Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#81

Post by the_gastropod » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:00 PM UTC

khedoros1 wrote: post #66

the_gastropod wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is victim blaming. If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? Clearly, yours. If you are traveling so fast that you cannot stop at the limits of your vision, you are diving dangerously. Full stop.

> If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? I see the point, but that's a different situation. A stalled vehicle is an accident. A group of cyclists going slowly uphill is a deliberate choice, on their part. I have a hard time laying blame completely on one party when both parties have made choices that increase the danger of a situation. I don't know exactly what happened in the prev…

Again, this is just victim blaming. The cyclists are not putting anyone at danger. People operating x,000 lb machines at speeds capable of killing others while being unable to see the part of road they could effectively stop at are putting people at danger. This is not an acceptable defense, whether it's a cyclist, a stalled car, traffic, a deer, or any other "obstruction" sharing the road.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#82

Post by grenoire » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #56

grenoire wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get used to it. It's a different set of skills, and your reaction times also improve over time. Hand signals help too. Although I still avoid the very center, with all the oblivious tourists walking on bicycle lanes...

I have been that tourist. It takes a few to adjust to the heavy bicycle traffic while walking around there because it challenges the "who-goes-first" hierarchy. The states: Cars go first, and watch out. Norway (Trondheim): Pretty much walk where you will, others will stop. Amsterdam: Bicycles go first, and the others wait.

The real hierarchy in Amsterdam is trams > cycles > cars > pedestrians.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#83

Post by vvanders » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #81

khedoros1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? I see the point, but that's a different situation. A stalled vehicle is an accident. A group of cyclists going slowly uphill is a deliberate choice, on their part. I have a hard time laying blame completely on one party when both parties have made choices that increase the danger of a situation. I don't know exactly what happened in the prev…

Again, this is just victim blaming. The cyclists are not putting anyone at danger. People operating x,000 lb machines at speeds capable of killing others while being unable to see the part of road they could effectively stop at are putting people at danger. This is not an acceptable defense, whether it's a cyclist, a stalled car, traffic, a deer, or any other "obstruction" sharing the road.

You're missing the distinction between legal and safe.

Is it legal to ride your bike on 101? Totally. In the same way that it's legal to go bombing down trails in a mountain bike.

Now is either of those things safe? I would argue not. The difference is that if you wipe out on the trail you just injure yourself, probably with some scrapes and the occasional broken bones.

Where I draw the line is when your actions put me or my family at risk. The chances of death or serious injury is much higher in a bike vs car(either for the cyclist, in another car crossing the double-yellow to "dodge" the cyclist or pile-up for someone following too close).

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#84

Post by the_gastropod » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

vvanders wrote: post #83

the_gastropod wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, this is just victim blaming. The cyclists are not putting anyone at danger. People operating x,000 lb machines at speeds capable of killing others while being unable to see the part of road they could effectively stop at are putting people at danger. This is not an acceptable defense, whether it's a cyclist, a stalled car, traffic, a deer, or any other "obstruction" sharing the road.

You're missing the distinction between legal and safe . Is it legal to ride your bike on 101? Totally. In the same way that it's legal to go bombing down trails in a mountain bike. Now is either of those things safe? I would argue not. The difference is that if you wipe out on the trail you just injure yourself, probably with some scrapes and the occasional broken bones. Where I draw the line is when your actions put…

No, I understand completely. In none of these cases is the cyclist the one actively harming anyone. The danger lies entirely in the high-mass machines traveling at high speeds. If the drivers of these machines are unable to "dodge" or "stop" appropriately, it is their fault if someone is hurt.

I understand the distinction that it is a risk to ride a bike on such a road. But I find placing blame on a cyclist for accepting this risk to their safety from reckless motorists absurd.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#85

Post by crzwdjk » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:54 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #53

oconnore wrote: post #9

I'm totally confident that we could replicate Amsterdam in any US city if we wanted to. But before we get there, I need an article about what to do about the fact that so many of my fellow Denver Coloradans hate : bike lanes, buses, trains, places to live, sidewalks, wind turbines, solar panels (but also normal road maintenance and traffic). It's like there is a conscious effort to create more smog and traffic jams.…

It's not a "social disorder," it's a bootstrapping problem caused by American cities being very different in nature that European cities. Look at Amsterdam: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Amsterdam/52.3683298,4.89550... . It's a little bundle of urbanization about 4-5 miles in radius, surrounded by farms. Compare Washington, D.C., which is a smaller city: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Washington,+DC/@38.914686,.…

The thing is, Amsterdam in the 70s looked a lot like DC does today, with no protected bike lanes and cars parking all over the place. So change is possible, as evidenced by Amsterdam and Copenhagen, but any shift away from driving and cars requires better alternatives, including bikes but also including trains and buses and metros. And DC isn't doing to great with that last one.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#86

Post by khedoros1 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 10:13 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #81

khedoros1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? I see the point, but that's a different situation. A stalled vehicle is an accident. A group of cyclists going slowly uphill is a deliberate choice, on their part. I have a hard time laying blame completely on one party when both parties have made choices that increase the danger of a situation. I don't know exactly what happened in the prev…

Again, this is just victim blaming. The cyclists are not putting anyone at danger. People operating x,000 lb machines at speeds capable of killing others while being unable to see the part of road they could effectively stop at are putting people at danger. This is not an acceptable defense, whether it's a cyclist, a stalled car, traffic, a deer, or any other "obstruction" sharing the road.

If someone knowingly puts themselves into an unsafe position, they made a mistake. Period. If you know that cars are whipping around corners at unsafe speeds, and you choose to ride (or walk) there anyhow, then I don't have much pity if something bad happens. Are they a victim? Yes. Should some blame be put on them for putting themselves in that situation? Absolutely. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

Simultaneously, the driver knows that they're controlling a heavy machine, and that they might need to stop suddenly for various reasons. They have a responsibility to operate it safely, according to reasonable expectations of the environment that they're driving in. "I was going too fast to stop in time" isn't defensible.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#87

Post by khedoros1 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 10:23 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #84

vvanders wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the distinction between legal and safe . Is it legal to ride your bike on 101? Totally. In the same way that it's legal to go bombing down trails in a mountain bike. Now is either of those things safe? I would argue not. The difference is that if you wipe out on the trail you just injure yourself, probably with some scrapes and the occasional broken bones. Where I draw the line is when your actions put…

No, I understand completely. In none of these cases is the cyclist the one actively harming anyone. The danger lies entirely in the high-mass machines traveling at high speeds. If the drivers of these machines are unable to "dodge" or "stop" appropriately, it is their fault if someone is hurt. I understand the distinction that it is a risk to ride a bike on such a road. But I find placing blame on a cyclist for accep…

I'd say that they accepted the risk, and that they can't accept the risk without accepting a share of the blame.

> But I find placing blame on a cyclist for accepting this risk to their safety from reckless motorists absurd.

I find knowingly riding a bicycle in unsafe conditions absurd. It's why my bike has sat in my garage for 5 years; I can't ride on the raised sidewalks, and I think it's suicidally stupid to ride in the bike lanes that are separated from motor vehicle traffic by a few feet and a white line. Frankly, I don't care who's to blame, if I wind up dead. It's not a risk that I'm willing to accept.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#88

Post by vvanders » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #84

vvanders wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the distinction between legal and safe . Is it legal to ride your bike on 101? Totally. In the same way that it's legal to go bombing down trails in a mountain bike. Now is either of those things safe? I would argue not. The difference is that if you wipe out on the trail you just injure yourself, probably with some scrapes and the occasional broken bones. Where I draw the line is when your actions put…

No, I understand completely. In none of these cases is the cyclist the one actively harming anyone. The danger lies entirely in the high-mass machines traveling at high speeds. If the drivers of these machines are unable to "dodge" or "stop" appropriately, it is their fault if someone is hurt. I understand the distinction that it is a risk to ride a bike on such a road. But I find placing blame on a cyclist for accep…

> If the drivers of these machines are unable to "dodge" or "stop" appropriately, it is their fault if someone is hurt.

Yes, and I don't give two shakes about who's right or who's at fault of the result is sending another car across the double yellow and killing me or my family.

Listen, I get that it feels great to feel like you have the moral authority to tell us how cyclist aren't actively harming anyone but they are creating situations(large deltas in speed, cars having to pass) where there is a higher chance of a serious collision.

Unless you're telling me that there's no statistical difference of collisions when 5mph bicycles are on 55mph highways?

FWIW they're building a separate bike path along large sections of 101 by Port Angeles which is the right way to address this, and I fully support that. The idea that having a large delta in speed on a highway doesn't contribute to accidents however is absurd.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#89

Post by Fricken » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #38

ballenf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cold is much easier to handle on a bike than heat/humidity. You can wear warmer clothes and take them off at work, but you usually can't shower and change into a new set of clothes.

You can't just wear warmer clothes on a cold day on a bike. If you do that, you'll start sweating, and that sweat can freeze, which can drop your core body temperature dangerously fast. So you want to layer your clothing so you can take off layers as you warm up; or you can just adjust your pace to prevent sweating.

On cold days I dress for what's comfortable when my blood gets moving. Which usually means freezing my ass off for the first 5 minutes of the ride. It's like taking a cold shower: you never want to do it, but afterwards you're always glad you did, you feel fresh and invigorated.

Re: Why Amsterdam Works So Well for Bikes

#90

Post by raarts » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

dep_b wrote: post #65

oconnore wrote: post #9

I'm totally confident that we could replicate Amsterdam in any US city if we wanted to. But before we get there, I need an article about what to do about the fact that so many of my fellow Denver Coloradans hate : bike lanes, buses, trains, places to live, sidewalks, wind turbines, solar panels (but also normal road maintenance and traffic). It's like there is a conscious effort to create more smog and traffic jams.…

Bike lanes are a result not the reason of having so many people driving bicycles in Amsterdam. Being a shitty town to drive in let alone parking even when the car was still king really helped pushing people towards bicycles, but you can't retroactively apply medieval road structures and canals to US cities. On the other hand Rotterdam has a post war road structure and still a lot of people use their bicycle, perhaps…

It had nothing to do with annoyance. The real reason for separate lanes is safety. There is so much attention for traffic safety amongst the Dutch, especially towards kids in traffic.

50 years ago traffic in the Netherlands was not unlike the US now. Until in the 70s an action group called Stop de Kindermoord (“stop the child murder”) succeeded in getting the government to pay attention and make a turnaround. I remember this from my own childhood. Many kids died in traffic accidents.

The attention to the safety of children is still present today, more bike lanes are being bult, kids need to do a traffic exam (on bikes) in 7th grade, existing roads are being remodeled for safety.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...