The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting “Doored” | Hacker News Reader

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

99percentinvisible.org

1,149 pointsmisnamed590 comments

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 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.

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

So the relevant question is "Of all the differences, which are the relevant ones?" If the "Dutch reach" is, say, 75% of the contribution, it's worth bringing over. [1] If it's 3%, it not worth worrying about at a governmental scale, as the costs of getting everyone to do it are not zero, and the benefits need to outweigh the costs. (You are free to adopt it; the costs for a person are negligible and the possible benefit of "not dooring a biker" are substantial both to you and the biker in question. But what you should do is a different question than what the government should do.)

In this sort of situation, listing out all the possible reasons and then leaving people to intuitively apply equal responsibilities is a great way to ensure that nothing happens. (I mean, you can actually use that as a technique next time you're in a meeting proposing that something be done that you don't want done; just exhaustively enumerate all the things that would be necessary, watch the idea wither as people intuitively assign incorrectly-large values to every little task if you do it right. You didn't hear this from me though. (I haven't done it, but have been on the receiving end.)) Bringing over one practice at a time in order of effectiveness is something that can happen. Implicitly insisting that we adopt 10 cultural practices all at once, some of which are major changes, just causes fatigue and people to just give up and walk away, and nothing changes.

[1]: Albeit possibly with a different name. It probably would actually be good marketing in the end to leave the name sounding vaguely like a sexual thing as it would get people's attention and generate some good buzz, but I doubt our bureaucracy would go in for that approach.

I upvoted you for the useful perspective, but wanted to point out that smartbit was almost certainly just sharing information that most readers are unlikely to have, rather than implicitly insisting anything. I don't think your tone in the third paragraph is very reasonable or charitable in response to their comment.

I believe evaluating the tone of a comment surely is a highly subjective undertaking; although most people could probably agree when they encounter a very mean or rude comment.

I personally don't think he had any obligation to be charitable in his response, yet he actually has been charitable, in the sense that he provided a different viewpoint; charitable to the group that is.

I know most people try to be sensible in their dialogs with other people, but I think we should strike a balance between accommodating everyone's feelings and actually telling it like it is. Now finding that balance is as much art as it is science.

And because human communication is so contextual, subjective and imprecise, I'm sure multiple individuals will internalize my comment differently. Given these, sometimes I'm surprised we can all get together. (:

You have it backwards. There is not one practice that you can just extract and implant into a new culture. They avoid accidents because they have a culture that has grown and valued riding bikes. This culture has manifested in many practices that are taught and reinforced by the culture. The actual individual things are of little significance individually. It is about the awareness and culture pressure to make efforts to always make bikers safer. Just telling people to do this one neat trick will lead to most people ignoring it or forgetting to do it.

Or maybe both perspectives have some truth to them?

Such as:

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

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

1) Dutch car drivers all have been bicyclist before they get their driver license

This is very important with regards to understanding and predicting how others behave. It's very hard for people to appreciate how different the POV can be in a different situation. I experienced this once when I herniated a disk in my lower back. Before I had to live with such a condition, I had been annoyed at how oddly and slowly some elderly people moved when boarding the bus. After having to deal with the pain, I understood the motivation behind waiting until the bus was fully stopped before moving, and why some people would methodically move from hand-hold to hand-hold: because to move more quickly would result in Pain!

In the US, I see lots of drivers who seem to struggle with even understanding other car drivers. It's no wonder that bicycle riders feel cars are a-holes to them. It's because cars don't understand what they are doing and what it's like to be on the receiving end of such behavior.

The amount of bicycles in The Netherlands is absolutely surreal. Both in major cities and out in the suburbs, bicycles are everywhere. I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets.

Large cities in Germany or the UK or anywhere else I've seen cannot compare to the magnitude of people on bicycles in The Netherlands.

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

Since I had a bad crash after being hit in the eye by an insect, I wear a helmet and cycling glasses on my commute as well. This has a remarkable effect on how you are treated in traffic. Gone is the usual friendly coexistence between cyclists, pedestrians, drivers and even scooters. Without the helmet, I'm just one of the thousands riding their bike to work, but wearing it, apparently now I'm an asshole bike racer who needs to be taught a lesson, much the way cyclists in general seem to be treated in cycling-hostile countries. A helmet doesn't really make you feel safer if it changes the way you're treated by the rest of traffic.

> 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.

Interestingly, in Germany there are some bicycle "hub" cities the prototypical example would be the city of Münster. My very unscientific feeling is that it's mostly mid sized cities with a university campus (especially if it's a multilocation campus spread across the entire city like in Münster).

Apart from the cities, there's also some pretty nice longer distance bike tracks. I belive Germany has one of the best bike route network/infrastructure. There's the so called D-Route (12 sections): http://www.radnetz-deutschland.de/en/d-routen.html

But the Dutch are #1 when it comes to bikes (imo).

Fun sidenote: The German term for what is typically known as a roadster bike is even "Hollandrad". In the Netherlands it's known as "Omafiets" which roughly translates to grandma-bike :)

As a dutch biker I would only wear a helmet when mountain-biking. The rest of the roads are very flat, we don't have much inclines. And our bikes are mostly in good condition, good brakes etc. In the cities people tend to have worse bikes because of theft but speed is lower there, so less danger. And last but not least, we have bike lanes, so you just wont come across cars regularly, a car has to ignore red lights to come in contact with bikes, so accidents are not that common.

People cycling as fast as they can wear helmets, this is usually seen at the weekends when a few people swap their city bike for a racing bike and ride round the countryside.

Motorists who enjoy racing also wear helmets when speeding round the race track, but don't wear them on the commute.

No doubt deaths around be prevented if car occupants wore helmets, but it's not considered risky, just like routing cycling.

> The amount of bicycles in The Netherlands is absolutely surreal. [...] I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets.

Perspective, perspective. The amount of bicycles in Germany (which is next-door) is surreal to me (so few) and I find it interesting that people wear helmets. They're such a bother and don't help your scraped arm or broken teeth if you land wrong. The odds of hitting your head on a curb seem about as slim to me as when you're walking.

Surreal? Hardly. There's room for plenty more. Most UK (hell, most countries') cities have extremely crappy bicycle infrastructure. Which is stupid, considering the many benefits of having a population of cyclists. Fewer road deaths, less obesity, less air pollution etc.

Dutch (and Danish) infrastructure is pretty decent.

