Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

bicycledutch.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 339 posts

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#161

Post by mattlondon »

globular-toast wrote: post #147
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #76

This design highlights a major failing with UK cycle "infrastructure". Here, we often have shared use pavements with sometimes a bit of white paint to designate the pedestrian and cycle lanes, but they cede priority at every single side road. The problem is that it makes cycling using them really awkward as it takes significant energy for cyclists to slow down and then speed up multiple times. The irony is that if yo…

The problem in the UK is a deep cultural one. First we have to understand that, all things being equal, cars "win" by default on the roads. They are bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful (thanks to burning fossil fuels), and the operators are more reckless and inconsiderate due to being shielded from the outside world. That means their presence on the roads automatically makes it more dangerous and unpleasant for…

The roads are paid for in a large part by road taxes and fuel taxes. Cyclists pay zero towards it in direct taxation, apart from general taxation that everyone pays anyway. Why should cyclists be able to free load off of infrastructure paid for by tax-paying vehicles, and dictate that they are built to favour cyclists when they are not contributing a single penny?

Also your point about being "near" is kinda ridiculous. The police would take an interest if someone cut your skin deliberately, but would equally not take any interest if you just walked near a car. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I agree on your point about waiting to cross as a pedestrian though. It is often quite unreasonable for multiple people to be standing there - often in rain or other inclement weather - waiting for a single person in their nice dry car to drive past.

Life is too short to care about these trifling matters really though isn't it? Sure, die on this hill if you want but for most people it is easier to just buy an electric car, pay the taxes, and move on with the important things in life. Life isn't fair - if you want to dedicate your ire to something unjust then there are IMO better causes to champion than the first world problem of not having nice cycle lanes in an otherwise safe and secure developed first world democratic country with low infant mortality, high quality water, universal free healthcare, and high adult literacy levels. You have already won the life lottery, but many tens/hundreds of millions around the world are not so lucky. Or you can just moan about the white lines on your cycle lane being a bit crappy. Up to you.

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#162

Post by zelos »

anentropic wrote: post #135
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #76

This design highlights a major failing with UK cycle "infrastructure". Here, we often have shared use pavements with sometimes a bit of white paint to designate the pedestrian and cycle lanes, but they cede priority at every single side road. The problem is that it makes cycling using them really awkward as it takes significant energy for cyclists to slow down and then speed up multiple times. The irony is that if yo…

Yeah it really strikes me when reading the OP article that this is what a country that's "got it's shit together" looks like... OTOH I did wonder how feasible it is to transfer such a well-designed system to UK towns and cities where it seems like available space would be too cramped to recreate all those nice features though

The Netherlands really does a great job on infrastructure. It's not like they're even particularly anti-car: driving there is a pretty decent experience too. It's extremely depressing driving onto the ferry in Hook of Holland and then driving off at Harwich.

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#163

Post by mrweasel »

desas wrote: post #40
dmurray wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't deal with what happens when the queue gets bigger than one. It looks like a second car would queue on the main road, blocking traffic. To eliminate this you could turn the buffer into a whole extra lane with room for say 5 cars to queue, but this would compromise on the nice feature where the partially turned car gets to completely turn and have great vision of the cycle lanes in both directions.…

Build more bike lanes. To an extent, it's a self-solving problem. If you have great non-car transport options and an increase in traffic makes car driving less appealing, then more people will use those non-car transport options rather than joining the queue.

> Build more bike lanes.

The problem is that you may not have the room for it. The US might often have more room to retro-fit bike lanes, due to their roads be generally pretty wide. European cities, like Copenhagen have a massive issue as more and more people get things like cargo bikes and electric bikes. The bike lanes needs to be expanded to accommodate them, but there's no room. You'd have to remove cars from large parts of the city, which sounds great, except you do need to have the option to drive, either due to distances, public transport or deliveries. You can't do parking and have people walk, because there's also no room for parking.

For some cities I also don't see bike lanes as solving to much. Some cities, again often in the US have a huge area and millions of people. Distances in cities like Houston, New York, Los Angeles or Atlanta are just insane, taking up enough space to cover half of a small European nation.

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#164

Post by llamaimperative »

vanderZwan wrote: post #124
isoprophlex wrote: post #96

It's the urban planning, but I'll point out that it's the requirements and responibilities put on the drivers as well. Driving lessons for me consisted for 80% of learning how to ALWAYS ALWAYS track all the cyclists and pedestrians in urban environments, how to approach an intersection and have complete visual on whatever the weaker parties might be doing. A very defensive "assume weird shit can happen any time, and…

It also helps that "the car driver is to blame until proven otherwise" is the actual law in the Netherlands, which is motivated precisely because of that power dynamic. Essentially, the responsibility defaults the more dangerous vehicle. (for some reason this always is controversial with a lot of Americans whenever it is brought up in on-line discussions)

The reason: lobbying from auto manufacturers!

