The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives

The law is probably a second large factor, and only then do I think the number of cyclists comes into play. And even then, that sheer number has only been achieved thanks to the former two factors - I'm confident that that has played a far greater role than helmets being optional.

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

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

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

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

That transfers when the many bikers are driving a car into doing more, and better checks than a typical driver without two wheel experience.

Therefore ->

A) more people ride bikes.

B) Less people wear helmets.

A and B are correlated, but this is due to a 3rd external cause. They do not cause each other.

* found it* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17064655

I am a Dutchie who has been mostly living in a village for most of his life. I visited most big cities in The Netherlands quite frequently, once every month, (especially Amsterdam) with people (parents when I was young, friends when I got older). So when I moved to Amsterdam I thought that I was used to it.

I was wrong. I got attacked by bikes left, right and center at the moments where I was unsuspecting. Those moments were few and far in between, but that is what made it so dangerous. I had enough exposure to Dutch cyclists / cycling myself to do it 98% of the time. And in the remaining 2% I got attacked.

I've learned and fortunately didn't have to pay the price.

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

I think infrastructure and distances of travel are more of a incentive than helmets, though with mopeds (low speed mopeds don't require helmets) speak in your favor.

I wonder if there are accident statistics taking terrain into account. It's a lot more difficult to harm yourself on flat ground than coming down a steep hill.

The infrastructure for biking is terrible, and the rules make it even worse.

Norway is a very special case.

Edit: Helmet, hi visibility vest and reflex lights are the only requirement there is for a biker in Norway.

Also some places there are pedestrian and bike lanes, but most bikers still choose to bike on the road because it is faster ..

It's awareness born of experience.

If I get hit by a car I doubt it will matter if there is a helmet on my head.

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

I don’t think it’s ever saved anyones life, but I do what I can.

Biggest thing cars can do and I always do is don’t pass a cyclist only to turn right 5 seconds later. Srsly what’s the point. Just drive slowly behind them for a bit. A little patience won’t kill you.

Also, I recently had to take the American driving test (I drove for years on my EU license coz I’m lazy). The rules actually say you have to use the bike lane as a turn lane to avoid blocking traffic when turning right. That shit’s fucked up.

https://goo.gl/maps/736bR7HMats

Edit: When I was in Taipei years ago they had dedicated lanes and over passes for Scooters. My thought is relatively roads for scooters and bicycles are really cheap. Another memory is when they built the highway 85 extension in the 90's bicyclists started using it in large numbers before it was open to traffic. That leaves me with the impression that the biggest impediment to getting people to ride bicycles is having to mix it up with auto traffic.

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

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12674533

She also says many instructors do not give a f*ck and skip teaching these procedures.

The Dutch people claiming it's not a thing are either older or had a sloppy driving instructor.

EDIT: in the past people were taught the: "look in the mirror and over your shoulder" method. Many older instructors still teach this.

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

Whereas you (I think) are recommending individuals use helmets, and also bicycle infrastructure.

OP isn't saying it's bad for an individual to wear a helmet. They're saying it's a bad requirement, because making helmets required will take marginal cyclists off the road. And fewer cyclists leads to more accidents like the ones you had, because drivers aren't used to cyclists.

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

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

For one thing, double parking is a thing all over the city. So you are constantly having to swing out back into traffic from the bike lane because cars are in the lane. For the other thing, bike lanes--where they do exist--are painted right next to the street parking, so you are constantly having to watch out for people getting out of their cars and opening a door right into you. Also causing you to have to swerve into traffic when that happens.

The bike lane over the bridge is insane. Particularly on the downward side of the bridge where cyclists just let momentum take them and fly as fast as they can.

The only time I've ever felt safe on a bike is in Manhattan where the traffic is so bad, no one can ever move fast enough to hurt anyone. In the 6 months or so I did that, I ended up in 8 very close calls then ended up with me laid out on the street in traffic trying to dodge something or someone or almost hit by someone else on a bicycle, I gave it up and went back to taking the subway, where I could read and be productive on the way to work instead of constantly worrying about getting smacked.

I've also been cut off once by a car who didn't see me while I was going very fast, but while I braked, I also made a flat turn into the street the car was turning into, and that saved my from a collision.

Two points to this: Obviously (and you probably implied this but I want to make it clear:) it is first and foremost the duty of the car driver opening a door to make sure that there is nobody endangered.

Secondly: It is not always possible to anticipate car doors opening, even if you are following traffic very carefully. People sit in their cars for prolonged times without the engines on. It only takes one bad situation to kill a person. Therefore in my opinion all reasonable measures should be taken, including teaching people to open their car doors with the opposing hand. (Even better, as you mentioned: separate different kinds of traffic)

It doesn't work so great on modern cars with folding mirrors though. I think maybe it got introduced more recently?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] I actually do. Maybe it'll be me someday. But for the sake of argument let's pretend.

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

The hinged end, just like yours.