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

261–270 of 339 posts

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

#261

Post by hencq »

jimmydddd wrote: post #243
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.…

I agree. The photo description for "Here you can see that a car drivers waiting for people cycling are never in the way of other people in cars" would not hold true in my area of a US. There would quickly be at least two additional cars waiting in the main lane.

Yeah, it's important to note that this design is specifically for local side streets that are only expected to get destination traffic. If it's a busier street, there would typically be a separate turning lane, i.e. a bigger buffer.

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

#262

Post by fifilura »

vanderZwan wrote: post #60
leokennis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general I try to avoid nationalism - a lot of what one perceives as "my country ABC is the best at XYZ!" is just "I was born in ABC so I am used to XYZ!". But...for the small niche of cycling infrastructure, the top 10 list is The Netherlands in places 1 to 10, then no country in places 11 to 50, and then Denmark in place 51. What is important to consider is that cycling infrastructure is all around great in The N…

Haha, same! I think the most nationalistic thing I ever did was when I went on a "field trip" to Copenhagen with the classmates of my international master studies, and constantly complain that the bike infrastructure was so disappointing. I have to admit Copenhagen hasn't been sitting still and improved in the last decade though! I try to frame it more like a friendly rivalry with Denmark (or more accurately, Copenha…

Although, in Sweden i am pretty sure the crossing from the example it would have had a pedestrian/cycling tunnel beneath it.

Look around, they are everywhere.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/BxEh3gBhooeH9Pfe7?g_st=ac

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

#263

Post by ajmurmann »

potato3732842 wrote: post #202
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…

Driver's ed in the US in any state with much urbanization to speak of is like that too (there's 50 states with 50 different curriculums with differing levels of specificity so generalizing is ill advised unless you're looking to intentionally mislead) unless perhaps one took it long ago or in somewhere so rural that other traffic wasn't relevant.

I took my driving test in Palo Alto in 2008. It was a total joke. We drove around the block; drove onto the freeway; took the first exit and immediately back to the DMV and that was it. Took ~5 minutes. My driving test in Germany was 45 minutes. We drove all over town through all kind of street types. I had to perform several different parking maneuvers, stop and start on a steep hill.

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

#264

Post by ultra2d »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #137
throw310822 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you mean the Dutch style cycle lanes: in that case, it's just tourists that risk impact with bikes, simply because they're conditioned to ignore them (i.e. the brain is trained to consider dangerous only what's beyond the curb). After a few weeks people just learn to be mindful of bicycles and bicycle lanes as they are normally mindful of roads. In particular, one learns to never change direction suddenly…

I guess this conditioning just doesn't happen in Taipei .. I guess then I don't really understand why the sidewalk and bikelane are on the same level at all. Why not have an actual barrier or curb and places to get on/off? it's effectively another road - with the same dangers as a car-road. But it's just some painted asphalt

Being used to Dutch bike infrastructure, the bike lanes in Taipei made no sense to me. The ones I've seen mostly are barely distinguishable from the actual sidewalk and at large intersections the "bike lanes" seem to overlap with the logical/natural spot for pedestrians to wait for a green light.

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

#265

Post by wonder_er »

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…

In the greater united states, the first people to get cars were also those who had various forms of power. Those people (moneyed european americans who believed in the myth of industrialization, supremacists) used power to shape the legal regime of cities to claim more space for themselves.

"Jaywalking" is a pejorative slur popularized by some people in the USA to justify their road supremacy.

I've lost friendships with my american friends (and a canadian, living in america) because of how evident their dangerous driving is, with regard to non-drivers is.

I can stomach approximately one mean thing to be said about someone walking on a street before I am unable to be in friendship with the person who says that mean thing.

Pedestrians in america are not "second rate citizens", they are seen as _not having dignity or humanity_. the kinds of people in america likely to be walking around certain roads have generally been of the groups of people some Americans have pointed ethnic cleansing energies at, which obviously requires lots of dehumanization already.

I have such beef with the various powers and authorities that influence american mobility networks.

