18 ms·

It is true that getting doored is not part of the Dutch vocabulary as it is not something that happens often. But there are more reasons than grabbing the handl

It is true that getting doored is not part of the Dutch vocabulary as it is not something that happens often. But there are more reasons than grabbing the handle with the opposite hand. A non extensive list: 1) Dutch car drivers all have been bicyclist before they get their driver license, everyday to school more than an hour being nothing being frowned on. 2) Major transit bike routes have separate bike lanes, the tiny narrow ones of the gif in the article barely exist. 3) Bike lanes in cities usually are placed between the footpath and the parked cars, with most of the times a 50cm wide band left of the bike path allowing for car doors being opened without going over the bike paths, usually this is used for planting trees too 4) All politicians drive bike, the Dutch Prime Minister comes to work on his bike 5) There are local associations part of the national http://fietersbond.nl http://fietersbond.nl in every town and they passionately lobby every time they see an opportunity. 6) these volunteers are highly respected and their input is valued by the municipalities 7) one of the prime goals of Dutch national ministerie of Traffic is lowering the number of injured and death in traffic, good recording of cause by police is step one, good statistics then determine the ways roads are laid out. 8) On smaller roads without a separate bicycle path, as a bicyclist you're always on the watch if someone might step out of a car and try to keep a distance by bicycling towards the middle of the road which isn't an issue as this is low traffic street, major bike transit always has separated bike paths with distance to the parked cars. 9) during driving lessons, watching bicyclist is a prime part of the lessons and a good driver keeps an eye on the mirrors for back-coming bicyclist and will warn passengers on the back seats before they get out. And there are probably more reasons that Dutch have few accidents being doored.

