
The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives - cgoecknerwald
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/smarter-living/the-dutch-reach-save-bicyclists-lives-bicycle-safety-drivers.html
======
jernfrost
I think the key to safety for bikers in the Netherlands is simply the sheer
number of them. When you visit the Netherlands. Within 15 minutes you have
gotten used to scanning for bikers everywhere. There are so many of them and
they come so frequently that you cannot not get into the habit of looking for
them.

The importance of numbers is something often overlooked. I read an article
discussing the different approaches to biking the Netherlands and my native
Norway has. Here in Norway we are obsessed with bike helmets. The dutch never
use helmets. Yet we have more head injuries in Norway for bikers.

So the number of bikers in the Netherlands seem to create a better protection
for bikers than the usage of helmets. And here is the kicker: If you don't
demand that people use helmets when biking, the number of bikers will rise to
a level, where the number of injuries will be lower than if everybody used
helmet.

That is what the research suggested anyway. I will probably still use a helmet
in Norway due to the terrain, but it is still food for thought I think.

~~~
pasta
This and the law: cars are always to blame.

Even in The Netherlands this law was needed to keep bikers safe.

And when introduced even the Dutch made fun of it:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ivY06w83fKU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ivY06w83fKU)

Edit: if you want to look this up, the law is called: "Artikel 185
Wegenverkeerswet".

It's very broad and is not only to protect cyclists. I think this law is more
about making drivers of motor vehicles more responsible.

~~~
danburbridge
Cars aren't always to blame. It's just that it starts from the presumption
that the car is at fault - which is the case in approx 90% of cases in the UK
(although the UK doesn't have this strict-liability unfortunately)

~~~
pieterr
Strict also doesn't mean 'always' in the Netherlands. There are exceptions.

See: [https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-
liabili...](https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-
the-netherlands/)

------
emptybits
The Dutch Reach is a reach to ask for, IMO. I write this as a cyclist living
in Vancouver (one city named in the article) who has been doored and nearly
doored. IME, shoulder checks _while actually driving_ seem to be a dying art
form. So asking for a while-parked check like the Dutch Reach ... seems
optimistic. But no harm in trying. The illustration is great. I applaud all
efforts to make this technique more known.

Fellow cyclists, you already know this, but please watch sideview mirrors of
parked vehicles and all other signs of people and passengers and assume the
worst.

Infrastructure should, IMO, allow an extra foot or two in lane designs
especially when they are adjacent to different users (i.e. motorist, cyclist,
pedestrian). This allows for swervy cyclists, swervy motorists, bad parkers,
and people "not from here" a safety buffer. The latter group is one you're
just not going to ever reach with urban education like the article, yet they
are a significant vehicular presence in a many popular cities, whether they're
driving their own vehicles, an unfamiliar rental, or getting out of a taxi
cab.

I'll give an example. All infrastructure design decisions have pros and cons.
Here's a style of bike lane on the "passenger" side that catches motorists off
guard (when they park too far to the right, near the lane) and passengers off
guard because neither expect to find a cyclist on their right.

[https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2790648,-123.1195244,3a,75y,2...](https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2790648,-123.1195244,3a,75y,214.64h,71.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rZLbmXvAV0-H9ApXRwRcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

How about some opening-door-tech that alerts you quickly and loudly when an
object approaches your door as you begin to swing it open? Good for passing
traffic, bicycles, etc.

BTW, I appreciate that cycling news shows up on HN from time to time. It's
truly a civilized activity and IMO has an important role in the future of
cities. Keep pedalling. :-)

~~~
gpm
As a cyclist - just don't ride in reach of car doors. If that means taking the
lane and blocking cars, do so.

