Ring lacks basic security features, making it easy for hackers - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/epg4xm/amazon-ring-camera-security <comment> brown9-2 The part about the author giving their friend their credentials detracts from the main point of the article, which is:

\- Ring doesn't check if the login comes from a new IP address or location

\- the Ring app doesn't tell users how many others are logged in

\- Ring doesn't check password dumps and alert users of reused credentials

I think we should all demand that major consumer electronic companies include these features.

<comment><USER2> I personally remember witnessing the exploit of reused credentials as far back as the 80s in the days of modems and personal BBSes. Here we are almost 40 years later and seeing the same problem, except with high speed live video streams from in and around a user's home. WOW!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ring can do more to protect people who re-use credentials that have been in a data breach. Like Google's better password protection in Chrome,[0] sometimes the stakes are high enough that the responsible thing to do is be proactive on the user's behalf.

[0] [https://blog.google/products/chrome/better-password- protecti...](https://blog.google/products/chrome/better-password-protections/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Am I right in assuming that Ring, a company that was later acquired by Amazon, has an entirely different infrastructure than something like Alexa? From what I can tell, Alexa uses the same login system as my Amazon account, and (I assume/hope) is as safe/vulnerable to remote brute forcing as my Amazon account. But this seems not to be the case for Ring?

<comment><USER5> Sounds like it's not brute forcing simple using the same email/password for some random site that then gets compromised, malicious actors then try those same credentials to log into Ring and they're in first try

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's why all my passwords (including my Ring password) look like this:

c3Ve*w^ZHKmq1SQK&gGVQCezROLgZy

Individually generated, unique for every site I log into.

<comment><USER7> This doesn't help if your machine gets infected with malware. They can steal that password and you'd never know - which is the point: unusual account activity should alert the user.

<comment><USER8> If an attacker compromises your machine and steals your password they can also just route their traffic through it, meaning the IP would match the regular one seen by the Ring servers

<comment><USER7> Yes they can, but what we often see is accounts sold off to others. They don't give away their infected machine. They just harvest credentials.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _My colleagues were only able to access my Ring camera because they had the relevant email address and password_

Come on, what lousy click bait. If you give someone your username and password, it isn't evidence of terrible security.

<comment><USER10> You've taken that phrase completely out of context.

The author is clarifying that their friends were only able to access it because the author gave them the email/password, because the author wants to illustrate what someone who did have your email/password could see.

What's relevant are the sentences that come immediately after:

>, but Amazon-owned home security company Ring is not doing enough to stop hackers breaking into customer accounts, and in turn, their cameras, according to multiple cybersecurity experts, people who write tools to break into accounts, and Motherboard's own analysis with a Ring camera it bought to test the company's security protections.

Then the author goes through some instances and tools built to hack Ring passwords.

IOW, the author isn't claiming that Ring is insecure because someone who he gave the email/password to is able to login. The author is showing the kind of information a person who has your email/password can access, and then is showing how easily it is for someone nefarious to get that information.

<comment><USER11> The article is just fear mongering bs, suggesting useless solutions like sms two factor authentication.

The problem is with people using stupid passwords which is a problem on just about any service and has nothing to do with Ring. Yes it could be better but so could a lot of services.

<comment><USER12> The level of security you provide should be commensurate with the risk. Perhaps you don't need 2FA and IP checking for your smartwatch but you probably need it for your x-ray machine.

This is a device people are encouraged to put into their homes, with access to their most intimate moments. And sold to untrained consumers who probably won't even read any documentation you supply. And, as the article highlights, there are active attacks.

Ring need to up their game.

<comment><USER13> Yes, this seems like exactly the kind of service that should be checking passwords against known compromised password sets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The 'S' in IoT is for 'Security'.

<comment><USER15> I'm going to steal this - thank you :)

<comment><USER16> That's ok. They did too.</comment></comment></comment>


O Oberlin, My Oberlin - <AUTHOR> https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/o-oberlin-my-oberlin/ <comment><USER2> > Interim assistant dean of students: "I hope we rain fire and brimstone on > that store"

> "Fuck him. I'd say unleash the students if I wasn't convinced this needs to > be put behind us."

Oh wow. That's a very interesting and scary quote. They think the students are their little minions to brainwash and "unleash" on someone.

Are these people still employed there? Because it would seem they have severely damaged the reputation of the school for years to come. I wonder also how the students who participated in the protests feel. Did they realize they were manipulated, do they regret showing up or even graduating from the school altogether.

> "Think one person can change the world? So do we," has been Oberlin's > official motto for quite some time.

Well these administrators did change the world, so the motto is true. The only problem is, it doesn't seem like they changed it for the better.

<comment><USER3> So far, Dean Raimondo is still there.

[https://heavy.com/news/2019/06/meredith- raimondo/](https://heavy.com/news/2019/06/meredith-raimondo/)

Edit: There's apparently no legal advantage to firing her:

> Despite being found guilty of libel, Meredith Raimondo won't have to pay any > of the $44 million settlement out of pocket. The state jury ordered the > college to pay the entirety of the settlement. It's unclear if Raimondo will > remain on staff moving forward after the court decision on Thursday.

<comment><USER4> Wow, talk about a moral hazard - salaried employees can break laws that fine in the millions and there is no repercussions for the individual. Instead, endowments and tuition pay, despite the fact those paying or endowing don't share those opinions, or at least not to the point they would break libel law.

<comment><USER5> > despite the fact those paying or endowing don't share those opinions, or at > least not to the point they would break libel law

She was found guilty of libel by supporting & being part of the student protests/boycotts/misinformation campaign. It's hard to say what students think that weren't immediately at the protests or printing flyers, but insofar that the only public statements of larger numbers of students were those protesting, it seems they did share those opinion, and might even go much further than that.

<comment><USER3> From what I've read, just about everyone at Oberlin seems supportive.

<comment><USER6> It's uncanny, though also depressing, how similar this behavior is to Trump supporters who will not let the facts get in the way of their support. It's like identification: this person signals everything that I hold sacred so I'm all-in.

<comment><USER3> I guess that it's a bug. We all have more or less access to information, more or less training and experience in assessing information, and more or less free time and/or psychic resources for dealing with it all.

So there's a tendency to take shortcuts. In a good way, makin g intuitive leaps. In a bad way, getting stuck with our preconceptions.

And then, as you say, there's the social aspect, identifying with our tribe, hunting pack, or whatever. Wanting acceptance and approval from our peers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What a shame to see such a venerable institution taken over by such an antisocial group of people and ideology.

<comment><USER8> Did a bit of contract work there over the years, they were one of my favorite customers. The town is sleepy and the campus is quaint with some absolutely beautiful buildings. The staff there were always a joy to collaborate with, I was pretty surprised the first time I heard about this issue and just wanted to say that it definitely doesn't reflect my experience there or represent the folks I met.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can anyone point to a parallel article that makes Oberlin College look like the "good guy" here? This article does a pretty convincing job of making them look ridiculous, but I presume there's another version from a different point of view that makes them look more heroic.

<comment><USER10> I've read a few accounts about what happened and all of them seem to make it clear that the faculty and students involved were wrong. I'm a college professor who tries to be a good ally and while I would suspect that race had something to do with what happened, everything I've read makes this seem like a case of mob mentality running wild. That being said, as the article does state, it seems like only a small number of students and faculty were involved in the protests.

I am, however, suspicious that there have been so very many editorials about this when so many people in conservative circles love to talk about "far left academia" who are "stiffing free speech" and are taking the terrible actions of a small number of people as representative of all of academia.

<comment><USER11> I feel like blaming rogue actors in an institution or group is a common tactic in any polarizing situation, and happens in different degrees. High-level members at the Catholic Church may say the same for their pedophile priests, or price manipulators at Enron, or greedy scammers on wall street, or when politicians get embroiled in a scandal.

There is a certain extent at which one might say it's institutionalized, in which case the bad actors can no longer be excused as only a few bad actors, but part of a system that enabled it. In all those cases (and this one with Oberlin), many more people were aware of what was going on, but chose to turn the other way or even silently go along with it. So this seems "worse" than a case where an employee is acting on their own accord while hiding it from the institution.

If we take a position that academia is not at fault because of these more extreme bad actors, then I don't see how we can be upset at the Catholic Church, Enron executives, conservatives, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Will it hurt the college? I suppose it's too early for statistics to show any trends, but since there's a (seemingly) large "SJW customer base" this does appeal to, it's not obvious (to me at least) that their enrollment numbers will plummet. The same goes for donations: their main donors are likely not conservative but very liberal, and again, they aren't positioning themselves against them.

</comment><comment><USER12> I guess privilege isn't about race after all, power too easily becomes abuse, and bullies always meet their match.

</comment><comment><USER13> Never heard of this incident before, very interesting.

What I found the most interesting was the fact that the original arrests happen the day after the election of Trump. That actually explained a lot to me about why a young man who was the student treasurer of the college would do something like this and why the campus would react they way they did. (though college students tend to shoplift a lot more than you'd expect in my experience)

Unfortunately, people have a way of acting out their anger and fear about things that are to big or to far away for them to touch on their local communities. Sometimes twisting parts of them them into mistaken effigies of larger events or people they truefully have no connection to.

