
The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored” - misnamed
http://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-workaround-keep-cyclists-getting-doored/
======
smartbit
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 tiny narrow ones of the gif in the article barely exist. 3) Bike
lanes in cities usually are placed between the footpath and the parked cars,
with _most of the times_ a 50cm wide band left of the bike path allowing for
car doors being opened without going over the bike paths, usually this is used
for planting trees too 4) All politicians drive bike, the Dutch Prime Minister
comes to work on his bike 5) There are local associations part of the national
[http://fietersbond.nl](http://fietersbond.nl) in every town and they
passionately lobby every time they see an opportunity. 6) these volunteers are
highly respected and their input is valued by the municipalities 7) one of the
_prime goals_ of Dutch national ministerie of Traffic is lowering the number
of injured and death in traffic, good recording of cause by police is step
one, good statistics then determine the ways roads are laid out. 8) On smaller
roads without a separate bicycle path, as a bicyclist you're always on the
watch if someone might step out of a car and try to keep a distance by
bicycling towards the middle of the road which isn't an issue as this is low
traffic street, major bike transit always has separated bike paths with
distance to the parked cars. 9) during driving lessons, watching bicyclist is
a prime part of the lessons and a good driver keeps an eye on the mirrors for
back-coming bicyclist and will warn passengers on the back seats before they
get out.

And there are probably more reasons that Dutch have few accidents being
doored.

~~~
djsumdog
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.

~~~
tluyben2
> I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets.

Good or bad; I am Dutch and I would confidently say that all people I know
would never ride a bike again if they have to wear those silly helmets. More
likely if it would be mandatory, they just would refuse and not do it, but if
largely enforced they would just not use bikes anymore.

~~~
deanclatworthy
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 why
the Dutch don't seem to want to wear them.

[1] [http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/04/traffic-
accide...](http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/04/traffic-accident-
deaths-rise-9-reversing-years-of-steady-decline/)

[2] [http://tedx.amsterdam/2015/08/why-doesnt-the-dutch-bike-
cult...](http://tedx.amsterdam/2015/08/why-doesnt-the-dutch-bike-culture-
include-helmets/)

~~~
mafribe
Typical bicyle helmets don't help much with a face-first landing on the
tarmac, your chin takes most of the pounding. I can confidently say that from
repeated ... 'experiments'. In contrast, a motorcyle helmet that also wraps
around the chin would be of great use in most bicycle accidents.

    
    
       185 cyclists died
    

A more interesting statistic would be: how many of those deaths would have
been prevented by a bicycle helmet?

~~~
deanclatworthy
That depends entirely on how you fall off your bike, which depends on your
speed and numerous other factors. The problem here is that it's pretty hard to
tell after the fact whether a death would have been prevented by a helmet. We
can guess, speculate but it's hard to measure the exact forces exerted - and
also how someone's biological material will react to that (the brain).

In all my reading around this issue, those that don't want to wear helmets
don't tend to wear them for fashion reasons, and interpret the stats they read
to insinuate that helmets don't save lives. They don't like how it looks,
feels, or that they will be teased for wearing one. I'd rather live to see the
next day than care about what a helmet looks like.

And one other point to end on, it's not just deaths we're talking about here.
Many people have suffered brain injuries from the impact of falling off their
bike. Imagine there was something you could put on your head that would
prevent that impact.

~~~
Symbiote
> I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks
> like.

Do you wear one while walking? Or hiking? There's also an increased risk of
brain injury from these activities.

Most people I know don't wear one, because the combination of the discomfort,
hassle, inconvenience and appearance aren't worth the perceived low increased
risk of cycling compared to, for example, walking.

~~~
grogenaut
I wear one when rock climbing, kayaking, snowboarding, skiing, motorcycle,
bicycle, skateboard, football, etc. Pretty much any time I go over 8mph. I
even considered one in aussie rules football but they were hard to find in the
states.

I found that helmets for winter sports are better than hats. They don't soak
up sweat like a hat does so do better in cold and are better vented than a hat
as well. They also really help with the trees.

It's also interesting that they used to be "nerdy" on ski slopes in the US,
then several major states required everyone under 18 to wear them. Now 80%
(feels like) of kids wear them all the time, so you actually look wierd if you
don't wear a helmet.

I definitely wear them on bikes and have needed them (and bounced off of them)
many times. I tend to tuck when I go off the bike so I bounce the back of my
helmet. There's a heart warming sensation of relief when you hear that hollow
thunk sound of the helmet taking the blow on the pavement, tree, hardpack,
rock, etc, with no bad effects on you.

Also on my commute I tend to hit 45 mph multiple times in the first 2 miles (I
drop 500 ft in 2 miles and I feel it's safer to do 35 like the cars on the
nicely paved winding suburban road than to sit in the bike lane).

Finally... I made this guy (who hates helmets) put one on after the kite
pulled him up into the goal posts on a previous run.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGKG5ZFMQg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGKG5ZFMQg)
He thanked me a year later.

~~~
ricardobeat
That's a completely different situation than the average Dutch cyclist faces.
First, there are no hills to be seen, so not that easy to pick up speed.
Especially on a city bike which is 99% of the fleet. It's unusual to even
reach 20km/h. People carry their shopping, kids, furniture and pets in them.
They cycle in whatever they are wearing - suits, skirts, jeans, whatever; the
fact you can just hop on a bike without having to gear up makes it much more
attractive to everyday life.

There was also this study from a university in Utrecht showing that [in the
Netherlands] cyclists wearing helmets are more careless and cause more
accidents, nullifying any safety benefit...

~~~
NetStrikeForce
> There was also this study from a university in Utrecht showing that [in the
> Netherlands] cyclists wearing helmets are more careless and cause more
> accidents, nullifying any safety benefit..

Are there any links in English to that study?

Someone said only people racing (or with racing bikes) trend to wear helmet in
Netherlands. Knowing that it feels like that study confuses correlation with
causation, but a university probably knows more than I do, hence why I'd like
to read the study. Maybe it's just the press getting the wrong conclusion out
of the study for agenda purposes.

I don't know. The helmets are not weird nor nerdy. They save lives even though
you might not need it ever if you're lucky. I always wear helmet, high viz,
reflective vest, lights everywhere... You know, I don't want to be that guy in
the statistics.