At any speed trying to figure out whether or not someone is in it in time to
slow down is impossible. Even if you slow down to a crawl as you pass someone
sitting in the car you are still relying on them not opening it into your
side. If you are right beside the cars you have no space whatsoever to swerve,
because swerving towards faster traffic is suicidal.

~~~
mook
As an occasional driver (I take the transit more), yes please take up the
whole lane; is safer for both sides. If I find you too slow I can overtake you
when safe (either in a different lane or in the opposing lane when safe).
Essentially, treat you like a slow moving farm vehicle.

However, please do not lane split even when it's legal to do so. I can't see
out the far side of the vehicle, so you're basically somewhere I have less
control over. Further, if you take a whole lane _then_ lane split at the red
light, it will anger me and I will end up driving more aggressively, which is
rather terrible for safety. If I can tolerate you being slow in front of me,
you can tolerate me being slow to accelerate.

~~~
gpm
Switching to lane splitting at red lights isn't about tolerating you being
slow to accelerate.

Cars usually accelerate much faster than cyclists. It can appear the other way
because I'm watching for the light to switch much more carefully - so I can
make sure the car to my left will see me before right turning.

It's generally about letting people behind me get in front of me. Once I pull
over to the side though I need to act like a 'normal' bicycle and pull to the
front of the line. That's where people expect me - and that makes sure
everyone turning right has seen me so they won't hit me.

It can also be about using the vehicles moving in my direction as a shield
against people turning left. I worry that people don't expect me when I'm
riding in the lane at a light, and as a result won't properly see me.

That said, if you're use to farm vehicles you probably drive in very different
places than I ride (downtown in a big city).

~~~
mook
What usually ends catching my attention is bikes filtering to the front,
starting faster after the red light (possibly because they're watching the
light closer), and getting ahead of the cars in the lane. Then once they're
ahead, switch to the middle of the lane and blocking all the cars from going
faster.

Basically, the complete opposite of letting cars behind get ahead.

As for left turns: that car behind you (when you take up the whole lane) is
your shield; the opposing car doing a left turn can't go because that other
car will T-bone them. When driving, there are few enough bikes that having to
look for two lanes (even though only one is marked) is the unexpected thing,
so I'm actually _less_ likely to see you. If you're blocking the car behind
you, I'd actually look for you to figure out why the car is so far back.

The bikes accelerating faster thing is the excuse I've heard before for the
bikes filtering at the red light; apologies if that's incorrect.

~~~
gpm
I certainly don't accelerate faster than the average car. I've heard other
cyclists claim to and I basically just assume they are mistaken (apart from
maybe some tiny subset of cyclists who race)...

Filtering on the right to pass and then immediately taking the lane for an
extended period of time is certainly rude, and would piss me off as well. It's
not something I've seen or would do myself but I can easily believe there are
cyclists doing it.

The trick with the whole 'car as a shield thing' is I'm assuming you won't see
me, but if I pass through the intersection with a car traveling in the same
direction to my left it doesn't matter, you literally couldn't hit me short of
shoving that car into me. The phrase I've heard for this sort of stuff is
riding as if you were invisible. You're right that a car behind me is almost
as good, but that assumes that I'm not the last person in the line.

------
rocqua
I'm dutch, and I've only ever heard about this on the internet, never here.
Notably, I don't recall this whilst getting my driving license only 2 years
ago.

To check, I got my theory book. It says the following:

> _After the part about doing visual checks_ > When it is visually safe, hold
> the door handle with the left hand, and open the door using the right hand
> as far as is necessary and exit the vehicle.

So it explicitly states that one should grab the door handle with the left
hand, not the right. Moreover, one should check visually (using mirrors and an
over the shoulder check) before doing 'the reach')

I can't find the year of publishing, but it seems quite old, 2005-ish. The
ISBN is: 978-90-72967-03-9 (26th printing)

The original dutch: > Als het veilig is houdt u met uw linkerhand aan de
handgreep het portier vast en opent u met uw rechterhand het portier zover als
u nodig hebt en stapt uit.

~~~
kbenson
> After the part about doing visual checks > When it is visually safe, hold
> the door handle with the left hand, and open the door using the right hand
> as far as is necessary and exit the vehicle.

That is the Dutch reach, to my understanding. 99% Invisible did a story on it
a couple years ago, and that was covered here.[1] 600 comments.

1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12674533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12674533)

~~~
blattimwind
No. The dutch reach is with the _right_ hand, which forces you to turn the
upper body to reach the handle. Supposedly this sort-of forces you to do a
over the shoulder check.

