Encourage 'Dutch reach' to stop cyclists' car-door deaths
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
What's keeping cycling deaths low in the Netherlands is simply keeping cyclists off the road and putting them on separate bicycle paths.
The article links to an article with this video: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/dec/15/trans...
The traffic situation for cyclists in that video is what we would refer to here as a death trap. It's a busy road with not even a bicycle lane marked on the road. In the Netherlands you would either get off your bike and walk or risk a fine and cycle on the sidewalk.
https://i.imgur.com/9Aq9WQN.jpg
Though it isn't mentioned further, and there's no explanation given.
The cycle lane resumes a hundred metres beyond the collision point.
If they were actually in a cycle lane, then of course the correct thing to do would be to ride in it. Either way, nobody deserves to get doored, and if it were me in the car, I'd have been extremely cautious about getting out.
I have to flip the picture left-to-right in my mind, to get a sense of it. Where those cyclists were riding, a narrow slot at the edge of a lane, is possibly near the top of my list of situations to avoid. Buses make me even more nervous. I'd have hopped up onto the sidewalk, or found a different route. Of course that's easy to say, not knowing if there are even any alternatives.
In central London, there's simply no other reasonable option to cycling past stationary traffic if you wish to proceed by bicycle. I've looked up the rules, and it's neither recommended nor forbidden, and both drivers and cyclists are advised to be cautious.
There's also no other practical route, since the cyclist was probably heading to (or from) a bridge over the Thames.
At this location, it seems the problem is the anti-terrorism barriers. The traffic engineers should have insisted that the road be closed to motor traffic when they were installed, but it was probably long enough ago that only motor vehicles were considered. Closing the south and east sides of Parliament Square (just ahead), and this road, would be great.
[1] https://www.google.dk/maps/@51.4987954,-0.1258692,3a,60y,350...
Khan has promised to pedestrianize it [2], and that seems more likely to actually happen after the terrorist attack.
There were plans to pedestrianize it a decade ago, but Boris Johnstone cancelled them as soon as he became mayor in 2008.
[1] https://www.google.dk/maps/@51.5005545,-0.1264029,143m/data=...
[2] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-i-ll-make-p...
The most effective change would be to have a 3-5 foot (1-1.5m) passing rule. If it's not safe to go into the next lane to pass a cyclist, it's not safe to pass the cyclist at all.
(edit: and, if we're going to do the work to make people realize that they could be safer, make sure you're all the way past the cyclist before you pull in or turn right (left in the UK). Many motorists get their head past the cyclist and neglect the back half of their car, or the trailer they're towing)
What really bothers me is "over a 90 minute period in Bournemouth ... issued seven tickets to motorists for using a mobile phone at the wheel, one driver had their vehicle seized for no insurance or licence and another received a fixed penalty notice for not having a valid MOT certificate."
When the level of lawbreaking is that high, and irrelevant to the cycling bit, it shouldn't be a 90-minute initiative done with great publicity once a year.
[1] https://www.dorset.police.uk/news-information/article/3222 -- just one example, there are at least 10 results in Google with very similar press releases.
Cyclists may ride in the center of the lane when they want to force this.
> The most effective change would be to have a 3-5 foot (1-1.5m) passing rule.
Assuming people actually follow that rule, that is.
From my (limited) experience as a cyclist, I think most motorists think they have more of a right to be on the road than bicycles do. This is false from a legal standpoint, but knowing the motorist was technically at fault probably won't make the cyclist feel any better when he's sitting in the hospital after getting hit by a car.
See this for more info: http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/
I think improvements to culture can work, but I think laws of this nature have a pretty insignificant effect on the culture.
There's still no 1.5m rule here, but it's supposed to be introduced soon.
> Cyclists may ride in the center of the lane when they want to force this.
And at the same time, you might be surprised at the number of cars that will _still_ try to pass when there's oncoming traffic.
The bike lanes are at their widest maybe 1m (~3 feet) and some parts ridiculously narrow maybe 15cm (~6 inches). Imagine if you are in the widest part of a bike lane riding in the middle that means a bicycle and vehicle are according to the bike law already too close. The vehicle can't move to the left into traffic but even so the burden is on the vehicle driver to not get too close to the bike. The bicyclist has no rules and can weave in the lane with impunity.
The law has consequences for drivers but none for bicyclists and the poorly "designed" (slapped together) bike lanes make conflicts and charges inevitable.
