This is how to do it. Clean separation of road vehicles from bikes, none of this painted line in the parking lane nonsense. Engineer for the most vulnerable, give space for everybody.
Even as a driver, this is how I want things to be.
It's not just the roads, it's the whole infrastructure. I live in a modern estate (cira 1990); from here I can cycle to three town centers within 15-20 minutes. Our local shopping center is 5 minutes cycle, or 7-8 minutes by car.
My wife cycles to work, and takes our 15 month old to daycare on her bike. Next year I'll be able to cycle too. Can't wait :)
The future of transportation is; separate different modes of transportation as much as possible.
When I was younger, I was regularly biking in between the car lanes( sometimes very risky ), skipping the bicycle paths since they were much slower or simply missing. I would almost always get there before I would with a car or a bus, and parking wasn't a problem. If the lanes were completely separated this could be done safely.
From my experience the roundabouts where the bicycle lane isn't separated, are the least safe for bicyclists, out of any type of intersection. I think the cause is that apart from normal intersections with stop signs or lights, where stopping is the usual procedure, the roundabouts are fluid where drivers stop much less and thus "prefer" not to stop or just think they have the right of way.
Just as important as junction design is driver education. In the Netherlands they focus very hard on driving safely with respect to cyclists. A big part of that is indeed roundabouts. An average driving course will make you practice driving safely on different types of roundabouts many many times, and the main focus is on avoiding accidents with cyclists. This is important because on most roundabouts the cyclists do have priority when they are going around the roundabout over a car who is leaving or entering the roundabout, and cyclists will take that priority without a second thought because they know that the driver will stop as he/she should.
This also means that it can be hard to pass a driving exam for foreigners who already have a drivers license in their home country. I know several people who have failed the exam multiple times despite driving for years in their home country.
Rather off topic, but have you already considered that the obligation of a driver's license is against the hacker ethics and thus hackers should campaign for an abolition of driver's licenses?
"Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works—should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!"
"We don't have cars anymore, we have computers we ride in; we don't have airplanes anymore, we have flying Solaris boxes with a big
bucketful of SCADA controllers [laughter]; a 3D printer is not a device, it's a peripheral, and it only works connected to a computer; a radio is no longer a crystal, it's a general-purpose computer with a fast ADC and a fast DAC and some software."
this rule should also apply to cars. Also for point 3 of Levy's hacker ethics
"Mistrust authority—promote decentralization"
it is clear how an mandatory driver's licenses violates it, since there is a central authority which allows/disallows driving.
To state one thing clear: If you want to drive a vehicle, I strongly recommend taking some driving lessons. But making a driver's license madatory is a clear violation of the hacker ethics and any hacker or supporter of the hacking scene should make in no uncertain manner clear that they espouse an abolition of mandatory driver's licenses.
You're arguing against trusting authority while insisting we all should do exactly what Steven Levy tells us to do.
Also, a drivers' license doesn't deny one access to a car, nor does it deny one the ability to drive (except perhaps legally.) So I fail to see how requiring a license to drive limits a hackers' access to the computer in a car in any meaningful way.
You could just as well argue we should all steal anything with a chip in it because stores are limiting access to electronic goods by requiring people to pay for them. Or that every network in existence which employs any privileged access (passwords, sudo, etc) violates that ethic because by definition, they're denying someone access to some part of the code.
The hacker ethic is fine and all, but like anything, once you take it too far it just becomes another form of fascism.
Roundabouts differ wildy in design, sometimes a separate bike path is better and sometimes its better to be unseparated. In my experience (I've biked in several European countries) the most important parts of unseparated roundabout biking is to take the lane (to reduce the right-hook risk) and signal clearly.
About the video; the thing that sets Netherlands (and Denmark, IIRC) is that bike lanes have right-of-way. Separating bike traffic into a generally slower infrastructure, and then slowing it down further by giving cars right-of-way is contraproductive - if the goal is to increase biking.
"From my experience" really goes against empirical evidence in many cases. This happens with traffic safety just as well.
The Dutch have built a system that avoids several 9/11s in traffic deaths per year. Their traffic safety policy is evidence based, more so than most places in the world. I wish local politicians here and everywhere else would learn from it more!
