7 ms·

That's just insane, building two sets of parallel road systems, it's probably the most inefficient engineering ever, are you also going to build a new set when

That's just insane, building two sets of parallel road systems, it's probably the most inefficient engineering ever, are you also going to build a new set when a new type of vehicle comes along? what about a scooter only road? And all of this because of the irrational believe that cyclists are inferior and can not share the road with motorists. I am so glad I don't live in Denmark.

utf985 7y ago
But that's in the Netherlands.
- anonymou2 7y ago
  You are right, I am so glad I don't live in the Netherlands :D
  - Mvandenbergh 7y ago
    So are we.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Are you Dutch? Americans are told this sort of sentiment isn't a good look for us.
      - Mvandenbergh 7y ago
        Sure am.
rahkiin 7y ago
What makes cars deserve a big piece of asphalt but cyclers not? We have a lot of cyclers in the Netherlands and they deserve the safety and convenience of separate roads, away from multi-ton vehicles. Also, bike roads are not as overly constructed like car roads (maybe just 1 or 2 layers of asphalt instead of more)
- anonymou2 7y ago
  The problem segregating bicycles is that that automatically means that they are excluded from the best infrastructure which are the regular roads, which by the way do not belong to cars. I suffer that discrimination everyday when I ride my bike and there is a bike path adjacent to the road in places where I had no problem before, and that's after many years of riding so I can tell you that it is completely safe to share the road. Bike paths are built to kick us out of the roads it is pretty obvious to me now.
  - pintxo 7y ago
    > The problem segregating bicycles is that that automatically means that they are excluded from the best infrastructure which are the regular roads The above is purely a public policy decision. We (as in we the people) can decide to change this.
    - anonymou2 7y ago
      Of course the example here might not be so bad because it is so far away from the road that motorists may not know it is there. The moment they know and they see you on the regular road then they yell at you harass you.
  - Isinlor 7y ago
    Unless you ban cars completely from streets, no matter how good the asphalt is I would not want to be around cars. I actively avoid cars if I have an option to go longer path, but with less car nearby me. I have no driving license, but I'm sure that as a car driver I would also prefer to see cyclists away from me. I don't see how someone would want to go on main street if you have an option to drive on a separate road.
    - anonymou2 7y ago
      Whenever I wanted to go to a place by bike I used to go into google maps then clicked on the "avoid freeways" option and I would take that route. Nowadays where I live I have to not only avoid freeways but streets or roads with bike paths, it is really awful. I've been riding my bike to work every day for the last 13 years and I realize that If I want to keep using the road safely and correctly I am going to have to buy a car or a motorcycle.
Sharlin 7y ago
You realize that the Netherlands is famous for being probably the most bike-friendly country in the world? Everybody cycles, and cyclists are definitely not seen as inferior to vehicle traffic.
- anonymou2 7y ago
  There were bicycles in the Netherlands before they were segregated, a lot of them. Then they were kicked off the roads to let "progress" (i.e. the car) go unimpeded. Now yeah, they sell that as bike-friendly, so sad.
  - gpvos 7y ago
    You're clearly not up to date with the situation on the ground here. We're upgrading our cycle infrastructure and removing cars from city centres at the same time. Where there's no space for segregated infrastructure or in rural areas where it would not be economical, speed reductions are generally applied: 30 km/h in built-up areas, 60 km/h outside. As for the why: car and bicycle speeds are just too different. Segregation improves life for both, and especially safety for cyclists, who will always be at a physical disadvantage in an accident.
    - anonymou2 7y ago
      There is one basic rule of traffic engineering: first come first served. It allows for vehicles of different speeds to share the road. Your responsibility as a driver of a vehicle is to not drive so fast that you can not possibly stop within your field of view (you are not driving a train), that is enough to share the road with bicycles, tractors, horses or whatever. Of course drivers of cars do not want to be bothered with that an want the road all for themselves, that's why you still insist in getting cyclists off the roads, at least where there is enough space to do so. The fear of cars is very convenient for this purpose.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
adrianN 7y ago
You are right, highways really were a mistake. Who builds roads that can't even be used by cyclists, or wait, you probably mean roads right, I mean who wastes asphalt for surfaces that can't even be used by pedestrians?

