5 ms·

The problem in the UK is a deep cultural one. First we have to understand that, all things being equal, cars "win" by default on the roads. They are bigger, he

The problem in the UK is a deep cultural one. First we have to understand that, all things being equal, cars "win" by default on the roads. They are bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful (thanks to burning fossil fuels), and the operators are more reckless and inconsiderate due to being shielded from the outside world. That means their presence on the roads automatically makes it more dangerous and unpleasant for everyone else. Second notice that primary routes are always designed for cars first. Every two places has a primary route connecting it. Depending on the importance of the route that route will have some level of protection against things like flooding, subsidence etc. and also be generally higher quality. That primary route is always for cars. Due to the above, that generally makes it undesirable or often practically unavailable for non-motorised traffic. See, for example, dual carriageways. Technically everyone has a right to use them by any means (they have paid for it, after all), but you'd be crazy to walk/cycle down one. Third notice that cars are basically untouchable. It's considered a perfectly acceptable and normal part of driving to put people's lives in danger by driving too close and too fast etc. But nobody dares touch a car. They have the capability of killing or seriously injuring people, but people don't have the capability of killing them (the cars). The police will laugh at you if you report a car driving too closely. But scratching a car or something? Police will be on your case. Basically, we value metal boxes on wheels more than people's bodies. Fourth notice that every part of the road network is designed to make it easier for cars at the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists. Why does a pedestrian need to press a button to cross the road? Why, upon pressing the button, must the pedestrian wait to cross? Why doesn't the light cycle start immediately? There is absolutely no sense at all in making the pedestrian wait. But everyone is used to it and doesn't question it; it's just the way it is. But what it does is makes being a pedestrian a third class status. It's these little things, like having to sit at the back of the bus, that chip away at people's ability to feel like an equal member of society. If you walk or cycle you are under no illusion that you come second to cars. It's little wonder people choose the car if they can.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
> See, for example, dual carriageways. Technically everyone has a right to use them by any means (they have paid for it, after all), but you'd be crazy to walk/cycle down one. I regularly cycle along the dual carriageway part of the A370. Whilst I get that it can be unnerving for most cyclists, dual carriageways are well designed for cycling along as they typically have great visibility (drivers can see you from a distance) and there's a whole lane for drivers to overtake safely. > Fourth notice that every part of the road network is designed to make it easier for cars at the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists. Why does a pedestrian need to press a button to cross the road? Why, upon pressing the button, must the pedestrian wait to cross? Why doesn't the light cycle start immediately? There is absolutely no sense at all in making the pedestrian wait. But everyone is used to it and doesn't question it; it's just the way it is. But what it does is makes being a pedestrian a third class status. It's these little things, like having to sit at the back of the bus, that chip away at people's ability to feel like an equal member of society. If you walk or cycle you are under no illusion that you come second to cars. It's little wonder people choose the car if they can. I think a big part of the problem is that politicians are heavily influenced by car/oil lobbyists. What we need are brave politicians that are forward looking and have a vision. By the way, I like to refer to the pedestrian crossing buttons as "beg buttons".
- globular-toast 2y ago
  > and there's a whole lane for drivers to overtake safely. But do they actually use it? Last time I biked on a dual carriageway I had cars and lorries passing at 60+mph with a centimetre gap. I've given up cycling for the most part as I disliked basically every ride feeling like it was almost my last.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    Some of them do - it varies. I run forwards and rear cameras so that I can report dangerous/close passes. Strangely enough, I've had more issues with driver aggression (e.g. horn sounding) along the A370 than I've had with close passes. Of course, I've reported a fair few close passes in other areas (Avon & Somerset Police seem to be one of the few pro-active forces when it comes to dealing with video submissions).
- Paianni 2y ago
  Dual carriageways are ok for cycling when the AADT for a particular road is below about 30k. Above that, cyclists would be an impediment to traffic flow as a following motorist would be waiting a long time for a safe gap in the second lane to overtake, especially when the speed difference is above 100%.
mattlondon 2y ago
The roads are paid for in a large part by road taxes and fuel taxes. Cyclists pay zero towards it in direct taxation, apart from general taxation that everyone pays anyway. Why should cyclists be able to free load off of infrastructure paid for by tax-paying vehicles, and dictate that they are built to favour cyclists when they are not contributing a single penny? Also your point about being "near" is kinda ridiculous. The police would take an interest if someone cut your skin deliberately, but would equally not take any interest if you just walked near a car. You're comparing apples to oranges. I agree on your point about waiting to cross as a pedestrian though. It is often quite unreasonable for multiple people to be standing there - often in rain or other inclement weather - waiting for a single person in their nice dry car to drive past. Life is too short to care about these trifling matters really though isn't it? Sure, die on this hill if you want but for most people it is easier to just buy an electric car, pay the taxes, and move on with the important things in life. Life isn't fair - if you want to dedicate your ire to something unjust then there are IMO better causes to champion than the first world problem of not having nice cycle lanes in an otherwise safe and secure developed first world democratic country with low infant mortality, high quality water, universal free healthcare, and high adult literacy levels. You have already won the life lottery, but many tens/hundreds of millions around the world are not so lucky. Or you can just moan about the white lines on your cycle lane being a bit crappy. Up to you.
