Talk:Dooring

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cycling Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"or the perception by law enforcement or motorists that one should be riding their bike out of the travel lane to not impede faster motorized traffic" 'Perception' is used to imply that such laws are faulty "From a cyclist's point of view, "practicable" includes safety..." Wording here used to take the 'moral high-ground' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.68.245 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I originally put this in the wrong section:

The door zone page is a good start, but it needs some more citations.

For example, this quote:

"...but there still have been a number of injuries and deaths caused by drivers carelessly opening their doors when a cyclist is passing by without regard for the presence of bicycles, and such laws are very difficult to enforce."

I suggest adding some evidence to "a number of injuries". Perhaps we can say something like "50% of all bicyclist fatalities were in the door zones which were in bike lanes" or whatever the number is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvytrouffle (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article claims it's 1.2m out. But there is much disagreement in actual fact, there are even many doors wider than that. It would be nice to have a figure, but not in it's current state. Perhaps a range like 4 feet to 12 feet (seems to be recommended for zero contact and minimal swerving when swinging door)? Is this useful, it is any "truer" or more verifiable, would it require a re-wording? Thoughts? (Protectthehuman (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

All the data I've seen indicates the biggest doors swing out about 3.5'. I can see adding 6-18 inches to that for some clearance and error margin to get you to 4 - 5 feet... but 12 feet? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 12 feet is a bit much, that's not my point though. I could go either way on this, but I just thought it should be mentioned. The first video on a search for door zone seems to think it's quite wide though :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TQ7aID1jHs Protectthehuman (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that video is where you got the "12 feet" number, that was measured from the curb face, not from the car.... and is also where the typical bike lane stripe is painted... "7 for the car, 5 for the bike lane". What he's demonstrating is that the cyclist should be riding as far from the parked cars as is the typical bike lane stripe... 5 feet. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I incorrectly interpreted the video, but that's not where my argument was coming from, and I did think 12 feet was crazy. 1.5m (5 feet) sounds much better than 12 feet. I've never said 1.2m is a bad figure and since the context of the article implies to the reader there is variation I now think it's fine, just wanted to make sure it was justified. I think this is resolved. Protectthehuman (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mcha6677 has created a sandbox article on the "Dutch reach", a method of opening car doors with little chance of dooring a cyclist. It is at User:Mcha6677/sandbox. I figure it ought not become an article. Rather, appropriate parts of it should be incorporated as a section here. However, thinking about it, it occurred to me that our present article is misnamed. It ought to be Dooring to be more general, and I intend to give everyone a few days to object, before I move it. After that, we can discuss what to do with "Dutch reach". Jim.henderson (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "dooring" is a more appropriate title for the article. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the "dutch reach" part of the article seems unnecessarily long and sometimes off-topic. It just looks clunky and out of place, with an oddly strong focus on whether the Dutch actually use it or not and why. I suggest it be changed or toned down. 2601:4A:C400:A4A5:E8B1:5DA1:762A:DF2B (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only slightly related but I've just rearranged the article rendering including adding a 'Dutch Reach' section. This doesn't improve the arguably heavy handed prose ... I will leave changing that to someone else.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dooring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050407215812/http://www-personal.umich.edu:80/~riin/bikes/doorzone.htm to http://www-personal.umich.edu/~riin/bikes/doorzone.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Jim.henderson (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dooring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050326162705/http://www.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/bikemap/doorzone.html to http://www.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/bikemap/doorzone.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-personal.umich.edu/~riin/bikes/doorzone.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Dutch Reach Editors/ Contributors,

FYI - I'm the cycling safety advocate who coined Dutch Reach and promotes it on dutchreach dot org . I'm very appreciative of all your help - and particularly Jim Henderson's - for shepherding this topic into Wikipedia early last year.

I write to explain several additions I've made to the Dutch Reach entry this past week...and should you find problems with any of it I would be pleased to discuss and respond.

These changes include: 1) Placed near the top an expanded definition/explanation of the far hand measure & its virtues. 2) Clarified that the method is to some extent still taught and used in The Netherlands. 3) Provided justification why "Dutch" modifies Reach ie its being a recent import from NL, and 4) Adding at the bottom new official recognition of the Reach by the states of Illinois & South Australia; Berlin, Germany; The City of London Corp. UK; Washington, D.C.; & Burbank, CA.

Going forward, I would like to see the middle section of the entry rewritten to reduce repetition and either resolve or clearly state the now contrasting claims re: use & name. If you have information on those matters, particularly those with missing citations or speculative in nature, I hope you will help bring those paragraphs and/or sentences up to standard or share your opinions about them here in talk.