I ride a bike but I also drive a 4x4 that is as wide as the narrow streets in my small town (70,000 people). This law is designed seemingly to say people on bikes never drive vehicles and those who drive vehicles never ride bikes.
Why should there be "consequences" for bicyclists when they are operating in what you fully acknowledge to be infrastructure inadequately designed for their needs? And maybe you should buy a less ridiculous car that is appropriately sized for the streets instead of putting other users in avoidable danger?
Why? You have no idea what I use my vehicle for.
I always pass a cyclist in the same manner in which I would pass a car but it is easy for me to remember to do so as I also cycle on roads a fair amount.
When cycling I intentionally keep far from the curb in situations where I can see that it is not safe for a driver to pass correctly/safely. I try to find places to stop to allow traffic to pass as I also try to keep in mind the needs of all road users.
A bit of education in both sides would certainly help.
On a positive note, I often notice that when passing a cyclist correctly, the cars immediately behind me also do so. If you are concerned as a driver about the behaviour of other drivers, consider what you can do to reinforce a more safe experience on the roads for all.
Except he'd often ride on the line separating the bike lane from the car lane, and would randomly drift into the car lane and back in the bike lane.
Then he decided to draft behind a truck that no way could see he was there.
I stayed a couple hundred feet behind this clown until he turned off onto another street. I don't know how he had survived so long (he was middle aged).
Dutchy out.
Drops mic.
Cycles away.
At least in Amsterdam there is something called "Amsterdam Red" meaning: red does not neccesarily mean stop to cyclists.
When a car/truck is parked on the cycle lane they will happily move to the car lane without looking...
Helmets. They are not mandatory, and nobody uses them.
So yes, drivers need to look, but cyclists might want to start following rules and best practices as well.
It is encouraging that so few deaths have resulted from dooring though. Ever slightly over one per year, not to downplay the seriousness of any loss of life, seems very reasonable.
It is a circle with a shelf that faces forward in a way that makes it awkward to use the hand nearest the door to open. So, you reach across your body with your other hand and in doing so, you turn your body and head and your peripheral vision can catch a moving cyclist.
Just look before you open the door.
On my first day in Denmark,tThe taxi driver who picked me up at Copenhagen Airport reminded me to look for bikes before I opened the door. The director at my new job here, who drove me home on my first day, told me to open the door this way.
So, although I'm not Danish, I doubt calling it the "Danish rearch" would offend any Danes.
But in reality this doesn't exist. No one uses it. We all learn to just look, and not through some trick. And we have other reasons (e.g. better street design) so our country is more cyclist friendly, but those are ignored in lieu of some silly trick that doesn't exist and isn't needed.
That said, being offended by the name is a rather ridiculous response. (Especially considering the terms we're usually flattered with, such as "going Dutch", a "Dutch oven", etc.)
I rarely use it though. Like you say, we prefer to jus pay attention to other road users :)
It helps that we have cycling lanes and what not.
That doesn't mean you can't give wide berth. Take the lane if the bike lane puts you too close to car doors. If there's one thing I've learned from biking in US cities, it is to never trust bike lanes to be safe.
You can't give wide berth because most bike lanes in the US don't have enough space.
And let's face it: would you rather risk getting hit by someone opening their car door, or getting clipped by a vehicle moving at 40 mph plus?
Its a bit like saying that cyclists just have to avoid you if you would suddenly jump on the biking line.
The same when biking past a row of stopped cars. Slow down, as one might open their door. It's just self-preservation.
What's the point of being in the right if you're dead?
And the difference between your scenarios is that many streets have nowhere for cyclists to ride except in the door zone, and bikes are much less visible to merging drivers/exiting pedestrians than cars, especially when those car users don't have a mindset that expects them.
Personally I almost never ride in the door zone, but that's because I'm very aggressive about taking the lane from motorists, which is a skill many cyclists are not comfortable with (and frankly our infrastructure shouldn't require them to be).
I've talked to many cyclists about this, and they invariably get angry with me about it. But like I said, what good does it to do be legally and ethically in the right when you get maimed or killed?
When I ride my bike, I treat cars like they are going to kill me. So far, it has kept me alive. Riding fast in the door zone is simply foolish, and the cyclist does have a choice - slow down!
The motorcycle community seems to have given up expecting cars to change, and they ride defensively as a result. The long time riders I've talked to all have a much more pragmatic view on this than the cyclists do. They ride on the assumption that they are invisible to cars.
Also, injuries have occurred even at low speeds.