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#165

Post by GuB-42 »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #91

I find bikelanes that are integrated with sidewalks incredibly dangerous and give a false sense of safety. Bikes hitting pedestrians (ex: children wandering out on to the bikelane) is a much larger safety concern than bikes being hit by cars. Taipei uses the sidewalk model and I recommend never using them I find the Chinese model of bike/scooter lanes w/ barriers integrated into the main road a superior model. The ot…

When we visited Amsterdam as pedestrians, we absolutely hated these bike lane / sidewalk combinations. The problem are the often narrow, obstructed sidewalks forcing you to step into the bike lane. I wouldn't call that "incredibly dangerous" though, after all, we didn't witness any accident, but certainly annoying, especially considering that the most common obstruction is parked bikes.

I guess it takes some getting used to, or maybe the Dutch simply avoid walking and take the bike instead.

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#166

Post by reddalo »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #76

This design highlights a major failing with UK cycle "infrastructure". Here, we often have shared use pavements with sometimes a bit of white paint to designate the pedestrian and cycle lanes, but they cede priority at every single side road. The problem is that it makes cycling using them really awkward as it takes significant energy for cyclists to slow down and then speed up multiple times. The irony is that if yo…

Italy has exactly the same problem. Not only we have a horrible infrastructure (the quality of our asphalt is abysmal), but cycle paths are pretty much always shared with pedestrians, and they're filled with obstacles (manholes, poles, chicanes...).

Moreover, bike paths are usually built on only one side of the road as a two-way path. It's dangerous for everybody involved, especially when a car has to stop and give way to both sides (spoiler: cars don't do it).

Everything makes biking on a bike path a slower and horrible experience, so nobody uses bike paths and then a vicious circle ensues.

We should all learn from the Ducth and the Danes.

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#167

Post by Freak_NL »

miggol wrote: post #149
itronitron wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain this, the italicized part below, in more detail? >> When you approach from the side street, as a driver, the order of dealing with other traffic is different, but the priority is similar. First you will notice a speed bump. The complete intersection is on a raised table. Pedestrians would not have priority if the street was level, but now that it isn’t the “exit construction” rule could apply and…

This is a part of the national design language of the roads in The Netherlands. Almost universally the following two rules hold: pedestrians walk on a raised pavement next to the road, and through roads have priority. To compliment those existing rules, exits from side streets where pedestrians on the through road have priority include a raised hump that brings motorists up to pavement level. That emphasizes that it…

The linked photo actually shows a really bad example. For the 'exit construction' to be valid, the footway must continue uninterrupted with the same surface. In this example, different pavers where used, making the situation ambiguous.

See the pictures in this article:

https://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/in-het-verkeer/verkeers...

The first two examples are how it should be done. The third is similar to your link, and is ambiguous.

I've had a cyclist curse me to hell and back for taking priority on one of those raised tables as a pedestrian because the paving didn't match the sidewalk. :)

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#168

Post by ldite »

mattlondon wrote: post #161
globular-toast wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem in the UK is a deep cultural one. First we have to understand that, all things being equal, cars "win" by default on the roads. They are bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful (thanks to burning fossil fuels), and the operators are more reckless and inconsiderate due to being shielded from the outside world. That means their presence on the roads automatically makes it more dangerous and unpleasant for…

The roads are paid for in a large part by road taxes and fuel taxes. Cyclists pay zero towards it in direct taxation, apart from general taxation that everyone pays anyway. Why should cyclists be able to free load off of infrastructure paid for by tax-paying vehicles, and dictate that they are built to favour cyclists when they are not contributing a single penny? Also your point about being "near" is kinda ridiculou…

I am a (UK) cyclist, and I pay both road taxes and fuel taxes.

(For the car that I also own, to be clear)

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#169

Post by reddalo »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #127
zelos wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even worse in my UK village. they don't even paint white lines, just the white outline of a bike every few hundred meters on the road.

Here's a premium shared use pavement in Bristol (allegedly a "cycling city") that shows what you're missing https://maps.app.goo.gl/Gw3SBWT9WdYLDTN3A

lol are you serious? A "bike path" with f*cking trees and lightposts right in the middle? It looks like one of those EU-funding scams.

Re: A common urban intersection in the Netherlands (2018)

#170

Post by louwrentius »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #53
louwrentius wrote: post #12

Although this was in the '80s I remember that I (Dutch) walked to school at the age of 5, in a town (technically a city (Enkhuizen)), mostly through a pedestrian area but I had to cross one busy street. My parents told me later that they secretly followed me the first few times (I never noticed). Just try to image that you live in a country that is so safe you can let small kids walk to school. Try to imagine what a…

> Just try to imag[in]e that you live in a country that is so safe you can let small kids walk to school. The USA is already that safe. > Try to imagine what a society could look like if it's designed for people first, not traffic. The normal approach is to build overpasses or underpasses so that pedestrians have no need to go into the road. https://tylervigen.com/the-mystery-of-the-bloomfield-bridge

The reality is that due to zoning laws children have to travel by car or bus, which is inherently less safe. Zoning laws have made USA into a terrible environment for everyone. People don’t even know what it’s like to run errands and just walk or bike.
Post reply on HN