<comment><USER14> The fact that students from Oberlin shoplifted frequently at that shop, and more often than not those caught doing so were white, should have been enough to at least get cooler heads to prevail a few days later. But rather than the situation cooling down as time went on, the libelous rhetoric accelerated. When the school started doubling down, that was not the day after the election. So I don't really buy the election outcome hypothesis/excuse.

<comment><USER15> The article also pointed out that the university was also prepared in a few days after the protests to announce they had not renewed the contract of a minority faculty member who had made some wildly anti-Semitic statements, and that the protests may have been amplified to distract from that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The statement posted by Dave Gibson is quite moving: [https://www.gibsonsbakeryandcandy.com/](https://www.gibsonsbakeryandcandy.com/)

Hopefully, Oberlin ceases their dispute as soon as possible.

</comment><comment><USER17> A school like Oberlin in a town like Oberlin needs to have multiple off-campus social justice trips per year so these students have perspective and real opportunity to try on their newly-educated energy.

<comment><USER5> Interesting idea. If you immersed them in a game where they could protest & fight injustices, would they be less prone to looking for things to protest irl? I mean, besides "not having time to protest because I'm playing this game".

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> IN a good future, Oberlin will erect a monument to the incident and be resolved to be a sensible institution devoted to real education.</comment>


Nest Thermostat E teardown, and on making beautiful devices for the home - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@justlv/nest-thermostat-e-teardown-and-on-making-beautiful-devices-for-the-home-ae6ada01bb26 <comment><USER2> Nice looking PCBA and assembly. I've been looking for small COTS circular screens for fun and it's actually quite hard, despite smart watch trends.

I wonder what the Nest-branded ICs are.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best man pages to read? - <AUTHOR> Man pages are supposed to be documentation, often times they tell you what the tool does not what it is. What are the most entertaining, informative or educational man pages to read? <comment><USER2> man intro pages, such as:

[http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/intro.1.html](http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man1/intro.1.html)

[http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/intro.2.html](http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man2/intro.2.html)

[http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/intro.7.html](http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man7/intro.7.html)

etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> man man

man apropos

man proc (on Linux)

man builtin

man info

If you want to read high quality man pages, OpenBSD is best.

</comment><comment><USER4> info coreutils

</comment><comment><USER5> man ascii

</comment><comment><USER6> man bash

<comment><USER7> man angry

man have club

man bash</comment></comment>


Israel's first lunar mission to launch this week - <AUTHOR> https://m.phys.org/news/2019-02-private-israel-lunar-mission-week.html <comment><USER2> Are they going to plant the Palestinian flag on the moon?</comment>


What happens when you introduce 29 reindeer to an isolated island?  - <AUTHOR> http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/3246/201102stmatthewisland.png

<comment><USER2> While a touching parable, this is not a story about resources so much as the size of herd you need for a species to survive a disaster that kills off most of them, and perhaps also the value of predators.

<comment><AUTHOR> I take it as the total inability of most living species to plan resources on the long term for the best of everyone. Given the look of the population graph and non-renewable resources since 1900, its hard not to make the parallel with us.</comment></comment>


Build A Monitor Only You Can See - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/how-to-build-an-amazing-secret-monitor-only-you-can-see-1454497835

<comment><USER2> Unless those spectacles are an opthalmic frame, they're useless to me.</comment>


Time to end the war on drugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/time-to-end-the-war-on-drugs

<comment><USER2> End the prohibition on plants. People should be able to put whatever they want in their body because they own their body. Even if it is quite stupid to do so in many cases, you cannot deter stupidity. In almost every cases, when you try to force people not to do stupid things, it creates unintended consequences that are far worst than what that people would have done in the first place.

Let's try freedom for once.

</comment><comment><USER3> Honest question: Why is this on Hacker News? I would expect to see this kind of post on Reddit, but not HN. For the record, I also want the "war on drugs" to end, but I also don't want HN to turn into Reddit.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's on here because I posted it.

I write code, I do not like waste.</comment></comment>


The Dutch Reach: Clever Workaround to Keep Cyclists from Getting "Doored" - <AUTHOR> http://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-workaround-keep-cyclists-getting-doored/ <comment><USER5> 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.

<comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER7> > 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.

<comment><USER8> Odd that you say this about helmets. It only takes one mistake, one cyclist not paying attention, one mechanical fault, one swerving car or an obstacle in the road - and you'll be landing face first into the tarmac wishing you wore a helmet.

185 cyclists died last year in the Netherlands [1]. I wonder how many of those weren't wearing a helmet.

I also found this interesting article [2] going into a lot more detail on why the Dutch don't seem to want to wear them.

[1] [http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/04/traffic- accide...](http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/04/traffic-accident- deaths-rise-9-reversing-years-of-steady-decline/)

[2] [http://tedx.amsterdam/2015/08/why-doesnt-the-dutch-bike- cult...](http://tedx.amsterdam/2015/08/why-doesnt-the-dutch-bike-culture- include-helmets/)

<comment><USER9> Typical bicyle helmets don't help much with a face-first landing on the tarmac, your chin takes most of the pounding. I can confidently say that from repeated ... 'experiments'. In contrast, a motorcyle helmet that also wraps around the chin would be of great use in most bicycle accidents.

       185 cyclists died

A more interesting statistic would be: how many of those deaths would have been prevented by a bicycle helmet?

<comment><USER8> That depends entirely on how you fall off your bike, which depends on your speed and numerous other factors. The problem here is that it's pretty hard to tell after the fact whether a death would have been prevented by a helmet. We can guess, speculate but it's hard to measure the exact forces exerted - <USER2> also how someone's biological material will react to that (the brain).

In all my reading around this issue, those that don't want to wear helmets don't tend to wear them for fashion reasons, and interpret the stats they read to insinuate that helmets don't save lives. They don't like how it looks, feels, or that they will be teased for wearing one. I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks like.

And one other point to end on, it's not just deaths we're talking about here. Many people have suffered brain injuries from the impact of falling off their bike. Imagine there was something you could put on your head that would prevent that impact.

<comment><USER10> > I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks > like.

Do you wear one while walking? Or hiking? There's also an increased risk of brain injury from these activities.

Most people I know don't wear one, because the combination of the discomfort, hassle, inconvenience and appearance aren't worth the perceived low increased risk of cycling compared to, for example, walking.

<comment><USER11> I wear one when rock climbing, kayaking, snowboarding, skiing, motorcycle, bicycle, skateboard, football, etc. Pretty much any time I go over 8mph. I even considered one in aussie rules football but they were hard to find in the states.

I found that helmets for winter sports are better than hats. They don't soak up sweat like a hat does so do better in cold and are better vented than a hat as well. They also really help with the trees.

It's also interesting that they used to be "nerdy" on ski slopes in the US, then several major states required everyone under 18 to wear them. Now 80% (feels like) of kids wear them all the time, so you actually look wierd if you don't wear a helmet.

I definitely wear them on bikes and have needed them (and bounced off of them) many times. I tend to tuck when I go off the bike so I bounce the back of my helmet. There's a heart warming sensation of relief when you hear that hollow thunk sound of the helmet taking the blow on the pavement, tree, hardpack, rock, etc, with no bad effects on you.

Also on my commute I tend to hit 45 mph multiple times in the first 2 miles (I drop 500 ft in 2 miles and I feel it's safer to do 35 like the cars on the nicely paved winding suburban road than to sit in the bike lane).

Finally... I made this guy (who hates helmets) put one on after the kite pulled him up into the goal posts on a previous run. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGKG5ZFMQg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGKG5ZFMQg) He thanked me a year later.

<comment><USER12> That's a completely different situation than the average Dutch cyclist faces. First, there are no hills to be seen, so not that easy to pick up speed. Especially on a city bike which is 99% of the fleet. It's unusual to even reach 20km/h. People carry their shopping, kids, furniture and pets in them. They cycle in whatever they are wearing - suits, skirts, jeans, whatever; the fact you can just hop on a bike without having to gear up makes it much more attractive to everyday life.

There was also this study from a university in Utrecht showing that [in the Netherlands] cyclists wearing helmets are more careless and cause more accidents, nullifying any safety benefit...

<comment><USER13> > There was also this study from a university in Utrecht showing that [in the > Netherlands] cyclists wearing helmets are more careless and cause more > accidents, nullifying any safety benefit..

Are there any links in English to that study?

Someone said only people racing (or with racing bikes) trend to wear helmet in Netherlands. Knowing that it feels like that study confuses correlation with causation, but a university probably knows more than I do, hence why I'd like to read the study. Maybe it's just the press getting the wrong conclusion out of the study for agenda purposes.

I don't know. The helmets are not weird nor nerdy. They save lives even though you might not need it ever if you're lucky. I always wear helmet, high viz, reflective vest, lights everywhere... You know, I don't want to be that guy in the statistics.

<comment><USER14> There's an article here implying drivers cut closer when they wear helmets [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-h...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle- helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html)

<comment><USER13> Nice link, thanks. That seems to be another education issue: Drivers think cyclists with helmets are more experienced, so they don't feel the need to leave as much room as they do with "less experienced" cyclists.

It is an interesting point and I didn't know about it.