To be clear, I agree that - to the best of my own current understanding - the method is not mandatory for use on Dutch roads nor for passing the driving exam. It is the case that at least some driving instructors & schools teach & advise its use as the best way to pass the exiting section of the road test - although alternative demonstrations of due diligence can suffice. As for general use by the public, there is legitimate controversy on this subject as the method is no longer at all as necessary as it was in the decades of road carnage in NL in the 60s-80s and Stop de Kindermoord protests & reforms. Anecdotally I have noticed from web comments that elderly Dutch citizens are more likely to know and recall it; urban more likely than rural - but for citations or studies on this subject, I strongly doubt such exist...(at least not in English!).

I would be glad to make stab at these issues myself but first I hope the authors of those sentences and claims will revisit them and provide the needed citations etc.

Thank you very much for your help & interest.

Best, Michael C Mcha6677 (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed: Delete sentence "Even though..."

[[ Delete sentence: "Even though it's called the "Dutch Reach", it is not taught in the Netherlands to young drivers.[citation needed]" Expanded> "^{[citation needed]}

Reasoning: 1) Lacks citation since before May 2018. 2) Is contradicted by multiple, credible citations which are provided both in [citation missing] above and in paragraph 4 sentence 3, viz:

"...Dutch instructors teach the far hand maneuver as most assured to demonstrate safe exiting on the road test.[18][19][20]"

[18] "Rijles Rijprocedure B, Instappen – Uitstappen In De Lesauto". Autorij-instructie.nl. Autorij-instructie NL. February 21, 2010. Retrieved June 28, 2018. Handelen bij uitstappen en weglopen van de auto…

[19] "Uitstappen uit de auto, Lesonderdeel Urrstappen". Rijleshulp.NL. Retrieved June 23, 2018.

[20] "How to do the 'Dutch reach' And how it could save someone's life". BBC News, www.bbc.com. Retrieved June 23, 2018. ]] Mcha6677 (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion "The myth is that..." in 6th paragraph. [[ Sentence to delete:

"The myth is that drivers are required in the exam to use their right hand to open their door, which forces them to turn their torso."

Reasons to delete:

1) First half of sentence is now covered and informatively explained by the current 4th paragraph which confirms with citations that the Dutch code gives goal-based safety standards for exiting and does not require or specify particular behaviors to be done to achieve it, leaving it up to the private driving instructors & schools to teach ways to meet the goal, be it with the near or far hand, by mirror checks etc.

2) However the issue is more nuanced b/c those safety standards and the stringency of the Dutch road test are such that - as paragraph 6 also notes - Dutch driving instructors have typically taught the far hand habit as the most effective way assure license applicants pass. So in effect, the far hand reach came to be - or had been before NL became so safe - THE way to pass the test. Hence confusion or myth as to what is mandatory (the method not; the achieved safety and test passage, yes).

3) The misunderstanding of Dutch regulations & customary practices - in Dutch, in a foreign culture - is not surprising. But to this writer it does not seem necessary to do more than authoritatively puncture the misunderstanding (or supposed "myth") by more than the bald assertion provided in the paragraph 4 sentence. The desired debunking is now accomplished in paragraph 6 by clarification and citations.

4) The second half of the sentence pre-dates the new paragraph 2 which describes the method and its virtues now in detail with citations, which eliminates the need for this repetition. ]] Mcha6677 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[[ Proposed: Delete 2nd sentence of paragraph 6.

"That makes it more likely they will look over their shoulder to check for oncoming cyclists who could get doored."

Reason: 1) Description of Dutch Reach maneuver and its virtues is now covered provided by the definition provided with citations in paragraph 2. Hence this sentence is now repetitious content. Mcha6677 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[[ Proposed deletion of sentence 3, paragraph 6

"Unlike the name would suggest, this method is rarely practised in the Netherlands[citation needed], and most certainly not[citation needed] mandatory."

Reasoning:

1) The first clause's claim: "Unlike the name would suggest..." is an unsubstantiated suggestion It is not even the most popular or noteworthy misconception. See: Outside Online's video The Dutch Reach - Safe For Work, ie. not "NSFW" - "Not Safe For [viewing at] Work" ie dirty. The odor of NSFW made this video a viral hit, viewed ~3 million times on YouTube and disappointing many!~

Less speculatively, Dutch also suggests Dutch! - it is a reach maneuver witnessed by or told to visiting foreigners, a maneuver done by Dutch people. Paragraph 7 addresses the Dutch-ness of this import to the US.

2) The second clause's claim: "rarely practiced" - The claim of rare use lacks citation and is contradicted by multiple reputable sources in paragraphs 2 & 3.

3) Again re: "rarely practised": Doubtful there is a poll or research on this issue, but if such exists, it has not been cited and the claim remains anecdotal or speculative, if perhaps plausible.