I think if you were taught proper driving technique, then there is no need for
such concortions. You will always check the mirror and look over your shoulder
before opening the door, even if only subconsciously. Just like you always
check lengthwise traffic before making a turn, or checking traffic behind you
before switching into another lane.

This is an issue of driver's education. Not which hand you use to open the
door.

~~~
Kim_Bruning
I think it also depends on whether you have auto-folding mirrors. (I was
taught to check my rear-view mirror before opening the door. That doesn't work
in my new car with folding mirrors; so now I sometimes use the dutch reach,
even though I was never taught it back in the day)

~~~
blattimwind
I only know the auto-folding kind that folds in after you lock the car...
usually by holding the lock button or pressing it twice quickly.

~~~
Angostura
Sadly, my Seat Alhambra, 2016 has no such functionality. Almost unbelievably

------
twblalock
This "Dutch reach" thing is an example of a phenomenon I've seen several times
before.

People who promote a practice seem to think their argument will be more
persuasive if the practice came from an admired foreign country, yet the
people who live in that country have never heard of it and/or do not commonly
do it.

In this case it's the Dutch, but I've seen all kinds of similar nonsense about
Japan.

~~~
wool_gather
The article explains clearly that it _is_ a thing in the Netherlands; it's a
standard part of driver education there.

> “It’s just what Dutch people do,” said Fred Wegman, professor emeritus of
> Traffic Safety at Delft University of Technology and the former managing
> director of the National Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV in the
> Netherlands. “All Dutch are taught it. It’s part of regular driver
> education.”

~~~
twblalock
Here come Dutch HN commenters who never heard of it. And there are more
elsewhere in the thread.

The article is not accurate. It’s a perfect example of what I was talking
about.

~~~
fjsolwmv
Most people don't remember the rules of the road, they just adapt to common
and intuition practice over years of driving.

In the USA, many or most states have laws stating that drivers must yield to
pedestrians at unmarked crosswalks (every intersection is a legal crosswalk),
but most drivers don't know that "unmarked crosswalks" exist.

~~~
twblalock
I think the Dutch people posting here know whether or not they reach across
their body and open their driver-side door with their right hand. So I believe
them when they say the article is wrong.

------
frereubu
When riding in London a few years ago I came off my bike when a car driver -
who hadn't seen me - turned across the road in front of me. I slammed on my
brakes, and went over the handlebars only a few inches before hitting the car.
I landed on the road with my hip and my head whiplashed over into the road. If
I hadn't been wearing a helmet I would undoubtedly have fractured my skull,
and possible worse. Since then I've been a vocal proponent of helmets - in
London - because this accident was nothing to do with my riding. I had a front
light on, a reflective vest and light-coloured clothing.

The real issue for me is cycling infrastructure. London is getting sort-of
better. There are cycle "superhighways", but they're quite narrow and have
their fair share of idiot cyclists who ride very fast and loose, and make it
dangerous for other cyclists. If there was better infrastructure there might
be a critical mass of more sedate cyclists who set the tone for cycling in
general, so everyone takes account of that new paradigm. Until that happens, I
don't think there's a good safe way of cycling in somewhere like London
without a helmet.

~~~
bamboozled
Sorry to hear about your accident. May I ask how fast were you going when this
happened?

I don't wear a helmet when commuting but I also rarely exceed 20km/h to avoid
the exact kind of collision you just described. I have to say a helmet will
help when going over the bars, but you could've just as easily been critically
injured in other ways, such as breaking your neck, rupturing an artery etc.

One thing you notice about cyclists and cars in Amsterdam is that everyone
goes quite slowly and with a fairly high level of awareness.

~~~
buschkowitz
You want to wear a helmet. The risk-reward ratio is highly in favor of wearing
one. What is the burden of wearing one vs. having some protection in case you
fly?

~~~
Xylakant
Do you wear helmet while driving a car? What’s the burden of wearing one vs.
having some protection in case you have an accident? Car drivers are much more
likely to die of head injuries than cyclists. Do you also wear a helmet while
walking, especially in winter? What’s the burden of wearing one vs. having
some protection in case you slip and fall?