Younger I used to do the same, that was before I learned to drive. I'll never ride that way ever again. It's dangerous for everyone, as a driver I have to anxiously check every bike because they may cross streams at any point in the future.
Pedestrians don't really use the road, they cross it from time to time (of course we should all be extra careful about them). Bikes can be everywhere, pass you from behind, between lanes, pass red lights at high speed etc etc. I don't want to bump one into incoming traffic.
Hans Monderman was a famous Dutch traffic engineer who hated traffic signs, which he considers an admission of failure.
He said: "The trouble with traffic engineers is that when there's a problem with a road, they always try to add something. To my mind, it's much better to remove things."
His philosophy reminds me of the premise of "Magic Ink: Information Software and the Graphical User Interface": "I argue that interactivity is actually a curse for users and a crutch for designers, and users’ goals can be better satisfied through other means."
Interactivity is a failure state of user interfaces that could have predicted what the user wanted by context and history, and presented it to them without demanding so much of their time and attention.
Most definitely. I’ve been cycling in the Netherlands for three months now and I've found myself instinctively opting for a quasi-circular route when going to and from a destination to ensure maximum flow via right-hand turns.
The obsession with helmets in many countries is born of an idea that violence on the roads is inevitable. It's a bit like responding to knife or gun crime by saying everyone should wear kevlar vests, problem solved! Rather than insisting that knives and guns are not used in public spaces.
Some people have real problems grasping this. Cars are seen as inherently dangerous, pedestrians and everyone else should (ideally) stay off the roads, and nobody should challenge our "right" to drive where and when we like. But driving is still a choice, albeit coerced since there are so few alternatives, and that choice has profound implications for others. Why should I wear protective clothing because you choose to drive a vehicle which puts me in danger? In the Netherlands, to respond to your point, they have largely eliminated motoring-related danger for cyclists.
If anyone is interested in the development of Dutch cycling infrastructure, this is an excellent video:
As somebody who lives in the Netherlands, I've not really found a reason for helmets to be used. Dutch people are generally very competent at cycling (and other non-motorized transport-on-wheels like inline skates).
I've personally also never known anybody who experienced a traffic accident where a helmet would have helped them - it's usually broken legs, scrapes on knees, etc.
We Dutch are basically born on a bycicle and learn to ride it at a young age. Everybody can cycle, it's so...ingrained.
almost 17 milion people. 200 deaths a year. 65000 accidents required doctor treatment (maybe we are not zo great at cycling as we think). 15000 end up in a hospital. Especially old people tend to get killed.
Puts us in the top 15 with the usual suspects. United Kingdom was a surprising one for me though, would not have expected it to be better than say Finland or the Netherlands.
Because car or no car the head still goes crack when it hits the road. To me it seems obvious to reduce a risk of fatal injury with something as simple as a helmet.
Do you wear a helmet when you walk somewhere? If not, why not?
If you've decided that the risk of head injury when you walk somewhere is so little that you'll take the risk and not wear the helmet, you've made the exact same decision as the cyclists. In the Netherlands, because they have a sensible traffic system, the risk has been reduced so far that many, many people make that same decision that you do when you walk without wearing a helmet.
No, I don't wear a helmet when walking, but I do when cycling. That is because my speed is much higher when cycling, and because it is easier to fall.
And I've experienced that a cycling helmet is good to wear. There was this child that appeared from a bush to the bike path. I hit the brakes and went over the bar. A slight bumb in the head but no injury there; broke a radix bone though.
As you can see in the video, all cyclists drive quite slow. In the Netherlands, cyclists who use their bike for sport, do wear helmets and go outside town.
because it is easier to fall ... I hit the brakes and went over the bar
Please do not be offended, and by all means keep on wearing a helmet if you want (after all it is safer, no denying that) but maybe there is room for improvement in your cycling? Those two things I quoted seem to indicate you haven't completely mastered cycling, or your bike isn't properly setup, or a combination of both. I see them for instance as well with foreigners who never owned a bycicle and then come to a country and are given one. For an experienced byciclist riding is usually a second nature, like walking, and falls don't happen more often then they do with walking. Note I'm talking 'normal' cycling here, not for instance downhill or bmx where not ever falling sometimes means you're not pushing yourself hard enough :]
Well, I have been riding bike well over 40 years and I do about 4000 km per year on bike, and I don't think I will master it any better in the future than I have so far. I don't fall often, but it happens more often than when walking and is definitely scarier. I mostly don't do "sports", I just commute.
