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

171–180 of 339 posts

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

#171

Post by louwrentius »

CalRobert wrote: post #51
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…

I will say that my daughters are five and seven and I don’t let them bike or walk to school alone here in Hilversum, which is choking on SUV’s. My daughter’s commute https://youtu.be/UWp7YiM3rzM?si=QoF4BgLEbnltcyg6

Dat is waanzinnig stom, en is zou willen dat er een Europees verbod zou komen op SUVs

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

#172

Post by Scarblac »

hehehheh wrote: post #95
Scarblac wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that happens rarely, then the cars just have to queue for a few seconds, no big deal. If it becomes structural, say the neighbourhood becomes larger and substantially more cars will go there now, then the intersection will be redesigned. Money isn't infinite of course, but this sort of thing is a big part of planning new development.

Ideally more density leads to more public transport.

It leads to more traffic of all types, I guess.

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

#173

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

reddalo wrote: post #166
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 w…

Italy is often associated with cycle sport and I believe there are some excellent rides over there, but certainly the cities that I've been to (only Rome and Naples) don't look at all encouraging to cycle around.

Naples is almost a perfect example of how to cram in cars into the smallest possible streets and a lot of the streets have to have metal bollards to provide some kind of protection for the pedestrians from the cars and mopeds.

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

#174

Post by mattlondon »

There are lots of dedicated cycle lanes in London now which is good. I feel much safer cycling in those.

But as a pedestrian and as a car driver too, there are still a hard-core of dangerous cyclists who refuse to use them and will instead be willfully breaking the law (going through red lights, wrong way/wrong side of the street etc). And just to add insult to injury, they literally add insults! Aggressive shouting, gesticulating etc if your dare to e.g. use a pedestrian crossing or drive on a green light but you are in their way.

Tl;Dr you can build all this stuff but it seems like the aggressive pricks won't use it and will just carry on with no accountability or consequences and we all suffer from it.

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

#175

Post by reddalo »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #173
reddalo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Italy is often associated with cycle sport and I believe there are some excellent rides over there, but certainly the cities that I've been to (only Rome and Naples) don't look at all encouraging to cycle around. Naples is almost a perfect example of how to cram in cars into the smallest possible streets and a lot of the streets have to have metal bollards to provide some kind of protection for the pedestrians from t…

Yes, both Rome and Naples are in the "South" of Italy, and the situation is worse there than in the North.

Milan, Ferrara, Bolzano, Modena, Bologna are just some Northern cities where cycling is encouraged and I can see them trying to get a better infrastructure; but unfortunately there's still a long way to go.

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

#176

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

reddalo wrote: post #169
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That path has been there a long time and is actually quite popular with cyclists as it goes alongside a very busy road that has an almost permanent queue on one side and lots of big lorries/coaches coming along the other side, so it's quite challenging to filter past the stationery vehicles without getting in the way of oncoming traffic.

For some more giggles, here's one of my favourite bits of "infrastructure" that's further along that same road (Coronation Rd, A370) on the other side. 5m of faded paint.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/znjzJ7bphdqhH5Sk7

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

#177

Post by reddalo »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #176
reddalo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That path has been there a long time and is actually quite popular with cyclists as it goes alongside a very busy road that has an almost permanent queue on one side and lots of big lorries/coaches coming along the other side, so it's quite challenging to filter past the stationery vehicles without getting in the way of oncoming traffic. For some more giggles, here's one of my favourite bits of "infrastructure" that'…

lol that's a place where a modal filter would be perfect; they could make a "hole" in the curb to only let bikes go straight through. Instead, they decided to put 5 metres of white paint in a random way. Great!

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

#178

Post by globular-toast »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #156
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…

> See, for example, dual carriageways. Technically everyone has a right to use them by any means (they have paid for it, after all), but you'd be crazy to walk/cycle down one. I regularly cycle along the dual carriageway part of the A370. Whilst I get that it can be unnerving for most cyclists, dual carriageways are well designed for cycling along as they typically have great visibility (drivers can see you from a di…

> and there's a whole lane for drivers to overtake safely.

But do they actually use it? Last time I biked on a dual carriageway I had cars and lorries passing at 60+mph with a centimetre gap. I've given up cycling for the most part as I disliked basically every ride feeling like it was almost my last.

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

#179

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

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…

Here in the UK, roads are paid for by general taxation. The fuel duty has been frozen for a long time (15 years?) so the general public are in fact subsidising motorists. "Road Tax" was abolished in 1937 due to the ridiculous attitude that some motorists get about "owning" the roads - this seems to be exactly your kind of attitude.

I wonder if you've thought about the logical conclusion of your "ideas" when applied to electric vehicles? They don't pay VED (emmissions tax, which is often referred to as "road tax" by idiots) and they don't pay fuel tax, so what are they doing on "your" public roads?

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

#180

Post by analog31 »

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…

In my locale, in the US, local roads are paid for by property taxes. The higher traffic state and Federal roads are paid for through a combination of fuel and income taxes. Cyclists tend to avoid those roads due to safety and distance. Cycles are prohibited on our equivalent of the motorways.

Most cyclists in the US also have cars, and are paying for license, registration, and insurance. Higher insurance rates are necessary because cars get in more crashes.

Meanwhile, bikes take up less space and do negligible damage to roads, and to other things like vehicles and stationary objects.

A more useful model is that we all pay to subsidize heavy trucking.

But also, each person paying for goodies that they don't use but someone else does, is kind of how a modern society works. It would be vastly more expensive to administer a society in which each person is charged a fee in precise proportion to the facilities and services that they use. Maybe in the future with AI.

Post reply on HN