Why don’t we do that? Because while the burden is low - it’s mostly dragging
the helmet around wherever you go and ruining your hardcut - the actual
probability it might help is quite low. And with good infrastructure, the same
is true for cycling. If you look at this years stats for causes of death for
cyclists in Berlin for example, the leading cause is “crushed by a truck”.

Note: if you do cycling for sports at high speeds or rough terrain: wear a
helmet.

~~~
buschkowitz
Wearing a helmet in a steel cage seems kind of redundant. Wearing a helmet
walking at 5 km/h pace, likewise. I am wearing a helmet commuting daily,
travel speed around 30 km/h. If you don't want to destroy your haircut, fair
it's your choice.

Edit: To be clear, I was riding years without a helmet until a crash made me
reconsider my priorities. Also, I am not in favor of mandating helmet usage on
bikes.

~~~
Xylakant
> Wearing a helmet in a steel cage seems kind of redundant.

All kinds of race car drivers were helmets - and their steel cages are much
much more sturdy than the ones that commuters have. Statistics als indicate
that many car drivers suffer head injuries. So by all available evidence,
wearing a helmet in a car is not redundant. Still, people don’t do it - unless
they engage in particularly dangerous activities.

The parent poster that you refer to explicitly gave his speed as about 20km/h
for commuting, which is neither particularly fast nor particularly dangerous
on good infrastructure. So why wear a helmet?

~~~
buschkowitz
So now you are comparing race car drivers to the typical commuter driver,
apples to apples. You can cite all the evidence you want. When shit hits the
fan and you don't have protection, you can only wish for not regretting your
decisions.

For me this discussion is done. I have this particular perception, you have
yours. We are both happy with it. Stay safe.

~~~
watwut
Had commuter cycling without helmet was really so dangerous as you claim,
there would be way more head injuries of commuter cyclists. As is, they are
quite rare.

I understand fear of someone who actually was in one, but please stop forcing
your fear on everybody else. Just because you are afraid does not mean not
being afraid is irresponsible or any more irresponsible then not having helmet
in car crash.

~~~
buschkowitz
Do whatever the fuck you want. But please be careful with what accusations you
are throwing at people.

------
rgj
I'm Dutch. I've never heard of this, nor has anybody I asked about this. I've
never even seen someone in the driver's seat use their right hand to open the
door. Dooring is not an issue here either since Dutch cyclists tend to
anticipate very well.

What we do have here in the Netherlands are bike lanes, so in a lot of places
the bikes pass the parked/stopping cars on the right hand side.

~~~
themodelplumber
There are a lot of idioms in U.S. English which contain the word "dutch" but
which are not recognizable to actual Dutch people. Some of these will come
from e.g. stereotyped interactions with the Pennsylvania Dutch, etc.

~~~
twblalock
This particular "dutch reach" idiom is not related to the Pennsylvania Dutch
in any way.

~~~
Symbiote
None of the "Dutch" idioms will be from Pennsylvania Dutch, they all come from
being the neighbour country to England.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Pennsylvanian "Dutch" is a corruption of "Deutsche", and the community German
is it not? As I understood it many of American "Dutch" idioms were originally
meant to be referencing German.

You _do_ get cookie from Dutch though. Cookie comes from the Dutch keokje.

~~~
stevesimmons
koekje :)

------
js2
I'm a runner. Out of habit I usually run against traffic even when on the
sidewalk. I'd be happy if drivers making a right out of a side
street/driveway/parking lot would just come to a full stop behind the
crosswalk and check to their right. Many drivers don't check to their right,
or for that matter even come to a full stop when turning right. There isn't a
single run I go on that I don't encounter at least one car rolling through a
right.

Running on the opposite sidewalk so that I'm running with traffic is no safer
because then I have to look over my left shoulder at every crosswalk to make
sure a car making a right off the main street isn't about to run me over as I
enter a crosswalk.

In summary: many drivers suck, don't follow the law, and self-driving cars
can't get here soon enough.

