7 ms·

I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share

I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do nothing about it is on you. Is this insane and unfair? No, it's about the responsibility that comes with driving a big, dangerous hunk of metal amongst unprotected civilians. For a country where most people believe that they can be considered responsible enough to own firearms, that responsibility for something that is potentially equally deadly shouldn't be that big a burden. The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane.

wozniacki 11y ago
Do cyclists in Netherlands skip traffic lights and act like they have a chip on their shoulder? Well American ones do. If cyclists are going to share the road, they would see fit have their bicycles registered, pay yearly fees and purchase insurance - both for themselves and the ones they cause harm to [1] - just like motorists do. Anything else is just favoritism. Won't stand in a court of law, here. The next time a cyclist injures someone - fatally or not - I can see the auto lobby getting behind efforts to requiring cyclists treated as motorists. I will gladly chip in for that. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-fatal-S-F-crash-4736312.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-...
- PebblesHD 11y ago
  Registration and Insurance isn't a bad idea actually...
  - buro9 11y ago
    London has over 6,000 cycles that are registered with clearly visible numbers, and with the cyclist on the bike known. It's called the cycle hire scheme. In this time, not a single cyclist has been tried for anything, and yet several of them have been killed by HGVs. Registrations aren't stopping cyclist fatalities.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      It is notable, though, that almost all London bike deaths seem to be from being run over by HGVs. Cyclists (stereotypically) loathe cars, but are not killed by cars. I don't really have own experience of London traffic, but from reading newspapers, it looks like you should do less to cars and more to heavy goods vehicles and buses.
      - buro9 11y ago
        Buses haven't caused that many deaths either. It really is just the HGV, and the construction industry related HGV at that. "You should"... well I and very many others are. However the essence of the issue appears to come down to a mix of the economics of being a HGV driver, local politics, and the nature of congestion and traffic in an old city. The economics is that HGV drivers are paid by the job. They are effectively incentivised to complete a job as fast as possible to increase their earnings. Being paid to go faster isn't very compatible with driving safer. The politics is a blend of TfL (Transport for London) not having the authority to re-design many junctions, local councils wishing to maximise traffic flow, and residents not wishing to tolerate construction traffic outside of work hours. This means that construction traffic can only operate during the work day (when it's most congested), on roads that were not designed for such a volume of HGV traffic, with junctions not designed for cyclist safety or space. A very recent HGV fatality is directly contributable to Westminster Council refusing to implement recommendations by TfL to make a junction next to a bridge safer... this was last week, you'll find the info online easily enough. The last point relates to the city itself. You'll see from other comments that the best thing to do is to segregate cyclists from the motorised traffic, but that requires space. London is an old city and we cannot move buildings and streets to accommodate this segregation outside of more than a handful of wide boulevards and roads (such as the Embankment where it is being done). We can only achieve segregation by turning 2-way streets into 1-way streets (as is being done on Tottenham Court Road), but even then that adds pressure to surrounding roads. There are limits to what can be done to provide extra space and re-designs to existing junctions and roads. Possibly the best thing is the cross-London move to a 20mph speed limit. But the biggest remaining thing that could be done might be to change the economics of the construction industry in London. Perhaps just place an outright ban on HGVs that do not meet some strict requirement for operating in such a busy metropolis. Perhaps just change the status of road fatalities by HGVs such that they are considered a Health and Safety issue of the work-site that the work is being done for... i.e. if the victim's family can sue the construction site for death then perhaps that will change the job incentives enough to bring in safety features, etc. But yeah, we are on it.
  - witten 11y ago
    It's actually a horrible idea, and is generally a money loser in terms of licensing and enforcement as well: http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/24/no-a-bike-license-fee-doesnt-make-any-sense/ http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/24/no-a-bike-license-fee-...
baddox 11y ago