~~~
tim333
There's an article here implying drivers cut closer when they wear helmets
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-h...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-
helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html)

~~~
NetStrikeForce
Nice link, thanks. That seems to be another education issue: Drivers think
cyclists with helmets are more experienced, so they don't feel the need to
leave as much room as they do with "less experienced" cyclists.

It is an interesting point and I didn't know about it.

Almost unrelated, but I've found this part of the article _funny_ \- shows how
we have to be careful with grand headlines and look at the article itself:

> Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said that
> many of his patients who have been involved in bike accidents have been
> wearing helmets that were ‘too flimsy’ to be beneficial.

Well, no shit Sherlock. The cases where the helmet helped don't end up in your
hands. Guy's a neurosurgeon.

------
juiced
Bullshit. I'm Dutch, never heard of or exercised this "Dutch Reach" behaviour
and I was not tested for it when getting my driver's license. Instead, you
just look around and in your mirrors to see if other traffic is coming before
blindly and like an asshole opening your door, it doesn't matter how you open
the door after you became aware of what is going on around you. I call this
behaviour the "Dutch Common Sense".

~~~
angryredblock
Yeh, as an American driver I don't know how people open their doors in the
city WITHOUT looking first.

In rural areas where bikers ride on the sidewalk and are not super common,
sure, but I can't remember a time driving in a city where I was NOT super
paranoid about hitting a car or a cyclist or a pedestrian with my door.

~~~
67726e
I think with the influx of people moving into urban zones, you get a lot of
the suburban "biking is for hippies, so who cares?" mentality. I moved into a
city five years ago, and while I quickly learned about dooring both as a
driver and cyclist, I can't help but wonder how many people just don't realize
that it's "a thing". Couple that with the hatred I often see towards cyclists,
and I can pretty easily see how people either don't know or don't care to look
before opening a car door.

------
diamondo25
As a Dutch person, this is probably the cause of our parents always telling us
to carefully open the door by looking first. And if you are not sure, open it
a bit to see more. Also, in our license test, you'll have to learn the
following rule: Getting out of the car, is just like turning the car, a
special operation and you need to give everyone else priority so that your
action will not cause problems. So take your time, be patient and be cautious.

~~~
dpark
This is far more believable than the claim that using the far hand will force
you to turn 90 degrees inside the car and scan fully before getting out. It
might serve as a good habit/reminder, but it's neither necessary nor
sufficient to create this behavior.

I think much of the US is unaware of how seriously some other countries take
driver's training. Our standards are appallingly low.

~~~
Tharkun
Letting 16 year olds drive is probably part of the problem. In more bicycle-
friendly countries, kids start drinking before they start driving. Cycling to
and from parties until they're at least 18. Hell, want to go anywhere at all?
Cycle.

It's a pretty effective cycling motivator.

~~~
Scarblac
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.

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

~~~
cik2e
When I was taking mandatory driver's ed at 16 in the US (Boston area), the
school's fleet was indeed equipped with foot brakes in the passenger seat. I'd
wager a guess that all of the cars that you see with a "beginner driver" sign
on the roof are like that. However, for the license test the only requirement
was to have a hand brake between the front seats.

I have come to believe that we give out driver's licenses way too easily in
the US. One easy, but sadly no longer practical, solution would be to require
that the road test is taken on a manual. Driving stick from the beginning gave
me so much more awareness and reflexes that have saved me from accidents more
than once.

~~~
tremon
_One easy [..] solution would be to require that the road test is taken on a
manual._

Here in NL, we do distinguish between them: if you learn to drive (and do the
exam) in a car with automatic shift, you get an annotation on your driver's
license saying you're not allowed to drive a manual-shift car.

------
stephenr
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 concept of a blind spot.

~~~
thwd
Don't know about the American thing but what I do know is that while in Europe
they teach us to turn our heads and bodies when driving, the modern world
caught up with blindspotless mirrors and teach you to use them. It's much
safer as people tended to turn their hands together with their bodies,
effectively steering a car to the left when looking out the left window.

~~~
agumonkey
I don't lean left when looking back, but I just can't look back confidently
because I lose track of what's happening in front of us. My first and only
accident occured because I was so anxious to check the blindspot I didn't see
the traffic stopping and I rear-ended someone. Blindspotless mirrors are a no
brainer (they should be mandatory tbh). There are even inner car blindspot
checking mirror, so you avoid the confusing view of two mirrors with different
field of view close to each other. Either this or a proximity sensor with a
large red light so I can sense I should break no matter where I look, military
style.

~~~
stephenr
Honest question:

In what situation were you travelling forward close enough to rear-end another
car that you also needed to check your blind spot?

~~~
agumonkey
Highway traffic jam. Long period of slow (3mph) drive, then full stop. I was
near an exit so I decided to branch of on the right lane that was free of
cars, thus still fast (50mph) to take the ramp. Our lane started to move again
very slowly, I took the chance to switch lane, but was anxious about the high
speed cars, so I checked, double checked, without realizing my lane stopped
again while I was taking up speed (hoping not to cause people to slow too much
in emergency) and switching lane.

Hit the right light of the car in front with my left one. Now causing real
slow down and even more traffic jam.

------
nathancahill
Getting doored is honestly terrifying (I don't say that lightly). I bike and
longboard frequently, and I'll avoid bike lanes if they are alongside parked
cars. And this is in Boulder, one of the most bike friendly cities in the US:

[http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/2014-top-50-bike-f...](http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/2014-top-50-bike-
friendly-cities/slide/6)

~~~
jdietrich
Local governments have been kind enough to paint warning marks for cyclists,
advising them of the safe distance from parked cars and kerbs. Non-cyclists
call these warning marks "bike lanes".

Cyclists need at least a metre of space on the nearside at all times. It's
your escape route if cars pass too closely. It's your protective buffer
against being doored or against pedestrians stepping out into your path.
Hugging the kerb gives you nowhere to go in an emergency.

Be brave and take the lane. If you delay other road users, let them honk and
shout - that metre of space is literally a matter of life and death.

~~~
jacquesm
> Be brave and take the lane. If you delay other road users, let them honk and
> shout - that metre of space is literally a matter of life and death.

In a country that already respects cyclists this may work. In a country that
does not it will likely get you to wake up in the infirmary (assuming you wake
up at all) after being hit by someone in a hurry that assumed you were going
to give their 2 ton vehicle the room it needs to pass you.

Taking a militant stance as a cyclist by using your fragile body as an
obstacle for large steel objects moving at two to three times your speed is
not a winning strategy.

If all they did is 'honk and shout' you'd be fine but some percentage will try
to pass you anyway.

~~~
mabcat
In my experience taking the lane stops people from assuming that they have
space to pass except by changing lanes. Car drivers mostly take their cues
from the cyclist. If you're cycling in the gutter it signals for car drivers
to try to overtake you in the same lane. Why would you be in the gutter,
except to yield the rest of your lane to cars?

There's not space for a car and a bicycle in the same lane. A car will always
have to at least partially change lanes to overtake safely. You're better off
being 2/3 of a lane over, so your head is in the same position as every other
driver, and car drivers change lanes completely to pass as they would for any
other vehicle.