Almost unrelated, but I've found this part of the article _funny_ \- shows how we have to be careful with grand headlines and look at the article itself:

> Henry Marsh, who works at St George's Hospital in Tooting, London, said that > many of his patients who have been involved in bike accidents have been > wearing helmets that were 'too flimsy' to be beneficial.

Well, no shit Sherlock. The cases where the helmet helped don't end up in your hands. Guy's a neurosurgeon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Bullshit. I'm Dutch, never heard of or exercised this "Dutch Reach" behaviour and I was not tested for it when getting my driver's license. Instead, you just look around and in your mirrors to see if other traffic is coming before blindly and like an asshole opening your door, it doesn't matter how you open the door after you became aware of what is going on around you. I call this behaviour the "Dutch Common Sense".

<comment><USER16> Yeh, as an American driver I don't know how people open their doors in the city WITHOUT looking first.

In rural areas where bikers ride on the sidewalk and are not super common, sure, but I can't remember a time driving in a city where I was NOT super paranoid about hitting a car or a cyclist or a pedestrian with my door.

<comment><USER17> I think with the influx of people moving into urban zones, you get a lot of the suburban "biking is for hippies, so who cares?" mentality. I moved into a city five years ago, and while I quickly learned about dooring both as a driver and cyclist, I can't help but wonder how many people just don't realize that it's "a thing". Couple that with the hatred I often see towards cyclists, and I can pretty easily see how people either don't know or don't care to look before opening a car door.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a Dutch person, this is probably the cause of our parents always telling us to carefully open the door by looking first. And if you are not sure, open it a bit to see more. Also, in our license test, you'll have to learn the following rule: Getting out of the car, is just like turning the car, a special operation and you need to give everyone else priority so that your action will not cause problems. So take your time, be patient and be cautious.

<comment><USER19> This is far more believable than the claim that using the far hand will force you to turn 90 degrees inside the car and scan fully before getting out. It might serve as a good habit/reminder, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient to create this behavior.

I think much of the US is unaware of how seriously some other countries take driver's training. Our standards are appallingly low.

<comment><USER20> Letting 16 year olds drive is probably part of the problem. In more bicycle- friendly countries, kids start drinking before they start driving. Cycling to and from parties until they're at least 18. Hell, want to go anywhere at all? Cycle.

It's a pretty effective cycling motivator.

<comment><USER21> Also getting taught by amateurs, that just isn't a thing in the Netherlands. You learn to drive in a modified car (extra set of brakes, extra mirrors) with a qualified instructor next to you.

<comment><USER22> Wait, do people in the US not use professional driving instructors in modified instruction cars? Doesn't that cause a lot of accidents?

<comment><USER23> When I was taking mandatory driver's ed at 16 in the US (Boston area), the school's fleet was indeed equipped with foot brakes in the passenger seat. I'd wager a guess that all of the cars that you see with a "beginner driver" sign on the roof are like that. However, for the license test the only requirement was to have a hand brake between the front seats.

I have come to believe that we give out driver's licenses way too easily in the US. One easy, but sadly no longer practical, solution would be to require that the road test is taken on a manual. Driving stick from the beginning gave me so much more awareness and reflexes that have saved me from accidents more than once.

<comment><USER24> _One easy [..] solution would be to require that the road test is taken on a manual._

Here in NL, we do distinguish between them: if you learn to drive (and do the exam) in a car with automatic shift, you get an annotation on your driver's license saying you're not allowed to drive a manual-shift car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm not quite sure I understand. Do Americans _not_ look at what's coming from behind them before opening a slab of metal and glass a meter out the side of their cars?

Kind of reminds me of when I first moved to Thailand. My (now) mother-in-law asked her daughter why I kept looking over my shoulder when driving her car, and why/if I couldn't use the side mirrors. She had literally never heard of nor understood the concept of a blind spot.

<comment><USER26> Don't know about the American thing but what I do know is that while in Europe they teach us to turn our heads and bodies when driving, the modern world caught up with blindspotless mirrors and teach you to use them. It's much safer as people tended to turn their hands together with their bodies, effectively steering a car to the left when looking out the left window.

<comment><USER27> I don't lean left when looking back, but I just can't look back confidently because I lose track of what's happening in front of us. My first and only accident occured because I was so anxious to check the blindspot I didn't see the traffic stopping and I rear-ended someone. Blindspotless mirrors are a no brainer (they should be mandatory tbh). There are even inner car blindspot checking mirror, so you avoid the confusing view of two mirrors with different field of view close to each other. Either this or a proximity sensor with a large red light so I can sense I should break no matter where I look, military style.

<comment><USER25> Honest question:

In what situation were you travelling forward close enough to rear-end another car that you also needed to check your blind spot?

<comment><USER27> Highway traffic jam. Long period of slow (3mph) drive, then full stop. I was near an exit so I decided to branch of on the right lane that was free of cars, thus still fast (50mph) to take the ramp. Our lane started to move again very slowly, I took the chance to switch lane, but was anxious about the high speed cars, so I checked, double checked, without realizing my lane stopped again while I was taking up speed (hoping not to cause people to slow too much in emergency) and switching lane.

Hit the right light of the car in front with my left one. Now causing real slow down and even more traffic jam.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Getting doored is honestly terrifying (I don't say that lightly). I bike and longboard frequently, and I'll avoid bike lanes if they are alongside parked cars. And this is in Boulder, one of the most bike friendly cities in the US:

[http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/2014-top-50-bike-f...](http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/2014-top-50-bike- friendly-cities/slide/6)

<comment><USER29> Local governments have been kind enough to paint warning marks for cyclists, advising them of the safe distance from parked cars and kerbs. Non-cyclists call these warning marks "bike lanes".

Cyclists need at least a metre of space on the nearside at all times. It's your escape route if cars pass too closely. It's your protective buffer against being doored or against pedestrians stepping out into your path. Hugging the kerb gives you nowhere to go in an emergency.

Be brave and take the lane. If you delay other road users, let them honk and shout - that metre of space is literally a matter of life and death.

<comment><USER30> > Be brave and take the lane. If you delay other road users, let them honk and > shout - that metre of space is literally a matter of life and death.

In a country that already respects cyclists this may work. In a country that does not it will likely get you to wake up in the infirmary (assuming you wake up at all) after being hit by someone in a hurry that assumed you were going to give their 2 ton vehicle the room it needs to pass you.

Taking a militant stance as a cyclist by using your fragile body as an obstacle for large steel objects moving at two to three times your speed is not a winning strategy.

If all they did is 'honk and shout' you'd be fine but some percentage will try to pass you anyway.

<comment><USER31> In my experience taking the lane stops people from assuming that they have space to pass except by changing lanes. Car drivers mostly take their cues from the cyclist. If you're cycling in the gutter it signals for car drivers to try to overtake you in the same lane. Why would you be in the gutter, except to yield the rest of your lane to cars?

There's not space for a car and a bicycle in the same lane. A car will always have to at least partially change lanes to overtake safely. You're better off being 2/3 of a lane over, so your head is in the same position as every other driver, and car drivers change lanes completely to pass as they would for any other vehicle.

<comment><USER30> Sure, that's the theory. But in practice some drivers will see it as an aggressive move to take 'their' lane. They are wrong, no doubt, but it doesn't pay off to go head-to-head with a bunch of bricks when you're an egg. Better to play it safe. Keep in mind that you're entirely unprotected.

The best way to stay safe in traffic with vehicles is to assume that (1) you're invisible (2) made of eggshells and (3) everybody behind you is out to get you.

If you're a young burly male you might get away with this but keep in mind that advocating this strategy for all cyclists (little old ladies, kids, etc) would definitely not work.

In a car centric society the last thing you want to do is to occupy a full lane sized for vehicles but going 1/3rd their speed. It is an open invitation for aggression against your person, plenty of people see you riding a bike already as such an invitation it certainly isn't going to get better by occupying 'their' lane.

<comment><USER32> > Sure, that's the theory. But in practice some drivers will see it as an > aggressive move to take 'their' lane.

Having commuted by bicycle for almost a decade, _this_ is the theory.

In practice, if you take the lane, virtually every driver will simply move over one lane to pass. Some consideration needs to be taken, of course — if doing this is causing traffic behind you, you should move over and let cars pass (or bike faster, or find an alternate route).

But doing this causes an _immediate and unmistakable_ difference in the behavior of drivers. If you're driving in the gutter, you will get buzzed multiple times in a day as drivers attempt to squeeze by you in the lane. If you're claiming the lane, you might get buzzed once a month. No joke.

I know which I prefer.

<comment><USER30> You are likely young and able to keep up with traffic. But not everybody is young and able to keep up with traffic. Older people will cycle slower (and are far more vulnerable if they should fall or get into an accident), and kids are going to get clobbered if they should occupy whole lanes.

Keep in mind that any advice that you give for a class of traffic should apply equally to all members of that class, not just to you.

And once a situation develops (such as causing traffic behind you) it is a little late to 'bike faster' (which may simply not be possible depending on age / wind / other conditions) or 'find an alternate route'.

