4 ms·

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 anyon

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.

lucb1e 5y ago
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.
alamortsubite 5y ago
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.
- frankfrankfrank 5y ago
  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.
  - hgomersall 5y ago
    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.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      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.
      - hgomersall 5y ago
        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.
    - alamortsubite 5y ago
      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.
mc32 5y 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.
stinos 5y ago
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52970/is-the-dutch-reach-standard-practice-in-the-netherlands https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52970/is-the-du... tldr; indeed not completely clear why it is called the Dutch reach
icoder 5y ago
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.
- yourusername 5y ago
  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.
b93rn 5y ago
Me neither, but you will fail your driving test if you don't use the mirrors before opening the car door.
bart__ 5y ago
as a Dutch person currently following driving lessons, I was thaught this technique a few weeks ago

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.

lucb1e 5y ago

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.

alamortsubite 5y ago

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.

frankfrankfrank 5y ago
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.
- hgomersall 5y ago
  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.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    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.
    - hgomersall 5y ago
      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.
  - alamortsubite 5y ago
    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.

mc32 5y 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.

stinos 5y ago

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52970/is-the-dutch-reach-standard-practice-in-the-netherlands https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52970/is-the-du... tldr; indeed not completely clear why it is called the Dutch reach

icoder 5y ago

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.

yourusername 5y ago
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.

b93rn 5y ago

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

bart__ 5y ago

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