~~~
jacquesm
Sure, that's the theory. But in practice some drivers will see it as an
aggressive move to take 'their' lane. They are wrong, no doubt, but it doesn't
pay off to go head-to-head with a bunch of bricks when you're an egg. Better
to play it safe. Keep in mind that you're entirely unprotected.

The best way to stay safe in traffic with vehicles is to assume that (1)
you're invisible (2) made of eggshells and (3) everybody behind you is out to
get you.

If you're a young burly male you might get away with this but keep in mind
that advocating this strategy for all cyclists (little old ladies, kids, etc)
would definitely not work.

In a car centric society the last thing you want to do is to occupy a full
lane sized for vehicles but going 1/3rd their speed. It is an open invitation
for aggression against your person, plenty of people see you riding a bike
already as such an invitation it certainly isn't going to get better by
occupying 'their' lane.

~~~
stouset
> Sure, that's the theory. But in practice some drivers will see it as an
> aggressive move to take 'their' lane.

Having commuted by bicycle for almost a decade, _this_ is the theory.

In practice, if you take the lane, virtually every driver will simply move
over one lane to pass. Some consideration needs to be taken, of course — if
doing this is causing traffic behind you, you should move over and let cars
pass (or bike faster, or find an alternate route).

But doing this causes an _immediate and unmistakable_ difference in the
behavior of drivers. If you're driving in the gutter, you will get buzzed
multiple times in a day as drivers attempt to squeeze by you in the lane. If
you're claiming the lane, you might get buzzed once a month. No joke.

I know which I prefer.

~~~
jacquesm
You are likely young and able to keep up with traffic. But not everybody is
young and able to keep up with traffic. Older people will cycle slower (and
are far more vulnerable if they should fall or get into an accident), and kids
are going to get clobbered if they should occupy whole lanes.

Keep in mind that any advice that you give for a class of traffic should apply
equally to all members of that class, not just to you.

And once a situation develops (such as causing traffic behind you) it is a
little late to 'bike faster' (which may simply not be possible depending on
age / wind / other conditions) or 'find an alternate route'.

~~~
scottishfiction
Your comments suggest someone who doesn't do a lot of cycling in traffic.
Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that young or old cyclists will get
'clobbered' \- what do you mean by this? That a car approaching from the rear
will see them riding assertively and simply plow in to them? If not that then
what? That the cars will pass them closely as they are forced to move further
in to the other lane? If that's your assertion then as others have stated, an
assertive lane position is exactly what will save you in this situation - as
you have the room on the inside to avoid the passing car.

~~~
jacquesm
> Your comments suggest someone who doesn't do a lot of cycling in traffic.

If that's what you got out of it then you're entirely wrong. I cycle a few
thousand Km / year.

> Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that young or old cyclists will get
> 'clobbered' \- what do you mean by this?

That the only way in which you can keep cyclists - of all ages - safe is by
separating the various traffic streams. By forcible mixing them you are simply
asking for trouble.

I'm trying hard to imagine Amsterdam cycling traffic without the separation of
low speed and high speed traffic into different lanes and with people cycling
like suggested above. The carnage would be terrible.

> That a car approaching from the rear will see them riding assertively and
> simply plow in to them?

Accidents are called accidents for a reason. That car approaching them from
behind may not see them at all due to some momentary distraction. You can
attempt to make yourself 'large' and 'visible' but you may _still_ be missed
and given the relative difference in strength and weight the outcome is
predictable. The best way to stay safe as a cyclist is to stay out of the way
of faster and heavy traffic.

> That the cars will pass them closely as they are forced to move further in
> to the other lane?

There may not even be another lane. And a fairly large number of motorists
will not see that as a huge obstacle in trying to pass a cyclist that occupies
a whole lane.

> If that's your assertion then as others have stated, an assertive lane
> position is exactly what will save you in this situation - as you have the
> room on the inside to avoid the passing car.

Well, in that case you didn't need to take up more room than you needed in the
first place...

It's kind of weird how all this seems to center around having a 'safe' place
to go to in case the assertive driving ('brave' was the word, why is it
considered 'brave' if all it is is safe?) policy fails.

Better to recognize your fragility and play it safe from the get go.

~~~
scottishfiction
The point is that the non-assertive position isn't 'playing it safe'. You're
no more out of the flow of traffic unless the lane is extra wide, you're
signalling to following cars that they are welcome to overtake, and you have
robbed yourself of any margin for error when a car misjudges their pass and
squeezes you in to a parked car or railing.

You're right that the assertive approach is no substitute for segregated
infrastructure, but in an imperfect world of mixed-use roads, it's the best
way to stay safe, and is the method taught and recommended by many bodies here
in the UK.

[https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/article/i...](https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/article/izn20130830-Effective-
traffic-riding-part-1-0)

~~~
jacquesm
Interesting. Here in NL we're taught to stay to the right hand side of the
lane with about .5 meters of margin to the right relative to where the road
surface ends. That way cars can overtake without possibly hitting a cyclist
going the other way. Also it is strongly discouraged to cycle side-by side
(but kids on the way to and from school routinely ignore that as do couples of
all ages).

[https://fietsmaar.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/schoorlam-n504...](https://fietsmaar.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/schoorlam-n504-fietsstroken.jpg)

Is a nice example of what the map of a road with mixed cycle/car traffic would
look like, absent any markings you'd still try to re-create that situation.

Same situation in a more urban setting:

[http://www.fietsfilevrij.nl/wp-
content/uploads/P1030380.jpg](http://www.fietsfilevrij.nl/wp-
content/uploads/P1030380.jpg)

Cars can - and do - occupy the bike lane if they're moving, will slow down
behind a bicyclist if there is oncoming traffic and will move around them when
the road is clear from oncoming motorized traffic.

Everybody takes the amount of space they need, but no more than they need. To
occupy a whole lane and to ignore the 'honking and shouting' (mentioned
upthread) would be considered extremely rude and could easily get you in
trouble because you're hindering faster traffic.

~~~
stouset
> Interesting. Here in NL we're taught to stay to the right hand side of the
> lane with about .5 meters of margin to the right relative to where the road
> surface ends.

Here in the US, we're taught to claim the lane. As I said earlier in the
thread, I have tried both. The difference between the two is utterly
unmistakable.

That said, you're right (again earlier in the thread) that I'm young and
healthy and able to more or less keep up with city traffic. However, I did
caveat my statement with the assertion that if you _are_ causing a backup (due
to traffic, no extra lane, or whatever), you should exercise courtesy and
allow traffic to pass.

I'm not arguing at all that a cyclist going a leisurely 10mph on a two-lane,
45mph road should claim the lane and sit there oblivious to their
surroundings. But even if they do, this cyclist is going to be (in my
experience) _far_ safer than if they were on the side of the road getting
buzzed with a 35+mph difference between then and car traffic.

------
Zanni
The real answer is to get rid of street parking when you have a bike lane.
They're incompatible. In fact, just get rid of street parking altogether. As a
bicyclist, I've been doored. As a pedestrian, I find it difficult to see
around parked cars to know if it's safe to cross the street in some locations.
As a driver, I find it difficult to to see around parked cars to know if it's
safe to enter the street AND I have a massively increased cognitive load of
paying attention, not just to the traffic on the street, but to everything
that may be emerging from a car or from between cars.