<comment><USER33> Your comments suggest someone who doesn't do a lot of cycling in traffic. Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that young or old cyclists will get 'clobbered' \- what do you mean by this? That a car approaching from the rear will see them riding assertively and simply plow in to them? If not that then what? That the cars will pass them closely as they are forced to move further in to the other lane? If that's your assertion then as others have stated, an assertive lane position is exactly what will save you in this situation - <USER3> you have the room on the inside to avoid the passing car.

<comment><USER30> > Your comments suggest someone who doesn't do a lot of cycling in traffic.

If that's what you got out of it then you're entirely wrong. I cycle a few thousand Km / year.

> Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that young or old cyclists will get > 'clobbered' \- what do you mean by this?

That the only way in which you can keep cyclists - of all ages - safe is by separating the various traffic streams. By forcible mixing them you are simply asking for trouble.

I'm trying hard to imagine Amsterdam cycling traffic without the separation of low speed and high speed traffic into different lanes and with people cycling like suggested above. The carnage would be terrible.

> That a car approaching from the rear will see them riding assertively and > simply plow in to them?

Accidents are called accidents for a reason. That car approaching them from behind may not see them at all due to some momentary distraction. You can attempt to make yourself 'large' and 'visible' but you may _still_ be missed and given the relative difference in strength and weight the outcome is predictable. The best way to stay safe as a cyclist is to stay out of the way of faster and heavy traffic.

> That the cars will pass them closely as they are forced to move further in > to the other lane?

There may not even be another lane. And a fairly large number of motorists will not see that as a huge obstacle in trying to pass a cyclist that occupies a whole lane.

> If that's your assertion then as others have stated, an assertive lane > position is exactly what will save you in this situation - as you have the > room on the inside to avoid the passing car.

Well, in that case you didn't need to take up more room than you needed in the first place...

It's kind of weird how all this seems to center around having a 'safe' place to go to in case the assertive driving ('brave' was the word, why is it considered 'brave' if all it is is safe?) policy fails.

Better to recognize your fragility and play it safe from the get go.

<comment><USER33> The point is that the non-assertive position isn't 'playing it safe'. You're no more out of the flow of traffic unless the lane is extra wide, you're signalling to following cars that they are welcome to overtake, and you have robbed yourself of any margin for error when a car misjudges their pass and squeezes you in to a parked car or railing.

You're right that the assertive approach is no substitute for segregated infrastructure, but in an imperfect world of mixed-use roads, it's the best way to stay safe, and is the method taught and recommended by many bodies here in the UK.

[https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/article/i...](https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/article/izn20130830-Effective- traffic-riding-part-1-0)

<comment><USER30> Interesting. Here in NL we're taught to stay to the right hand side of the lane with about .5 meters of margin to the right relative to where the road surface ends. That way cars can overtake without possibly hitting a cyclist going the other way. Also it is strongly discouraged to cycle side-by side (but kids on the way to and from school routinely ignore that as do couples of all ages).

[https://fietsmaar.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/schoorlam-n504...](https://fietsmaar.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/schoorlam-n504-fietsstroken.jpg)

Is a nice example of what the map of a road with mixed cycle/car traffic would look like, absent any markings you'd still try to re-create that situation.

Same situation in a more urban setting:

[http://www.fietsfilevrij.nl/wp- content/uploads/P1030380.jpg](http://www.fietsfilevrij.nl/wp- content/uploads/P1030380.jpg)

Cars can - and do - occupy the bike lane if they're moving, will slow down behind a bicyclist if there is oncoming traffic and will move around them when the road is clear from oncoming motorized traffic.

Everybody takes the amount of space they need, but no more than they need. To occupy a whole lane and to ignore the 'honking and shouting' (mentioned upthread) would be considered extremely rude and could easily get you in trouble because you're hindering faster traffic.

<comment><USER32> > Interesting. Here in NL we're taught to stay to the right hand side of the > lane with about .5 meters of margin to the right relative to where the road > surface ends.

Here in the US, we're taught to claim the lane. As I said earlier in the thread, I have tried both. The difference between the two is utterly unmistakable.

That said, you're right (again earlier in the thread) that I'm young and healthy and able to more or less keep up with city traffic. However, I did caveat my statement with the assertion that if you _are_ causing a backup (due to traffic, no extra lane, or whatever), you should exercise courtesy and allow traffic to pass.

I'm not arguing at all that a cyclist going a leisurely 10mph on a two-lane, 45mph road should claim the lane and sit there oblivious to their surroundings. But even if they do, this cyclist is going to be (in my experience) _far_ safer than if they were on the side of the road getting buzzed with a 35+mph difference between then and car traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The real answer is to get rid of street parking when you have a bike lane. They're incompatible. In fact, just get rid of street parking altogether. As a bicyclist, I've been doored. As a pedestrian, I find it difficult to see around parked cars to know if it's safe to cross the street in some locations. As a driver, I find it difficult to to see around parked cars to know if it's safe to enter the street AND I have a massively increased cognitive load of paying attention, not just to the traffic on the street, but to everything that may be emerging from a car or from between cars.

<comment><USER35> That is unrealistic and has very bad consequences on the neighborhood. I've heard urban planners (in lectures) say that when there is not a row of parked cars between a street and the sidewalk, people are much less likely to walk and spend time there. So, for example, businesses close along a street when parking is suddenly prohibited. And, as others pointed out, in most cities it is unrealistic due to how little parking there is available.

<comment><USER6> If America had a real public transport/rail system in all its major cities, this would be way less of an issue. It did at one point. America had an amazing tram network in many cities. Every city I lived in use to have trams.

Instead of upgrading trams like St. Petersburg, Melbourne and most of Europe did, America scraped trams due to lobbying efforts of car companies to switch to shitty buses.

The Netherlands have amazing train and tram networks throughout their cities. It's not uncommon to see bicycles piled up and belted to the wall in the bike section of each train.

<comment><USER36> It wasn't just lobbying but I do think it was death through a 1000 cuts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Amsterdam resident here. Such a good infrastructure and laws for the bycyclists make them not giving a single shit about the way they are actually driving their bycicles. And their behaviour and driving style is often very offensive to both pedestrians and car users. So it's not that straight and black and white.

<comment><USER38> That is mostly just Amsterdam. In the rest of the Netherlands this behaviour is being frowned upon.

And it is often not the Dutch people. Half the people in Amsterdam is tourists.

<comment><USER39> In Amsterdam at least, it is certainly not tourists who create most of the problems. Tourists are just a nuisance, usually clueless and going very slow and _massively_ in the minority despite the overall popularity of the city.

Dutch cyclists are substantially more likely to be running red lights without looking, at speed. They are more likely to be using their phone - <USER4> all over the path - or at night without lights. Stopping or turning without signalling - without checking over their shoulder - or pulling onto a cycle path without looking. There's also just as much nuisance cycling from groups of students two or three bikes wide having a social event during rush hour as there is from tourists wobbling around trying to figure out where they are going.

This is a familiar pattern: exactly the same as car drivers, people think being experienced means you can get away with being lazy and/or selfish. Then just blame "those other people" for the problems.

<comment><USER22> Amsterdam cyclists certainly have a tendency to consider traffic rules more as suggestions than hard rules, but there's still a huge difference between the kind that runs a red light because there's clearly no crossing traffic, and the kind that runs a red light on a dangerous intersection without watching while on the phone.

It's a minority, but I regularly encounter cyclists who clearly want to die. The most blatant example was a mother who was trying to direct her children to ride against the direction of traffic between a bike lane and two car lanes that just came from the A10 (presumably because she had to take the next road left and didn't want to cross the busy street twice).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Getting it added to the driver's license test is probably the key here.

<comment><USER41> Using your blinker is a requirement in the driver's license test, too. So is driving with your hands 10-2, coming to a complete stop at all stop signs, and driving the speed limit.

I don't think adding something to a driver's test is going to change much.

<comment><USER42> Coming from Germany to the US, I'm very regularly confused and annoyed how few drivers here use signals in a meaningful way. If used at all, it's halfway through the turn.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Perhaps we could add radars that block the door if there is a risk of dooring, either by a bike, or another car.

The car manufacturers have just agreed to put collision mitigation systems in all cars (by 2020 or something), and that requires radars and cameras. Even better, some cars have radars in the back, too, to identify cross traffic & c. So, identifying potential dooring event as well, might be quite doable using those same radars.

Edit: I forgot that my car also has this 'Blind Spot Indicator', that is, some radars that look to the side and back, to figure out if the other car is in your blind spot. I guess that could be used to prevent dooring, too.

<comment><USER44> While this could prevent some of the accidents, I'm not sure if the sum effect would be better. Allow me to explain:

According to Google, the average cycling speed is 15.5km/h and the average car length is 4.5m. Surely these will differ a lot from area to area, but they're good for a ballpark measure. This means it takes a cyclist about one second (4.5m / 15.5kmh = 1.05s) to pass a parked car.

Even if you have a car with sensors, if the cyclist is out of your sensors' reach (behind the corner of the previous car), once you open your door, that one second will not be enough for the cyclist to either stop or change course.

What _might_ happen, however, is having sensors could lead to more reckless behavior along the lines of "why do I need to look, I have sensors?".

