Home
The video used here depicts a more conventional interpretation of the car door opening method

The Sun says it’s ‘rude’ and ‘absurd’; clearly losing a fight with the keyboard, the Mail brands it ‘ridiculue’ and ‘wweird’ – it’s the Dutch Reach technique that can prevent cyclists from being doored.

The Sun goes with: “'SOUNDS QUITE RUDE' Police mocked for ‘absurd’ campaign involving a manoeuvre dubbed ‘Dutch reach’ aimed to make roads safer for cyclists”

The Mail has “It’s just Double Dutch! Motorists ridiculue [sic] police proposal for drivers to adopt wweird [sic] 'Dutch Reach' technique for getting out of a car without hitting a cyclist”

For those that don’t know, the Dutch Reach is a technique for opening car doors where you use your opposite hand. It is taught to learner drivers in the Netherlands as it twists your upper body so that you can’t help but look behind you, minimising the chance that you might door a passing cyclist.

Strikingly, the stories in both The Mail and The Sun feature the same video in which a motorist does slightly more than that. Rather than merely opening his door with his opposite hand, he actually winds down his window and opens it from the outside.

The Mail titles the video “Drivers told to exit car using odd Dutch reach around technique” for added fnarr value.

The out-of-the-window method looks faintly ridiculous – which is presumably why both publications have also garnished their articles with a number of stills from it.

The Mail does at least acknowledge that “the typical method simply involves you using your opposite hand to open the door from the inside,” but The Sun just takes the video at face value and presents through-the-window as being the recommended method.

On same day Mail warns more pedestrians being injured in collisions with cyclists, two serious crashes a mile apart show that both groups are vulnerable to large vehicles

Both newspapers quote retired agricultural specialist Frank Porter, and marketing assistant Beth Sykes, both of whom have taken Cambridge Police’s suggestion that drivers employ the method as an egregious attack on their civil liberties.

Porter said: “Who are the police or council to try and change the way we have opened doors since cars were invented? Cyclists already dictate how we have to behave on the roads, this is a step too far. You won’t see me doing it, that’s for sure.”

Sykes said: “This is an absurd idea. I'm all for more being done to keep cyclists safe on the roads but I don't think drivers twisting themselves into a ball to get out of their cars is the way forward. What's wrong with the old fashioned way of looking around you before you get out of your car?'”

Sam Jones from Cycling UK told the Telegraph: “We know of families who have lost loved ones because someone has literally just opened a car door. It’s been a big issue for us for a long time. It’s safer not just for the cyclist, but motorcyclists, or someone jogging or walking with a pram.”

Cycling UK is pressing cycling minister Andrew Jones to promote the method and would also like to see it included in driving tests.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

10 comments

Avatar
ktache [525 posts] 4 months ago
6 likes

The daily mail cannot now be cited on Wiki.  With thanks to PaulBox- http://road.cc/content/forum/217206-wikipedia-issues-near-total-ban-dail...

Enough said.

The Sun?

Avatar
fustuarium [209 posts] 4 months ago
5 likes

So is anything with 'Dutch' in it an innuendo? We've reached an new low of pathetic.

Avatar
davel [1242 posts] 4 months ago
3 likes

Thank God we've got retired agricultural specialists and marketing assistants weighing in on this. We've all had enough of experts.

Avatar
rct [52 posts] 4 months ago
9 likes

Sorry the headline mentioned 'Newspaper' but then goes on to mention the Sun and The Mail,  I'm confused?

Avatar
Mungecrundle [705 posts] 4 months ago
1 like

I believe that this same technique is adopted in Iceland. Not so much due to the danger from close passing traffic but because of the very real possibility of having the door ripped off by the wind.

Avatar
antigee [391 posts] 4 months ago
0 likes

" because of the very real possibility of having the door ripped off by the wind"

Dutch Oven ?

actually quite like the idea of having to open the window to open the door - a bit more warning

Avatar
kie7077 [904 posts] 4 months ago
1 like
antigee wrote:

" because of the very real possibility of having the door ripped off by the wind"

Dutch Oven ?

actually quite like the idea of having to open the window to open the door - a bit more warning

Pervert.

Avatar
WillRod [191 posts] 4 months ago
0 likes
kie7077 wrote:
antigee wrote:

" because of the very real possibility of having the door ripped off by the wind"

Dutch Oven ?

actually quite like the idea of having to open the window to open the door - a bit more warning

Pervert.

Im sure it was an innocent referral to the type of casserole dish used on campfires 

Avatar
RobD [412 posts] 4 months ago
0 likes

So if by some unfortunate coincidence Mr Porter does actually door a cyclist, is his statement an admission of guilt as to not paying attention to what he's doing in the car?

I'd also like to know how as a cyclist I can dictate how drivers behave on the road, because clearly I'm doing it wrong.

Avatar
alansmurphy [432 posts] 4 months ago
3 likes

Porter said: “Who are the police or council to try and change the way we have opened doors since cars were invented? Cyclists already dictate how we have to behave on the roads, this is a step too far. You won’t see me doing it, that’s for sure.”

 

Bless her marketing world of fluff - how old is she opening doors for 100+ years must be taking its toll - or does she not realise early cars lacked doors.

 

Does she also believe drink driving is ok because people used to do it, smoking in hospitals, beating women?

 

How exactly is it a step too far, just what kind of problem does this create? Nobody is suggesting a change in law, just a change in thought which may improve the safety of a great many people, is that really too radical for people?