~~~
vvpan
That is unrealistic and has very bad consequences on the neighborhood. I've
heard urban planners (in lectures) say that when there is not a row of parked
cars between a street and the sidewalk, people are much less likely to walk
and spend time there. So, for example, businesses close along a street when
parking is suddenly prohibited. And, as others pointed out, in most cities it
is unrealistic due to how little parking there is available.

~~~
djsumdog
If America had a real public transport/rail system in all its major cities,
this would be way less of an issue. It did at one point. America had an
amazing tram network in many cities. Every city I lived in use to have trams.

Instead of upgrading trams like St. Petersburg, Melbourne and most of Europe
did, America scraped trams due to lobbying efforts of car companies to switch
to shitty buses.

The Netherlands have amazing train and tram networks throughout their cities.
It's not uncommon to see bicycles piled up and belted to the wall in the bike
section of each train.

~~~
awjr
It wasn't just lobbying but I do think it was death through a 1000 cuts.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

------
CorbenDallas
Amsterdam resident here. Such a good infrastructure and laws for the
bycyclists make them not giving a single shit about the way they are actually
driving their bycicles. And their behaviour and driving style is often very
offensive to both pedestrians and car users. So it's not that straight and
black and white.

~~~
mpol
That is mostly just Amsterdam. In the rest of the Netherlands this behaviour
is being frowned upon.

And it is often not the Dutch people. Half the people in Amsterdam is
tourists.

~~~
sambe
In Amsterdam at least, it is certainly not tourists who create most of the
problems. Tourists are just a nuisance, usually clueless and going very slow
and _massively_ in the minority despite the overall popularity of the city.

Dutch cyclists are substantially more likely to be running red lights without
looking, at speed. They are more likely to be using their phone - meandering
all over the path - or at night without lights. Stopping or turning without
signalling - without checking over their shoulder - or pulling onto a cycle
path without looking. There's also just as much nuisance cycling from groups
of students two or three bikes wide having a social event during rush hour as
there is from tourists wobbling around trying to figure out where they are
going.

This is a familiar pattern: exactly the same as car drivers, people think
being experienced means you can get away with being lazy and/or selfish. Then
just blame "those other people" for the problems.

~~~
mcv
Amsterdam cyclists certainly have a tendency to consider traffic rules more as
suggestions than hard rules, but there's still a huge difference between the
kind that runs a red light because there's clearly no crossing traffic, and
the kind that runs a red light on a dangerous intersection without watching
while on the phone.

It's a minority, but I regularly encounter cyclists who clearly want to die.
The most blatant example was a mother who was trying to direct her children to
ride against the direction of traffic between a bike lane and two car lanes
that just came from the A10 (presumably because she had to take the next road
left and didn't want to cross the busy street twice).

------
saulrh
Getting it added to the driver's license test is probably the key here.

~~~
cortesoft
Using your blinker is a requirement in the driver's license test, too. So is
driving with your hands 10-2, coming to a complete stop at all stop signs, and
driving the speed limit.

I don't think adding something to a driver's test is going to change much.

~~~
anarazel
Coming from Germany to the US, I'm very regularly confused and annoyed how few
drivers here use signals in a meaningful way. If used at all, it's halfway
through the turn.

------
carterehsmith
Perhaps we could add radars that block the door if there is a risk of dooring,
either by a bike, or another car.

The car manufacturers have just agreed to put collision mitigation systems in
all cars (by 2020 or something), and that requires radars and cameras. Even
better, some cars have radars in the back, too, to identify cross traffic & c.
So, identifying potential dooring event as well, might be quite doable using
those same radars.

Edit: I forgot that my car also has this 'Blind Spot Indicator', that is, some
radars that look to the side and back, to figure out if the other car is in
your blind spot. I guess that could be used to prevent dooring, too.

~~~
Etheryte
While this could prevent some of the accidents, I'm not sure if the sum effect
would be better. Allow me to explain:

According to Google, the average cycling speed is 15.5km/h and the average car
length is 4.5m. Surely these will differ a lot from area to area, but they're
good for a ballpark measure. This means it takes a cyclist about one second
(4.5m / 15.5kmh = 1.05s) to pass a parked car.

Even if you have a car with sensors, if the cyclist is out of your sensors'
reach (behind the corner of the previous car), once you open your door, that
one second will not be enough for the cyclist to either stop or change course.

What _might_ happen, however, is having sensors could lead to more reckless
behavior along the lines of "why do I need to look, I have sensors?".

~~~
cerebellum42
>According to Google, the average cycling speed is 15.5km/h

That sounds like a speed averaged over a whole trip - including the phases of
deceleration and acceleration before/after traffic lights. From my experience,
most people are closer to 17-20km/h when traveling, with plenty of fit people
going at 24+.

------
jawbone3
Right, Large scale change of driver habits is a simple solution... a more
enforcable suggestion is that the car owner is by default liable for any
damages that happen from dooring, and that dooring is a fineable offence. Give
car owners a real motivacion to check for bikes

~~~
williadc
> Large scale change of driver habits is a simple solution...