4) That it IS certainly plausible that the method is now or is no longer a commonplace practice, is allowed in paragraph 4 sentence 4 which reads : "That said, alternative exiting measures may also suffice in modern, bicycle friendly Netherlands.[19]" - so the issue will still be acknowledged in the entry.

5) The third clause's claim: "and most certainly not[citation needed] mandatory." is making a valid point but one which is now addressed both with citations and without insistence. If insistence is thought necessary, then a sentence with citations should be crafted which demonstrates that there is a popular misapprehension which needs debunking. In the meantime, paragraph 4 already makes this same point dispassionately with citations.

Mcha6677 (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: "It seems the term "Dutch Reach" was coined in the USA, possibly because the Netherlands has a lot of cyclists.[citation needed][19]"

REASON: Sentence is:

1) Speculative & unsubstantiated ["...possibly because.."], and is followed directly by a better, more credible explanation which is well supported by relevant references.

2) Citation [19](2013) as used predates coinage (2016), and while the method is reported in this Boston Globe reference,[19], it only 'supports' the offered notion that the 'Dutch' in Dutch Reach was only because Holland is a country known for lots of bicycling. The implication then is that it could just as well be called the Denmark or Chinese Reach where cycling is also famously commonplace.

In fact Citation [19] truly supports the newer explanation - and would have been correct had the doomed sentence instead been written: "...possibly because the 'reach across' method is practiced and taught in the Netherlands.[19]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcha6677 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Mcha6677 (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs 6 & 8 as previously found, served to explain why, where, how, by whom and when the reach across method came to be named the "Dutch Reach" in English.

By adding the only remaining sentence in paragraph 8 to the beginning of paragraph 6, and making some minor revisions for grace & clarity, an enlarged paragraph 6 now performs those functions more intelligibly.Mcha6677 (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The now replaced 5th paragraph - a single sentence - asserted that although the reach is a safe method for protecting cyclists from doorings it was no longer used or needed in NL due to high prevalence of cyclists and strict driver education etc.

This rew expanded paragraph agrees with the above notion that the method may now be much less necessary or used in NL for reasons, including the above, which are now more extensively stated in the new version.

However, that doorings allegedly no longer occur nor the reach used nor of protective value in NL, is in fact not the case as several dooring fatalities still occur each year in NL.

Nonetheless, as the new version states and documents, much has changed in NL since the 3300 deaths a year, 400-500 being children, at the peak of NL road carnage in 1973.

The new text provides understanding of this transformation and the place of the 'reach' countermeasure in this historical context. Mcha6677 (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To All Dutch Reach contributors/editors,

Just to note - Minor edits & one new sentence added to Paragraph 7 on the subject of prior evidence of spread & use of the 'reach' method beyond northern Europe prior to 2016.

New sentence added at end of paragraph provides two slogans found in use in Australia which are documented with web citations.

The first, apparently in some common use in Melbourne, Victoria, AU in 2015, the origin and 'birth' date of the slogan: 'Lead with your left', is uncertain at present.

The second, "Always Cross Check", is evidently the contribution of NRSPP, as used in its poster & brochure to teach the method. But its date of creation is not given on the webpage. "Cross Check" needs no debt to the Dutch Reach meme. VicRoads was promoting the method as far back as 2012 & RACV also for several years before Dutch Reach meme arrived there. Mcha6677 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have provided an over view of multiple means to avoid or prevent doorings - by road users, city planners, licensing & traffic code authorities, vehicle manufacturers, & other social agents - insurers, plaintiff's bar, road safety advocacy & campaigns. These additions await citations which will follow.

The Avoidance header (which section was empty prior to today's contributions) might be better renamed "Prevention" or "Prevention and Avoidance". For as can be appreciated, achieving significant reduction of doorings must involve programs and actions by agents prior to and conditioning those of the immediate perpetrators or victims.

Future contributors might develop these (and other?) various means for dooring reduction with greater specificity. Mcha6677 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this CC licensed video which could be transferred to Commons. Thought I'd get people's thoughts here first to see if you thought it would be appropriate for the article. Those involved are barely seen in an identifiable capacity, but it's nonetheless not a great moment in the lives of those involved, so perhaps there are other considerations. It could also be edited down to about 20 seconds. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Holländische Griff. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maniobra Holandesa. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many times when I am cycling a driver will walk to the front of their car and proceed to open the driver's door without looking. This creates a new hazard in my path that I now need to avoid. I do not see this version mentioned very often. Yes, you should always ride outside the door-zone and most times I have already moved out, but it is not always possible due to traffic. Is this still classed as "dooring", or does the pedestrian have priority as soon as they step on the road? 2.98.47.102 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]