jacquesm 10y ago
That's a pretty good list. Another major reason imo is that in an accident between a cyclist and a car the car is more or less automatically liable.
- seszett 10y ago
  In France as well. Yet, if you go to the police station after a bike accident they will most likely refuse to take your claim unless you look seriously injured, and as long as the car did stop the police will just tell you to contact your insurance (which will do little more than reimbursing half the used value of your bike if you still have the invoice, after asking for a deductible amount several times that). I'm sure it's better in the Netherlands, but just making cars liable isn't a solution itself.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    Same in the Netherlands, but that is because you are liable for the (civil) damages, which are handled by the insurance companies of both parties. The police nowadays only get involved if one of the parties is criminally negligent, or drives off without decently handling the aftermath. Insurance claims do reimburse you for the damage though, and will claim them (successfully) with the other party's insurer.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Not really. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili... : >It is a myth that is really only believed outside the Netherlands: “Because there is strict liability in the Netherlands, drivers are more cautious around cyclists, and that leads to more cycling” >There are a number of (false) assumptions that lead to such an assertion. The first being that drivers are always at fault when they are in a collision with a cyclist, regardless of how the cyclist behaved.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    Hmm...not always, but assumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise. From the article you linked to: When art. 185 WVW is applicable, it means the motor vehicle user is liable for financial damage, unless that driver can prove the incident was caused by circumstances beyond his/her control. and Besides ‘circumstances beyond control’ the driver can also argue the non-motorised road user was at fault. This is only possible for road users from the age of 14. If that road user was indeed at fault, the driver is still liable for 50% of the damage. Dutch law makers considered this to be reasonable, because the non-motorised road user usually suffers more and more severe damage.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Yes, you can legally split hairs about it. But the practical upshot is that if you're involved in an accident with a cyclist as a motorist it is extremely likely that you will be held responsible. That the actual law is more complex is obvious from the 'more or less' bit in the sentence above, it's not black and white but in the vast majority of accidents between cars and cyclists the driver of the car will be held responsible and this is one of the bigger items in keeping the number of such accidents down, Dutch motorists are quite aware of this reality. And it makes good sense too: assuming a 'minor' accident between say a cyclist that forgot to indicate left and a motorist coming up from behind the motorist will likely do what he or she can do to avoid an accident even if technically the cyclist is at fault because the cyclist will likely suffer extensive damage to themselves and their property whereas the car will probably not suffer any damage at all and the occupant of the car is perfectly safe. Let me translate the first bit of: http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aansprakelijkheid/voetganger-of-fietser http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aanspr... which gives a much less hard to interpret view of the legal situation in nl. "Aanrijding met voetganger of fietser Wie is er aansprakelijk bij een aanrijding met een voetganger of fietser Fietsers of voetgangers worden gezien als zwakkere verkeersdeelnemers. Omdat zij kwetsbaar zijn in het verkeer, kent de wet een speciale regeling bij een aanrijding met een motorvoertuig. De automobilist is aansprakelijk voor de schade van de fietser zonder dat zijn schuld bewezen hoeft te worden. Andersom kan de automobilist de schade die hij oploopt door een fout van een fietser of voetganger, claimen bij de fietser of voetganger (of diens AVP-verzekering). Dan gelden de normale wettelijke regels. Bescherming door de wet (artikel 185 Wegenverkeerswet) Normaal gesproken moet je na een ongeluk bewijzen dat de tegenpartij aansprakelijk is. Dit geldt niet wanneer je als fietser of voetganger wordt aangereden door een motorvoertuig (auto, motor, bromfiets, snorfiets etc.). De wet bepaalt dat de bestuurder van het motorvoertuig aansprakelijk is, tenzij hij overmacht kan bewijzen. Dit is een vorm van 'risicoaansprakelijkheid'. Daarbij hoeft men geen schuld te hebben aan het ongeluk, maar is men wel aansprakelijk. Dit lijkt onrechtvaardig maar de fietser of voetganger loopt meer risico op zwaarder letsel vanwege de massa van het motorvoertuig." "Accident with pedestrian or cyclist Who is responsible for an accident with a pedestrian or cyclist? Cyclists or pedestrians are seen as 'weaker' traffic participants. Because they are vulnerable in traffic, the law has a special arrangement when there is an accident with motorized traffic. The driver is responsible for the damage of the cyclist without having to prove they were in the wrong. If the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault the driver can