Most people in China don't wear helmets either. Helmets prevent brain injury, but generally you'd have to be going pretty fast, or get hit by a car really fast to land on your head to require one (and then you probably have other injuries to contend with).

Also, we have bike light laws in California, but there are plenty of cyclists that don't use them. Personally, if I had to choose between riding without a helmet, or riding without lights; I'll take the lights. Lights prevent accidents whereas a helmet is only needed after an accident has occurred.

(It's getting dark sooner; if you don't have lights on your bikes, please buy some. Planet Bike has a nice two light set. Get some, and get some for your friends. Stay seen, stay safe.)

Not only in The Netherlands, in most European cities actually.

And if you go down to the Mediterranean countries even on motorbikes, not everyone wears on at least on city traffic.

Regarding bike helmets, they usually only protect if you fall vertically on your head, making their protection capability highly questionable.

They offer zero protection over getting hit by a car or falling off the bike.

That's a pretty good list.

Another major reason imo is that in an accident between a cyclist and a car the car is more or less automatically liable.

In France as well. Yet, if you go to the police station after a bike accident they will most likely refuse to take your claim unless you look seriously injured, and as long as the car did stop the police will just tell you to contact your insurance (which will do little more than reimbursing half the used value of your bike if you still have the invoice, after asking for a deductible amount several times that).

I'm sure it's better in the Netherlands, but just making cars liable isn't a solution itself.

Same in the Netherlands, but that is because you are liable for the (civil) damages, which are handled by the insurance companies of both parties. The police nowadays only get involved if one of the parties is criminally negligent, or drives off without decently handling the aftermath. Insurance claims do reimburse you for the damage though, and will claim them (successfully) with the other party's insurer.

Not really.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili... :

>It is a myth that is really only believed outside the Netherlands: “Because there is strict liability in the Netherlands, drivers are more cautious around cyclists, and that leads to more cycling”

>There are a number of (false) assumptions that lead to such an assertion. The first being that drivers are always at fault when they are in a collision with a cyclist, regardless of how the cyclist behaved.

Hmm...not always, but assumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise. From the article you linked to:

When art. 185 WVW is applicable, it means the motor vehicle user is liable for financial damage, unless that driver can prove the incident was caused by circumstances beyond his/her control.

and

Besides ‘circumstances beyond control’ the driver can also argue the non-motorised road user was at fault. This is only possible for road users from the age of 14. If that road user was indeed at fault, the driver is still liable for 50% of the damage. Dutch law makers considered this to be reasonable, because the non-motorised road user usually suffers more and more severe damage.

Yes, you can legally split hairs about it. But the practical upshot is that if you're involved in an accident with a cyclist as a motorist it is extremely likely that you will be held responsible.

That the actual law is more complex is obvious from the 'more or less' bit in the sentence above, it's not black and white but in the vast majority of accidents between cars and cyclists the driver of the car will be held responsible and this is one of the bigger items in keeping the number of such accidents down, Dutch motorists are quite aware of this reality.

And it makes good sense too: assuming a 'minor' accident between say a cyclist that forgot to indicate left and a motorist coming up from behind the motorist will likely do what he or she can do to avoid an accident even if technically the cyclist is at fault because the cyclist will likely suffer extensive damage to themselves and their property whereas the car will probably not suffer any damage at all and the occupant of the car is perfectly safe.

Let me translate the first bit of:

http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aanspr...

which gives a much less hard to interpret view of the legal situation in nl.

"Aanrijding met voetganger of fietser Wie is er aansprakelijk bij een aanrijding met een voetganger of fietser

Fietsers of voetgangers worden gezien als zwakkere verkeersdeelnemers. Omdat zij kwetsbaar zijn in het verkeer, kent de wet een speciale regeling bij een aanrijding met een motorvoertuig. De automobilist is aansprakelijk voor de schade van de fietser zonder dat zijn schuld bewezen hoeft te worden. Andersom kan de automobilist de schade die hij oploopt door een fout van een fietser of voetganger, claimen bij de fietser of voetganger (of diens AVP-verzekering). Dan gelden de normale wettelijke regels. Bescherming door de wet (artikel 185 Wegenverkeerswet)

Normaal gesproken moet je na een ongeluk bewijzen dat de tegenpartij aansprakelijk is. Dit geldt niet wanneer je als fietser of voetganger wordt aangereden door een motorvoertuig (auto, motor, bromfiets, snorfiets etc.). De wet bepaalt dat de bestuurder van het motorvoertuig aansprakelijk is, tenzij hij overmacht kan bewijzen. Dit is een vorm van 'risicoaansprakelijkheid'. Daarbij hoeft men geen schuld te hebben aan het ongeluk, maar is men wel aansprakelijk. Dit lijkt onrechtvaardig maar de fietser of voetganger loopt meer risico op zwaarder letsel vanwege de massa van het motorvoertuig."

"Accident with pedestrian or cyclist

Who is responsible for an accident with a pedestrian or cyclist?

Cyclists or pedestrians are seen as 'weaker' traffic participants. Because they are vulnerable in traffic, the law has a special arrangement when there is an accident with motorized traffic. The driver is responsible for the damage of the cyclist without having to prove they were in the wrong. If the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault the driver can claim his damage with them (or their insurance). In that case the normal rules and laws apply.

Protection in law (article 185 of the relevant law book)

Normally after an accident you have to prove that the other party is liable. This is not the case when as a cyclist or pedestrian you are hit by motorized traffic (car, motorbike, moped, etc). The law dictates that the driver of the motorized vehicle is liable unless he can prove 'overmacht' (a situation exceeding his/her control). This is a case of 'risk liability'. The driver does not have to be at fault for the accident but still is liable. This may seem unjust but a cyclist or pedestrian runs more risk of serious injury because of the mass of the motorvehicle"

That page has a whole pile of example situations and outcomes illustrating what the effect is on the liability of the driver for those cases.

The ANWB website (where I took these paragraphs from) is the Dutch official provider of traffic signs and many other traffic related services, they're a powerful lobby entity as well and deal with all kinds of road traffic related affairs. Originally started as a cyclist movement they included cars and are now the main go-to point for information about traffic and traffic related issues outside of the government.

There is another benefit to the "Dutch reach" not mentioned in the article: if a sudden gust of wind catches your door it will be easier to hold with your right arm. (They taught me this when I got my license)

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

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

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

There are other risks though - I always found it odd that motorised scooters are allowed on the bike paths. My Dutch neighbour had a very bad accident when one hit him on his bike and was off work for quite some time.

