Dutch reach around

It won't be policed, it just gets a bit of publicity which they assume will work and then everyone carries on as normal. Same as MLMs and compulsive phone users.
 
It's meddling for meddling's sake imo.
I always look when opening the door, as a result I've never boshed a cyclist.
The other changes are dangerous imo, this is the least stupid one.
 
I've got into the habit of checking the mirror or looking back as a rear passenger, remember about 99% of the time.

Was aware of most of the incoming changes but somehow missed this one.

Problem is the worst offenders didn't care before and won't care now.
 
throwaway4372 said:
The other changes are dangerous imo, this is the least stupid one.
Click to expand...

Concerns me that a lot of recent changes seem almost agenda lead and/or in response to pressure from certain groups rather than necessarily the best thought out solution to a problem which is what the highway code largely has been - some of the incoming changes IMO are going to shift the balance from a problem with mostly mild to moderate outcomes to less of a problem but a higher number of severe outcomes than before.

Given how militant some of these groups have become I almost feel at times some of them want to force more severe incidents to make more noise for their cause, possibly if I'm being generous with a "for the greater good" thinking but mostly just because they are so blinkered and radicalised to the cause.
 
The cycling lobby are extremely vocal about car drivers leaving insufficient space when overtaking a cyclist, are they not following their own guidance when overtaking a stationary vehicle ? I distinctly remember my driving instructor ensuring I left a good gap in that situation precisely because someone might not look properly and open a door on you. It does seem to be legislating what should be common sense.
 
throwaway4372 said:
It's meddling for meddling's sake imo.
I always look when opening the door, as a result I've never boshed a cyclist.
The other changes are dangerous imo, this is the least stupid one.
Click to expand...
Which of the upcoming changes are dangerous?
peterwalkley said:
The cycling lobby are extremely vocal about car drivers leaving insufficient space when overtaking a cyclist, are they not following their own guidance when overtaking a stationary vehicle ? I distinctly remember my driving instructor ensuring I left a good gap in that situation precisely because someone might not look properly and open a door on you. It does seem to be legislating what should be common sense.
Click to expand...
Isn't that exactly what is being suggested by encouraging cyclists to ride in the middle of the lane and/or stay as far from the curb as possible as part of the code updates?

Checking it is clear before opening a door on any vehicle should be one of those things that is hard coded into your brain as a considerate human being. If implementing guidance to change the way you physically do that forces those people that don't or reminds those who are distracted thinking about something else then it probably isn't a bad idea. I'll certainly try it to see if it becomes second nature after 22 years of driving, my instinct is that I'm too old to be taught new tricks so I'll end up sticking with my mirror / shoulder checks.
 
Last edited:
Janesy B said:
It won't be policed, it just gets a bit of publicity which they assume will work and then everyone carries on as normal. Same as MLMs and compulsive phone users.
Click to expand...

However, if new drivers are taught this behaviour from the outset then it will get baked into their behaviours and things improve going forwards.
 
lordrobs said:
Which of the upcoming changes are dangerous?
Click to expand...

Some of the changes (though there is some uncertainty as to where some changes will and won't apply) significantly increase the chances of more vulnerable road users appearing into the path of another vehicle with little ability to anticipate or react. Hugely increasing the chances of severe accidents even though it might (if drivers actually took up the changes which many won't) reduce the chance of more common less serious incidents.

For instance where a pedestrian might be crossing the road in proximity of a roundabout with a multi-lane exit - traffic in lane 1 might stop to let a pedestrian go, blocking the line of sight for traffic in lane 2.
 
Do we need to get a medical exemption for it? I am physically unable to twist that far and use my left hand to open the door
 
throwaway4372 said:
mainly - pedestrians walking into the road at junctions, either getting splatted, or causing a driver to break and get rear-ended.
also - cyclists moving into the middle of the road and getting rear-ended.
Click to expand...
As an occasional cyclist I never move my position on the road without checking over my shoulder first. These changes aren't meant to make people blindly think that they can do what they want because they have priority, it is about shifting the focus towards the most vulnerable road users.

So Mr Cyclist no longer feels like they need to cycle in the gutter while being passed by cars a foot from their elbow.
Mr Car driver no longer sees Mr cyclist as being an entitled **** because he is cycling in the middle of the road because the highway code actually supports that as it is safer.
Mr Pedestrian has a hope in hell of actually getting across a road in a busy town because cars can no longer barrel round the junction oblivious to anyone else.
Alibaba99 said:
However, if new drivers are taught this behaviour from the outset then it will get baked into their behaviours and things improve going forwards.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Getting more people walking and cycling has to be part of the solution going forwards. We can't just pluck everyone out of their 2.0 TDI and drop them in a Model 3 and say "problem solved". Likewise we can't expect people to cycle the 5 miles to Town if they feel like they are going to die in the process.
 
lordrobs said:
Likewise we can't expect people to cycle the 5 miles to Town if they feel like they are going to die in the process.
Click to expand...

Around here it is pretty much suicide cycling into town even if everyone was doing it properly... never mind the ones that don't. The infrastructure needs a massive overhaul if we are to get more people walking and cycling.

This is just one of many many times I've been left wondering if cyclists are trying to get themselves killed:


Fortunately I've not hit anyone yet but way too many close calls and that is with me driving mostly with caution, etc.
 
Honestly you all will rage at everything.

It is a simple change to improve safety. No they probably won't police it. But if it was created with zero consequences then you'd whinge about that as well.

This way if some tool opens the door into a passenger/cyclist there is at least a crime they can be charged with and an impact to their pocket.
 
Think the dutch reach is a good idea but the change to give priority to waiting pedestrians when turning into a side road seems very poorly thought out. I think that change will lead to more incidents with pedestrians and more cars being hit up the rear when stopping halfway through the turn.

Turning right into a side road on a busy street will be tricky as well if you have to find a gap in incoming traffic and pedestrians crossing.
 
Common sense so good idea. Whether it's with your opposite hand or not.

Equally this is why cyclists shouldn't hug the kerb or parked cars.

I almost got absolutely clothes-lined by a van driver who was parked illegally (on double yellows, so less room for me to give room) who flung his door open as wide as it would go as I was cycling past. Fortunately I'm a confident and assertive cyclist so I never cycle within a metre of cars but I still had to swerve out the way. A more cautious cyclist would have had a pane of glass to the face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom