3 ms·
Let me provide some context. I live in Denmark now which is arguably one of the best places in the world for alternative transport (bikes, trains, walking). Ped
by Gareth321 4y ago
Let me provide some context. I live in Denmark now which is arguably one of the best places in the world for alternative transport (bikes, trains, walking). Pedestrians and cyclists are an absolute menace. Driving in Copenhagen is harrowing because it means slamming on brakes many times to avoid running over someone. This is in a city with big, dedicated walkways and cycleways. So I can tell you for sure it's not an infrastructure problem. It's a culture problem.
There seems to be a deliberate choice somewhere in this culture "problem" which has favoured pedestrians and cyclists. A belief that drivers should give way to other forms of "better" transport. In Denmark this appears to have developed well before climate hysteria really took off, so I don't think we can ascribe it to that. I think urban planning has intentionally designed infrastructure to relegate drivers to be second class citizens in the Copenhagen. Knowing the Danes, the reason is quite obvious: cycling and public transport is far more efficient than cars. It's also much healthier for the population, and costs society less by several metrics. Every km that someone cycles instead of drives saves the country US$1.41 (https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-infrastructure/ https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-infras...).
I imagine there has also been pragmatic research into the stifling effect of public transport and cycling/walking with regards to stricter enforcement of road rules like "jaywalking". The Danish Cyclists' Federation is against mandatory helmet laws because of the reduction in the number of people who cycle (https://www.cyklistforbundet.dk/english/use-of-helmet/ https://www.cyklistforbundet.dk/english/use-of-helmet/). Meaning that it's actually better for society to allow minor traffic "infractions" by the better form of transport, if it means increased adoption of said transport.
These trucks are probably a product of this attitude, which I also see in other major European cities. There isn't an appetite to make the environment for pedestrians or cyclists worse, in any way. So they will continue to jaywalk, and cut in between cars in traffic, and trucks will be expected to yield to them.
- sterlind 4y agoPedestrians and cyclists have right-of-way over cars in the US, too. It's not "climate hysteria," it's to prevent brains from getting spilled on pavement. If you can kill someone by not stopping, you're ordered to yield for the person you might kill.
- elktea 4y agoIf you are 'slamming' on the brakes many times during a normal trip you're probably a really poor driver and you're going too fast for the condition. Please try a new style of driving in future.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- shkkmo 4y ago> I think urban planning has intentionally designed infrastructure to relegate drivers to be second class citizens in the Copenhagen. Making dense cities deliberately unfriendly to cars is a pretty standard approach to urban planning and also tends to make much nicer places to live. The safety benefits of helmets are highly contextual (speed and traffic proximity are the two biggest factors) and the data to back up helmet laws in the Danish context are weak to nonexistent.