I'm not sure how your proposed solution would work without a large scale
change of driver habits.

~~~
hueving
People care about their wallet more than altruistic things.

------
scraft
I am curious about how may incidents are caused from people that consistently
are a bit lazy, and how many are caused by people that make a one off mistake.
It is a genuine question. The reason it comes to my mind is recently I was
doing a three point turn (actually a 20 point turn) to get out of my drive
way, as other cars had left me with almost no space to get out, part of this
manouver involved me having to pump up onto the kerb when reversing, and just
after doing it, I saw a little girl appear from behind my car on her scooter,
she then stopped and looked at me. I didn't find out from her (she disappear
shortly after) whether I had almost hit her, or not, but either way it shook
me up a little, as I appreciate I could have so easily caused an accident, and
I would say I am a very careful, cautious driver. In this particular scenario
other road users had left the cars parked in a way that bumping up the kerb
was my only option, but I simply didn't see this small girl, I think she came
from behind a parked car, so I couldn't see her. Luckily no harm was done, but
it shook me up a little. Hopefully it'll reduce my chances of having a similar
incident in future as it'll make more more vigilent to my surroundings.

------
bbarn
The problem is, dooring only affects the doorer after it happens. Most other
traffic violations, like speeding, blowing stop signs, failure to yield, etc,
can get you a ticket regardless of their outcome. Opening a car door into
traffic, in Chicago at least, puts you at fault but there's no getting a
ticket for not looking. There's only a ticket after your action causes an
injury.

Obviously, we can't have police ticketing everyone parallel parking for not
looking in their mirror, so we think we need to attack this from an education
perspective alone.

I propose instead, we stop trying to segregate bikes into lanes that they
don't fit into! Good bike lanes have a buffer between cars that makes dooring
almost impossible.

Bad:

|B|C

Good:

|B|\|C

Where B = Bike and C = car and slashes and pipes = paint on the roads.

Or, if you prefer an image: [http://nacto.org/wp-
content/uploads/gallery/bufferedlane_3d/...](http://nacto.org/wp-
content/uploads/gallery/bufferedlane_3d/buffered-bike-lane_parking3d_0.jpg)

Or even better:
[http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/9711441935_3df2f28926.jpg](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/9711441935_3df2f28926.jpg)

~~~
vahe
I don't think a painted buffer is any good. A real solution would be
physically separated bike lanes.

~~~
jacquesm
Preferably on the right hand side, that removes the drivers from the equation
(most cars only have a single occupant), and it stops cars from having to
cross the bike lane.

[https://argu-
logos.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/4357/Overtoom_Ams...](https://argu-
logos.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/4357/Overtoom_Amsterdam.JPG)

The bike lane is _behind_ the parked cars next to the pedestrian area (and a
little bit lower), you can see a cyclist on the left hand side of the picture.

------
awjr
One thing to consider is that the Netherlands is also considered the best
place to drive in the world. Being pro-bicycle removes a significant number of
short car journeys from the road. [http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/best-place-
in-the-world-to-be...](http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/best-place-in-the-world-
to-be-a-driver-netherlands)

~~~
mrsuprawsm
I'm slightly surprised by the "best place to drive in the world" claim.

Urban driving in the Netherlands is pretty stressful, you have to check
regularly for cyclists (in both directions) when turning, and also avoid
trams/tram lanes.

Although, since the bike infra is so good, you rarely find yourself needing a
car here.

------
mooneater
Great, a solution that boils down to "bikers can be safe from just one of many
mortal dangers, if and only if every single driver learns this new habit and
does it right every time".

I want solutions in which safety doesn't depend on perfect behaviour from
people at minimal risk (drivers), like physical separation of lanes.

~~~
Cthulhu_
The only real thing then is to ban bicycles. or cars. Both parties need to
learn to co-operate, because while separated lanes will help improve safety,
the fact remains that the two will always need to share roads, just like
pedestrians do in many ways (think crossings)

~~~
TulliusCicero
Yes, but you can drastically decrease the danger through infrastructure like
physically separated lanes and protected intersections.

------
thrownblown
Just reach over the handle bars and close the door first.

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BAayzrJmiJu/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BAayzrJmiJu/)

------
ereyes01
Here in Austin, some streets have done away with parallel parking in favor of
back-in angle parking. This approach has some benefits, one of which is
eliminating the possibility of dooring bicyclists.

Music in the video is lame, but this video illustrates the concept:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HddkCbsWHlk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HddkCbsWHlk)

------
IgorPartola
Clearly the solution is to have doors that open like this:
[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0oV4IVy8tvE/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0oV4IVy8tvE/maxresdefault.jpg)

------
M_Grey
Honestly, given how many broken driver's side mirrors you see around, likely
received the same way, it seems like a smart move in general. Good for peds,
good for bikes, good for cars, and good for the people getting out of their
cars.

------
Qantourisc
In Belgium we don't have a word for doored either. But we don't use our right
hand, we are just learned to look and make sure we are not going to smack
someone of their bike. Also often the lane next to you is a car-lane. As such
you also learn not to swing open your door wildly, as you might loose your
door ;)

~~~
lamontcg
Yeah, this isn't just a thing to protect bicyclists, this is also about how to
safely exit your vehicle with a lane of traffic next to you. Can't count the
number of people over here (USA) that just blindly throw open their door and
hope for the best.

I always check, and if I have to open my door with a line of traffic going by
(there's some streets around here where traffic going by is literally endless)
I open it a crack first, then open it only as much as I need to exit, and do
the whole process slowly, and watch the approaching cars the whole time. I
can't remember the last time I've ever seen someone else do that though.

------
tribby
1) this is not a clever workaround, this is common sense. if you don't do this
already, you're a terrible motorist and shouldn't be allowed to drive.

2) do high end cars have proximity sensors for this sort of thing yet?
comparable to the way that large vehicles alert you if you're about to back
into something.

------
tschellenbach
Cycling here in Boulder is definitely much more dangerous compared to The
Netherlands. A lot of cars turn right without checking for bikes. What's up
with that?

On the other hand the bike sharing program here in Boulder is the best I've
ever seen.

(I'm Dutch and live in Boulder, Colorado)

~~~
wtbob
> A lot of cars turn right without checking for bikes. What's up with that?

Why are you to the right of the turning lane? If you are a vehicle, _act_ like
a (slow-moving, natch) vehicle: get in the right-most through lane, and _hold_
it.

~~~
Tharkun
That obviously depends on the infrastructure. If the bike lane is an actual
bike lane, then cars turning right should wait until cyclist are done crossing
the road. Please don't assume your system is universal: it's broken and it's
not.

~~~
wtbob
I think a system which relies on drivers to check blindspots for small, light
vehicles while turning (when their attention is focussed on the large, heavy
vehicles on the other side which can kill them) is broken.

Bikes are vehicles: they belong on the road, just like cars. They are slow
vehicles, so they should take the rightmost lane. Cars should pass them on the
left (switch the sides if you're in a certain countries), just as they would
pass tractors or slow cars.

Putting cyclists where drivers are liable to miss them and doors are liable to
strike them is madness.

------
DavideNL
So am i the only one who uses a different technique? I always look in the side
mirror (the one on the driver side=left side) before i open the door, where i
can perfectly see incoming bikes/etc passing my car. When i got my drivers
license i was taught to do this and it became a habit, so i've been doing it
ever since. Works very well.

fyi i'm Dutch and i've never heard of the "Dutch reach" before.

~~~
alistairSH
I do that - seems obvious to me, but I'm also a cyclist.

That said, when I'm in the back seat, I'm not sure if I do anything to avoid
dooring.