claim his damage with them (or their insurance). In that case the normal rules and laws apply. Protection in law (article 185 of the relevant law book) Normally after an accident you have to prove that the other party is liable. This is not the case when as a cyclist or pedestrian you are hit by motorized traffic (car, motorbike, moped, etc). The law dictates that the driver of the motorized vehicle is liable unless he can prove 'overmacht' (a situation exceeding his/her control). This is a case of 'risk liability'. The driver does not have to be at fault for the accident but still is liable. This may seem unjust but a cyclist or pedestrian runs more risk of serious injury because of the mass of the motorvehicle" That page has a whole pile of example situations and outcomes illustrating what the effect is on the liability of the driver for those cases. The ANWB website (where I took these paragraphs from) is the Dutch official provider of traffic signs and many other traffic related services, they're a powerful lobby entity as well and deal with all kinds of road traffic related affairs. Originally started as a cyclist movement they included cars and are now the main go-to point for information about traffic and traffic related issues outside of the government.
dajohnson89 10y ago
I believe you meant to say, a non-exhaustive list.
djsumdog 10y ago
The amount of bicycles in The Netherlands is absolutely surreal. Both in major cities and out in the suburbs, bicycles are everywhere. I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets. Large cities in Germany or the UK or anywhere else I've seen cannot compare to the magnitude of people on bicycles in The Netherlands.
- tluyben2 10y ago
  > I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets. Good or bad; I am Dutch and I would confidently say that all people I know would never ride a bike again if they have to wear those silly helmets. More likely if it would be mandatory, they just would refuse and not do it, but if largely enforced they would just not use bikes anymore.
  - Arnt 10y ago
    You learn to appreciate a helmet if you share roadspace with a certain subset of vehicles and drivers. Which you, blessedly, don't.
    - aequitas 10y ago
      Although there are separated roads for bikes and cars we do still share roadspace. The major difference I think is that in the Netherlands there is a law which gives vulnerable road participants (pedestrians, bicycler) the benefit of the doubt whenever there is an accident. Even if the guilt is proven to be with the bicycler, the car driver should have paid more attention. One way this is good for bicyclers because they are protected but on the other side they do tend to be more aggressive and reckless in their driving.
      - danieldk 10y ago
        The major difference I think is that in the Netherlands there is a law which gives vulnerable road participants (pedestrians, bicycler) the benefit of the doubt whenever there is an accident. Even if the guilt is proven to be with the bicycler, the car driver should have paid more attention. As far as I know, this is also true in Germany and many people wear helmets. I never wore a helmet in The Netherlands, but I do now that I live in Germany. Why? - German car drivers are less used to cyclers. They are either extremely careful (like driving behind you for five minutes or passing you with a distance of 2 meters). Or they are extremely reckless (e.g. cutting you off on the very few bicycle lanes). So, in general I feel less safe than in The Netherlands. - Altitude differences. The Netherlands are mostly flat. Here (southern Germany) it's quite hilly. That often makes it more difficult to brake abruptly.
jknoepfler 10y ago
I love your country's approach to bikes.
rosege 10y ago
There are other risks though - I always found it odd that motorised scooters are allowed on the bike paths. My Dutch neighbour had a very bad accident when one hit him on his bike and was off work for quite some time.
- kvz 10y ago
  This is not the case anymore since ~5 years. The only motorized vehicels alllowed are those that cant travel fasher than 25km/h (bike speed)
  - cr1895 10y ago
    Nominally they can't go faster than that. But they do.
    - cerebellum42 10y ago
      I mean, plenty of cyclists go faster than that too, 30 km/h is not uncommon.
      - cr1895 10y ago
        True. Often though these are serious road cyclicsts who do tend to wear helmets, or they're those new fast electric bikes that like to sneak up beside you going really quick.
  - mtrimpe 10y ago
    If you live in Amsterdam you'd be hard pressed to find more than one scooter a month that's going under 25km/h. Amsterdam is also pushing very hard to get an exception to be able to force them onto the street though.
    - mrsuprawsm 10y ago
      Here in Rotterdam they've added signs to the entrances to _all_ the bike lanes in the centre mentioning that scooters/motorbikes should be in the street. ("Herinnering: <scooter icon> op rijbaan", example here: http://www.rotterdam.nl/Clusters/Stadsontwikkeling/Document%202016/Verkeer%20en%20Vervoer/Verkeersborden.pdf http://www.rotterdam.nl/Clusters/Stadsontwikkeling/Document%...) Although I think that it's illegal for them to ride in the bike lanes (or over 25km/h? or both?), they still do it
pareidolia 10y ago
Correct link is http://www.fietsersbond.nl/ http://www.fietsersbond.nl/
speleding 10y ago