This is not the case anymore since ~5 years. The only motorized vehicels alllowed are those that cant travel fasher than 25km/h (bike speed)

If you live in Amsterdam you'd be hard pressed to find more than one scooter a month that's going under 25km/h.

Amsterdam is also pushing very hard to get an exception to be able to force them onto the street though.

Isn't that the "yellow plate/red plate" thing? I've heard that many get the governor installed, get the plate, remove the governor. I saw lots of scooters going too fast, passing folks in bike lanes in Amsterdam.

Nominally they can't go faster than that. But they do.

While these are certainly the ideal, there are still many places in Netherland, particularly in major cities where there just isn't enough space for a thorough redesign, where bike lanes run right next to parked cars.

Ultimately, it's a matter of awareness of other traffic, both for cyclists and for motorists. And pedestrians. You always need to watch what you're doing in traffic, and what others are doing.

I believe you meant to say, a non-exhaustive list.

Correct link is http://www.fietsersbond.nl/

> All politicians drive bike, the Dutch Prime Minister comes to work on his bike

That's very interesting!

I love your country's approach to bikes.

Another reason we don't have 'dooring' in The Netherlands is that we don't try to invent a funny new word for every tiny event or thing everywhere ever all the time ;-) Oh, and we don't open our doors unless we are parked.

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".

The article mentions that: in NL we have no separate term for it, exactly because it is considered common sense.

As for being taught: it was taught by both my driving instructors, in the sense that I was consistently told off for opening my door using the wrong hand, even if I was very careful to check my mirrors and side. I wasn't asked to perform this feat on my driving test, but they don't need to be explicit: it's fairly challenging to exit the vehicle without opening the door.

I (also Dutch) also have never heard about this practice of using your right hand to open the left door. It's an interesting idea, but certainly not common practice. I have never in my entire life seen anyone open their door like that. People just know that you must start looking backwards first and then open the door slowly.

I learned a variation of the Dutch Reach in my driver's license test (tested in Haarlem, school teaching it Max120). He didn't give it a name or anything and seems like common sense and I think it's a better way than the Dutch Reach described in the article.

When you open the door you grab the door handle -- the thing that opens the door -- with your right and plastic black handle -- the thing that gives you more 'grip' -- with your left. By doing this you have a lot more control on closing the door as well if you still happen to accidentally open it when you shouldn't have.

I had to retract once, because it appeared I had a blindspot where I couldn't see a cyclist.

Not bullshit: i also am dutch and my driving instructor taught me this right hand and look over shoulder technique. But i agree with parent comment otherwise: our solution to being "Doored" is more about common sense using the mirror (its there for a reason) and looking around, and not what hand we use. Its a helpful aid maybe. After reading this on HN i noticed i do tend to use BOTH hands.. left on the big grip and right on the handle-button. I think using both hands here is important as this is what allows you to retract the door, as other comments pointed out.

Second this. I learned to use mirrors and look over your shoulder as you open the door. Like you would if you were to take a left turn. Basic situational awareness.. This whole "Dutch reach" thing sounds more like something written for the internet points.

As for the whole helmet thing, they do not make you more safe. Proper infrastructure makes you more safe. Unless you're riding downhill, racing or performing stunts. You don't wear kneepads when you walk down the street do you?

Even if we just ignore the Netherlands, bike riders aren't being doored left and right in Denmark either. Sure "The Dutch Reach" is a clever trick to get people to look out for bike traffic, but really it's just common sense.

Like in the Netherlands, bike lanes in Denmark are mostly placed between the road and the side walk, so by not looking out for trafic you risk getting your door torn of by an SUV, rather than hitting a bike.

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.

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.

No bullshit. I was taught this. It's standard practice. You may have just had a shitty instructor.

Well I wasn't taught the 'Dutch Reach' either when I got my driving lessons. I also have never heard the term before and it certainly is not standard practice.

No apparently people teach that you open the door, stick your face out in front of the oncoming bike instead. Or try squint past the door pillar and the headrest?

I really like my door not to have dents, scratches and blood all over it (especially mine) so I look in the already-optimally-positioned mirror on the outside of the door where my hand goes to check if there is some other vehicle coming first before I open the door.

And I am not even Dutch.

I passed my driving exam in NL a couple of years ago, and I was taught to open my door this way. There was nothing about it being to protect cyclists in particular, though.

Saying that you're Dutch and have never heard of this behavior is hardly evidence that the other 16 million Dutchies haven't heard of it.

Awww... you're ruining a cute internet story I could share with people that perfectly explains everything! :'(

This, I was only taught that looking over the shoulder is preferred to mirrors but not much else.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed. I was definitely taught to always shoulder check before turning right, and I can't remember whether I was explicitly taught or not, but it just seems like common sense to check if anything is coming before swinging your door open. That said, clearly it's not, so that really needs to be taught better as well. (And of course the third one that they do far better than us in Holland, and in Europe in general, is lane use.)

Each of these is clearly a matter of poor education. I still remember my driving test having three increasingly ridiculous questions about how it's never ok to go even 1kph over the speed limit, but no emphasis whatsoever on these issues. I hope it's changed since then, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Is it that hard to believe? The human brain is not a perfect system. We operate on autopilot when performing menial tasks. Exiting a car is absolutely a zero-effort task that is habitually performed without any thought involved. Reaching with the opposite hand naturally turns your head far enough that you're looking at your blind spot - or at least 80% of the head turn required. The point is you can consciously forget to check, but by opening your door this way you will hopefully - and quite likely - trigger your brain into remembering that you need to check.

Time and time again on Hacker News, intelligent people can't seem to understand that the average citizen is not a Hacker News visitor. You can try to rationalize that every driver must be capable of being consciously aware of what they are doing every single time they open their car door. You can believe that this behaviour should be testable and that we should revoke licenses from the 20-70% of drivers who would fail such a test. This is simply not the reality. Introducing a - ugh I can't think of a word related to "mnemonic", aka. a brain training exercise - that will hopefully result in more people opening their car doors safely, can only be a benefit to all.

> Reaching with the opposite hand naturally turns your head far enough that you're looking at your blind spot - or at least 80% of the head turn required.

