post by Grishnakh »

wobbleblob wrote: post #236
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.

If you've tried driving in the Netherlands, you know why so many people prefer to ride a bike instead. Well maintained, but narrow and extremely busy roads, densely packed with tiny vehicles. Wearing a helmet while cycling in the Dutch bike lanes is a bit like wearing a helmet while walking on the side walk. I used to only wear it while racing. Since I had a bad crash after being hit in the eye by an insect, I wear a…

That's really strange. Wearing a helmet while cycling is just good sense: the human body was never designed to move at speeds over 10mph (and frequently over 20) on hard, asphalt roads or near concrete. One mistake can have you landing and hitting your head on these hard surfaces, which can give you a concussion or brain injury, or worse. You don't even have to be moving; you can lose your balance while waiting for a light, and fall over and hit your head. I was once told by someone who got a motorcycle and took a safety course about a video he watched: in the video, it showed numerous accidents with motorcycle riders wearing helmets and other protective gear, and walking away from pretty horrible accidents, or at least not suffering any permanent injuries. Then, at the end, they showed an accident where a guy not wearing a helmet was sitting on his motorcycle in his driveway, with the engine off, lost his balance, fell over, hit his head on the concrete, and died.

The idea that a helmet-wearer is somehow an "asshole bike ricer" because he wants to avoid a brain injury in case he falls off his bike onto a hard surface seems rather asinine to me.

And yes, glasses are a good idea too because of bugs and wind. You don't need anything fancy; just cheapo clear safety glasses will work great.

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

#599

Post by Grishnakh »

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're supposed to downshift before you stop. With indexed shifters on the brake lever, it's trivial to do as you're braking for the stop.

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

#600

Post by Grishnakh »

baddox wrote: post #453
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…

Use or legislation of helmets while driving a car and walking would also almost certainly reduce head injuries. It's far from a sufficient argument for legislation.

Head injuries in car accidents are very uncommon, and the same with pedestrians. Pedestrians aren't likely to hit their heads on concrete at speeds well beyond that which the human body was designed for. Car accident victims don't have hard surfaces to hit their heads on in cars, and instead get other injuries. That's why seat belts are required by law in most jurisdictions, and also why airbags are mandated in all new vehicles.

Are you trying to argue against seat belts and airbags now? Are you going to claim that you're safer being thrown clear?

Post reply on HN