There is another benefit to the "Dutch reach" not mentioned in the article: if a sudden gust of wind catches your door it will be easier to hold with your right arm. (They taught me this when I got my license)
mcv 10y ago
While these are certainly the ideal, there are still many places in Netherland, particularly in major cities where there just isn't enough space for a thorough redesign, where bike lanes run right next to parked cars. Ultimately, it's a matter of awareness of other traffic, both for cyclists and for motorists. And pedestrians. You always need to watch what you're doing in traffic, and what others are doing.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oneplane 10y ago
Another reason we don't have 'dooring' in The Netherlands is that we don't try to invent a funny new word for every tiny event or thing everywhere ever all the time ;-) Oh, and we don't open our doors unless we are parked.
jerf 10y ago
When you make a long list like that, the human intuitive norm is to start by assigning a roughly equal responsibility for each of them. However, it is rare to encounter a situation where some effect is obtained by 10 distinct factors all providing an equal contribution. (Think about it from an entropic point of view; that is one very specific configuration of contributions, vs. all the others in which they are not balanced.) So the relevant question is "Of all the differences, which are the relevant ones?" If the "Dutch reach" is, say, 75% of the contribution, it's worth bringing over. [1] If it's 3%, it not worth worrying about at a governmental scale, as the costs of getting everyone to do it are not zero, and the benefits need to outweigh the costs. (You are free to adopt it; the costs for a person are negligible and the possible benefit of "not dooring a biker" are substantial both to you and the biker in question. But what you should do is a different question than what the government should do.) In this sort of situation, listing out all the possible reasons and then leaving people to intuitively apply equal responsibilities is a great way to ensure that nothing happens. (I mean, you can actually use that as a technique next time you're in a meeting proposing that something be done that you don't want done; just exhaustively enumerate all the things that would be necessary, watch the idea wither as people intuitively assign incorrectly-large values to every little task if you do it right. You didn't hear this from me though. (I haven't done it, but have been on the receiving end.)) Bringing over one practice at a time in order of effectiveness is something that can happen. Implicitly insisting that we adopt 10 cultural practices all at once, some of which are major changes, just causes fatigue and people to just give up and walk away, and nothing changes. [1]: Albeit possibly with a different name. It probably would actually be good marketing in the end to leave the name sounding vaguely like a sexual thing as it would get people's attention and generate some good buzz, but I doubt our bureaucracy would go in for that approach.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nbouscal 10y ago
  I upvoted you for the useful perspective, but wanted to point out that smartbit was almost certainly just sharing information that most readers are unlikely to have, rather than implicitly insisting anything. I don't think your tone in the third paragraph is very reasonable or charitable in response to their comment.
stcredzero 10y ago
1) Dutch car drivers all have been bicyclist before they get their driver license This is very important with regards to understanding and predicting how others behave. It's very hard for people to appreciate how different the POV can be in a different situation. I experienced this once when I herniated a disk in my lower back. Before I had to live with such a condition, I had been annoyed at how oddly and slowly some elderly people moved when boarding the bus. After having to deal with the pain, I understood the motivation behind waiting until the bus was fully stopped before moving, and why some people would methodically move from hand-hold to hand-hold: because to move more quickly would result in Pain! In the US, I see lots of drivers who seem to struggle with even understanding other car drivers. It's no wonder that bicycle riders feel cars are a-holes to them. It's because cars don't understand what they are doing and what it's like to be on the receiving end of such behavior.
happy-go-lucky 10y ago
> All politicians drive bike, the Dutch Prime Minister comes to work on his bike That's very interesting!
tripzilch 10y ago
The biggest reason is, I think, that it's the car driver's responsibility to pay attention when then open their door on the side of traffic. There's no excuse if you hit a bike, or anything, it's the car driver's fault and most onlookers would consider them huge assholes for creating such a dangerous traffic situation. Bicyclists are considered at least equal participants in traffic. And culturally, depending on the particular spot and the "what are you doing trying to get around here by car in the first place"-factor, bikes nearly almost but not quite have a de facto right of way, because they're way more numerous and more agile, cars need to be on their toes anyway. Oh and don't forget that most cars in the US are about 1.5x the size of cars here? I'm having a bit of a chuckle imagining if you'd scale up bikes by the same factor haha :-) But maybe it'd help with getting doored? :) Oh, oh! and don't forget to scale up yr bikehelmets too :) :)