<comment><USER45> >According to Google, the average cycling speed is 15.5km/h

That sounds like a speed averaged over a whole trip - including the phases of deceleration and acceleration before/after traffic lights. From my experience, most people are closer to 17-20km/h when traveling, with plenty of fit people going at 24+.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Right, Large scale change of driver habits is a simple solution... a more enforcable suggestion is that the car owner is by default liable for any damages that happen from dooring, and that dooring is a fineable offence. Give car owners a real motivacion to check for bikes

<comment><USER47> > Large scale change of driver habits is a simple solution...

I'm not sure how your proposed solution would work without a large scale change of driver habits.

<comment><USER48> People care about their wallet more than altruistic things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I am curious about how may incidents are caused from people that consistently are a bit lazy, and how many are caused by people that make a one off mistake. It is a genuine question. The reason it comes to my mind is recently I was doing a three point turn (actually a 20 point turn) to get out of my drive way, as other cars had left me with almost no space to get out, part of this manouver involved me having to pump up onto the kerb when reversing, and just after doing it, I saw a little girl appear from behind my car on her scooter, she then stopped and looked at me. I didn't find out from her (she disappear shortly after) whether I had almost hit her, or not, but either way it shook me up a little, as I appreciate I could have so easily caused an accident, and I would say I am a very careful, cautious driver. In this particular scenario other road users had left the cars parked in a way that bumping up the kerb was my only option, but I simply didn't see this small girl, I think she came from behind a parked car, so I couldn't see her. Luckily no harm was done, but it shook me up a little. Hopefully it'll reduce my chances of having a similar incident in future as it'll make more more vigilent to my surroundings.

</comment><comment><USER50> The problem is, dooring only affects the doorer after it happens. Most other traffic violations, like speeding, blowing stop signs, failure to yield, etc, can get you a ticket regardless of their outcome. Opening a car door into traffic, in Chicago at least, puts you at fault but there's no getting a ticket for not looking. There's only a ticket after your action causes an injury.

Obviously, we can't have police ticketing everyone parallel parking for not looking in their mirror, so we think we need to attack this from an education perspective alone.

I propose instead, we stop trying to segregate bikes into lanes that they don't fit into! Good bike lanes have a buffer between cars that makes dooring almost impossible.

Bad:

|B|C

Good:

|B|\|C

Where B = Bike and C = car and slashes and pipes = paint on the roads.

Or, if you prefer an image: [http://nacto.org/wp- content/uploads/gallery/bufferedlane_3d/...](http://nacto.org/wp- content/uploads/gallery/bufferedlane_3d/buffered-bike-lane_parking3d_0.jpg)

Or even better: [http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/9711441935_3df2f28926.jpg](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/9711441935_3df2f28926.jpg)

<comment><USER51> I don't think a painted buffer is any good. A real solution would be physically separated bike lanes.

<comment><USER30> Preferably on the right hand side, that removes the drivers from the equation (most cars only have a single occupant), and it stops cars from having to cross the bike lane.

[https://argu- logos.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/4357/Overtoom_Ams...](https://argu- logos.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/4357/Overtoom_Amsterdam.JPG)

The bike lane is _behind_ the parked cars next to the pedestrian area (and a little bit lower), you can see a cyclist on the left hand side of the picture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> One thing to consider is that the Netherlands is also considered the best place to drive in the world. Being pro-bicycle removes a significant number of short car journeys from the road. [http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/best-place- in-the-world-to-be...](http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/best-place-in-the-world- to-be-a-driver-netherlands)

<comment><USER52> I'm slightly surprised by the "best place to drive in the world" claim.

Urban driving in the Netherlands is pretty stressful, you have to check regularly for cyclists (in both directions) when turning, and also avoid trams/tram lanes.

Although, since the bike infra is so good, you rarely find yourself needing a car here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Great, a solution that boils down to "bikers can be safe from just one of many mortal dangers, if and only if every single driver learns this new habit and does it right every time".

I want solutions in which safety doesn't depend on perfect behaviour from people at minimal risk (drivers), like physical separation of lanes.

<comment><USER54> The only real thing then is to ban bicycles. or cars. Both parties need to learn to co-operate, because while separated lanes will help improve safety, the fact remains that the two will always need to share roads, just like pedestrians do in many ways (think crossings)

<comment><USER55> Yes, but you can drastically decrease the danger through infrastructure like physically separated lanes and protected intersections.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Just reach over the handle bars and close the door first.

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BAayzrJmiJu/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BAayzrJmiJu/)

</comment><comment><USER57> Here in Austin, some streets have done away with parallel parking in favor of back-in angle parking. This approach has some benefits, one of which is eliminating the possibility of dooring bicyclists.

Music in the video is lame, but this video illustrates the concept: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HddkCbsWHlk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HddkCbsWHlk)

</comment><comment><USER58> Clearly the solution is to have doors that open like this: [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0oV4IVy8tvE/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0oV4IVy8tvE/maxresdefault.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER59> Honestly, given how many broken driver's side mirrors you see around, likely received the same way, it seems like a smart move in general. Good for peds, good for bikes, good for cars, and good for the people getting out of their cars.

</comment><comment><USER60> In Belgium we don't have a word for doored either. But we don't use our right hand, we are just learned to look and make sure we are not going to smack someone of their bike. Also often the lane next to you is a car-lane. As such you also learn not to swing open your door wildly, as you might loose your door ;)

<comment><USER61> Yeah, this isn't just a thing to protect bicyclists, this is also about how to safely exit your vehicle with a lane of traffic next to you. Can't count the number of people over here (USA) that just blindly throw open their door and hope for the best.

I always check, and if I have to open my door with a line of traffic going by (there's some streets around here where traffic going by is literally endless) I open it a crack first, then open it only as much as I need to exit, and do the whole process slowly, and watch the approaching cars the whole time. I can't remember the last time I've ever seen someone else do that though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> 1) this is not a clever workaround, this is common sense. if you don't do this already, you're a terrible motorist and shouldn't be allowed to drive.

2) do high end cars have proximity sensors for this sort of thing yet? comparable to the way that large vehicles alert you if you're about to back into something.

</comment><comment><USER63> Cycling here in Boulder is definitely much more dangerous compared to The Netherlands. A lot of cars turn right without checking for bikes. What's up with that?

On the other hand the bike sharing program here in Boulder is the best I've ever seen.

(I'm Dutch and live in Boulder, Colorado)

<comment><USER64> > A lot of cars turn right without checking for bikes. What's up with that?

Why are you to the right of the turning lane? If you are a vehicle, _act_ like a (slow-moving, natch) vehicle: get in the right-most through lane, and _hold_ it.

<comment><USER20> That obviously depends on the infrastructure. If the bike lane is an actual bike lane, then cars turning right should wait until cyclist are done crossing the road. Please don't assume your system is universal: it's broken and it's not.

<comment><USER64> I think a system which relies on drivers to check blindspots for small, light vehicles while turning (when their attention is focussed on the large, heavy vehicles on the other side which can kill them) is broken.

Bikes are vehicles: they belong on the road, just like cars. They are slow vehicles, so they should take the rightmost lane. Cars should pass them on the left (switch the sides if you're in a certain countries), just as they would pass tractors or slow cars.

Putting cyclists where drivers are liable to miss them and doors are liable to strike them is madness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> So am i the only one who uses a different technique? I always look in the side mirror (the one on the driver side=left side) before i open the door, where i can perfectly see incoming bikes/etc passing my car. When i got my drivers license i was taught to do this and it became a habit, so i've been doing it ever since. Works very well.

fyi i'm Dutch and i've never heard of the "Dutch reach" before.

<comment><USER66> I do that - seems obvious to me, but I'm also a cyclist.

That said, when I'm in the back seat, I'm not sure if I do anything to avoid dooring.

<comment><USER67> > I do that - seems obvious to me, but I'm also a cyclist.

You don't have to be a cyclist. Another car may be coming and rip your door off. I think that using the mirror should be obvious to any driver

> That said, when I'm in the back seat, I'm not sure if I do anything to avoid > dooring.

You could turn your head 180 degrees and look behind you I guess

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I was doing something similar to this over the summer when I sprained some ligaments in my left hand so it was painful to open the door using the "usual" left hand motion. The video seems to imply that reaching over your body to open the door with your right hand will naturally force your body to turn to see behind you (or to the side). This never happened in my experience, I can reach over and open the door with my right hand while still looking forward. Actually having to turn your torso has to be an additional learned behavior. I suspect that folks might make the turn at first if taught to do so, then eventually do the lazier thing and stop turning.

As a cyclist who has been nearly doored on multiple occasions, I emphasize but the cultural change might be a bit too much to expect. TBH, I prefer jawbone3's suggestion of making the driver/car owner liable by default for "dooming" and applying a fine and/or surcharge.

<comment><USER19> They're already liable. That doesn't fix it, in the same way that speed limit laws don't stop speeding, and parking laws don't prevent illegal parking.

<comment><USER69> And just to be clear, this is not just in the U.S. The clause is in practically all traffic laws in all countries, because it is mandated by the Article 24 in Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.

[https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road...](https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_EN.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Good luck changing drivers behaviour. It is hard enough getting everyone to use an indicator.