Only if you have so little shoulder mobility that you're unable to move your arm across your body while retaining your upper body position. I can reach across my body to open the door with no upper body movement. If I reach casually and let my body move loosely, I maybe move 10 or 15 degrees.

You might be thinking, "Oh, you're just saying that because it's a motion you're not used to and as a result you're overthinking it and holding yourself unnaturally still." But it's not an uncommon or unnatural motion for me. I already do this literally every time I open the car door. I always open the door with my right (far) hand because I don't have a left hand. And I don't automatically turn 90 degrees when I open the door, or 80 degrees, or even 45 degrees.

I'm not opposed to some "mnemonics" like this. I am opposed to treating them like they fix the core issues. It's really appealing to pick some tiny factor like this and say "here's the thing we're missing", but the thing we're missing is the careful culture that the Dutch have around driving. Opening the door with your right hand won't end dooring in the US any more than drinking red wine like the French will cure heart disease. We diminish the conversation when we push easy changes as silver bullets.

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

This is out of place and pointless.

> You can try to rationalize that every driver must be capable of being consciously aware of what they are doing every single time they open their car door. You can believe that this behaviour should be testable and that we should revoke licenses from the 20-70% of drivers who would fail such a test.

I definitely didn't say anything remotely like that.

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.

> She had literally never heard of nor understood the concept of a blind spot.

I've done a good amount of driving in the undeveloped and developing world (40k miles AK->Argentina, now 10k miles in West Africa, going to do about 80k)

Blindspots are not considered here. Driving is much more fluid, and you really only need to watch what is happening in front of you. After all, the car behind/beside you can see you much better than you can he, so just move over and he'll get out of the way.

If you're going to do something really strange (stop in the middle of the road, turn where you shouldn't, back out into flowing traffic) you just tap your horn and go ahead and do it. Everyone else is paying attention and will flow around you.

It really is a different way of thinking, and it's immensely impressive that everyone is paying enough attention to make it work really well (Traffic accidents are not common, and the driving conditions are so, so much more hectic than the developed world.)

> It really is a different way of thinking, and it's immensely impressive that everyone is paying enough attention to make it work really well (Traffic accidents are not common, and the driving conditions are so, so much more hectic than the developed world.)

Thailand has all that you mentioned, as well as novel things like vehicles driving the wrong way on the hard shoulder on divided highways.

Thailand is #2 behind Libya when ranked by traffic accident deaths / inhabitant: 36 per 100K. On the same list USA has just under 11 per 100K. To put that another way. USA had 34K road deaths from ~324M residents. Thailand had 24K road deaths from 67M residents.

So, you'll understand if I don't quite agree with the concept that doing what the fuck you want so long as you pay attention to every other fucker "works really well".

> Traffic accidents are not common

Huh? Traffic accidents are very common in the developing world.

Argentina has double the reported fatality rate of the USA, Nigeria has 50× the rate.

Wow, that's a really accurate description of what it was like in China as well, specifically in Beijing. The large intersections were some kind of organically flowing chaos of differing modes of transportation. And the honk was used as more of a "I'm coming through". Which makes a lot more sense than a "hey I don't like what you did".

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.

Blindspotless mirrors are not a replacement for checking your blind spot, at least I cannot reliabilily see cyclists with it.

> the modern world caught up with blind spotless mirrors

How modern are you talking? I've seen some very new cars (I think in a trip to California once, driving an SUV thing that almost needed two lanes to itself) with slightly odd mirrors - perhaps slightly concave or convex? I don't remember, but it had more view, and I vaguely remember the 'image' being distorted slightly though?

Besides that, no car I've driven has had that feature, and I've owned cars from VW, Honda and Toyota all built from 2005 onwards.

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.

> blindspotless mirrors

There are cars with 3 mirrors that don't have blind spots, without having some other tradeoff instead?

That makes the blind spot radar/lidar/camera systems on new high-tech cars seem pretty dumb!

eh, depending on the car, often times a blind spot is just due to someone failing to adjust their mirrors properly. if you actually do it right, you should not have a blind spot. if you can see your own car in your side view mirrors, you've adjusted them wrong. if they are adjusted correctly, cars approaching on either side of your vehicle will pass from the rear view, to the side mirror, into your peripheral vision with no gap of visibility.

I've read about this supposed "solution" and the greatest thing I took away was that it trades side-of-car blind spots (which I can resolve by turning my head) for rear-of-car blind spots, which I can do nothing about, as my head doesn't rotate 180º.

if they are adjusted correctly, cars approaching on either side of your vehicle will pass from the rear view, to the side mirror, into your peripheral vision with no gap of visibility.

That's incorrect. Unless you have an extremely wide (curved) side mirror, there always is a gap between the edge of the mirror and your peripheral vision. That gap is usually not large enough for a car to completely disappear (the nose of the car enters your peripheral vision before the rear end leaves the mirror), but smaller items may still disappear.

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

Don't know about America, but lots of Australians don't look when they open up that big slab of metal.

I've also had to explain the concept of 'blind spots' in car mirrors to a lot of people - and this is something I was personally tested on for my licence.

No, some Americans don't. Some of my fellow countrymen are so self-absorbed it doesn't even cross their mind their actions might impact someone else. You'll also see people opening their doors into traffic on very narrow streets.

It's also such an easy and appealing gesture. It's a bit like drawing your gun out, you like it when you do it swift. Just reading the article I was thinking "aww noo, I can't tickle the handle and swerve out like a cat anymore. ... but they're so right I can't win"

American bike and car commuter here. Americans are not the greatest and checking mirrors before opening their doors. I wouldn't say all don't check but I'd estimate a slight majority do check.

American here, remember being drilled pretty hard in Driver's Ed about "hey, if you're opening a door onto an active street, look first", and I follow it pretty religiously (or did when I drove on a regular basis). I'm guessing some people get careless and it shows up in the stats. Not sure what the Dutch reach adds -- if you can't remember to look, you probably can't remember to use your right hand either.

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...

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.

> 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.

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.

Taking the lane is precisely what allows you to make room for motorists. If a motorist makes a close pass when you've taken the lane, you just steer away from them and create some space. If a motorist makes a close pass when you're already hugging the kerb, you have nowhere to go. The best case scenario is that you'll crash into something without too many sharp edges.

Taking the lane doesn't mean acting as an immovable roadblock, it means using the full width of the lane to your advantage. You take the primary position in the centre of the lane by default. When you need to make space, you retreat to a secondary position closer to the kerb. As soon as it is safe to do so, you return to the primary position.