utf985 7y ago

But that's in the Netherlands.

anonymou2 7y ago
You are right, I am so glad I don't live in the Netherlands :D
- Mvandenbergh 7y ago
  So are we.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Are you Dutch? Americans are told this sort of sentiment isn't a good look for us.
    - Mvandenbergh 7y ago
      Sure am.

rahkiin 7y ago

What makes cars deserve a big piece of asphalt but cyclers not? We have a lot of cyclers in the Netherlands and they deserve the safety and convenience of separate roads, away from multi-ton vehicles. Also, bike roads are not as overly constructed like car roads (maybe just 1 or 2 layers of asphalt instead of more)

anonymou2 7y ago
The problem segregating bicycles is that that automatically means that they are excluded from the best infrastructure which are the regular roads, which by the way do not belong to cars. I suffer that discrimination everyday when I ride my bike and there is a bike path adjacent to the road in places where I had no problem before, and that's after many years of riding so I can tell you that it is completely safe to share the road. Bike paths are built to kick us out of the roads it is pretty obvious to me now.
- pintxo 7y ago
  > The problem segregating bicycles is that that automatically means that they are excluded from the best infrastructure which are the regular roads The above is purely a public policy decision. We (as in we the people) can decide to change this.
  - anonymou2 7y ago
    Of course the example here might not be so bad because it is so far away from the road that motorists may not know it is there. The moment they know and they see you on the regular road then they yell at you harass you.
- Isinlor 7y ago
  Unless you ban cars completely from streets, no matter how good the asphalt is I would not want to be around cars. I actively avoid cars if I have an option to go longer path, but with less car nearby me. I have no driving license, but I'm sure that as a car driver I would also prefer to see cyclists away from me. I don't see how someone would want to go on main street if you have an option to drive on a separate road.
  - anonymou2 7y ago
    Whenever I wanted to go to a place by bike I used to go into google maps then clicked on the "avoid freeways" option and I would take that route. Nowadays where I live I have to not only avoid freeways but streets or roads with bike paths, it is really awful. I've been riding my bike to work every day for the last 13 years and I realize that If I want to keep using the road safely and correctly I am going to have to buy a car or a motorcycle.

Sharlin 7y ago

You realize that the Netherlands is famous for being probably the most bike-friendly country in the world? Everybody cycles, and cyclists are definitely not seen as inferior to vehicle traffic.

anonymou2 7y ago
There were bicycles in the Netherlands before they were segregated, a lot of them. Then they were kicked off the roads to let "progress" (i.e. the car) go unimpeded. Now yeah, they sell that as bike-friendly, so sad.
- gpvos 7y ago
  You're clearly not up to date with the situation on the ground here. We're upgrading our cycle infrastructure and removing cars from city centres at the same time. Where there's no space for segregated infrastructure or in rural areas where it would not be economical, speed reductions are generally applied: 30 km/h in built-up areas, 60 km/h outside. As for the why: car and bicycle speeds are just too different. Segregation improves life for both, and especially safety for cyclists, who will always be at a physical disadvantage in an accident.
  - anonymou2 7y ago
    There is one basic rule of traffic engineering: first come first served. It allows for vehicles of different speeds to share the road. Your responsibility as a driver of a vehicle is to not drive so fast that you can not possibly stop within your field of view (you are not driving a train), that is enough to share the road with bicycles, tractors, horses or whatever. Of course drivers of cars do not want to be bothered with that an want the road all for themselves, that's why you still insist in getting cyclists off the roads, at least where there is enough space to do so. The fear of cars is very convenient for this purpose.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

adrianN 7y ago

You are right, highways really were a mistake. Who builds roads that can't even be used by cyclists, or wait, you probably mean roads right, I mean who wastes asphalt for surfaces that can't even be used by pedestrians?