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

Post by avar » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 10:11 AM UTC

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #574

avar wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole thread including this comment feels like people who haven't ever been to The Netherlands making suggestions that make no sense for the cycling culture here. So firstly as has been covered in other comments here, cyclists in The Netherlands don't want to wear helmets for their daily commuting, it doesn't solve any sort of safety problem for them when you factor in the inconvenience they cause. Secondly even…

>cyclists in The Netherlands don't want to wear helmets for their daily commuting, it doesn't solve any sort of safety problem for them when you factor in the inconvenience they cause. This sounds very much like "I don't wear my seatbelt for commuting. It doesn't solve any sort of safety problem when you factor in the inconvenience it causes."

Let's say there was a country where 0.5% of the drivers used seat belts[1], and out of those mostly just race car drivers. Yet that country had no notable increase in injuries or fatalities in car crashes as a result compared to countries where seat belts were mandatory.

Add into that that in this parallel universe driving a car daily had big long-term health benefits, and the introduction of seat belt laws in other countries had caused driving to drop by 1/3 [2], causing fewer people to cycle, overall health to decline, and a reduction in car safety due to less car safety in numbers. Since a major cause of accidents was that few people used cars daily, leading to accidents where people weren't expecting them.

Then yeah, I think it would be completely fair to question whether wearing a seat belt in your car was worthwhile. But of course none of this analogy makes sense, which makes your argument rather nonsensical.

1. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws#Effects_on...

Post by canes123456 » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #519

canes123456 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without a doubt both have a degree of truth, but we are back to the original problem I was responding to. When you list off those two things it makes it seem like they are both equally true. The thing that deserves the most credit is the culture. The things that are most impactful are partially impactful because of the culture. If you are picking the one change that does not depend on changing the culture for effectiveness, you could very well be getting less than 1/10 of the safety of dutch.

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

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