American traffic planners are functional flat-earthers. not great.

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

#266

Post by wonder_er »

snakeyjake wrote: post #195
isoprophlex wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having recently read "Amerikanen Lopen Niet" (Americans Don't Walk), the power dynamic you describe seems to be entirely real. Because a car is essential for economic survival in the USA, it's probably difficult for some to accept alternate realities from the status quo.

Americans will never walk. Where I live, today's high temperature is lower than the low temperature in Amsterdam. In August the average low temperature is higher than the average high temperature in Amsterdam. Nobody, not even the hardiest Dutchman is going to walk or cycle when it is 27C at midnight in the summer and 0C at the warmest in the winter with four months of "Amsterdam weather" sprinkled between summer and…

er, every car driver is a carless driver before they enter and after they exit, their vehicle.

everyone in America walks. They simply happen to do most of their walking in parking lots.

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

#267

Post by INTPenis »

My hometown of Malmö is very bike friendly but let me be frank, no it does not flow smoothly. Cars are required to stop for cyclists and pedestrians on most crosswalks.

And no they do not like it, we have consciously prioritized pedestrians and cyclists at the expense of car drivers patience, fuel, and even congestion when the cars behind them all have to stop for a cyclist to cross.

Drivers get mad, regularly complain, cyclists abuse their privilege by rolling into intersections without even turning their heads towards traffic.

And you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way. I think a healthy society should prioritize healthy alternatives to cars.

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

#268

Post by microtonal »

holoduke wrote: post #209
Neonlicht wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes the Netherlands special is not the bike paths. Its the law. When there is an accident between a car and a bike it is always the fault of the car. Its the driver who gets the insurance claim no questions asked. Cyclists get special protection. This is not something other countries can adapt because it requires a deep moral shift.

Thats absoluyely not true. There is the so called principle of dual causality. If you hit a car you might have to pay 50% depending on situation. If its clearly the biker its still 0% for the car.

If its clearly the biker its still 0% for the car.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The car is only 0% responsible in the case of 'force majeur'. Which means that it was impossible for the driver of the motorized vehicle to avoid the accident.

https://letselschade.com/kennisbank/wat-is-overmacht-zoals-b...

Note that (translated): "an appeal to force majeur will rarely by successful in practice, because it's rarely the case that the driver cannot be reproached.

IANAL, but e.g. when a cyclist crosses a red light and gets hit by a car. Even though the cyclist is responsible, in most cases the car driver could have avoided the accident by looking carefully and not accelerating too quickly near bike/pedestrian crossings. This has always been my understanding of Dutch law and is also how all Dutch drivers I know drive - acutely aware and careful near bikes and pedestrians.

And this is how it should be, because to pedestrians and bikes, cars are like a continuous stream of bullets.

Someone recently had a nice description of the law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41625337

Quoting it here:

I briefly studied law in the Netherlands and it was used as an example. Our lecturer told us that if "A person on a bike would jump out of an airplane on a bike, land with a parachute on a highway and get hit by a car, just maybe would the car have a case." The reasons for this are varied. Cars are insured, bikes are not. But most importantly, in basically all traffic situations with cars and bikes the car introduces the danger and should thus bear the responsibility of any accidents.

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

#269

Post by brnt »

INTPenis wrote: post #267

My hometown of Malmö is very bike friendly but let me be frank, no it does not flow smoothly. Cars are required to stop for cyclists and pedestrians on most crosswalks. And no they do not like it, we have consciously prioritized pedestrians and cyclists at the expense of car drivers patience, fuel, and even congestion when the cars behind them all have to stop for a cyclist to cross. Drivers get mad, regularly compla…

Only daft tourists and provincials use a car in a city like Amsterdam. You are right, car traffic doesn't flow, but that is kinda the point. Bikes and pedestrians first, cars second.

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

#270

Post by globular-toast »

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.

The electricity mostly comes from fossil fuels too.

The reason I mention it is because it's unfair from the start. That we ever allowed such unsustainable transport to become the norm is a huge part of the problem.

Post reply on HN