~~~
mavroprovato
> I do that - seems obvious to me, but I'm also a cyclist.

You don't have to be a cyclist. Another car may be coming and rip your door
off. I think that using the mirror should be obvious to any driver

> That said, when I'm in the back seat, I'm not sure if I do anything to avoid
> dooring.

You could turn your head 180 degrees and look behind you I guess

------
Anechoic
I was doing something similar to this over the summer when I sprained some
ligaments in my left hand so it was painful to open the door using the "usual"
left hand motion. The video seems to imply that reaching over your body to
open the door with your right hand will naturally force your body to turn to
see behind you (or to the side). This never happened in my experience, I can
reach over and open the door with my right hand while still looking forward.
Actually having to turn your torso has to be an additional learned behavior. I
suspect that folks might make the turn at first if taught to do so, then
eventually do the lazier thing and stop turning.

As a cyclist who has been nearly doored on multiple occasions, I emphasize but
the cultural change might be a bit too much to expect. TBH, I prefer
jawbone3's suggestion of making the driver/car owner liable by default for
"dooming" and applying a fine and/or surcharge.

~~~
dpark
They're already liable. That doesn't fix it, in the same way that speed limit
laws don't stop speeding, and parking laws don't prevent illegal parking.

~~~
ptaipale
And just to be clear, this is not just in the U.S. The clause is in
practically all traffic laws in all countries, because it is mandated by the
Article 24 in Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.

[https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road...](https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_EN.pdf)

------
megablast
Good luck changing drivers behaviour. It is hard enough getting everyone to
use an indicator.

------
gambiting
Is it just me, or is the cyclist in this gif(from the article):

[http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/09/doorzone.g...](http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/09/doorzone.gif)

Cycling way too fast on a narrow lane like this?

I'm not saying that he's at fault, obviously the fault is 100% on the side of
whoever opened the door, but if I was driving 60mph next to a lane of standing
traffic, that would be completely irresponsible, because if someone pulled out
into my lane the accident would be severe. Driving in cities requires caution,
but I notice that cyclists cycle as if they are alone on the road, zooming at
30mph past standing traffic.

I'm not guilt-free, I used to cycle ~2000 miles a year in a large city and a I
did my share of stupid irresponsible stuff on a bike, but I think both sides
need a bit of education on how to be safe on the road.

~~~
DanBC
So clearly cyclists can't win. If they travel at the same speed as other
traffic you'll complain they're travelling too fast.

If they slow down other people will complain about having to share the road
with slow vehicles.

~~~
gambiting
Well, I was thinking more about some studies that show it's the difference in
speeds on the road that creates dangerous situations, and not the speed
itself. So if the traffic is moving at 30mph, there is no problem with a
cyclist cycling at 30mph. But if they are cycling at 30mph next to standing
traffic, that's really dangerous. If you watch the gif it _looks_ like the
cyclist is travelling too fast for the conditions of the road - a pedestrian
has to literally jump out of their way, and there's no time to react to
something like an opening door - in fact, there's a pedestrian crossing after
that taxi, if there was anyone crossing the road there's 0 chance that cyclist
would stop in time.

I would feel exactly same way if it was a car driving this fast next to
standing traffic - the same sort of danger.

------
nightcracker
As a Dutchman, this 'dutch reach' technique doesn't exist here. People just
look, they don't use some trick to remind them not to be assholes.

------
jbverschoor
Dutchy from Amsterdam here. Never heard about the term nor the technique.
We're to look in all mirrors and behind the shoulder before acting.

------
virtualritz
I Germany this is taught as 'Schulterblick' ('over the shoulder look') in
driving school (which is mandatory in this country).

In general, you are taught to always use Schulterblick when:

1\. Changing lanes.

2\. Entering/exiting from/to a ramp.

3\. Turning.

4\. Getting out of a parking spot.

5\. Opening a door to exit the car.

Modern rear mirrors are curved at the outer vertical edge to avoid any dead
spot. This means just checking the mirror before you do any of the above
should -- in theory --, be enough (except for some cases of 3).

But better safe than sorry.

An exception are trucks. They have a dead spot at the right which the driver
can't check. Mercedes introduced a an electronic solution for this in 2014.

------
failrate
I'm going to try this and see how it goes.

------
veddox
Wow, that's the first time I've seen 500+ comments on an HN thread about
cycling!

As to the "Dutch" grip: when I did driving school in Germany some years back,
my teacher took great pains to impress on me to always look back before
opening a door. In fact, not doing so can cause you to fail your driving test.
As having to retake your driving test here can easily set you back several
hundred euros, I learnt quickly...

~~~
Frqy3
An example of bikeshedding perhaps?

------
paulsutter
How do existing self-driving cars handle this case? Perhaps regulation could
cover this if the manufacturers aren't. The cars should have sensors to know
it's not safe to open the door.

Getting rid of parked cars will be a good start.

EDIT: obviously the car can sound a warning or even briefly prevent the door
from opening. Similar case, what if a car or truck is passing by very closely
at that moment.

~~~
pimlottc
How does the car being self-driving change anything? They don't open the doors
for you.

~~~
__d
Given the sensors required to be self-driving, a self-driving car should be
able to detect a bicycle in the "dooring zone", and prevent the door from
opening and/or alert the car occupant.

~~~
Reason077
Yes, proximity sensors are capable of dramatically improving safety for
pedestrians and cyclists, even in non-self-driving vehicles.

Many categories of collisions caused by carelessness and blind spots could be
prevented by automatically applying breaks, preventing doors opening, etc.

------
matt4077
I wonder if the car couldn't be more helpful.

For example, a lit rear indicator light (not blinking) would be a signal that
I could check for without much cognitive effort, and it wouldn't be too
confusing for the rest of the traffic. Just having it turn on when car was
turned off but the doors haven't been opened should cover most situation.

------
hollander
To be honest, I never use my right arm to open the left door, and I never
heard of this practise. But I will always look in the mirror or behind me to
check if a bike or scooter comes up from behind.

In big cities like Utrecht and Amsterdam, in certain neighbourhoods with lots
of migrants, it is - as a cyclist - not safe to assume that someone will check
for cyclists from behind. You - as cyclist - have to take care of yourself,
which means driving more on the road instead of the cycle path. As an
experience big-city-cyclist this is no problem for me. I merge with car
traffic without thinking.