Unless you create the space you need, your safety is in the lap of the gods. A pothole, a piece of debris, a stray dog, an inattentive driver - if you're wedged in between the kerb and passing traffic, all you can do is slam on the brakes and pray. If you've created your own space, you have options.

Try Denver. Downtown has several main routes of terrifying bike lanes on the left side. No one looks left/back when they are taking a left turn, even when theres a full car sized lane with reflective dividers (they also frequently forego blinkers, but thats another issue). The worst is the people pulling into parking garages mid block.

I was doored once. I remember flying through the air and thinking, "oh, this isn't so bad." Then I landed and almost broke my hand.

Reminds me of the opening narration to the French movie La Haine. Approximately translated:

"This is the story of a man who fell from a 50-story building. The man, as he fell he kept repeating to reassure himself: 'So far so good, so far so good, so far so good.' But the important part is not the fall... it's the landing."

https://youtu.be/Uz9vgtXq_Hs

Also in Boulder, also a time I have to be hyper aware. I find the bike infrastructure in this city slightly... uneven. Sometimes, it's great, sometimes it's not very well planned out. I live off of 36 in N Boulder. It can be downright dangerous using the bike lane.

Also live in Boulder, also avoid bike lanes. Absolutely terrifying.

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.

Holland didn't get rid of street parking. They just became more careful about about how they placed it relative to bike lanes, sidewalks, and traffic lanes.

The issue of lines-of-sight around parked cars is a big deal, and as you said, it's critical for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike. Part of the solution is to make sure that the no-parking regions near intersections are appropriately sized for the speed of the street—they need to be long enough that drivers can actually see that there are no cars that will collide during the time it takes them to pull out. (I'm disturbed by how often this isn't the case in residential neighborhoods in the south bay.) Another part of the solution could be curb extensions, to physically prevent cars from parking near the intersection and allow pedestrians to see more clearly. (And ease the ability of drivers and cyclists to see pedestrians.) There are probably other tools that would help, but those seem like they would yield a big improvement.

"As a bicyclist...As a pedestrian...As a driver"

Uh huh. 100% agree. Street parking is especially dangerous because it is not sufficient to look for the presence of a car; I must look for the presence of a car, and continue looking until I ascertain whether it's one of the dozens of parked vehicles.

But...street parking is also very convenient. Streets are very close to where people want to get to; no need to walk from a parking garage a half mile away. And practically speaking, it would be hard to imagine how to change existing cities.

I have never found street parking convenient. It will depend on where you live but I tend to find that it's never available so you wind through the streets and inevitably end up far from where you wanted to be.

Thinking specifically of CBD type locations, removing street parking and having more mobility on foot or bicycle works better for me because I can drive straight to a big parking building, then move swiftly to where I need to be.

A citywide bike program with pick-up points in logical places might solve that.

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

Street parking is very convenient for the people that get it.

You don't have to get rid of street parking entirely. Another option is to put a separated bike lane between the parked cars and the sidewalk. This way cyclists are protected from traffic and parked cars (ensure a bit of room for the passenger door).

Also the increased cognitive load of having to pay attention to many things occurring on the road is not necessarily a bad thing. There is evidence that having to pay attention to many things forces drivers to slow down, which is safer and results in less injuries and deaths. In contrast wide lanes allow drivers to feel comfortable which increases their speed and results in more dangerous roads for pedestrians.

On my commute to work, the "bike lane" is shared between bicycles, cars, parked cars (between the bikers and sidewalk), and busses. Basically, they painted bike logos on the asphalt in an already jam packed lane and told everyone to share!

Sounds like a typical "Sharrow" bike lane, which is supposed to be a portmanteau of "share" and "arrow" but is often described as a "shitty arrow" because of how dangerous and ineffective these bike lanes are.

A lot of Vancouver's bike lanes are setup in this manner (road --> parking --> bike lane --> sidewalk).

I have seen the occasional bike get doored by passengers not checking before opening their door. But I imagine this occurrence is much less than if the bike lane were on the driver's side.

So where should the cars park then? Parking is a real issue in large cities and we won't solve it by removing even more spots. Other solutions (which are potentially more expensive) should be looked into before we consider removing street parking.

In big cities these days most parking is off street anyway. A trend to remove on street parking in favor of better pedestrian safety and improved traffic flow can only be a positive.

I live in a big city that is having a similar debate of bike lanes sacrificing space for on-street parking.

And it's a frustrating debate.

Look, I drive. I love parking spaces because I hate looking for parking.

But I also know that as more people move into the city, we need alternative modes of transportation. It's simply unsustainable to add more parking spaces in the hopes of alleviating the lack of supply. We're better off increasing usage of alternative forms of transportation by installing bike lanes (which when properly designed, unequivocally encourages bike usage) and increasing funding for mass transit.

And on-street parking can be so frustrating on major streets as people have to brake and reverse into a spot, stopping traffic. Or they crawl at a much slower pace as they try finding an open spot. Or they force awkward lane changes as there is inconsistencies as to whether or not the lane is drivable/parkable.

The other day somebody posted something saying how more lanes in a road will just cause more people to drive, so won't do anything to reduce traffic. I'd imagine it works the same for parking and even in reverse.

Were they talking about induced demand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand ?

>will just cause more people to drive

They obviously preferred to do so (since they chose it), and maybe the new lane let some more people afford the house/commute-time pair they wanted.

It's true that induced demand means aggregate travel times don't go down, but more people getting where they need to go in the same amount of time is a victory too.

People shouldn't be trying to drive and park in major city centers. Exceptions can be made for deliveries.

I live in a major city and I don't have a car. Parking is no issue for me at all :)

Ah, but

- astronomical housing costs in the small radius of convenient non-driving commutes to the downtown business district

- exposure to high crime and dysfunctional public schools (possibly requiring the purchase of private K12) in said radius

- travel times to common destinations by public transit 2-3x driving, meaning less engagement with the rest of the world or less free time

- One of

a) standing on a lurching vehicle with an arm raised over your head, rather than sitting in a vehicle as comfortable and smooth as you care to make it

b) cardio, outdoors in whatever the weather happens to be, with no shower at the not-home end of the trip

c) the cost of another person's time to drive you, in addition to the usual fuel + wear and tear

required to get anywhere

are all issues of parking, in that they can all be avoided with more parking and are all exacerbated/forced to the forefront of more people's lives with less parking.