jacquesm 10y ago

That's a pretty good list. Another major reason imo is that in an accident between a cyclist and a car the car is more or less automatically liable.

seszett 10y ago
In France as well. Yet, if you go to the police station after a bike accident they will most likely refuse to take your claim unless you look seriously injured, and as long as the car did stop the police will just tell you to contact your insurance (which will do little more than reimbursing half the used value of your bike if you still have the invoice, after asking for a deductible amount several times that). I'm sure it's better in the Netherlands, but just making cars liable isn't a solution itself.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Same in the Netherlands, but that is because you are liable for the (civil) damages, which are handled by the insurance companies of both parties. The police nowadays only get involved if one of the parties is criminally negligent, or drives off without decently handling the aftermath. Insurance claims do reimburse you for the damage though, and will claim them (successfully) with the other party's insurer.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ptaipale 10y ago
Not really. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili... : >It is a myth that is really only believed outside the Netherlands: “Because there is strict liability in the Netherlands, drivers are more cautious around cyclists, and that leads to more cycling” >There are a number of (false) assumptions that lead to such an assertion. The first being that drivers are always at fault when they are in a collision with a cyclist, regardless of how the cyclist behaved.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  Hmm...not always, but assumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise. From the article you linked to: When art. 185 WVW is applicable, it means the motor vehicle user is liable for financial damage, unless that driver can prove the incident was caused by circumstances beyond his/her control. and Besides ‘circumstances beyond control’ the driver can also argue the non-motorised road user was at fault. This is only possible for road users from the age of 14. If that road user was indeed at fault, the driver is still liable for 50% of the damage. Dutch law makers considered this to be reasonable, because the non-motorised road user usually suffers more and more severe damage.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Yes, you can legally split hairs about it. But the practical upshot is that if you're involved in an accident with a cyclist as a motorist it is extremely likely that you will be held responsible. That the actual law is more complex is obvious from the 'more or less' bit in the sentence above, it's not black and white but in the vast majority of accidents between cars and cyclists the driver of the car will be held responsible and this is one of the bigger items in keeping the number of such accidents down, Dutch motorists are quite aware of this reality. And it makes good sense too: assuming a 'minor' accident between say a cyclist that forgot to indicate left and a motorist coming up from behind the motorist will likely do what he or she can do to avoid an accident even if technically the cyclist is at fault because the cyclist will likely suffer extensive damage to themselves and their property whereas the car will probably not suffer any damage at all and the occupant of the car is perfectly safe. Let me translate the first bit of: http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aansprakelijkheid/voetganger-of-fietser http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aanspr... which gives a much less hard to interpret view of the legal situation in nl. "Aanrijding met voetganger of fietser Wie is er aansprakelijk bij een aanrijding met een voetganger of fietser Fietsers of voetgangers worden gezien als zwakkere verkeersdeelnemers. Omdat zij kwetsbaar zijn in het verkeer, kent de wet een speciale regeling bij een aanrijding met een motorvoertuig. De automobilist is aansprakelijk voor de schade van de fietser zonder dat zijn schuld bewezen hoeft te worden. Andersom kan de automobilist de schade die hij oploopt door een fout van een fietser of voetganger, claimen bij de fietser of voetganger (of diens AVP-verzekering). Dan gelden de normale wettelijke regels. Bescherming door de wet (artikel 185 Wegenverkeerswet) Normaal gesproken moet je na een ongeluk bewijzen dat de tegenpartij aansprakelijk is. Dit geldt niet wanneer je als fietser of voetganger wordt aangereden door een motorvoertuig (auto, motor, bromfiets, snorfiets etc.). De wet bepaalt dat de bestuurder van het motorvoertuig aansprakelijk is, tenzij hij overmacht kan bewijzen. Dit is een vorm van 'risicoaansprakelijkheid'. Daarbij hoeft men geen schuld te hebben aan het ongeluk, maar is men wel aansprakelijk. Dit lijkt onrechtvaardig maar de fietser of voetganger loopt meer risico op zwaarder letsel vanwege de massa van het motorvoertuig." "Accident with pedestrian or cyclist Who is responsible for an accident with a pedestrian or cyclist? Cyclists or pedestrians are seen as 'weaker' traffic participants. Because they are vulnerable in traffic, the law has a special arrangement when there is an accident with motorized traffic. The driver is responsible for the damage of the cyclist without having to prove they were in the wrong. If the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault the driver can claim his damage with them (or their insurance). In that case the normal rules and laws apply. Protection in law (article 185 of the relevant law book) Normally after an accident you have to prove that the other party is liable. This is not the case when as a cyclist or pedestrian you are hit by motorized traffic (car, motorbike, moped, etc). The law dictates that the driver of the motorized vehicle is liable unless he can prove 'overmacht' (a situation exceeding his/her control). This is a case of 'risk liability'. The driver does not have to be at fault for the accident but still is liable. This may seem unjust but a cyclist or pedestrian runs more risk of serious injury because of the mass of the motorvehicle" That page has a whole pile of example situations and outcomes illustrating what the effect is on the liability of the driver for those cases. The ANWB website (where I took these paragraphs from) is the Dutch official provider of traffic signs and many other traffic related services, they're a powerful lobby entity as well and deal with all kinds of road traffic related affairs. Originally started as a cyclist movement they included cars and are now the main go-to point for information about traffic and traffic related issues outside of the government.