But I see it happen all too often that cars take a left or right turn without
looking back. Same with people crossing roads without looking left or right.
They just assume that the other people will stop. These are mostly migrants
not used to our way of doing this, but more and more people using their
smartphone in traffic do exactly the same.

~~~
jvannistelrooy
"In big cities like Utrecht and Amsterdam, in certain neighbourhoods with lots
of migrants, it is - as a cyclist - not safe to assume that someone will check
for cyclists from behind."

Do you think migrants in Amsterdam and Utrecht are worse at checking for
cyclists coming from behind than other people? If so, how do you know this?
Have you experienced it yourself and did you assume the driver was a migrant,
or do you have more trustworthy data?

------
ScottBurson
I guess this is not a bad idea, but just looking in the side mirror before
opening the door is easier to do, and probably easier to teach people to do.

As a cyclist, I give parked cars as much room as possible. I've never been
doored... though I've never ridden in NYC either.

~~~
jacquesm
And your 'dead corner' is a lot smaller that way too, the rear roof support
('C style') can be quite wide and obscure a lot of your vision.

~~~
frik
> the rear roof support 'C style') can be quite wide and obscure a lot of your
> vision

It's getting worse and worse. Older cars (like 10-15 years old) still had
bigger windows and thinner roof support. Sure, the cars looked maybe a bit
less stylish, but the overview for the driver was a lot better (in all
directions). Also new cars are wider and longer. Nowadays it's often hard to
fit your car in a parking lot, and the doors open outside of the marked space.
Some regulation would help to force manufacturers to think about designing
cars a bit more.

------
lukaslalinsky
I'm honestly surprised this is such a common problem in the US. Most of the
parallel parking spaces here are next to the road, so if you open your door
without looking, some other car will crash into you. We have been trained
since we were children to always look when exiting a car parked on a street.
We were not even allowed to exit from the road side of the car most of the
time. As a driver, you have to be super careful, because when you are parked,
there is usually a steady traffic less then 50cm next to your left. You
basically always have too look and double-check before opening your door on a
street. I live in Slovakia, but I think my experience matches most of the
countries in this part of Europe.

~~~
rconti
Yeah, American here, I can't fathom opening my door when parked along the
street without watching my side mirror as I do so.

Sure, there's "enough room" on most streets to not have my door ripped off,
but it seems a little silly to trust it so fully. That's sorta like saying you
should just pin the throttle when the light turns green, as the other cars
have a red light anyway, so it's unlikely that you will collide with anyone.

------
cateye
Bullshit article: the rule that everyone learns is to check your mirror and
double check by looking over your shoulder. I have never heard of the right
hand rule.

It gets a habit because the chances are pretty high because of narrow roads
and a lot of other traffic behind you.

------
caf
This is great, because it's simple, easy to explain and highly actionable.
It's incentive-compatible because implementing this yourself greatly reduces
the chance you'll door someone, and few people actually want to cause an
accident.

------
eecc
It's been standard practice in Italy since forever: I witnessed someone
failing their exam while I was waiting for my turn to get my driving license.

The idea is that looking behind also protects you from being smashed to a pulp
by an incoming car.

------
INTPenis
It's weird to see this described as a workaround, or a deliberate method, when
to me as a swede living in Malmö it's the most natural thing ever.

It's up to drivers, and cab drivers, to warn their passengers to be careful
when opening the door. Of course this is an imperfect system but from my
perspective it has worked for as long as I've lived.

Swedish traffic law dictates that the one opening the door is responsible for
any damages caused, so to protect themselves, their insurance premium and
their cars drivers obviously become careful when opening doors.

It messes up your whole daily routine if your door is broken because of a
bicycle.

~~~
jules
It is the same in the Netherlands. By the time people are old enough to get a
drivers license they already knows this. Everyone gets taught this by their
parents, and everyone cycles themselves so people know that this is necessary.

------
happy-go-lucky
The other day I was at a four-way intersection, waiting at traffic lights with
my bike, next to a car on my right. Red light was showing. There was no
oncoming traffic. Then, on a whim, instead of waiting before I could move
forward, I turned right 45 degrees and in an attempt to cross the road, walked
my bike in front of the car and as I was passing the car, an aggressive
motorcyclist who was behind the car moved out of the line very quickly with an
intention to jump the red light and in doing so ended up T-boning my bike. I
could get away safely but not without minor damage to my bike.

------
andmarios
This is very old, for as long as I can remember (decades) you will fail to
pass your driving test in Greece if you try to open the car's door with your
hand closest to it and without checking the side mirror first.

------
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" :)

------
Shivetya
When riding my bicycle I treat it as if I were on my motorcycle, all cars are
threats and if I can see someone in a car I am passing they will open the door
so I plan for it

------
raarts
For a pretty thorough description of how The Netherlands achieves safe biking,
see this video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4)

"Fred Young, a Landscape Architect based in Seattle, led us through a visual
tour of Dutch cycling infrastructure, share insights of the transportation
experts he met and show how cycling is a part of daily life in the
Netherlands."

------
flycaliguy
Slightly off-topic, but I found it difficult to read an article with a looping
clip of a traffic accident embedded. I skipped the second paragraph.

------
adamc
I know this would be a lot harder, but I think the best solution would be some
city redesign where we separated bike and automobile routes, or at least
minimized the places where they are together.

The Dutch reach _is_ clever, but it takes a lot of retraining of existing
motorists, so it will take concerted awareness raising and probably a fairly
long time-frame to take effect here.

------
sixQuarks
I simply don't understand people that swing doors wide open without even a
thought of looking. It's just plain stupidity

------
_ph_
Interestingly, the bike lane shown in the first picture of the article rather
marks the region that by German law cyclists are required to avoid. Cyclists
are required to keep about a meter distance from parked cars to prevent
dooming. That of course does not stop local authorities from creating bike
lines exactly as shown in the article :(.

~~~
adrianN
Do you have a citation for that law? It's the first time I hear about it.

~~~
_ph_
It is not an explicit number in the law, but deducting from the requirements
of driving safely, the bicyclists have to keep a distance from the right side
of the road, especially from parked cars. There have been court rulings which
require this to be 1m or more. You can find a bit about it here:
[http://pdeleuw.de/fahrrad/stvo.html](http://pdeleuw.de/fahrrad/stvo.html)

------
jorgenhorstink
A couple of months ago I watched a short video about how we got our cycling
lanes. I think it provides some interesting context on why we built our
cycling infrastructure. If you like this topic, you'll like the video...

[https://youtu.be/XuBdf9jYj7o](https://youtu.be/XuBdf9jYj7o)

------
thr0waway1239
A honest question for people who say getting rid of street parking is an
economically viable idea - would it be economically viable if there was an
underground road system purely for bikes, where there would be no way for cars
and larger vehicles to share the ride? You also don't need to worry about the
weather.

~~~
TulliusCicero
It would not be economically viable because underground tunnels are enormously
expensive to build. The reason they can work for subways is because you don't
need to excavate that much space for a subway train to move a whole ton of
people. While bikes take up an order of magnitude less space than cars per
person, subways take up another order of magnitude less space than bikes.

