4 ms·

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

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.

jules 12y ago
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.
- wolfgke 12y ago
  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? Let me explain: In Levy's hacker ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic#The_hacker_ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic#The_hacker_ethics) it is formulated as the first point: "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!" Since today's cars are computers on wheels (source: transcript of "The Coming War on General Computation" of Cory Doctorow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg from https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcrip...): "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.
  - krapp 12y ago
    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.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
eCa 12y ago
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.
agumonkey 12y ago
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.
- pm24601 12y ago
  Yes as a driver you should anxiously check for cyclists - just like you should check for kids and other people that can be killed by your driving. I teach my kids that their number one job when driving is to not kill anyone.
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    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.
markvdb 12y ago
"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!

jules 12y ago

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.

wolfgke 12y ago
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? Let me explain: In Levy's hacker ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic#The_hacker_ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic#The_hacker_ethics) it is formulated as the first point: "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!" Since today's cars are computers on wheels (source: transcript of "The Coming War on General Computation" of Cory Doctorow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg from https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcrip...): "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.
- krapp 12y ago
  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.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

eCa 12y ago

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.

agumonkey 12y ago

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.

pm24601 12y ago
Yes as a driver you should anxiously check for cyclists - just like you should check for kids and other people that can be killed by your driving. I teach my kids that their number one job when driving is to not kill anyone.
- agumonkey 12y ago
  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.

markvdb 12y ago

"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!