~~~
notacoward
Amen. I'll just add that _sometimes_ part of the blame should also go to the
planners who set up intersections with odd angles and obstructed sight lines
so that drivers can't see anything until they're already intruding into the
roadway.

Related phenomenon: pedestrian crossings and cutouts placed twenty feet down a
side street. Yeah, it might be further from the busier street, but it makes it
much harder for either party to see each other or recognize each others'
intentions. Ultimately quite _bad_ for safety, even for regular pedestrians
but especially for runners. No thanks. I'll stay out where I can see them and
they can see me and there's no ambiguity about which direction I'm going, even
if that means hopping on and off curbs.

------
noobermin
While I generally think things like this article are great and helpful, I
think incentivizing individual behavior changes is a good way to distract from
actual changes that will make cities more liveable: actual infrastructure and
road and transit changes. That's the real answer to all of this. The unsafe
nature of many cities especially in the US is a systemic problem, not just a
personal behavior problem.

~~~
btrettel
It's both an infrastructure and driver behavior problem.

As a daily transportation cyclist for about 10 years, I know from experience
that much bike infrastructure in the US is more safety theater than actual
safety improvements. Infrastructure makes cyclists feel safer, but it can
amplify certain problems to the point where it might be making the roads less
safe.

There are two cycletracks near where I work in Austin. I almost never ride on
either, mostly because many drivers turn into them at intersections without
looking. The city put up many signs to say to yield to cyclists, but these
have had no effect best I can tell. I'd much rather take the lane and be seen.
This is counterintuitive to many people, particularly non-cyclists, but the
evidence I've seen in my daily life is overwhelming. These types of crashes
are often called "right hooks" and they are well known to experienced
cyclists.

Add on top of that the unsafe passes from drivers. Add the distracted driving.
Add the speeding. Add the illegal parking in the bike lane (even protected
lanes). Add the tailgating. Add the abuse from thankfully a far smaller number
of people than any of the mentioned problems. It's clear to me that both
infrastructure and behavior changes are needed.

------
sologoub
Relying on an uncomfortable behavior change is one option, but as many have
noted - really a “reach”.

Why don’t we instead take the experience of cities that instead of trying to
integrate cars and cyclists, integrated cyclists and pedestrians? Physics are
more on your side here - a lot closer weight and size of objects. Possibly
even closer speed differential.

On a recent trip to Munich, the clear markings and cyclists on a protected
wide sidewalk made a lot more sense. With cars and bikes sharing the narrow
city roads, doorings are only one problem. Even side view mirrors can be a
hazzard.

It’s more costly to have wider side walks, but it’s so much safer!

~~~
toast0
As a bike commuter in a city environment, I'd rather be near cars than mix
with pedestrians. Cars are more predictable, and move at closer speeds through
downtown. Out of congested areas, where cars are going much faster than me, I
like being farther away.

At times, I do ride on the sidewalk because of road design or convenience, and
it requires a much slower pace if there are pedestrians nearby.

~~~
your-nanny
not German but have ridden in Bremen and Hamburg. the system works. But
leisure cyclists in their spandex and too expensive bikes who like to go fast
to "get their cardio" would probably hate it.

pedestrians and cyclists have separate lanes on the sidewalk, and pity the
fool who crosses over to the wrong one!

------
dep_b
I'm always using the Dutch Mirror which is that shiny reflective thing
attached to the driver's door which I cleverly abuse to see if something is
coming from behind before I get out of the car. I've been testing it a lot in
The Netherlands. Nobody died so far so it must work but YMMV.

\--

edit: I have a Dutch driver's license and definitely would've known about it.

~~~
mattlondon
You need to also check the "blind spot" (1) which is big enough to lose a
truck in let alone a cyclist.

