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

251–260 of 339 posts

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

#251

Post by panick21_ »

Tade0 wrote: post #160
Jaxan wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s good to realise the Dutch cycling infrastructure did not came out of nowhere. There were huge protests in the 70’s about traffic safety. At that time cars ruled the roads and there a lot of accidents, also involving children. From those protests an culture shift started, towards better cycling infrastructure.

There are many reasons why this is unlikely to happen in Poland, but from the top of my head: -Traffic fatalities have been falling for years now anyway - the 2022 figure per capita is around 20% higher than in the Netherlands, but used to be much, much worse. -Polish cities are sparsely populated due to adminstrative changes and little of the old architecture surviving the war. Official numbers say that Warsaw has a…

There are plenty of places in the Netherlands with much lower density. They have great cycling and urban design even in tiny towns.

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

#252

Post by sigh_again »

bar000n wrote: post #198
sigh_again wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Bikes hitting pedestrians (ex: children wandering out on to the bikelane) is a much larger safety concern than bikes being hit by cars. Source ? Here's mine: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2024/15/684-road-traffic-death... 1199 cyclists killed in 4 years, 658 of these being from collisions with various motor vehicles. 262 pedestrians killed in 4 years, 11 of these being from collisions with bicycles. Before any "oh b…

If a bicycle hits a pedestrian and the pedestrian was on cycling path in The Netherlands, who's fault is it? If the pedestrian gets a broken arm who pays for medical services?

If NL laws are anywhere close to the rest of European countries: the bike is responsible. The pedestrian is never responsible, unless they do something absurd like jumping in front of the bike without leaving any way to react to the bike.

>If the pedestrian gets a broken arm who pays for medical services?

The... Insurance of whoever is responsible? I know this concept is weird to the US, but personal insurances in Europe are about covering the damage you inflict on others first, then eventually you. They're also mandatory. In addition, well, a broken arm is not a financial catastrophe in Europe. Should it prevent you from doing your job, the insurance also covers that.

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

#253

Post by r00fus »

mp05 wrote: post #208
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…

> They are bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful (thanks to burning fossil fuels) Or perhaps thanks to a DC motor and a battery? Not sure exactly why you’re singling out ICEs in this point you’re making. Would be curious to know if there is some particular reason? I’d argue EVs are more powerful on average, if not the staggering majority of cases.

EVs are much safer - they both accelerate and decelerate faster and most EVs have regen braking by default - this means a) they get up to speed quickly b) drivers aren't worried about slowing because they can get back up to speed much faster c) as soon as the foot comes off the pedal the car start decelerating immediately.

This makes for a more chill ride - I'm much more aware in EVs than I am in my remaining ICE vehicle (a minivan).

That said, poorly laid out bike lanes are systemically dangerous.

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

#254

Post by alephxyz »

lqet wrote: post #122
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…

> I find bikelanes that are integrated with sidewalks incredibly dangerous and give a false sense of safety. As a cyclist, I also hate them. In my experience, what is even more dangerous than small children is dogs. Even if they are on a leash, there is nothing stopping them from just suddenly jumping a meter to the left, right in front of your bike.

The dreaded multi-use path where pedestrians, joggers, dog walkers, parents with strollers, bike commuters, e-scooters, roadies, kids with training wheels and older folks on 4 wheel scooters are forced to share the same 2.5m strip of asphalt, while cars get 2 lanes to drive and 2 for storage

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

#255

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

lostlogin wrote: post #245
Citizen_Lame wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which in turn means only most aggressive cyclists stay on the road. In London more than half cyclists jump the red light.

This sort of comment always comes up. Cars break rules too and there is a more of them. What’s the point being made?

One point is that traffic lights are designed for the benefit of drivers. Most of the time, cyclists can easily and safely navigate through a red light as they take up so much less space than cars. e.g. turning left at a junction (assuming UK driving on the left) can be done without causing any inconvenience for drivers and will often be safer for a cyclist than having to wait at a red light and then deal with drivers who've only just looked up from their phone and might not have seen you.

It's notable how RLJing differs between cyclists and drivers. RLJing drivers will see a light turn to amber and then speed up so that they can get through the junction before the other directions can start moving. Obviously, speeding up to RLJ is very dangerous to pedestrians who might be crossing.

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

#256

Post by greener_grass »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #212
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…

I think the problem is numerical. There are way more voters riding bikes in the Netherlands than in the UK.

But once upon a time the UK had higher cycling rates than the Netherlands.

How did the Netherlands manage to overcome this back in the 70s and the UK has not?

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

#257

Post by mattlondon »

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…

Just to reply to myself instead of each post calling me dumb individually:

I said we all pay via general taxation, so yes you me everyone pays for roads if we use them or not. Vehicle users also pay in addition to general taxes the direct taxes for their usage in terms of road tax and fuel duties (N.b. that road usage fees per mile are on the cards for EVs). Cyclists pay none of these (unless they also own a car)

If there is a huge government subsidy for something, you'd be a fool to ignore it

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

#258

Post by hencq »

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…

As a Dutch person living in the US, a big difference is also that almost every driver in the Netherlands is also a cyclist themselves. In the US there is this almost cultural divide between drivers and cyclists where it becomes part of people's identity. In the Netherlands most people will just choose their mode of transportation depending on the specifics of the trip.

In practice this means drivers tend to do a much better job anticipating cyclists, e.g. by checking for cyclists before making a turn.

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

#259

Post by readthenotes1 »

zelos wrote: post #77
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…

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.

I'm picturing a wrecked bike and a broken body every few hundred meters, painted in reflective white paint

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

#260

Post by yohannparis »

snakeyjake wrote: post #231
yohannparis wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I biked year round for 4 years in Washington DC. Biking by 40ºC and in the snow in the winter wasn't difficult.

Congratulations for being in the microscopically-miniscule statistically-irrelevant minority of people.

You are the one saying no-one would do it. I was explaining that wasn't a fact. I live now in Toronto and people are fine cycling in the summer (40º) and winter (-5º) all year long because of better infrastructure. Which is the point of the article.
Post reply on HN