If you are in a US city and truly exposed to none of these, please let me know which one so I can move there.

> I live in a major city and I don't have a car. Parking is no issue for me at all :)

So do I actually. But a lot of people do and for that reason it would be far too idealistic to think about removing cars from American cities.

Remove street parking, narrow the streets (the space that used to be parking spaces doesn't need to be part of the street). Use some of the reclaimed space to build space-efficient parking (i.e. a high-rise parking garage), sell some of what's left to cover the cost, use the remainder for things of civic value (whatever we consider those to be - parks, museums, low-income housing, cafes...)

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.

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.

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...

It's not completely unrealistic: http://minby.dk/noerrebronordvest-bladet/wp-content/uploads/... (Copenhagen, Denmark).

That's hilariously silly. Based on what? Their own love of cars? Research in car-centric communities?

This makes sense if the road is wide and fast, like in suburban cores: the point is to separate pedestrians from noisy, dangerous cars going upwards of 30 mph.

This makes no sense for local city traffic.

> in most cities it is unrealistic due to how little parking there is available

This is a problem with how American cities are designed. Ideally, one shouldn't need to own a car at all in a major city. In Manhattan, for example, it's ridiculous that the government (and therefore residents) subsidize cars by providing free street parking all over the island. Very, very few people who live there own a car. But I digress.

> 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.

Have they considered replacing the parking lane with a bike lane instead of regular traffic?

> And, as others pointed out, in most cities it is unrealistic due to how little parking there is available.

That's purely a supply and demand issue--because of how cheap street parking is, the price of parking is very low and thus elevated parking garages are uneconomical. If only elevated parking is available, that changes.

Works perfectly in Japan, so I'd say that the urban planners are either full of shit or there were more variables than just a row of parked cars.

In San Francisco, especially in the southern neighborhoods, they simply park in the bike lanes: pick up trucks, cleaning services vans, even ice cream carts! Park for 15, 30, 45 minutes.

That's an enforcement problem. If you did this in Amsterdam you'd likely return to a car without mirrors and wipers.

Or rather, an almost instant traffic fine between $100 and $400.

>you'd likely return to a car without mirrors and wipers

what happens to them?

Getting rid of street parking hurts people with handicapped permits. In Israel, if you are eligible for a handicapped permit then you can get a street parking space in front of your apartment building reserved for your car (with signage saying that if the car parked there doesn't specifically have license plate number X then it will be towed). Telling these people to go a few blocks to an underground parking garage, even if that garage is accessible, directly hampers their mobility and independence.

Well in America that doesn't exist, so street parking must not affect disabled people on America. Or maybe "street parking" is too vague a term.

I live in California. My neighbors are disabled and got blue curb for handicap in front of their place when they moved in.

We have the same in NL. Accessibility doesn't need to suffer at the hands of bike lanes

Yeah I would love to see that. At least on main-ish streets, particularly those with streetcars.

So then, streetcar would be in the righmost lane, not blocking other lanes like it does now. And the streetcar passengers would not have to step on the street, which is obviously dangerous.

And, I would equip streetcars with plows, to deal with people that still park in the right lane, especially in rush hour. + Permit the streetcar drivers to crash the plow into the car blocking the lane, long as the streetcar driver says, "Oops, sorry about that"

That would be most satisfying to watch. The right-lane-blocking assholes would now have a natural predator, and they will either be crushed, or forced to a different habitat.

You can also angle the parking spots. My town has parking spots that aren't parallel to the street, instead roughly 45 degrees.

I think that's pretty unrealistic, until we get car sharing and autonomous taxis and the like to a point where there just isn't a need for street parking.

Autonomous cars will still need to pull over to let off passengers, where they could come into conflict with bike lanes (taxis already dangerously pull into bike lanes to drop off passengers). There is still a need for explicitly separated bike lanes and parking spots for cars.

I'm excited for the advent of autonomous cars, but their introduction is not really going to solve any of the current problems with our road network.

We have had subways, buses, and trolleys for 100 years or more. That's car sharing at scale.

Then why are people still using cars? My guess: public transportation is too slow (e.g. having to stop every couple blocks) and not granular enough (have to walk to stop, have to wait). Also it is often unpleasant, being crammed in with so many.

Why not get rid of bike lanes where you have street parking?

Where the interests of cyclists and drivers conflict, we should prioritize cycling, because it has no negative externalities, requires much cheaper infrastructure, is good for health, etc.

If it causes the drivers to do something extremely inefficient (e.g. drive around the block for a half hour looking for parking), then it's a negative externality. Cyclists do not exist in a vacuum.

Making driving worse has the pretty significant negative externality of decreasing the n minutes to downtown land area, forcing people to spend more money on housing or more time in transit.

Sure, that's a choice we have to make as society, deciding which we consider more valuable.

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.

Former Amsterdam resident here.

I feel a large part of this is the frustration with all the tourists just randomly wandering on the bike lanes without a care in the world.

It doesn't justify the behaviour, but it does explain it a little bit.

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.

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.

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).

Cycling without lights and texting while driving is only really dangerous to the cyclist in question though, not really for other cyclists.

Turning without signalling is a bit of an annoyance though, I run into that fairly often.

Kids cycling two by two is also frustrating because you can't overtake, but it isn't directly dangerous.

The fact that cyclists here in NL can break the rules with impunity and still stay pretty safe is probably a consequence of how good our infrastructure is, imo

Same exact situation in Copenhagen. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only cyclist who respects red lights.

Nah. Guy with bunch of very small kids on his bicycle crossing on red without throwing even a quick look is not a tourist - I'm living in Amsterdam for five years now and that's enough to understand that :)

I notice that whenever I visit Amsterdam. I love cycling in the Netherlands, but the cyclists are awful.

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

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.

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.

Say we removed turn signals or rear-view mirrors from the test; how often do you think they'd be used then?

Driving is all about forming habits; using blinkers, shifting, using mirrors, putting on the seatbelt. Adding a habit on how to open a door will help.

In the US being able to drive is culturally considered a human right. I think that's part of why standards for driving exams or so risibly low compared to Europe.

You would think it would be the opposite though--if driving were such an essential portion of our live, we would put much more practice and attention to it, not less.

This is in part because much of the US is almost impossible to get around without a car.

It would take decades for new drivers learning this technique to fully replace the current driving population. And I suspect most people wouldn't keep up the habit anyway.

