Encourage 'Dutch reach' to stop cyclists' car-door deaths(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Encourage 'Dutch reach' to stop cyclists' car-door deaths
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/11/encourage-dutch-reach-to-stop-cyclists-car-door-deaths-says-charity
62 comments
I have a driving theory book in front of me at the moment. It does actually teach you to open the door with the right hand:
https://i.imgur.com/9Aq9WQN.jpg
Though it isn't mentioned further, and there's no explanation given.
https://i.imgur.com/9Aq9WQN.jpg
Though it isn't mentioned further, and there's no explanation given.
Indeed, I don't think that particular video was a good choice for the article. Too many people will notice that the cyclist who got doored, and the one with the camera, were passing improperly.
What is the correct way, on that road?
The cycle lane resumes a hundred metres beyond the collision point.
The cycle lane resumes a hundred metres beyond the collision point.
That's a good question. It looked to me like there was simply no cycle lane before the collision point. If there's no cycle lane, then for better or worse, the default is to do what you'd do in a car: Wait behind the red bus.
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.
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.
The video starts at [1], going north along Abingdon Street, though the Streetview car was driving in the other direction.
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...
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...
Ah, thanks for the context. It looks like a pretty bad situation all around.
In the Netherlands, you wouldn't have converted the once-beautiful "garden" outside your national parliament building into a five-lave gyratory system[1].
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...
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...
Dooring, while dangerous, is a small percentage of the risk on the roads.
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)
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)
That rule is new here in my town but it's pointless because the official bike lanes are just a bicycle symbol painted on what used to be the hard shoulder. No separation no barriers no way to keep vehicles and bicyclists separate.
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.
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.
> The law has consequences for drivers but none for bicyclists and the poorly "designed" (slapped together) bike lanes make conflicts and charges inevitable.
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 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?
> 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.
Why? You have no idea what I use my vehicle for.
Do people pass without entering the lane where you live? That's nuts!
Drivers passing cyclists too closely is pretty common in the UK. When driving I rarely see other drivers passing cyclists correctly.
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.
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.
The other day I was behind a cyclist who evidently cycled a lot, as he had on a racing outfit. He was in the bike lane, and the road was 35 mph speed limit, and downhill.
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).
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).
I don't think we need to get into anecdotes about stupid crap we've seen cars do.
I meant cyclists passing other cyclists without entering the motor lane.
The comment you're responding to was referring to motorists passing cyclists in shared lanes.
The British police have done a few trials this year, where a plain-clothes officer rides a bicycle with a camera, and drivers overtaking with less than a 1.5m gap are stopped by another officer ahead [1].
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.
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.
Even if the roads are deemed sufficiently safe not to warrant increased enforcement, it seems that the public purse could benefit from it, at least in the short term.
> 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.
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/
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 had a friend who hated cyclists and thought “they should get out of the way”. She made no effort to accommodate them on the road.
I think improvements to culture can work, but I think laws of this nature have a pretty insignificant effect on the culture.
I think improvements to culture can work, but I think laws of this nature have a pretty insignificant effect on the culture.
The garda (irish police) will (occasionally) issue a fixed penalty notice (3 pts + ~80eur fine) if you have video evidence of extremely unsafe passes.
There's still no 1.5m rule here, but it's supposed to be introduced soon.
There's still no 1.5m rule here, but it's supposed to be introduced soon.
I think they can have an effect on the culture, but they have to be enforced for it to happen.
Did you ever point out that they legally had just as much right to be on the road as she did?
Yeah. I'm at 4k cycling miles in the last year.
> 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.
> 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.
This has been in and out of the news the past few years. Each time the Dutch, including me, feel obliged to respond that no dutchy opens his/her doors like that. We have mirrors, we use them. If we have fewer accidents it must be because we have a lot of bicycle lanes and our cyclists (every Dutchy) is a master evader by years of training in what we call large cities.
Dutchy out.
Drops mic.
Cycles away.
Dutchy out.
Drops mic.
Cycles away.
I've lived and driven in the Netherlands for five years, and until now I never heard of this. Neither have I observed Dutch drivers doing it. Not saying it isn't true, but...
Even more dangerous to cyclists are the cyclists themselves.
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.
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.
Seems like a great solution. Unfortunately I don't see it working here in Toronto, the cabbies don't even follow the basic rules of the road, they can't be expected to make a pro-social effort of this sort.