dajohnson89 10y ago

I believe you meant to say, a non-exhaustive list.

djsumdog 10y ago

The amount of bicycles in The Netherlands is absolutely surreal. Both in major cities and out in the suburbs, bicycles are everywhere. I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets. Large cities in Germany or the UK or anywhere else I've seen cannot compare to the magnitude of people on bicycles in The Netherlands.

tluyben2 10y ago
> I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets. Good or bad; I am Dutch and I would confidently say that all people I know would never ride a bike again if they have to wear those silly helmets. More likely if it would be mandatory, they just would refuse and not do it, but if largely enforced they would just not use bikes anymore.
- Arnt 10y ago
  You learn to appreciate a helmet if you share roadspace with a certain subset of vehicles and drivers. Which you, blessedly, don't.
  - aequitas 10y ago
    Although there are separated roads for bikes and cars we do still share roadspace. The major difference I think is that in the Netherlands there is a law which gives vulnerable road participants (pedestrians, bicycler) the benefit of the doubt whenever there is an accident. Even if the guilt is proven to be with the bicycler, the car driver should have paid more attention. One way this is good for bicyclers because they are protected but on the other side they do tend to be more aggressive and reckless in their driving.
    - danieldk 10y ago
      The major difference I think is that in the Netherlands there is a law which gives vulnerable road participants (pedestrians, bicycler) the benefit of the doubt whenever there is an accident. Even if the guilt is proven to be with the bicycler, the car driver should have paid more attention. As far as I know, this is also true in Germany and many people wear helmets. I never wore a helmet in The Netherlands, but I do now that I live in Germany. Why? - German car drivers are less used to cyclers. They are either extremely careful (like driving behind you for five minutes or passing you with a distance of 2 meters). Or they are extremely reckless (e.g. cutting you off on the very few bicycle lanes). So, in general I feel less safe than in The Netherlands. - Altitude differences. The Netherlands are mostly flat. Here (southern Germany) it's quite hilly. That often makes it more difficult to brake abruptly.

jknoepfler 10y ago

I love your country's approach to bikes.

rosege 10y ago

There are other risks though - I always found it odd that motorised scooters are allowed on the bike paths. My Dutch neighbour had a very bad accident when one hit him on his bike and was off work for quite some time.

kvz 10y ago
This is not the case anymore since ~5 years. The only motorized vehicels alllowed are those that cant travel fasher than 25km/h (bike speed)
- cr1895 10y ago
  Nominally they can't go faster than that. But they do.
  - cerebellum42 10y ago
    I mean, plenty of cyclists go faster than that too, 30 km/h is not uncommon.
    - cr1895 10y ago
      True. Often though these are serious road cyclicsts who do tend to wear helmets, or they're those new fast electric bikes that like to sneak up beside you going really quick.
- mtrimpe 10y ago
  If you live in Amsterdam you'd be hard pressed to find more than one scooter a month that's going under 25km/h. Amsterdam is also pushing very hard to get an exception to be able to force them onto the street though.
  - mrsuprawsm 10y ago
    Here in Rotterdam they've added signs to the entrances to _all_ the bike lanes in the centre mentioning that scooters/motorbikes should be in the street. ("Herinnering: <scooter icon> op rijbaan", example here: http://www.rotterdam.nl/Clusters/Stadsontwikkeling/Document%202016/Verkeer%20en%20Vervoer/Verkeersborden.pdf http://www.rotterdam.nl/Clusters/Stadsontwikkeling/Document%...) Although I think that it's illegal for them to ride in the bike lanes (or over 25km/h? or both?), they still do it

pareidolia 10y ago

Correct link is http://www.fietsersbond.nl/ http://www.fietsersbond.nl/

speleding 10y ago

There is another benefit to the "Dutch reach" not mentioned in the article: if a sudden gust of wind catches your door it will be easier to hold with your right arm. (They taught me this when I got my license)

mcv 10y ago

While these are certainly the ideal, there are still many places in Netherland, particularly in major cities where there just isn't enough space for a thorough redesign, where bike lanes run right next to parked cars. Ultimately, it's a matter of awareness of other traffic, both for cyclists and for motorists. And pedestrians. You always need to watch what you're doing in traffic, and what others are doing.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

oneplane 10y ago

Another reason we don't have 'dooring' in The Netherlands is that we don't try to invent a funny new word for every tiny event or thing everywhere ever all the time ;-) Oh, and we don't open our doors unless we are parked.