I hate that argument; effectively it boils down to "it is hard, so why try anything at all?"

Even if it took thirty years and even if it was only ten percent effective, what is the negatives to this plan? One more minor skill to driving? One more bullet in the driving code?

It's the exact reason the US still doesn't use the metric system.

The Homer Simpson of excuses, if you will:

"Trying is the first step to failure"

Because by the time this plan actually works, humans won't even be driving cars anymore. And as I said I would be very surprised if it actually did work, given how quickly people lose the habits they are taught in driver's ed (how many people keep 4 seconds of distance, wear their seatbelt, never speed, adjust their mirrors correctly, look both ways for trains, etc.)

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.

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?".

>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+.

> enough for the cyclist to either stop or change course

I proposed that the car door get blocked, no need for cyclist to do anything.

I don't quite see why you're downvoted. The proximity sensors that already exist in many new cars (for parking assistance etc) could do this. Yes, they're not "radars" but for some purposes they work the same.

By blocking the door if you detect an oncoming cyclist, you've created a new problem. What if it false-positives? What if it false-positives and your car is on fire? What if hackers find some way to fool the sensor?

Good point.

In my mind, this is kind of similar to seat belts. In case of fire, you can get trapped IF you cannot undo the belt, which does happen, but not always.

What I would do is, provide initial resistance to opening the door; but if you keep pushing, it opens, just slower.

As for the hackers, they can also control your brakes etc, so hacking thing needs to be solved anyways. Note that by 2020 that needs to be solved for every car sold in States, due to the CMBS systems being mandatory by that date.

Perhaps the feature could be overriden by a strong jolt (~100 N*s or so) so it would open normally if you gave it a shove.

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

Usually they are.

Cheatsheet: http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/dooring_BLU.pdf

CA law: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....

> 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.

People care about their wallet more than altruistic things.

It already is the law and a fine-able offense in most states. Unless you have doored someone or had it done to you, most people are just not thinking about it.

Perhaps a change in car manufacturing where you put the door opening handle behind the driver, forcing them to turn.

Why do you think that the penalties you propose will drive a better change in behavior than this simple and effective habit they're suggesting to drivers? What behavioral change do you expect to result from your proposal and how is it better than getting people to start a habit that will cause them to automatically check behind them? By what mechanism do you believe that punishing unintentional behavior will drive positive changes?

You get my downvote just for opening with sarcasm.

Don't like your cab driver? just open the door into the path of a bike.

Right, because the passenger in a cab is never responsible for their actions.

Any time you see "Want to control X? Make a different person legally responsible", it's likely to be a disaster of an idea.

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.

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/...

Or even better: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/9711441935_3df2f28926.jpg

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

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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)

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

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

https://www.instagram.com/p/BAayzrJmiJu/

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

Clearly the solution is to have doors that open like this: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0oV4IVy8tvE/maxresdefault.jpg

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

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)

> 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.

Because that forces you into car traffic, a place where a cyclist would rather not be. Straight through traffic on bicycles should not have to cross right turning cars, but should stay in the rightmost lane because that separates cycling traffic from car traffic the most.

I see this all the time in SF: the car is turning right without being in the correct lane; the driver should be in bike lane (and partially still in the rightmost traffic lane) and should be signalling right, to indicate a turn. Inevitably, the driver isn't.

As a biker, if I see a vehicle properly executing a right turn, I will of course either not pass the vehicle, or pass on the vehicle left in the space left in the traffic lane by the fact that the vehicle has moved in the bike lane, thereby not conflicting with the driver's right turn. But I have to know the driver is about to turn, and so many drivers just give no signal.

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.

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.

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.

> 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

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.

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.

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...

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

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

http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/09/doorzone.g...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

An example of bikeshedding perhaps?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

This is what I always do, and it seems to work fine. I can't recall whether I was ever explicitly taught this or not, but I find it amazing that some people apparently just fling their door blindly open into.. whatever might be there, without checking somehow.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

>some other car will crash into you

Most roads I've encountered have some space between the travel and parking lanes, big enough for a door and person, but this is also the space bikes use. Only on the narrowest streets do you have to watch out for cars.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looking before opening your car door is an amazing innovation... what will they come up with next? Looking before turning?

It's also the more ergonomic way of opening a door, no awkward angle between hand and door lever.

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.

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.

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" :)

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

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

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."

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.

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.

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

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 :(.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

fair enough - it hasn't happened to me luckily

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Its called "common sense" or "being polite"

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.

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?

> 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.

True. But it's worth pointing out that cyclists aren't always the angels they often make themselves out to be. I sometimes refer to them as "the motorists of the walkway".

This came after having quite a few spandex-clad baby-boomers zip by me on their sleek fixies yelling "get out of the way" when I'm walking on a shared path. Gosh, it's almost as if this behavior was identical to the berating these same people complain about from motorists.

It's a fact that we have to live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Tips for surviving as a cyclist are not incompatible with trying to change things, but one may make the world a better place in twenty years while the other keeps you alive today. The trouble is when people behave as though that world already existed. It may be frustrating, but people absolutely are ignorant and lazy and that absolutely can kill you. Asserting your rights is great, but better to do it politically than on the road in a way that can get you killed.

Cyclists _are_ second class citizens on the roads.

In 2009, the latest year I can find data for, cars were responsible for 3,298 billion person miles, 88.4% of person miles travelled. Bikes were responsible for a little under 9 billion, or .2%.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/publications/passenger_travel_20...

I don't believe that's an accurate analogy.

Even if the laws change, even if self-driving cars became the norm tomorrow, you should assume you're cycling through a real-life GTA. You probably weigh about 200lbs including the bike and are travelling at ~20mph. The car weighs 10x as much as you and the slowest it's going is 25mph.

It is very frustrating to have to assume everyone is out to kill you, but that goes with the territory when you're riding on the same streets as 1 ton rolling missiles. It would not be smart to relax one bit since even if the law changed, cars blow their tires, brakes give out, old people still drive, etc.

> 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.

I have little confidence in my ability as a biker to recognize which of the dozens of cars I bike past might h person in them. The car could appear empty because the driver is bent over picking something off the floor. Or their head might be blocked by the headrest. Or I might just not notice them.

More to the point, what am I supposed to do if I see a car with someone in it? Slam on my brakes, assuming they will door me, and get hit by the cyclist behind me instead? Turn my 30 minute ride into an hour because I'm constantly stopping randomly?