</comment><comment><USER71> Is it just me, or is the cyclist in this gif(from the article):

[http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/09/doorzone.g...](http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/09/doorzone.gif)

Cycling way too fast on a narrow lane like this?

I'm not saying that he's at fault, obviously the fault is 100% on the side of whoever opened the door, but if I was driving 60mph next to a lane of standing traffic, that would be completely irresponsible, because if someone pulled out into my lane the accident would be severe. Driving in cities requires caution, but I notice that cyclists cycle as if they are alone on the road, zooming at 30mph past standing traffic.

I'm not guilt-free, I used to cycle ~2000 miles a year in a large city and a I did my share of stupid irresponsible stuff on a bike, but I think both sides need a bit of education on how to be safe on the road.

<comment><USER72> So clearly cyclists can't win. If they travel at the same speed as other traffic you'll complain they're travelling too fast.

If they slow down other people will complain about having to share the road with slow vehicles.

<comment><USER71> Well, I was thinking more about some studies that show it's the difference in speeds on the road that creates dangerous situations, and not the speed itself. So if the traffic is moving at 30mph, there is no problem with a cyclist cycling at 30mph. But if they are cycling at 30mph next to standing traffic, that's really dangerous. If you watch the gif it _looks_ like the cyclist is travelling too fast for the conditions of the road - a pedestrian has to literally jump out of their way, and there's no time to react to something like an opening door - in fact, there's a pedestrian crossing after that taxi, if there was anyone crossing the road there's 0 chance that cyclist would stop in time.

I would feel exactly same way if it was a car driving this fast next to standing traffic - the same sort of danger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> As a Dutchman, this 'dutch reach' technique doesn't exist here. People just look, they don't use some trick to remind them not to be assholes.

</comment><comment><USER74> Dutchy from Amsterdam here. Never heard about the term nor the technique. We're to look in all mirrors and behind the shoulder before acting.

</comment><comment><USER75> I Germany this is taught as 'Schulterblick' ('over the shoulder look') in driving school (which is mandatory in this country).

In general, you are taught to always use Schulterblick when:

1\. Changing lanes.

2\. Entering/exiting from/to a ramp.

3\. Turning.

4\. Getting out of a parking spot.

5\. Opening a door to exit the car.

Modern rear mirrors are curved at the outer vertical edge to avoid any dead spot. This means just checking the mirror before you do any of the above should -- in theory --, be enough (except for some cases of 3).

But better safe than sorry.

An exception are trucks. They have a dead spot at the right which the driver can't check. Mercedes introduced a an electronic solution for this in 2014.

</comment><comment><USER76> I'm going to try this and see how it goes.

</comment><comment><USER77> Wow, that's the first time I've seen 500+ comments on an HN thread about cycling!

As to the "Dutch" grip: when I did driving school in Germany some years back, my teacher took great pains to impress on me to always look back before opening a door. In fact, not doing so can cause you to fail your driving test. As having to retake your driving test here can easily set you back several hundred euros, I learnt quickly...

<comment><USER78> An example of bikeshedding perhaps?

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> How do existing self-driving cars handle this case? Perhaps regulation could cover this if the manufacturers aren't. The cars should have sensors to know it's not safe to open the door.

Getting rid of parked cars will be a good start.

EDIT: obviously the car can sound a warning or even briefly prevent the door from opening. Similar case, what if a car or truck is passing by very closely at that moment.

<comment><USER80> How does the car being self-driving change anything? They don't open the doors for you.

<comment><USER81> Given the sensors required to be self-driving, a self-driving car should be able to detect a bicycle in the "dooring zone", and prevent the door from opening and/or alert the car occupant.

<comment><USER82> Yes, proximity sensors are capable of dramatically improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists, even in non-self-driving vehicles.

Many categories of collisions caused by carelessness and blind spots could be prevented by automatically applying breaks, preventing doors opening, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I wonder if the car couldn't be more helpful.

For example, a lit rear indicator light (not blinking) would be a signal that I could check for without much cognitive effort, and it wouldn't be too confusing for the rest of the traffic. Just having it turn on when car was turned off but the doors haven't been opened should cover most situation.

</comment><comment><USER84> To be honest, I never use my right arm to open the left door, and I never heard of this practise. But I will always look in the mirror or behind me to check if a bike or scooter comes up from behind.

In big cities like Utrecht and Amsterdam, in certain neighbourhoods with lots of migrants, it is - as a cyclist - not safe to assume that someone will check for cyclists from behind. You - as cyclist - have to take care of yourself, which means driving more on the road instead of the cycle path. As an experience big-city-cyclist this is no problem for me. I merge with car traffic without thinking.

But I see it happen all too often that cars take a left or right turn without looking back. Same with people crossing roads without looking left or right. They just assume that the other people will stop. These are mostly migrants not used to our way of doing this, but more and more people using their smartphone in traffic do exactly the same.

<comment><USER85> "In big cities like Utrecht and Amsterdam, in certain neighbourhoods with lots of migrants, it is - as a cyclist - not safe to assume that someone will check for cyclists from behind."

Do you think migrants in Amsterdam and Utrecht are worse at checking for cyclists coming from behind than other people? If so, how do you know this? Have you experienced it yourself and did you assume the driver was a migrant, or do you have more trustworthy data?

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> I guess this is not a bad idea, but just looking in the side mirror before opening the door is easier to do, and probably easier to teach people to do.

As a cyclist, I give parked cars as much room as possible. I've never been doored... though I've never ridden in NYC either.

<comment><USER30> And your 'dead corner' is a lot smaller that way too, the rear roof support ('C style') can be quite wide and obscure a lot of your vision.

<comment><USER87> > the rear roof support 'C style') can be quite wide and obscure a lot of your > vision

It's getting worse and worse. Older cars (like 10-15 years old) still had bigger windows and thinner roof support. Sure, the cars looked maybe a bit less stylish, but the overview for the driver was a lot better (in all directions). Also new cars are wider and longer. Nowadays it's often hard to fit your car in a parking lot, and the doors open outside of the marked space. Some regulation would help to force manufacturers to think about designing cars a bit more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I'm honestly surprised this is such a common problem in the US. Most of the parallel parking spaces here are next to the road, so if you open your door without looking, some other car will crash into you. We have been trained since we were children to always look when exiting a car parked on a street. We were not even allowed to exit from the road side of the car most of the time. As a driver, you have to be super careful, because when you are parked, there is usually a steady traffic less then 50cm next to your left. You basically always have too look and double-check before opening your door on a street. I live in Slovakia, but I think my experience matches most of the countries in this part of Europe.

<comment><USER89> Yeah, American here, I can't fathom opening my door when parked along the street without watching my side mirror as I do so.

Sure, there's "enough room" on most streets to not have my door ripped off, but it seems a little silly to trust it so fully. That's sorta like saying you should just pin the throttle when the light turns green, as the other cars have a red light anyway, so it's unlikely that you will collide with anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Bullshit article: the rule that everyone learns is to check your mirror and double check by looking over your shoulder. I have never heard of the right hand rule.

It gets a habit because the chances are pretty high because of narrow roads and a lot of other traffic behind you.

</comment><comment><USER91> This is great, because it's simple, easy to explain and highly actionable. It's incentive-compatible because implementing this yourself greatly reduces the chance you'll door someone, and few people actually want to cause an accident.

</comment><comment><USER92> It's been standard practice in Italy since forever: I witnessed someone failing their exam while I was waiting for my turn to get my driving license.

The idea is that looking behind also protects you from being smashed to a pulp by an incoming car.

</comment><comment><USER93> It's weird to see this described as a workaround, or a deliberate method, when to me as a swede living in Malmö it's the most natural thing ever.

It's up to drivers, and cab drivers, to warn their passengers to be careful when opening the door. Of course this is an imperfect system but from my perspective it has worked for as long as I've lived.

Swedish traffic law dictates that the one opening the door is responsible for any damages caused, so to protect themselves, their insurance premium and their cars drivers obviously become careful when opening doors.

It messes up your whole daily routine if your door is broken because of a bicycle.

<comment><USER94> It is the same in the Netherlands. By the time people are old enough to get a drivers license they already knows this. Everyone gets taught this by their parents, and everyone cycles themselves so people know that this is necessary.

</comment></comment><comment> happy-go-lucky The other day I was at a four-way intersection, waiting at traffic lights with my bike, next to a car on my right. Red light was showing. There was no oncoming traffic. Then, on a whim, instead of waiting before I could move forward, I turned right 45 degrees and in an attempt to cross the road, walked my bike in front of the car and as I was passing the car, an aggressive motorcyclist who was behind the car moved out of the line very quickly with an intention to jump the red light and in doing so ended up T-boning my bike. I could get away safely but not without minor damage to my bike.

</comment><comment><USER95> This is very old, for as long as I can remember (decades) you will fail to pass your driving test in Greece if you try to open the car's door with your hand closest to it and without checking the side mirror first.

</comment><comment><USER96> And this is what most Dutch people will take away from this article:

 _looks at the taxi-GIF and images_ \-- wait, who _does_ that? did they do that on purpose?? the bike was like _this_ close before they opened the door, how could they not see it?

 _reads on_ \-- so hold up, in the US people open their car doors without looking. Yes, no wonder bikes are getting "doored" left and right .. mostly right, I guess.