jerf 10y ago

When you make a long list like that, the human intuitive norm is to start by assigning a roughly equal responsibility for each of them. However, it is rare to encounter a situation where some effect is obtained by 10 distinct factors all providing an equal contribution. (Think about it from an entropic point of view; that is one very specific configuration of contributions, vs. all the others in which they are not balanced.) So the relevant question is "Of all the differences, which are the relevant ones?" If the "Dutch reach" is, say, 75% of the contribution, it's worth bringing over. [1] If it's 3%, it not worth worrying about at a governmental scale, as the costs of getting everyone to do it are not zero, and the benefits need to outweigh the costs. (You are free to adopt it; the costs for a person are negligible and the possible benefit of "not dooring a biker" are substantial both to you and the biker in question. But what you should do is a different question than what the government should do.) In this sort of situation, listing out all the possible reasons and then leaving people to intuitively apply equal responsibilities is a great way to ensure that nothing happens. (I mean, you can actually use that as a technique next time you're in a meeting proposing that something be done that you don't want done; just exhaustively enumerate all the things that would be necessary, watch the idea wither as people intuitively assign incorrectly-large values to every little task if you do it right. You didn't hear this from me though. (I haven't done it, but have been on the receiving end.)) Bringing over one practice at a time in order of effectiveness is something that can happen. Implicitly insisting that we adopt 10 cultural practices all at once, some of which are major changes, just causes fatigue and people to just give up and walk away, and nothing changes. [1]: Albeit possibly with a different name. It probably would actually be good marketing in the end to leave the name sounding vaguely like a sexual thing as it would get people's attention and generate some good buzz, but I doubt our bureaucracy would go in for that approach.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nbouscal 10y ago
I upvoted you for the useful perspective, but wanted to point out that smartbit was almost certainly just sharing information that most readers are unlikely to have, rather than implicitly insisting anything. I don't think your tone in the third paragraph is very reasonable or charitable in response to their comment.

stcredzero 10y ago

1) Dutch car drivers all have been bicyclist before they get their driver license This is very important with regards to understanding and predicting how others behave. It's very hard for people to appreciate how different the POV can be in a different situation. I experienced this once when I herniated a disk in my lower back. Before I had to live with such a condition, I had been annoyed at how oddly and slowly some elderly people moved when boarding the bus. After having to deal with the pain, I understood the motivation behind waiting until the bus was fully stopped before moving, and why some people would methodically move from hand-hold to hand-hold: because to move more quickly would result in Pain! In the US, I see lots of drivers who seem to struggle with even understanding other car drivers. It's no wonder that bicycle riders feel cars are a-holes to them. It's because cars don't understand what they are doing and what it's like to be on the receiving end of such behavior.

happy-go-lucky 10y ago

> All politicians drive bike, the Dutch Prime Minister comes to work on his bike That's very interesting!

tripzilch 10y ago

The biggest reason is, I think, that it's the car driver's responsibility to pay attention when then open their door on the side of traffic. There's no excuse if you hit a bike, or anything, it's the car driver's fault and most onlookers would consider them huge assholes for creating such a dangerous traffic situation. Bicyclists are considered at least equal participants in traffic. And culturally, depending on the particular spot and the "what are you doing trying to get around here by car in the first place"-factor, bikes nearly almost but not quite have a de facto right of way, because they're way more numerous and more agile, cars need to be on their toes anyway. Oh and don't forget that most cars in the US are about 1.5x the size of cars here? I'm having a bit of a chuckle imagining if you'd scale up bikes by the same factor haha :-) But maybe it'd help with getting doored? :) Oh, oh! and don't forget to scale up yr bikehelmets too :) :)