I totally agree that simply assuming that because you have the right of way that you will get it is a terrible idea. But I don't think pushing the burden onto the cyclist is the fix either. We should be reducing the requirement for constant human vigilance because humans suck at being vigilant.

You can control how vigilant the other person is, but you can control how vigilant you are.

In a bike lane, right as far away (to the left) of parked cars as possible. That already gives you a safety buffer. And if you happen to be in tight valley of parked cars, then slow down and be extra cautious, or ride fast and take the lane. And wave to a driver every now and then to say thanks. They're people with places to go, too.

> But I don't think pushing the burden onto the cyclist is the fix either. We should be reducing the requirement for constant human vigilance because humans suck at being vigilant.

I don't see it as a burden. I see it as a duty to keep myself safe. Even if a law is passed, people make mistakes, people are drunk or high, people are old and have slow reaction times, and some people are just klutzes.

Most importantly, they are always going to be more vigilant because there is no omnipresent danger guiding their behavior. The threat of any ticket is not severe enough to equate with possible brain damage.

It would be great if everyone were more conscientious. Even then, I would still be as vigilant. At the end of the day, you're still a 200lb vehicle moving probably around 20 mph with weak brakes (when compared to a car) and no real evasive ability riding amongst a herd of 2-ton armored vehicles.

In California at least, bikes don't have to stay in the bike lane. They can use regular lanes as they see fit. If the car lane is empty as I'm riding past parked cars, I will simply change to that lane. If not, I slow down. And I accept that that isn't likely to change because I live in Los Angeles

Checking all the cars as you ride is rather distracting, and a lot of cars have tinted windows. Practically speaking, you can't reliably look into all the cars and pay attention to everything else going on. Personally, I try to stay as far to the outside of the door zone as traffic allows.

> Practically speaking, you can't reliably look into all the cars and pay attention to everything else going on

I can and I do. Keep your head on a swivel. Get used to looking directly behind you while keeping your bike straight. Pay attention at least a block ahead and to the patterns of traffic. And if you find it difficult to pay attention/there is too much stimulus, slow down or ride on the sidewalk. Unfortunately, there aren't many places in America like the Netherlands where you can bike while being somewhat carefree.

As you cyclist, I've picked up on certain patterns. Here's a few things I picked up, but they may be local:

-Minivan drivers are the worst, so give them a wide berth. -If you are passing driveways/alleys, slow down. Drivers can't see until their windows are unobstructed, yet the front of their car may stick out 6ft or so. -If you see someone swerving slightly, leaving one or more car lengths ahead of them at a stop light, or constant accelerating and braking, the person is on their phone. -Getting into a yelling match with someone in a car is always a bad idea, even if they are assholes and disregarding the law. They have a 2-ton death machine. Even if you rammed a car at full speed, the damage you would do is likely to be less than the deductible. It's always a bad idea even if you are in a car. Road rage incidents have no winners, only losers. Plus, you never know what the enraged person is going through. They may have been fired, left by their spouse, etc. People get really nasty behind the wheel because it's easy to dehumanize others. -If someone is driving a Buick, Oldsmobile, Mercury, Lincoln, etc. you can almost be certain they are old. Give them a wide berth. -If you can, ride alongside a bus. They will shield you from any danger and bus drivers generally are very conscientious drivers since they are responsible for the safety of so many people.. -If you see tinted windows, assume there is someone in the vehicle who will open the door right in your face.

Then again, every once in a while, I like to skitch a ride from cars (when at a stop, hold on to a car's door handle and let them accelerate you to 30mph or so). Never do that :) I'm an adrenaline addict.

Very few Dutch cars have tinted windows. Tinted windows are mostly seen with criminal types.

This is a reasonable approach when the world is full of hostile cars, but it doesn't have to be that way if drivers are more careful.

Some parts of town here riding a bike seems like attempting a trench run on the Death Star, there's innumerable hazards and if you're not hyper-aware of everything you will get smacked hard by one of them.

This is completely unacceptable. Nobody should have to maintain absolute situation awareness when cycling. You should be aware of your surroundings, but like walking it should be a fairly effortless process provided you keep your eyes open and scan your surroundings for possible problems.

Imagine if the road was littered with large, random spikes that would pop up out of nowhere without notice. Driving would require every scrap of your attention and would be exhausting even for short trips.

I disagree. You're sharing the road with vehicles 10x heavier than you. People have heart attacks, go into diabetic shock, blow their tires, etc. Sure, those things don't happen often. But if they do and you're in the way, you'll have brain damage at best. There's not only other drivers to be wary of, simple road hazards that are nothing to a car can cause great harm. Sewer grates, random debris, pot holes, pot holes hidden by puddles, oil slicks after a rainfall, people pulling over to the side of the road without looking because of a siren etc. At times, even the wind becomes a dangerous element.

You mention walking should be fairly effortless. However, I've seen so many near misses because people walking are so buried in their phones that they almost get hit. Also I find that people put too much trust in traffic lights instead of simply looking both ways before crossing a street.

Cycling in large American cities built for automotive traffic is, unfortunately, not for everyone, not yet.

You have to reach the point where vigilance doesn't cause anxiety.

I agree with your points, but the reality is that we live in a town where everyone else is distracted, so the onus is on us (bikers) to be aware. That's it.

Things are improving, and maybe one day biking in an American city may be as relaxing as a European bike path, but until that day, I think it's extremely important for cyclists to realise the dangers that are out there, and how to minimise that risk. And for some reason, this is a discussion that I rarely hear about.

This got discussed in motorbike school. Even if you rode slowly enough to peer into every car you passed, children in the back seat are too short to see. Just don't ride anything in the door zone under any circumstances, it's crazy.

If you're riding at any sort of speed, how can you reliably check that every car you pass doesn't have anybody sitting by the door?

I just ride way out in the middle of the lane, at least five feet from the cars. If that doesn't leave enough room for cars to pass me, too bad for them. Maybe some day they will realize how much of the road is being wasted on parking.

I agree. Use the center of the lane. If they want to pass, they need to go in another lane. Too many people have low spatial intelligence when it comes to cars and can't gauge the exact dimensions. There's so many people who have problems parallel parking, and that's at 2mph!

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?

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.

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

Funny how I have had almost the exact same thought for a long time. We do not let people carry guns, so why do we let people drive cars? Both are fatal weapons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com