I'm a bit at a loss for words, actually. It's like backing into a parking spot without looking.

This isn't rocket surgery, I don't think you need a "clever workaround" :)

</comment><comment><USER97> When riding my bicycle I treat it as if I were on my motorcycle, all cars are threats and if I can see someone in a car I am passing they will open the door so I plan for it

</comment><comment><USER98> For a pretty thorough description of how The Netherlands achieves safe biking, see this video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4)

"Fred Young, a Landscape Architect based in Seattle, led us through a visual tour of Dutch cycling infrastructure, share insights of the transportation experts he met and show how cycling is a part of daily life in the Netherlands."

</comment><comment><USER99> Slightly off-topic, but I found it difficult to read an article with a looping clip of a traffic accident embedded. I skipped the second paragraph.

</comment><comment><USER100> I know this would be a lot harder, but I think the best solution would be some city redesign where we separated bike and automobile routes, or at least minimized the places where they are together.

The Dutch reach _is_ clever, but it takes a lot of retraining of existing motorists, so it will take concerted awareness raising and probably a fairly long time-frame to take effect here.

</comment><comment><USER101> I simply don't understand people that swing doors wide open without even a thought of looking. It's just plain stupidity

</comment><comment><USER102> Interestingly, the bike lane shown in the first picture of the article rather marks the region that by German law cyclists are required to avoid. Cyclists are required to keep about a meter distance from parked cars to prevent dooming. That of course does not stop local authorities from creating bike lines exactly as shown in the article :(.

<comment><USER103> Do you have a citation for that law? It's the first time I hear about it.

<comment><USER102> It is not an explicit number in the law, but deducting from the requirements of driving safely, the bicyclists have to keep a distance from the right side of the road, especially from parked cars. There have been court rulings which require this to be 1m or more. You can find a bit about it here: [http://pdeleuw.de/fahrrad/stvo.html](http://pdeleuw.de/fahrrad/stvo.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> A couple of months ago I watched a short video about how we got our cycling lanes. I think it provides some interesting context on why we built our cycling infrastructure. If you like this topic, you'll like the video...

[https://youtu.be/XuBdf9jYj7o](https://youtu.be/XuBdf9jYj7o)

</comment><comment><USER105> A honest question for people who say getting rid of street parking is an economically viable idea - would it be economically viable if there was an underground road system purely for bikes, where there would be no way for cars and larger vehicles to share the ride? You also don't need to worry about the weather.

<comment><USER55> It would not be economically viable because underground tunnels are enormously expensive to build. The reason they can work for subways is because you don't need to excavate that much space for a subway train to move a whole ton of people. While bikes take up an order of magnitude less space than cars per person, subways take up another order of magnitude less space than bikes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> I've always opened the door this way. I want to know what's happening and it makes sense to open it that way. Kind of looking both ways before crossing, it'd be strange to give it a name like "The British Method" since you don't imagine anyone mentally undiminished _not_ doing it.

</comment><comment><USER107> I don't wear a helmet in my home town Amsterdam. I do wear a helmet here in San Francisco. Why? Car drivers are just not used to bicyclists in SF. Yes open their door without looking, turn without using their signals. And in general, don't pay attention and are on their phones all the time

</comment><comment><USER108> Great idea but I think more of us cyclists could be riding and anticipating 'if that car door opens can I stop in time?'. We can't rely on people in cars doing the right thing. Many of us cycle too fast to be able to react in time.

<comment><USER109> It's impossible to dodge a door open by an uncareful driver. It happened to me, I was cycling really slow, I was watching that door because I suspected the driver was still inside: When the driver slammed her door open, it just hit my shoulder, there was nothing I could do, it happened too fast. Since that day, I just constantly ring my bell when bike by car doors, which must be very annoying for the neighbours. But ey, safety first.

One more reason it's difficult to dodge an opening door is, swaying out of the cycle lane may lead us to hit a car we haven't seen.

<comment><USER108> fair enough - it hasn't happened to me luckily

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> This guy has the right idea. The problem, is that your doors are not the doors of a billionaire.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIAOosI6js](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIAOosI6js)

</comment><comment><USER111> Resident of San Francisco here, a global leader in amazing bike theft stories.

I look my steel cable through my bike helmet straps or I insert my u lock through the helmet. The only way to steal the helmet would be to saw it in half.

</comment><comment><USER112> Interesting. I'd just mandate drivers had to spend 10,000m on a motorbike, or time on bicycle and motorbike, before being let near a car. Car driving standards would improve dramatically.

</comment><comment><USER113> How about side view mirrors for rear seat passengers? As a driver with that technology I've managed to never open my driver door into an oncoming car.

</comment><comment><USER114> i am suprised how watching out for cyclist, or anything really, is not common sense. I do that and i do not even have a drivers license... Oo

</comment><comment><USER115> I don't know why anyone would fling open the car door on a busy road without checking their mirrors anyway.

<comment><USER116> It's not that everyone does it all the time. It only has to happen, say 1% of the time. Combine that with the number of cyclists on the road, and the thousands upon thousands of car doors opened each day, and odds are it will happen. As the article states, it happens on average once per day in Chicago. It's not a lot, but it is a problem.

<comment><USER115> I'm not disputing it; I'm just surprised so many people would do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER117> I Germany, many bike lanes are on the sidewalk, which is a good solution too, if you have the space for it.

</comment><comment><USER118> Its called "common sense" or "being polite"

</comment><comment><USER119> Or, as a bike rider one can simply look into a cars cabin and see if a person is inside. I assume everyone is a terrible driver, have no idea I'm on the road.

I am a regular bike commuter on traffic heavy Los Angeles. I'll never understand the mentality of bicyclists who are more concerned with asserting their rights as opposed to exercising caution and restraint. Graveyards are full of people who had the right of way.

<comment><USER120> Cyclists are already second class citizens on the roads. People who ride bikes are upset about this and would prefer not to become third or fourth class. It's also very frustrating to have to assume everyone is so ignorant that they wouldn't mind accidentally killing you for the sake of saving a second or two.

I completely agree that being aggressively paranoid is the way to stay alive. But agreeing that it is the smart thing to do and believing that it's acceptable are different things.

"Women are underrepresented in tech and they should just have to suck it up and deal with casual sexism & etc because tech bros can't learn to not be sexist"

That's roughly the same attitude applied to women as cyclists. Seems a lot worse that way, doesn't it?

<comment><USER121> > Cyclists are already second class citizens on the roads. People who ride > bikes are upset about this and would prefer not to become third or fourth > class. It's also very frustrating to have to assume everyone is so ignorant > that they wouldn't mind accidentally killing you for the sake of saving a > second or two.

I'll bite. Any cyclist who rides on the sidewalk, runs a red light, or flaunts traffic convention in general absolutely deserves to be treated as a second class citizen. Your wheels don't belong on the sidewalk. I'm sorry if I sound rude.

<comment><USER86> Riding on the sidewalk, for short distances and with a good reason, can be done safely and courteously, though it may require slowing to walking speed.

How many car drivers never exceed the speed limit and always come to a complete stop at stop signs? Your absolutism should apply in both directions, no?

<comment><USER121> I wouldn't have to be rude if cyclists rode at walking speed safely and courteously. Some cyclists are incredibly self-entitled.

Of course, I think we need stiff penalties for cars hitting cyclists. However, cyclists need to know they are second class citizens on the side walk.

Yes, cars not coming to a full stop is a problem. But saying something else us wrong doesn't make me right.

I'm glad you guys have a hug box going on here but if you can't ride safely on a bike lane, don't ride a bicycle. I shouldn't have to give way to cyclists speeding on the sidewalk. If you're at walking speed, you can ride behind me. No need to pass.

<comment><USER120> >>> I'll bite. Any cyclist who rides on the sidewalk, runs a red light, or flaunts traffic convention in general absolutely deserves to be treated as a second class citizen. Your wheels don't belong on the sidewalk. I'm sorry if I sound rude.

> But saying something else us wrong doesn't make me right.

So are you saying that because cyclists do wrong stuff, cars can also do wrong stuff?

Or are you contradicting yourself when convenient so that you can attempt to win an argument?

Your statements are not terribly self-coherent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> We don't let people do drugs, so why do we let them ride bikes on roads? It's the exact same kind of self-harm, brought on by poor life choices. All the problems in the article can be solved simply by having everyone be in a large sturdy steel frame, i.e. a car. Cars are cheap safe convenient and easy to use, so why is everyone getting on these two wheeled death traps?

<comment><USER55> Can't tell if serious or not. Assuming you are serious:

Bikes are actually wonderful transportation devices that fill a useful personal transportation middle ground between walking and driving. They're much faster than walking, but still quite cheap and healthy. By comparison, cars are extremely expensive and make you fat when you rely on them too much.

Walking would be quite dangerous too if we didn't have protected walk lanes (we also call them 'sidewalks') and dedicated walk signals at intersections all over the place.

