<story><title>The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/smarter-living/the-dutch-reach-save-bicyclists-lives-bicycle-safety-drivers.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>gpm</author><text>As a cyclist - just don&amp;#x27;t ride in reach of car doors. If that means taking the lane and blocking cars, do so.&lt;p&gt;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.</text></item><item><author>emptybits</author><text>The Dutch Reach is a reach to ask for, IMO. I write this as a cyclist living in Vancouver (one city named in the article) who has been doored and nearly doored. IME, shoulder checks &lt;i&gt;while actually driving&lt;/i&gt; seem to be a dying art form. So asking for a while-parked check like the Dutch Reach ... seems optimistic. But no harm in trying. The illustration is great. I applaud all efforts to make this technique more known.&lt;p&gt;Fellow cyclists, you already know this, but please watch sideview mirrors of parked vehicles and all other signs of people and passengers and assume the worst.&lt;p&gt;Infrastructure should, IMO, allow an extra foot or two in lane designs especially when they are adjacent to different users (i.e. motorist, cyclist, pedestrian). This allows for swervy cyclists, swervy motorists, bad parkers, and people &amp;quot;not from here&amp;quot; a safety buffer. The latter group is one you&amp;#x27;re just not going to ever reach with urban education like the article, yet they are a significant vehicular presence in a many popular cities, whether they&amp;#x27;re driving their own vehicles, an unfamiliar rental, or getting out of a taxi cab.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ll give an example. All infrastructure design decisions have pros and cons. Here&amp;#x27;s a style of bike lane on the &amp;quot;passenger&amp;quot; side that catches motorists off guard (when they park too far to the right, near the lane) and passengers off guard because neither expect to find a cyclist on their right.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.google.ca&amp;#x2F;maps&amp;#x2F;@49.2790648,-123.1195244,3a,75y,214.64h,71.34t&amp;#x2F;data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rZLbmXvAV0-H9ApXRwRcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.google.ca&amp;#x2F;maps&amp;#x2F;@49.2790648,-123.1195244,3a,75y,2...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;How about some opening-door-tech that alerts you quickly and loudly when an object approaches your door as you begin to swing it open? Good for passing traffic, bicycles, etc.&lt;p&gt;BTW, I appreciate that cycling news shows up on HN from time to time. It&amp;#x27;s truly a civilized activity and IMO has an important role in the future of cities. Keep pedalling. :-)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mook</author><text>As an occasional driver (I take the transit more), yes please take up the whole lane; is safer for both sides. If I find you too slow I can overtake you when safe (either in a different lane or in the opposing lane when safe). Essentially, treat you like a slow moving farm vehicle.&lt;p&gt;However, please do not lane split even when it&amp;#x27;s legal to do so. I can&amp;#x27;t see out the far side of the vehicle, so you&amp;#x27;re basically somewhere I have less control over. Further, if you take a whole lane _then_ lane split at the red light, it will anger me and I will end up driving more aggressively, which is rather terrible for safety. If I can tolerate you being slow in front of me, you can tolerate me being slow to accelerate.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Dutch Reach: A No-Tech Way to Save Bicyclists’ Lives</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/smarter-living/the-dutch-reach-save-bicyclists-lives-bicycle-safety-drivers.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>gpm</author><text>As a cyclist - just don&amp;#x27;t ride in reach of car doors. If that means taking the lane and blocking cars, do so.&lt;p&gt;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.</text></item><item><author>emptybits</author><text>The Dutch Reach is a reach to ask for, IMO. I write this as a cyclist living in Vancouver (one city named in the article) who has been doored and nearly doored. IME, shoulder checks &lt;i&gt;while actually driving&lt;/i&gt; seem to be a dying art form. So asking for a while-parked check like the Dutch Reach ... seems optimistic. But no harm in trying. The illustration is great. I applaud all efforts to make this technique more known.&lt;p&gt;Fellow cyclists, you already know this, but please watch sideview mirrors of parked vehicles and all other signs of people and passengers and assume the worst.&lt;p&gt;Infrastructure should, IMO, allow an extra foot or two in lane designs especially when they are adjacent to different users (i.e. motorist, cyclist, pedestrian). This allows for swervy cyclists, swervy motorists, bad parkers, and people &amp;quot;not from here&amp;quot; a safety buffer. The latter group is one you&amp;#x27;re just not going to ever reach with urban education like the article, yet they are a significant vehicular presence in a many popular cities, whether they&amp;#x27;re driving their own vehicles, an unfamiliar rental, or getting out of a taxi cab.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ll give an example. All infrastructure design decisions have pros and cons. Here&amp;#x27;s a style of bike lane on the &amp;quot;passenger&amp;quot; side that catches motorists off guard (when they park too far to the right, near the lane) and passengers off guard because neither expect to find a cyclist on their right.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.google.ca&amp;#x2F;maps&amp;#x2F;@49.2790648,-123.1195244,3a,75y,214.64h,71.34t&amp;#x2F;data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rZLbmXvAV0-H9ApXRwRcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.google.ca&amp;#x2F;maps&amp;#x2F;@49.2790648,-123.1195244,3a,75y,2...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;How about some opening-door-tech that alerts you quickly and loudly when an object approaches your door as you begin to swing it open? Good for passing traffic, bicycles, etc.&lt;p&gt;BTW, I appreciate that cycling news shows up on HN from time to time. It&amp;#x27;s truly a civilized activity and IMO has an important role in the future of cities. Keep pedalling. :-)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>everyone</author><text>This. On a bike you are a road user. Take as much space as is safe.. Also be as visible as possible.&lt;p&gt;A motorist is many many times more likely to kill you unintentionally through negligence, rather than intentionally through psychopathic rage induced by having to slow down behind you.&lt;p&gt;Also. You payed for those roads via taxes, use them (no, road vehicle tax does not cover a fraction of road building and maintenance in any country)</text></comment>