------
Jugurtha
I've always opened the door this way. I want to know what's happening and it
makes sense to open it that way. Kind of looking both ways before crossing,
it'd be strange to give it a name like "The British Method" since you don't
imagine anyone mentally undiminished _not_ doing it.

------
dirkdk
I don't wear a helmet in my home town Amsterdam. I do wear a helmet here in
San Francisco. Why? Car drivers are just not used to bicyclists in SF. Yes
open their door without looking, turn without using their signals. And in
general, don't pay attention and are on their phones all the time

------
london888
Great idea but I think more of us cyclists could be riding and anticipating
'if that car door opens can I stop in time?'. We can't rely on people in cars
doing the right thing. Many of us cycle too fast to be able to react in time.

~~~
tajen
It's impossible to dodge a door open by an uncareful driver. It happened to
me, I was cycling really slow, I was watching that door because I suspected
the driver was still inside: When the driver slammed her door open, it just
hit my shoulder, there was nothing I could do, it happened too fast. Since
that day, I just constantly ring my bell when bike by car doors, which must be
very annoying for the neighbours. But ey, safety first.

One more reason it's difficult to dodge an opening door is, swaying out of the
cycle lane may lead us to hit a car we haven't seen.

~~~
london888
fair enough - it hasn't happened to me luckily

------
happyslobro
This guy has the right idea. The problem, is that your doors are not the doors
of a billionaire.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIAOosI6js](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIAOosI6js)

------
poshli
Resident of San Francisco here, a global leader in amazing bike theft stories.

I look my steel cable through my bike helmet straps or I insert my u lock
through the helmet. The only way to steal the helmet would be to saw it in
half.

------
anexprogrammer
Interesting. I'd just mandate drivers had to spend 10,000m on a motorbike, or
time on bicycle and motorbike, before being let near a car. Car driving
standards would improve dramatically.

------
jasonkostempski
How about side view mirrors for rear seat passengers? As a driver with that
technology I've managed to never open my driver door into an oncoming car.

------
mercora
i am suprised how watching out for cyclist, or anything really, is not common
sense. I do that and i do not even have a drivers license... Oo

------
emodendroket
I don't know why anyone would fling open the car door on a busy road without
checking their mirrors anyway.

~~~
mankyd
It's not that everyone does it all the time. It only has to happen, say 1% of
the time. Combine that with the number of cyclists on the road, and the
thousands upon thousands of car doors opened each day, and odds are it will
happen. As the article states, it happens on average once per day in Chicago.
It's not a lot, but it is a problem.

~~~
emodendroket
I'm not disputing it; I'm just surprised so many people would do it.

------
ATsch
I Germany, many bike lanes are on the sidewalk, which is a good solution too,
if you have the space for it.

------
timini
Its called "common sense" or "being polite"

------
FullMtlAlcoholc
Or, as a bike rider one can simply look into a cars cabin and see if a person
is inside. I assume everyone is a terrible driver, have no idea I'm on the
road.

I am a regular bike commuter on traffic heavy Los Angeles. I'll never
understand the mentality of bicyclists who are more concerned with asserting
their rights as opposed to exercising caution and restraint. Graveyards are
full of people who had the right of way.

~~~
msandford
Cyclists are already second class citizens on the roads. People who ride bikes
are upset about this and would prefer not to become third or fourth class.
It's also very frustrating to have to assume everyone is so ignorant that they
wouldn't mind accidentally killing you for the sake of saving a second or two.

I completely agree that being aggressively paranoid is the way to stay alive.
But agreeing that it is the smart thing to do and believing that it's
acceptable are different things.

"Women are underrepresented in tech and they should just have to suck it up
and deal with casual sexism & etc because tech bros can't learn to not be
sexist"

That's roughly the same attitude applied to women as cyclists. Seems a lot
worse that way, doesn't it?

~~~
pooper
> Cyclists are already second class citizens on the roads. People who ride
> bikes are upset about this and would prefer not to become third or fourth
> class. It's also very frustrating to have to assume everyone is so ignorant
> that they wouldn't mind accidentally killing you for the sake of saving a
> second or two.

I'll bite. Any cyclist who rides on the sidewalk, runs a red light, or flaunts
traffic convention in general absolutely deserves to be treated as a second
class citizen. Your wheels don't belong on the sidewalk. I'm sorry if I sound
rude.

~~~
ScottBurson
Riding on the sidewalk, for short distances and with a good reason, can be
done safely and courteously, though it may require slowing to walking speed.

How many car drivers never exceed the speed limit and always come to a
complete stop at stop signs? Your absolutism should apply in both directions,
no?

~~~
pooper
I wouldn't have to be rude if cyclists rode at walking speed safely and
courteously. Some cyclists are incredibly self-entitled.

Of course, I think we need stiff penalties for cars hitting cyclists. However,
cyclists need to know they are second class citizens on the side walk.

Yes, cars not coming to a full stop is a problem. But saying something else us
wrong doesn't make me right.

I'm glad you guys have a hug box going on here but if you can't ride safely on
a bike lane, don't ride a bicycle. I shouldn't have to give way to cyclists
speeding on the sidewalk. If you're at walking speed, you can ride behind me.
No need to pass.

~~~
msandford
>>> I'll bite. Any cyclist who rides on the sidewalk, runs a red light, or
flaunts traffic convention in general absolutely deserves to be treated as a
second class citizen. Your wheels don't belong on the sidewalk. I'm sorry if I
sound rude.

> But saying something else us wrong doesn't make me right.

So are you saying that because cyclists do wrong stuff, cars can also do wrong
stuff?

Or are you contradicting yourself when convenient so that you can attempt to
win an argument?

Your statements are not terribly self-coherent.

------
Asooka
We don't let people do drugs, so why do we let them ride bikes on roads? It's
the exact same kind of self-harm, brought on by poor life choices. All the
problems in the article can be solved simply by having everyone be in a large
sturdy steel frame, i.e. a car. Cars are cheap safe convenient and easy to
use, so why is everyone getting on these two wheeled death traps?

~~~
TulliusCicero
Can't tell if serious or not. Assuming you are serious:

Bikes are actually wonderful transportation devices that fill a useful
personal transportation middle ground between walking and driving. They're
much faster than walking, but still quite cheap and healthy. By comparison,
cars are extremely expensive and make you fat when you rely on them too much.

Walking would be quite dangerous too if we didn't have protected walk lanes
(we also call them 'sidewalks') and dedicated walk signals at intersections
all over the place.

~~~
Asooka
Have you tried getting a job and going to the gym? Modern life is wonderful,
stop fighting it so much.