<comment><USER122> Have you tried getting a job and going to the gym? Modern life is wonderful, stop fighting it so much.</comment></comment></comment>


Sold just got acquired by Dropbox and closed their company - <AUTHOR> http://usesold.com/ <comment><USER2> The opening line follows the boilerplate trend of acquisition posts. Being acqui-hired is not something that you should be celebrating with your users... PERIOD. (On a side note, I'm genuinely happy for you all. Getting paid isn't a negative. It's a huge opportunity, but don't patronise your users).

"Yey us. :D We're super excited to announce we got acquired. High-five... too slow... Now go f* yourselves."

It's incredibly condescending to assume that any of your users share your happiness and are apart of this experience...

"We're really excited..."

You use "we" so many times as if your users are apart of your acqui-hire, yet only mention "you" (your users who made this possible) in the closing statement.

Be honest and graceful, but asking your users for a high five on the way out isn't the way to do it.

PS. I hate posting negative comments. I'm a Brit, and like to be polite all the time....

EDIT: Call me out on this if you think I'm wrong. Other people who have read it think I'm just reading into it way too much. I tend to agree that I'm particular, and it could easily be chalked down to me being overly zealous to criticize another successful acqui-hire. :)

<comment><USER3> They don't have "users" in the same way a free blog site has users. I see no reason to be negative in this case.

If your favorite taco stand owner sells out to taco bell, the owner should be free to celebrate. You won't be able to get his tacos in the future, but it is not like he broke some implicit promise to always sell you tacos, nor are the tacos he sold you in the past somehow tainted now.

Shutdowns are only a problem when users make an investment in the platform.

<comment><USER4> I'm making an investment in the platform by using the platform. You don't think people have a right to complain? See: World coming to an end when Google discontinued Reader, a FREE PLATFORM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As someone unfamiliar with Sold, I really appreciated the "What was Sold?" section: I rarely, if ever, see that on shutdown/acquisition placeholder pages and always wished more companies would do that.

<comment><USER6> Also unfamiliar with it till now, just watched the video and wow... it looked like an awesome service. I wouldn't have been able to use it, as I'm in Ireland, but if selling was that simple it could really disrupt the likes of Craigslist.

I guess as its an acquihire maybe the vision couldn't become a reality though :(

<comment><USER7> it's an opportunity for someone to start their own, a big hole just opened up.

<comment><USER8> shameless plug, but check out our startup [http://sellsimple.com](http://sellsimple.com) \- we're tackling the same problem.

<comment><USER6> I looked through the site and watched the video - I think you don't handle the logistics of it?

One of the things that most appealed about Sold is that they send you a box, you put the thing in it, and that's it. For me, that's the biggest pain point.

Is that something you're looking to do?

<comment><USER8> We have a different system - but yes, we do help with that.

Instead of sending a box, we automatically purchase a shipping label for your item using the shipment method of your choice (USPS, UPS, FedEx). The shipping label already has the address of the buyer and everything filled out.

All you need to do is drop off the package (we'll show you the closest shipping locations).

From there we automatically track the package and show both the buyer & seller realtime updates of the package location & delivery.

We're calling this service "ShipSimple" and it's bundled into the overarching SellSimple platform.

The ShipSimple feature will be released in version 1.4 (coming very soon).

<comment><USER9> Nice! But I didn't get that information by looking at your site (as apparently parent didn't either), so you might want to look into that. And while you are at it, where do I find more information about the process, about the company behind it, the provisions,...? Other than that, nice concept.

US only I guess?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is how this letter reads to me:

Woohoo, we got acquired.

Thanks a lot for bringing our valuation up buy trusting us. We started $service to solve a problem that matters to you. Because of that we're joining $totally_unrelated_product.

Thanks for all the fish.

<comment><USER11> Let me add:

" _Because of that we 're joining $totally_unrelated_product._ And damaging the ecosystem that allowed us to get to this point."

It bears repeating that every time one of the acquire shutdowns occurs it makes users that much less willing to take a chance on a small startup. Even a shutdown like this that isn't screwing over existing users reminds everyone of the pattern.

Hmmm, maybe I should start ending this, or every message, with "Sarbox delenda est".

(Sarbox must be destroyed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est)) ; more specifically, this last nail and quite a few others need to be removed for the casket that the normal IPO was interred into.)

<comment><USER12> Let me fix the previous sentence:

 _We started $service pretending to care about solving problem that matters to you so that we could extract from you as much money as possible quickly._

I don't believe what startups say anymore. They don't want to _solve_ anything. They want to make something that looks like a solution for long enough that they get piles of money.

Maybe it's understandable, but I'd like they'd be more up-front about this.

<comment><USER11> " _They don 't want to_ solve _anything. They want to make something that looks like a solution for long enough that they get piles of money._ "

But if they don't offer value to their customers, how are they going to "get piles of money" in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> funny, in the old school economy this would be a failure.

oh crap, i couldn't run my company, the business i have built. i have failed my employees, my vision, my customers. all for naught, i got swallowed and now i am an employee.

but in web/tech bubble? hooray, i flipped this shit for cash. so long suckas.

<comment><USER11> One caveat to this is with the closing of the IPO exit, one either has to be _very_ successful or get acquired to exit. And your investors could be demanding _some_ sort of exit, they're generally not in the game for your employees, vision or customers.

Arranging and exit for investors or founders can be _extremely_ hard; I watched my father do that several times in the period when IPOs were still possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Build popular service, attract loyal user base, sell popular service to bigger company so they can gut it and screw your users; business as usual in the startup world, judging by 5 years of HN and Slashdot.

Every time I suggest this might not be a cool thing, people tell me I just don't understand the business model, or something. Same thing yesterday when Microsoft announced they were ripping out Skype's API. It's weird.

</comment><comment><USER15> Can anyone comment on the motivation for Dropbox to acquire a company that apparently helped people sell things? Is Dropbox interested in working in that domain or are they just picking up devs for their own product?

<comment><USER16> I think they jump on anything to do with boxes /s

<comment><USER17> Mildly correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I get a google products vibe from these sorts of acquisitions. Don't get too comfortable with that little startup! It could disappear tomorrow...

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry, but I do not fully understand your comment. "It could disappear tomorrow" ? Sold has written on their blog that they are shutting down their company..

<comment><USER19> As in, reading about ever increasing numbers of these sorts of acquisitions makes us weary of using products from these small starups since they can get acquired and shut down their service suddenly, much like how we need to be wary of using Google products and APIs these days since they could be shut down suddenly.

<comment><USER20> That was always true, even before the startup craze. This is specially true for small companies, but sometimes, they are the ones who can provide the most value.

Also, it's not like if Microsoft was shutting down. You'll be deprived of a couple of products, at most.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that a company named "Sold" sold itself when it got the chance.

Maybe more startups should choose M&A-friendly names. Acquired.io, which is available for registration, is a sure winner.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here's the submission (and accompanying discussion) that introduced Sold to HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5801340](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5801340)

</comment><comment><USER23> Sounds like another one for [http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/](http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I really don't get why Dropbox has acquired during the past two years Snapjoy, Mailbox, Endorse and Sold. Their product didn't change at all...

</comment><comment><USER25> I think there is a space for an disruptive _accelerator_ that completely prohibits this kind of behavior (a.k.a. acquihires), like a make-it-a-big-or- sink-with-it kind of thing, so users (and potential users) would trust more their start-ups knowing that this luxury-garage-sales-of-engineers is not the goal.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is a bit of a shame, Sold seemed like a good idea - I have some stuff I'd like to get rid of, but don't want to spend much time setting up the listing etc.

I didn't actually use them because they hadn't branched out into the product category (PC Hardware) that I would have used them for.

</comment><comment><USER27> I used it once and liked it. But they came across as dorky snobs in there marketing.

<comment><USER28> Glad you enjoyed using Sold. We are definitely dorks, hopefully not snobs, and had a ton of fun making our marketing in house :)

<comment><USER29> Congrats on joining Dropbox! As someone who has a ton of stuff that I'm too lazy to sell, I'm curious if you could speak at all about why the business was not working. Do you think Shyp [[http://www.shyp.com/](http://www.shyp.com/)] is a better business model?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Hey Sold team... do you have any lessons learned to share with the community?

<comment><USER31> I don't work for Sold, but I think the #1 thing you should consider is how you brand your company to make it attractive for acquisition. A good name can go a long way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So they were acquihired?

</comment><comment><USER33> First post I've read on HN today and here are the summarized talking points of commenters:

1\. Oh noes, they are celebrating their acquisition with users. That jerks!

2\. Small startups are like Google products -- prone to be discontinued or acquired and closed. Beware!

3\. They failed their users and their business model is a failure. Failue!

4\. "What is sold?", "meh", "puns".

I love HN technical discussions but startup or business threads? So much negativity... Thats enogh HN for me for today.

Congratulations to Sold team!

</comment><comment><USER34> I guess you could say they were...

(puts on sunglasses)

Sold?

</comment><comment><USER35> Sold sold. Nice pun :)

<comment><USER36> Sold sold Sold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> i'm really interested to see what dropbox plans on doing by acquiring a service like this. Any ideas?

<comment><USER38> I'm starting to wish we'd see anything Dropbox was doing with all the acquisitions.

Dropbox has hired some really smart people (and shuttered some great services) over the past year or two, but I haven't yet seen that intellectual capitol reflected in their services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Congrats !</comment>