- ldite 2y ago
  I am a (UK) cyclist, and I pay both road taxes and fuel taxes. (For the car that I also own, to be clear)
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  Here in the UK, roads are paid for by general taxation. The fuel duty has been frozen for a long time (15 years?) so the general public are in fact subsidising motorists. "Road Tax" was abolished in 1937 due to the ridiculous attitude that some motorists get about "owning" the roads - this seems to be exactly your kind of attitude. I wonder if you've thought about the logical conclusion of your "ideas" when applied to electric vehicles? They don't pay VED (emmissions tax, which is often referred to as "road tax" by idiots) and they don't pay fuel tax, so what are they doing on "your" public roads?
Neonlicht 2y ago
What makes the Netherlands special is not the bike paths. Its the law. When there is an accident between a car and a bike it is always the fault of the car. Its the driver who gets the insurance claim no questions asked. Cyclists get special protection. This is not something other countries can adapt because it requires a deep moral shift.
- holoduke 2y ago
  Thats absoluyely not true. There is the so called principle of dual causality. If you hit a car you might have to pay 50% depending on situation. If its clearly the biker its still 0% for the car.
  - microtonal 2y ago
    If its clearly the biker its still 0% for the car. It's a bit more complicated than that. The car is only 0% responsible in the case of 'force majeur'. Which means that it was impossible for the driver of the motorized vehicle to avoid the accident. https://letselschade.com/kennisbank/wat-is-overmacht-zoals-bedoeld-in-artikel-185-wvw/ https://letselschade.com/kennisbank/wat-is-overmacht-zoals-b... Note that (translated): "an appeal to force majeur will rarely by successful in practice, because it's rarely the case that the driver cannot be reproached. IANAL, but e.g. when a cyclist crosses a red light and gets hit by a car. Even though the cyclist is responsible, in most cases the car driver could have avoided the accident by looking carefully and not accelerating too quickly near bike/pedestrian crossings. This has always been my understanding of Dutch law and is also how all Dutch drivers I know drive - acutely aware and careful near bikes and pedestrians. And this is how it should be, because to pedestrians and bikes, cars are like a continuous stream of bullets. Someone recently had a nice description of the law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41625337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41625337 Quoting it here: I briefly studied law in the Netherlands and it was used as an example. Our lecturer told us that if "A person on a bike would jump out of an airplane on a bike, land with a parachute on a highway and get hit by a car, just maybe would the car have a case." The reasons for this are varied. Cars are insured, bikes are not. But most importantly, in basically all traffic situations with cars and bikes the car introduces the danger and should thus bear the responsibility of any accidents.
mp05 2y ago
> They are bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful (thanks to burning fossil fuels) Or perhaps thanks to a DC motor and a battery? Not sure exactly why you’re singling out ICEs in this point you’re making. Would be curious to know if there is some particular reason? I’d argue EVs are more powerful on average, if not the staggering majority of cases.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  Probably something about the worldwide climate catastrophe caused by humanity continuing to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate.
  - mp05 2y ago
    I understand that and I don't reject this sentiment outright, but one makes enemies when engaged in a good faith argument but feels the need to shoehorn their moral stance when nobody asked about it. It is, in fact, not at all relevant to the conversation. The easiest thing is to stay on topic, wouldn't you agree?
    - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      I'm not sure that it's necessarily a moral stance for the OP to point out that the most common form of transport is partially responsible for dumping lots of CO2 into the environment, when the discussion is about junctions that prioritise active travel (walking/cycling). In motornormative countries such as the UK/USA (many others too), people are conditioned to only get from A to B via polluting methods (recognising that electric cars produce large amounts of tyre pollution which somewhat offsets their possible lack of fossil fuel use). The use of enlightened designs that work well for the Netherlands is part of the toolkit that we need to change people's mindsets if we can get past all the seductive advertising of the motor industries. I'd put it as more of a pragmatic, forwards-looking viewpoint that a moral stance.
      - mp05 2y ago
        I understand that and I don't reject this sentiment outright, but one makes enemies when engaged in a good faith argument but feels the need to shoehorn their self-described "pragmatic, forwards-looking viewpoint" when nobody asked about it.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
I think the problem is numerical. There are way more voters riding bikes in the Netherlands than in the UK.
- greener_grass 2y ago
  But once upon a time the UK had higher cycling rates than the Netherlands. How did the Netherlands manage to overcome this back in the 70s and the UK has not?
  - DirkH 2y ago
    If you built good useful infrastructure people are more likely to want to keep it, use it and defend it. The UK didn't build good infrastructure to capitalize on the cyclist interest so could not ride the positive wave of a new status quo bias.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago

> See, for example, dual carriageways. Technically everyone has a right to use them by any means (they have paid for it, after all), but you'd be crazy to walk/cycle down one. I regularly cycle along the dual carriageway part of the A370. Whilst I get that it can be unnerving for most cyclists, dual carriageways are well designed for cycling along as they typically have great visibility (drivers can see you from a distance) and there's a whole lane for drivers to overtake safely. > Fourth notice that every part of the road network is designed to make it easier for cars at the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists. Why does a pedestrian need to press a button to cross the road? Why, upon pressing the button, must the pedestrian wait to cross? Why doesn't the light cycle start immediately? There is absolutely no sense at all in making the pedestrian wait. But everyone is used to it and doesn't question it; it's just the way it is. But what it does is makes being a pedestrian a third class status. It's these little things, like having to sit at the back of the bus, that chip away at people's ability to feel like an equal member of society. If you walk or cycle you are under no illusion that you come second to cars. It's little wonder people choose the car if they can. I think a big part of the problem is that politicians are heavily influenced by car/oil lobbyists. What we need are brave politicians that are forward looking and have a vision. By the way, I like to refer to the pedestrian crossing buttons as "beg buttons".

globular-toast 2y ago
> and there's a whole lane for drivers to overtake safely. But do they actually use it? Last time I biked on a dual carriageway I had cars and lorries passing at 60+mph with a centimetre gap. I've given up cycling for the most part as I disliked basically every ride feeling like it was almost my last.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  Some of them do - it varies. I run forwards and rear cameras so that I can report dangerous/close passes. Strangely enough, I've had more issues with driver aggression (e.g. horn sounding) along the A370 than I've had with close passes. Of course, I've reported a fair few close passes in other areas (Avon & Somerset Police seem to be one of the few pro-active forces when it comes to dealing with video submissions).
Paianni 2y ago
Dual carriageways are ok for cycling when the AADT for a particular road is below about 30k. Above that, cyclists would be an impediment to traffic flow as a following motorist would be waiting a long time for a safe gap in the second lane to overtake, especially when the speed difference is above 100%.

mattlondon 2y ago

The roads are paid for in a large part by road taxes and fuel taxes. Cyclists pay zero towards it in direct taxation, apart from general taxation that everyone pays anyway. Why should cyclists be able to free load off of infrastructure paid for by tax-paying vehicles, and dictate that they are built to favour cyclists when they are not contributing a single penny? Also your point about being "near" is kinda ridiculous. The police would take an interest if someone cut your skin deliberately, but would equally not take any interest if you just walked near a car. You're comparing apples to oranges. I agree on your point about waiting to cross as a pedestrian though. It is often quite unreasonable for multiple people to be standing there - often in rain or other inclement weather - waiting for a single person in their nice dry car to drive past. Life is too short to care about these trifling matters really though isn't it? Sure, die on this hill if you want but for most people it is easier to just buy an electric car, pay the taxes, and move on with the important things in life. Life isn't fair - if you want to dedicate your ire to something unjust then there are IMO better causes to champion than the first world problem of not having nice cycle lanes in an otherwise safe and secure developed first world democratic country with low infant mortality, high quality water, universal free healthcare, and high adult literacy levels. You have already won the life lottery, but many tens/hundreds of millions around the world are not so lucky. Or you can just moan about the white lines on your cycle lane being a bit crappy. Up to you.

ldite 2y ago
I am a (UK) cyclist, and I pay both road taxes and fuel taxes. (For the car that I also own, to be clear)
ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
Here in the UK, roads are paid for by general taxation. The fuel duty has been frozen for a long time (15 years?) so the general public are in fact subsidising motorists. "Road Tax" was abolished in 1937 due to the ridiculous attitude that some motorists get about "owning" the roads - this seems to be exactly your kind of attitude. I wonder if you've thought about the logical conclusion of your "ideas" when applied to electric vehicles? They don't pay VED (emmissions tax, which is often referred to as "road tax" by idiots) and they don't pay fuel tax, so what are they doing on "your" public roads?