And since bikes don't have ABS, I either have brakes that are not powerful enough, or I have brakes that throw me over the bar if I a mistake in a surprising situation (such as in the case I mentioned). Most falls I have are due to ice. Every winter morning is a decision: do I take the bike with studded tyres, or the one that is much lighter to ride? Sometimes I make the wrong assessment.
I still have a couple of years to go to reach that number of years, and doing roughly 3000km/year commuting. So I guess we just look at it differently then; I also ride bmx/dirt jumping, less in the last years because it can be quite harsh on the body, might be that it teaches you more control over a bike in general.
Ragarding the brakes: there are types which can bring you to a sudden halt if needed, but with a lever that still has lots of travel to allow for fine modulation. Usually the more expensive disc/rim brakes with oil instead of a steel cable are fine. Though I agree that if it's your instinctive reflex to completely squeeze the lever in a perilous situation it's either all or nothing.
Regarding ice: completely agree, even with proper equipment it's a struggle. And probably does lead to more falls then walking.
You made a decision that you're happy with the risk of not wearing a helmet when walking, but you decided that the risk when cycling was enough that you want to wear a helmet. I don't care why you made that decision. It's not relevant.
Other people made the decision that they're happy with the risk of not wearing a helmet when cycling.
What is so special about you? Are you some kind of super-powered genius, and your assessment of personal risk is some kind of magically "absolutely correct" answer? Why should your personal choice about acceptable risk be made law? (Trick question; it shouldn't)
Helmets would save a lot of head injuries in car accidents - which is why they are mandatory in racing. So would you advocate compulsory helmets in cars?
I disagree. I think that forcing people to wear helmets would result in less people cycling, defeating the purpose. Being able to hop on and hop of your bike while not carrying a helmet around is great. I don't think anyone would want helmets introduced. If you are doing high speed cycling on a racing bike then you need a helmet, but if you are going to the shops to get milk on a city bike with no gears I don't think it adds anything.
Of course safety is important. Not having lights on your bike in winter is very dangerous (drivers can't see you in their mirrors) and the police do frequent random stops and issue fines.
Anecdotally a friend of mine was in a very bad cycling accident (hit by a bus). She had no helmet and it wouldn't have helped. After months of rehab for her broken leg she is cycling again without a helmet. Of course she could have fallen differently and a helmet would have helped, but most of the damage was caused by the collision and not the fall.
Mandatory helmet laws kill people, and possibly more than are saved.
This happens in two ways: car drivers drive more dangerously when they see a helmet; less people ride a bycicle and so there is more pollution and more deaths or more lack-of-exercise related death.
"Dr Walker thinks the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is because they see them as 'Lycra-clad street warriors' and believe they are more predictable than those without."
"To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist.
"While wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14cm more space when passing."
However, allowing this to remain true is victim blaming. A driver should be forced to respect a cyclist and give them room.
"The law is invaluable when a bicyclist is injured in a collision. It establishes a clear basis for citing motorists for unsafe passing."
"How do motorists give three feet on narrow roads?
"State law has never guaranteed motorists a right to pass whenever or wherever they want. Motorists may only pass when it’s safe to do so. This doesn’t change with the Three Feet for Safety Act.
"The new law requires motorists to slow down and wait to pass only when it is safe to do so. Motorists have to be prepared to demonstrate that three feet were NOT available and the slower, closer pass was done according to the law. This is a higher burden of proof for drivers than we have under the current law, which places no conditions on how to pass at a “safe distance.”
So hopefully, the police will aggressively ticket motorists acting in a way that is unsafe for cyclists.
I don't support mandatory helmet laws because we have evidence that it actually increases the risk of cycling. Not using a helmet also only affects the cyclists risk of injury. Still, I personally advocate using a helmet when you cycle.
Even as a driver, this is how I want things to be.