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 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.
The door handle of the Mini Cooper affords doing the Dutch Reach.
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.
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.
I am Dutch and learned to open the door this way. But judging the comments of other Dutch people, it seems it is not universally taught.
I am puzzled why it would be offensive to call it the Dutch reach. I see it as a compliment.
Won't stick with Angelenos. They'll continue to kick their car doors open w/o a thought as to whether bike or car is barreling down towards them.
As a Dutch person the 'Dutch reach' is offensive. No one I know opens doors this way. We don't need some 'trick' to remind ourselves not to be assholes.
Just look before you open the door.
Just look before you open the door.
Don't you teach your children to open the door safely? Or people that aren't often in a car?
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.
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.
The key point is that the 'Dutch reach' is supposedly a specific technique (opening the door with the 'wrong' hand) that we teach, which prevents accidents.
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.
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.
As a Dutch person who doesn't have/need a driver's license, I just learned to look before opening the door.
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.)
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.)
Maybe offensive is the wrong word. "It bothers me a bit" is more accurate.
I was taught this trick when getting my license.
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.
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.
Just force car manufacturers to make it so that the door is hard to open unless you're using the opposite hand, it should be easy enough.
Wow, when I rode road bikes, the onus on avoiding suddenly opening car doors was on me. If bike riders won’t pay attention to avoid car doors, expecting drivers to is a fools errand.
One does not exclude the other. If both are mindful about this, the chance of something going wrong goes way down. It's not that drivers have sole responsibility in this, it just helps to reduce the amount of injuries if they too adapt their behaviour.
As a cyclist you may have less than one second to avoid an opening car door. You can't always give a wide berth because bike lanes in the US are usually very narrow.
> You can't always give a wide berth because bike lanes in the US are usually very narrow.
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.
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.
>>That doesn't mean you can't give wide berth.
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?
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?
The latter. That’s my point.
[deleted]
You can have all the time you need, if you slow down.
Do you apply the same logic to intersections? You never know when someone might blow through a red light, so you'd better go through every intersection at 2MPH so you have enough time to stop if they do.
I do when I’m driving, I slow enough so I can clearly see both ways before I go through.
You do realize that unexpected slow downs also result in many accidents, right? The behavior you just described is more risky than the default.
no it’s not, i’m not stopping in intersections. I’m not exceeding the speed limit, I’m going a little less. Fast enough to see oncoming traffic and not to be rear ended.
Going a little less than the speed limit is not nearly enough. If someone stopped at the perpendicular red light suddenly floored it, you wouldn't have enough time to stop. The maximum safe speed through a typical intersection is probably only about 10MPH. Less if there's not much room between the stopped traffic and your lane.
Right, the problem with infrastructure today is that cyclists are just riding too dang fast.
you can simultaneously encourage defensive biking and encourage drivers to use the dutch reach. not that hard!
Sometimes you just have to bicycle close to cars. Even if you take the effort to see inside parked cars (it is probably better to just watch the road), it is simply impossible to evade suddenly opening car doors if they are opened at just the wrong time.
Its a bit like saying that cyclists just have to avoid you if you would suddenly jump on the biking line.
Its a bit like saying that cyclists just have to avoid you if you would suddenly jump on the biking line.
When I'm on the freeway in the carpool lane which is flowing well, and the rest of the lanes are clogged and moving slowly, I slow down, too, as someone might suddenly pull into the carpool lane from the clogged lane. I have the right of way, but I'd prefer not to rear end anyone with at 50 mph difference in speed.
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?
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?
The point is both parties in these situations should be mindful of the hazard. Yet only one of them is not personally at any significant risk of injury (or, in most of the US at least, prosecution) so is it terribly surprising to find that party is the one that needs the most encouragement?
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).
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).
Sure, both should be mindful of the hazard. But as you said, since the cyclist is the one who'll get hurt, he needs to take extra care, even if it is ethically and legally the other guy's responsibility.
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.
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.
It is, I would never bike fast bear car doors that could open. I always biked defensively, trusting no one. Isn’t that common sense?
It's also common sense as a pedestrian to look both ways when crossing a crosswalk. That doesn't mean it's not the driver's legal responsibility to stop.
Also, injuries have occurred even at low speeds.
Also, injuries have occurred even at low speeds.
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.