3 ms·
That it is normal doesn't mean it's not pedestrian hostile. I catch myself cycling over-aggressively. For example, everyone knows that pedestrians have right of
by tinco 9y ago
That it is normal doesn't mean it's not pedestrian hostile. I catch myself cycling over-aggressively. For example, everyone knows that pedestrians have right of way on a zebra-crossing. Good luck with that in The Netherlands. Cyclists will simply not give you right of way, they'll swerve around you, ignore you, and generally make you uncomfortable.
The Netherlands is a cyclists country in much the same way as the U.S. is car country, pedestrians are second class.
- YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y agoI've always thought the reason many cyclists treat red lights and stop signs mere warnings instead of rules is because it's annoying to have to speed up from standstill with your own power. IMO it's a flaw in human-powered vehicles, although some purists will certainly vehemently disagree such a thing can even exist.
- tinco 9y agoWell.. though I'll admit to cycling aggressively, I don't think I've ever ignored a traffic light unless there was literally no traffic around (and even then only when I was in a hurry), and I don't think many cyclists I know do ignore traffic lights very often. I definitely get not wanting to stop, and I'll try and optimize. For example in Amsterdam there's traffic lights with counters, and as a cyclist you can usually safely go when there's 5 seconds left, but I don't count that as ignoring the traffic light. Cutting a red light into slow traffic would be very rude.. I don't think that happens a lot here.
- craftyguy 9y agoAs a cyclist myself, I would never run a red light or stop sign, and I have a history of shouting at fellow cyclists that do. Running traffic signals is an utterly stupid thing for a cyclist to do.
- revelation 9y agoYou got it the wrong way around. We only have lights and stop signs because of cars. They are a necessity for motor traffic, not bikes and pedestrians. The flaw is strictly in the box that extends two more metres forward of the actual driver vision and all around offers terrible visibility.
- craftyguy 9y agoInterestingly enough, right of way for ships/boats in waterways tends to favor the largest/heaviest over the smallest/lightest. It's oftentimes more dangerous for a larger thing to take evasive action than a smaller thing. I think this should carry over to vehicle/pedestrian right-of-way laws. Pedestrians should assume responsibility for their safety and pay attention (including taking evasive action), just as cyclists should do the same in the presence of cars, and cars should in the presence of semi-trucks, etc. I think that's what you are seeing in The Netherlands. Based on my travels in Europe and Asia, it seems a good portion of the world follows this model, and it's the US that is different.
- icebraining 9y agoYour analogy works for 99% of the road, where cars and bicycles are indeed favored and passengers have to risk their lives to use the same pavement. The whole point of traffic crossings is to provide some exception to this rule, wherein pedestrians can use the street without having to exercise athletic skills and hyper-awareness to avoid getting struck. The whole idea that pedestrians are lighter/nimbler is false anyway - a teenager on a bike will react better than a nonagenarian with a walker or a parent with a four-year-old by their hand.