Hacker News Reader

Comment by jillesvangurp | Hacker News Reader

The guidance on this in the Netherlands is actually being relaxed somewhat: https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/6180537/autodeur-met-verste-han... (in Dutch).

The Dutch government actually issues a message earlier this week (probably in response to what the UK is doing) with the updated guidance.

Apparently, it's not that safe in some recent cars due to the position of the door handle. So it no longer is something that is checked during driving exams anymore. Nor is it required to be teaching it during driving lessons. And the guidance is to simply pay attention.

View on HN

As a Dutch driver i only know about this technique from foreign media. I was never taught to do this during my driving lessons, don't do it and don't know anyone else that opens their door this way.

I'm an American driver who (obviously) wasn't taught this, either. However, I read about it around the same time a bicycle gutter was painted in front of my house, and it stuck with me. As a result, every time I open my car door I think "Dutch Reach!" and I check my mirror for cyclists (I don't actually open the door with my opposite hand). So even if it's apocryphal, it's a catchy idea and you should take the credit.

My full technique also involves popping the door only a few inches and allowing it to sit that way for a couple seconds, then opening it slowly, just to be doubly cautious.

I think your technique of keeping the door ajar even just two or three seconds is a better idea than this convoluted Dutch reach. It gives any cyclist information that a door is opening.

But as I’ve said, if everyone just uses their mirrors it’s unnecessary because you will know there are no cyclists coming.

Another point that is missed is why don’t cyclists ride in the middle of the street and/or slow down a bit. It is always astonishing to me how entitled and utterly recklessly cyclists ride around as if the supposed rights they have are some kind of divine protection. You’re the squishy human that has nothing protecting it, rider like it may kill your, because it can.

And did anyone else notice not a single person was wearing a helmet in the video? I’m not one to force people to wear helmets, but there again is that weird entitlement of cyclists. So now people have to do some convoluted reach because cyclists race past car doors without a helmet on. Have you ever seen cyclists in Dutch cities, they are simply stupid risk takers.

In the Netherlands the car is always at least 50% at fault in accidents with squishy traffic (cyclists, pedestrians, skaters etc). This motivates people to look carefully before opening doors :) It might look like risk taking but because of laws like this and excellent road design it is actually very save.

> In the Netherlands the car is always at least 50% at fault in accidents with squishy traffic

That's a fantastic term, "squishy traffic". In the U.S. we often use the term "Vulnerable users", but "squishy traffic" is so much better and so much more memorable.

> why don’t cyclists ride in the middle of the street and/or slow down a bit

That is a reasonable question. If you truly want to know why cyclists generally don't ride slowly in the middle of the street you could always try doing it yourself.

> Have you ever seen cyclists in Dutch cities, they are simply stupid risk takers.

This is unsupported by the evidence of lower cyclist fatality rates in the Netherlands compared to the US. There is even some evidence that areas that have enacted mandatory helmet laws end up increasing the fatality rate per trip. (Primarily because the number of people riding bikes drops significantly and possibly because cars leave less buffer space to people wearing helmets.)

So what does the cyclist do with that warning? Given space they might stop, which is pretty discourteous by the person opening the door, but with insufficient time they might well swerve into a traffic to avoid the collision, which could be far worse.

A good safety protocol incorporates redundancies. The "warning" you're arguing against is secondary to first and foremost carefully checking for approaching cyclists. Both the parent and I were clear about this. (I'll add I'm horrified by everything else the parent wrote.)

> Given space they might stop, which is pretty discourteous by the person opening the door

Precisely the opposite is true: thoughtfully opening one's door slowly as a backup mechanism in an effort to prevent someone else's injury is very courteous. As a cyclist myself, I'd far prefer to be inconvenienced by an unscheduled stop than I would crash into a car door.

> with insufficient time they might well swerve into a traffic to avoid the collision, which could be far worse.

The alternative in your scenario is the driver impatiently swinging their door open. In this case the cyclist might well serve into traffic, too. Your argument makes no sense to me.

I agree with opening the door a crack as the final check, after you think no cyclist is coming. It seemed the parent post was advocating opening a crack as a first line check. It was that I was opposing.

How is that any different than cars and turn signals?

The obligation is on the party obstructing the traffic flow to not be a dick about it (which includes broadcasting their intentions to some extent) and the secondary obligation is on the moving traffic to not do ludicrous speed so that the former party can accurately predict whether or not they can make their move without being a dick about it.

If I were cycling past a car and the door began to open, I would (and do) respond on the assumption that that door is going to open all the way. You don't have to be moving fast for that to be problematic. Moreover, there are plenty of places you have continuous parked cars. If you slowed to a genuinely safe speed you may as well be walking.

Dutch cyclist here :-) you slow down a little, look over your shoulder to see whether there is space and move over. If there is a car at slow speed behind you they see this "look" and typically slow down or make some space as well in anticipation. But if there's a bus at high speed or an asshole when you look over your shoulder, you stop before hitting the door.

All of this is easier in Dutch cities with bike lanes and because we cycle much slower than the typical "rider" in San Francisco or London I've seen. Mostly because people commute on old slow bicycles in normal clothes instead of light weight geared bikes and full on sports outfits with helmets.

Same, but then again we were taught to be very cautious while exiting the car. I think you can even flunk your entire exam if you get out of the car without looking / being cautious. Plus this comes more natural to us as most of us are also cyclists.

It really doesn't matter where your hand is if the intend is to be cautious to begin with.

Oh definitely. You need to constantly be checking all your mirrors. If you get out without checking your door/rearview mirror i would expect them to fail you on the spot.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52970/is-the-du...

tldr; indeed not completely clear why it is called the Dutch reach

Also a Dutch driver: I was taught this (around 2010 this was), but yeah I've never heard of it outside of driving school (until today) and I'm pretty sure it wasn't checked during my exam.

Me neither, but you will fail your driving test if you don't use the mirrors before opening the car door.

as a Dutch person currently following driving lessons, I was thaught this technique a few weeks ago

This is what is called driving a narrative or colloquially 'gaslighting'.

In this case it's for a good cause.

In most cases it's of dubious merit. Anyway, "make people believe something is this way so as to normalize it and have them change behavior".

If instead proponents would say, "this is the ideal in the Netherlands, but while it's on the books virtually no one does it in practice and most only know about it through foreign media mentions" no one would pay much attention to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com