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

321–330 of 339 posts

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

#321

Post by panick21_ »

Tade0 wrote: post #272
panick21_ wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Those are just two out of many points. I stand corrected on the second, but the first holds - road safety has been improving for 20 years now, why bother?

Why bother to improve the safety of a transportation system? Road safety has been improving since the 1940. Would you have said 'why bother' in 1970? Or 1980?

And the trend of less people dying isn't some magical automated machine, you have to continue to improve, otherwise the trend can reverse, see the US as an example.

And even if you don't care about people and children dying, even if you don't care about 1000s of people being injured impacting their lives and their families, about the massive amount of property damage, about the massive amount of tax payer cost for policy and firefighter, all the money sucked up by insurance companies that can be used to do something useful.

Even if you don't care about any of those things, it simply makes the system more efficient. By literally any way you look at, its one of the single best money invested compared to return you can get.

> Those are just two out of many points.

Both points you mentioned are nonsense, but I guess you have other points in your head that you don't want to tell. I mean if you said what they are, people might bring up facts in response.

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

#323

Post by cjrp »

Optimal_Persona wrote: post #296
lostlogin wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Car drivers potentially face consequences in terms of loss of license, and should be carrying insurance if something happens. No equivalence for cyclists and honestly the Netherlands is the least safe I've felt as a pedestrian in regards to hostile cyclists.

Cyclists that RLJ are breaking the law, and police do stop them. Admittedly they won't be caught by a camera, like a car would.

Equally if something happens (e.g. pedestrian knocked down), they're still liable; not having insurance doesn't remove that.

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

#324

Post by r00fus »

lawaaiig wrote: post #301
r00fus wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 veh…

EVs most definitely do not decelerate faster. Their increased weight leads to decreased braking capabilities, which, combined with their faster acceleration, makes them potentially harder to control and more deadly in collisions due to the greater force of impact. The regenerative braking force is generally much stronger than engine braking in ICE vehicles, as long as the battery isn't full.

In a sudden stop event, assuming the driver does the same tasks (lifts foot off accelerator pedal, moves to brake, then presses brake) - an standard ICE vehicle simply stops accelerating (minimal engine braking). An EV starts decelerating as soon as the foot is lifted from the accelerator.

We're not talking EVs that are double the mass (usually 10% increase over ICE), so a 20% reduction in speed (probably more) on an impact is more important than that 10% weight increase (impact force is roughly equal to mass x speed).

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

#325

Post by tmnvix »

naming_the_user wrote: post #299

Very cool, but to me it kind of illustrates a common pattern of thought on here which is that there's theoretically some sort of "optimum" city design which works for everyone which is a fallacy. There are costs and benefits to everything. In London you can walk ten minutes, jump on the train, get where you want, have a walkable (ish) town centre, go home drunk, and it's accessible to the poor (if we assume away rent…

> Neither of those systems feel inherently "wrong" or "right" to me, they feel like different opinions.

One of those options is clearly much, much worse for the planet. That's not just my opinion.

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

#326

Post by naming_the_user »

tmnvix wrote: post #325
naming_the_user wrote: post #299

Very cool, but to me it kind of illustrates a common pattern of thought on here which is that there's theoretically some sort of "optimum" city design which works for everyone which is a fallacy. There are costs and benefits to everything. In London you can walk ten minutes, jump on the train, get where you want, have a walkable (ish) town centre, go home drunk, and it's accessible to the poor (if we assume away rent…

> Neither of those systems feel inherently "wrong" or "right" to me, they feel like different opinions. One of those options is clearly much, much worse for the planet. That's not just my opinion.

Sure. The world would be more biodiverse, have less CO2 in the atmosphere, be less "touched" in general if you or I moved into a mud hut, or furthermore pulled out the old KMS card.

Realistically it doesn't matter what we do - we can't make the world "more untouched" than it would be if we didn't exist.

People have differing opinions on the level of modification that's reasonable to support their own life, their goals, their happiness etc.

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

#327

Post by lawaaiig »

r00fus wrote: post #324
lawaaiig wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EVs most definitely do not decelerate faster. Their increased weight leads to decreased braking capabilities, which, combined with their faster acceleration, makes them potentially harder to control and more deadly in collisions due to the greater force of impact. The regenerative braking force is generally much stronger than engine braking in ICE vehicles, as long as the battery isn't full.