1 -
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=car+blind+spots&t=brave&ia=images&...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=car+blind+spots&t=brave&ia=images&iax=images)

~~~
Symbiote
Is this novel enough that you felt you needed to give a link?!?!

It was literally the first thing my driving instructor spoke about, after I'd
got in the driver's seat, and something the examiner was particularly careful
to ensure was being checked.

------
mturmon
Same concept, _very_ thoroughly discussed two years ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12674533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12674533)
\-- with plenty of tangential bike shedding as HN does with bike articles.

Including the observation
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12675829](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12675829))
that the "Dutch Reach" is perhaps not universally known in Holland.

------
jariz
Every time a article like this is posted I'm just flabbergasted at the fact
that 'looking behind you before actually opening a door' is such a foreign
concept to Americans.

~~~
blattimwind
My impression is that driving education in the US is rather lacking overall,
though it's of course not federalized, so there are probably fifty shades of
deficiency. (That being said many driving schools here suck as well, though
that's mostly a money drain for the driving students; 40 % or so failure rate
in the practical exam).

~~~
ant512
I've got a British driving license and an American driving license. The
British driving license was hard work. The American driving license involved
little more than proving I could make the car go forwards and that I had a
pulse.

There's really a 40% failure rate? That's insane given how easy it is to pass
the test.

~~~
blattimwind
I remembered it wrong, it's 36 % for the theoretical and 28 % for the
practical exam.

[https://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Kraftfahrer/Fahrerlaubnisse/...](https://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Kraftfahrer/Fahrerlaubnisse/Fahrerlaubnispruefungen/fe_p_zeitreihe.html?nn=651942)

------
moron4hire
I don't need to awkwardly reach across my body to remember to check for
traffic before exiting my car after parallel parking.

Here's what I do. I pop my door open an inch, just crack the seam, to give
people behind me a signal that I'm exiting. Once the door is ajar, I do my
check to see if the way is clear. As much as you should be worried about
dooring a cyclist, you should be worried about getting cracked in the skull by
your own door should a bus clip it.

------
mcv
Does anyone else have the problem that nytimes.com articles remove themselves
after loading? I can see the content for about a second, and then it vanishes.
Probably related to my browser settings, but this is the only site that does
it.

~~~
mclehman
I do as well, but only when using a browser embedded in my HN app
(Materialistic). It's persisted during my Chrome -> Brave transition, so I'll
be giving Firefox a try to see if that makes a difference.

~~~
mcv
I've googled a bit and found more people who had this problem with Chrome.
Sadly their solution (anonymous mode) doesn't fix the problem for me.

------
stretchwithme
Training is great but making it impossible is better. Blind spot detection
systems need to evolve the ability to keep the door closed when something is
rapidly approaching a door.

~~~
stouset
And then that technology needs more technology to ensure that it doesn’t
accidentally disallow egress in an emergency, or misfire due to a bad sensor
and keep the door permanently shut.

~~~
stretchwithme
Yes, that's important too. Such a system shouldn't work at all when there's no
power. I imagine that can be accomplished with a mechanism that has to have
power to stay in a position that interferes with opening the door.

What happens when power fails is pretty important. What happens to an
automated vehicle when that happens, for example? If there's no driver,
they'll a mechanical brake that isn't used whenever power IS available. When
power fails, it would engage.

More to your point, I've heard the Tesla Model 3 rear doors can't be opened
from inside when power is lost in an accident. That could be a serious problem
in an accident. Maybe they've fixed that or will soon. They will definitely
fix it before I would purchase one.

------
huskyr
Like many people already mentioned in this thread, it's silly to attribute
bike safety in the Netherlands to just this. To get a better view on why bike
safety _is_ so much better here, i think this video really explains it very
well in five minutes:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2THe_10dYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2THe_10dYs).
The other videos are very much worth the watch as well.

------
dpezely
While _drivers_ may remember to "reach across your body" with opposite arm
because they're in driving-mode, _passengers_ probably won't-- from personal
observation.

Specifically, this is from experience involving a passenger door opening into
a curb-side bicycle lane. The door opened before the car came to a complete
stop and quite a ways back from the intersection. The car was still
compressing front springs from braking when passenger door opened. (Enough
other posts here today described what happened next.)

Since then, I wear bold red striped shirts or jackets when riding and red
helmet.