Neonlicht 2y ago

What makes the Netherlands special is not the bike paths. Its the law. When there is an accident between a car and a bike it is always the fault of the car. Its the driver who gets the insurance claim no questions asked. Cyclists get special protection. This is not something other countries can adapt because it requires a deep moral shift.

holoduke 2y ago
Thats absoluyely not true. There is the so called principle of dual causality. If you hit a car you might have to pay 50% depending on situation. If its clearly the biker its still 0% for the car.
- microtonal 2y ago
  If its clearly the biker its still 0% for the car. It's a bit more complicated than that. The car is only 0% responsible in the case of 'force majeur'. Which means that it was impossible for the driver of the motorized vehicle to avoid the accident. https://letselschade.com/kennisbank/wat-is-overmacht-zoals-bedoeld-in-artikel-185-wvw/ https://letselschade.com/kennisbank/wat-is-overmacht-zoals-b... Note that (translated): "an appeal to force majeur will rarely by successful in practice, because it's rarely the case that the driver cannot be reproached. IANAL, but e.g. when a cyclist crosses a red light and gets hit by a car. Even though the cyclist is responsible, in most cases the car driver could have avoided the accident by looking carefully and not accelerating too quickly near bike/pedestrian crossings. This has always been my understanding of Dutch law and is also how all Dutch drivers I know drive - acutely aware and careful near bikes and pedestrians. And this is how it should be, because to pedestrians and bikes, cars are like a continuous stream of bullets. Someone recently had a nice description of the law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41625337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41625337 Quoting it here: I briefly studied law in the Netherlands and it was used as an example. Our lecturer told us that if "A person on a bike would jump out of an airplane on a bike, land with a parachute on a highway and get hit by a car, just maybe would the car have a case." The reasons for this are varied. Cars are insured, bikes are not. But most importantly, in basically all traffic situations with cars and bikes the car introduces the danger and should thus bear the responsibility of any accidents.

mp05 2y ago

> They are bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful (thanks to burning fossil fuels) Or perhaps thanks to a DC motor and a battery? Not sure exactly why you’re singling out ICEs in this point you’re making. Would be curious to know if there is some particular reason? I’d argue EVs are more powerful on average, if not the staggering majority of cases.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
Probably something about the worldwide climate catastrophe caused by humanity continuing to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate.
- mp05 2y ago
  I understand that and I don't reject this sentiment outright, but one makes enemies when engaged in a good faith argument but feels the need to shoehorn their moral stance when nobody asked about it. It is, in fact, not at all relevant to the conversation. The easiest thing is to stay on topic, wouldn't you agree?
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    I'm not sure that it's necessarily a moral stance for the OP to point out that the most common form of transport is partially responsible for dumping lots of CO2 into the environment, when the discussion is about junctions that prioritise active travel (walking/cycling). In motornormative countries such as the UK/USA (many others too), people are conditioned to only get from A to B via polluting methods (recognising that electric cars produce large amounts of tyre pollution which somewhat offsets their possible lack of fossil fuel use). The use of enlightened designs that work well for the Netherlands is part of the toolkit that we need to change people's mindsets if we can get past all the seductive advertising of the motor industries. I'd put it as more of a pragmatic, forwards-looking viewpoint that a moral stance.
    - mp05 2y ago
      I understand that and I don't reject this sentiment outright, but one makes enemies when engaged in a good faith argument but feels the need to shoehorn their self-described "pragmatic, forwards-looking viewpoint" when nobody asked about it.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago

I think the problem is numerical. There are way more voters riding bikes in the Netherlands than in the UK.

greener_grass 2y ago
But once upon a time the UK had higher cycling rates than the Netherlands. How did the Netherlands manage to overcome this back in the 70s and the UK has not?
- DirkH 2y ago
  If you built good useful infrastructure people are more likely to want to keep it, use it and defend it. The UK didn't build good infrastructure to capitalize on the cyclist interest so could not ride the positive wave of a new status quo bias.