In a sudden stop event, assuming the driver does the same tasks (lifts foot off accelerator pedal, moves to brake, then presses brake) - an standard ICE vehicle simply stops accelerating (minimal engine braking). An EV starts decelerating as soon as the foot is lifted from the accelerator. We're not talking EVs that are double the mass (usually 10% increase over ICE), so a 20% reduction in speed (probably more) on an…

Based on a cursory glance at google results, 10% is at the lower bound of weight increase, and in sudden stop scenarios I would assume tyre grip is the main factor in speed reduction potential, not engine/regenerative braking. I'm not aware of any convincing studies showing a clear advantage for EVs in these scenarios.

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

#328

Post by ColonelPhantom »

hcfman wrote: post #309

A lot around this is culture. The Dutch have been living with cyclists for years so they work with them. In London motorcyclists drive to the front by the traffic lights. The motorists accept this. I found London quite safe in this respect for motorcyclists. In the other hand, riding a motorcycle in the Netherlands doesn’t feel nearly as safe. If you ride to the front by the traffic lights the motorists will get angr…

> On long roads where every other country would give right of way to the long road because it works together with the natural psychology of driving on a long continuous road, in the Netherlands they will give right of way to small side streets.

Where was this? In my experience, this only applies to 'access roads', smaller roads not intended for through traffic. Roads intended to move traffic over longer distances do generally prioritize through traffic by giving right of way.

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

#329

Post by globular-toast »

r00fus wrote: post #324
lawaaiig wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EVs most definitely do not decelerate faster. Their increased weight leads to decreased braking capabilities, which, combined with their faster acceleration, makes them potentially harder to control and more deadly in collisions due to the greater force of impact. The regenerative braking force is generally much stronger than engine braking in ICE vehicles, as long as the battery isn't full.

In a sudden stop event, assuming the driver does the same tasks (lifts foot off accelerator pedal, moves to brake, then presses brake) - an standard ICE vehicle simply stops accelerating (minimal engine braking). An EV starts decelerating as soon as the foot is lifted from the accelerator. We're not talking EVs that are double the mass (usually 10% increase over ICE), so a 20% reduction in speed (probably more) on an…

Petrol engines have a nontrivial amount of engine braking due to the throttle. If you have a manual car you can easily compare it to coasting by disengaging the clutch. Bicycles also naturally coast thanks to the freewheel. If you're used to a bicycle then the engine braking of a car is quite surprising.

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

#330

Post by Tade0 »

panick21_ wrote: post #321
Tade0 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are just two out of many points. I stand corrected on the second, but the first holds - road safety has been improving for 20 years now, why bother?

Why bother to improve the safety of a transportation system? Road safety has been improving since the 1940. Would you have said 'why bother' in 1970? Or 1980? And the trend of less people dying isn't some magical automated machine, you have to continue to improve, otherwise the trend can reverse, see the US as an example. And even if you don't care about people and children dying, even if you don't care about 1000s o…

> Road safety has been improving since the 1940.

In the west. Over here it has only been a thing since the 90s.

> And the trend of less people dying isn't some magical automated machine, you have to continue to improve,

Which is happening without the involvement of cycling infrastructure and arguably the mentioned isn't that much of a factor. A while ago here pedestrians finally gained right of way when approaching crossings - there was some groaning, but safety improved. This is the level of legislation we're at.

Case in point: the traffic fatality rate in Poland is currently at the level seen in the Netherlands around 20 years ago, but by then the Dutch had a much more robust cycling network.

> Even if you don't care about any of those things, it simply makes the system more efficient.

Efficiency for efficiency's sake is not enough of an argument, especially if you optimise for only a subset of factors. There's always a tradeoff and people here are unwilling to make it.

> Both points you mentioned are nonsense

Perhaps to you, but they're relevant here.

Anyway, other points:

-Smog in the winter, heatwaves in the summer. In 2018 the sale of furnaces where you could throw just anything was banned, but much of the heating is still done using solid fuels, particularly coal ash. Meanwhile summer heatwaves lately have been approaching 36°C - I've attempted commuting by bike in such an environment - not worth the trouble.

-Urbanisation having peaked in the early 2000s at 62% and falling since(~60% currently). Many factors contributing to that, but the two main being generational trauma of living in cramped commie blocks along with barely anyone having the credit score to live within city limits. Dense living is a (dubious) privilege of those who have generational wealth. In the EU only Romania has the same trend and likely for similar reasons.

-Demographics. My city of 650k people has a shortage of 100 bus/tram drivers. Financial incentives that the city can afford don't work as the people who are qualified moved west long ago, when the west was solving such problems with immigration. We can't compete with say Germany on that front.

I could do this all day, but none of us has the time for that.

Post reply on HN