When they found "Where's Waldo" (or "Where's Wally" for those from UK), I know
that they've seen me, and that's the whole point.

I've used this very successfully in my present home of Vancouver, BC.
Previously, it also worked well when residing in SF and Seattle. There was a
confirmed Waldo sighting near English Bay just yesterday, but now you can call
me by my real name.

------
bastijn
In NL this is not common either. This is not what keeps us safe. We use the
mirror like any other country (but we do not forget). This topic has reached
FP before. Original article and comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12674533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12674533)

~~~
danieldk
_We use the mirror like any other country (but we do not forget)._

Except that passengers in the back seats do not have mirrors. Although I never
learned the Dutch Reach (but I don't have a driver's license), my dad always
warned us as a kid that we should check for cyclists before opening the door.

~~~
rejschaap
The rear doors in my car can't open from the inside for the kid's safety. I
always check the mirror on the passenger side and will ask my passenger to
wait when necessary. My mother-in-law is notorious for throwing the door open
wide without looking (often hitting parked cars). She can't be taught so I
just put her on the back seat now.

I live in an area where the parking spots are on the left side of the road. I
don't know how common it is for Dutch people to check the mirror for the
passengers door. Maybe it just depends on your mother-in-law.

------
afarrell
The door handle of some models of the Mini Cooper affords doing the Dutch
Reach.

It is a circle with a shelf that faces forward in a way that makes it awkward
to use the hand nearest the door to open. So, you reach across your body with
your other hand and in doing so, you turn your body and head and your
peripheral vision can catch a moving cyclist.

------
rhizome31
If you think about it, it's crazy that personal motorized vehicles are allowed
in cities. I mean, with the amount of petty legislation that we endure without
thinking about it twice, having those huge noisy and smelly masses of metal
moving freely in our streets is a bit insane.

------
paulmatthijs
Sorry to be a party pooper, but this is a non-existing thing (and a repost,
btw).

It’s true that we are taught to look over your shoulder when opening a car
door, but to label it “the Dutch Reach” is really too much honor. It’s just
common sense.

------
eecc
In Italy you’ll also fail your driving exam if you don’t reach with your
right.

------
blunte
I've spent time with Dutch drivers in cars in the country, and I have never
seen them do this "Dutch reach". I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that
it's really a thing here.

------
anotherevan
I've gone through bouts of trying to adopt this habit. One thing that makes it
harder is that the door handle in my car is designed to make it easy to open
with the door-side hand. It is forwards on the door (near the hinged end) and
opens by pulling the handle back.

If the handle was at the back of the door it would promote the habit as it
would actually be easier to open the door by reaching across with the opposite
hand then try to scrunch your door-side arm back to get at the handle.

I wonder where the door handles are located in the majority of cars in
Holland.

~~~
jorams
> I wonder where the door handles are located in the majority of cars in
> Holland.

The hinged end, just like yours.

------
atoav
During my driving test (rural countryside of Austria, after 2000) not doing
the "Dutch Reach" could decide about fail or pass. Now I live in a bigger city
and cycle every day and I wish this was common practice.

As a cyclist you have to treat the typical motorist like an idiot with no
perception of their surrounding and no knowledge of traffic rules. Sadly the
same is true also for cyclists (especially with sunday-nice-weather-cyclists).

------
u801e
Another no-tech way would be to repeal the keep as far right as practicable
law that specifically applies to bicycles so that they have, by default, the
right to the entire lane they're in. Then the general slow vehicle law would
apply (meaning that one uses the rightmost lane available for traffic unless
passing another vehicle or preparing to make a left turn).

------
Doxin
Another good trick is to pop the door before swinging it open. Pull the door
handle so it pops out of the lock, but wait a second or two before actually
opening it. This alerts any cyclists you might have missed that you're about
to open the door.

------
innomatics
It would be wonderful if car makers could position the interior door latches
to make this the natural way to open the door. E.g. just under the window near
the pillar.

------
BurningFrog
Seems like one more sensor on my car could do this far better.

------
mirimir
It's not just cyclists that hit opening motor vehicle doors. If nothing else,
looking first is just self-preservation.