But I feel like the causal direction might be mixed up here. There are two phenomena: Netherlands is safer for cyclists, and Netherlands punishes automobile drivers more for hitting a cyclist. You seem to be implying that the latter causes the former. But it seems to be that both could be caused by a third (potential, I don't actually know) phenomenon: that the ratio of cyclists to automobiles in the Netherlands is much higher than it is in the US. It's easy to see why this third phenomenon could cause the first two. Now, granted, the author's complaints about US automobile manufacturers' influence on society can still apply, because that can at least partially explain the lower ratio of bicycles to automobiles in the US. There are undoubtedly other contributors to this low ratio, like the significantly higher median income and vastly lower population density of the United States.
- c22 11y ago
  The dutch have done significantly more to encourage bicycle trips than this one law. Bike paths, separated bike lanes with independent signals, removal of (previously existing) automobile-focused infrastructure in cities, etc. These changes were fought for and implemented with the absolute intent of increasing bicycle access and they have been wildly successful.
jinushaun 11y ago
I'm a cyclist in the U.S., but have no problem admitting that probably 90% of the time, the cyclist is at fault. I've ridden bikes in Europe with real bike lanes—U.S. urban cycling culture is not Dutch cycling culture. There is not a culture of responsible cycling. We don't have real bike lanes. We don't stop for red lights. We don't stop for pedestrians. As a result, the U.S. also does not have many drivers or pedestrians that are sympathetic to cyclists. In general, I am ashamed of my fellow cyclists in the U.S..
- Nrsolis 11y ago
  Come to NYC. We have Citibike here and messengers and delivery people on bikes. And it's horrible. The bicyclists ROUTINELY violate nearly every sane traffic law on the books. They go the wrong way against traffic, refuse to stop for stop lights or pedestrians in crosswalks, ride on sidewalks, have few if any safety features like headlights or taillights, and on and on. If cyclists would simply follow the traffic laws that already exist, there would be many fewer deadly accidents between cyclists and pedestrians (yes, you read that right) and cyclists and cars.
  - terravion 11y ago
    In New York cars routinely violate every law on parking, they break the speed limit on every block, change lanes without signaling, and block intersections. If cars would simply follow the laws that already exist there would be many fewer deadly accidents between cars and people who die when hit.
    - kika 11y ago
      If your thought was to object to the statement you're replying to then probably it went wrong.
    - Nrsolis 11y ago
      The traffic congestion in NYC keeps the speeds down, not to mention the potholes in the road. But a cyclist running a red light is so commonplace in NYC that they think that it's not even a ticketable offense. http://nypost.com/2014/09/24/most-cyclists-are-still-ignoring-red-lights-despite-nypd-crackdown/ http://nypost.com/2014/09/24/most-cyclists-are-still-ignorin...
brandonmenc 11y ago
> The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane. Even if the kid say, hides behind a tree then decides to cut across traffic without warning? The fact that I'd go to jail for that is what's insane.
- ajuc 11y ago
  In most place where this could happen there is speed limit, probably to 30 kmph. At that speed you won't kill that kid. Most probably you will even manage to avoid it completely. Even if there's no speed limit - driving in a middle of town, near a path or pavement lined with trees you should be careful, and slow down. And in rare case that there's a tree near motorway and somehow a kid on a bike managed to get there and hide - you will manage to explain yourself before court. What's important is the attitude. IMHO the attitude "anybody who misbehaves on a road deserve to die" is more insane than having to explain yourself after you killed someone, even if it's not your fault. Death has smaller utility than discomfort.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > the attitude "anybody who misbehaves on a road deserve to die" You are putting words into mouths. It's more like, "acknowledge that if you misbehave on the road, your chances of getting killed increase and it may be your fault." I don't know why it's impossible for some people to hear that without imagining the "deserves" part.
bch 11y ago
I agree 100%, and it's the reason I love, love, love the intersection at 10th and Pike in Seattle (which is arguably a "shit show" for all the odd things that happen there) because it's people first; people can just start walking out into traffic and traffic stops for people. It's a very interesting demonstration. Edit: s/waking/walking/
bsder 11y ago
You want to be careful with these kinds of burden of proof chains. For example, a bicycle is moving much faster than a person opening a car door. It is clearly the fault of the bicycle if he runs into it. Now see the problem? The reality is that cars and bicycles do not belong on the same roads. Period. Bicycles need bike lanes that are separated from roads.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  Being "doored" is the car driver's fault. Children are taught to look before opening the door.
- codfrantic 11y ago
  > It is clearly the fault of the bicycle if he runs into it. In the Netherlands, we would say check the street before opening your car door. If you open your car door on a narrow street and a car hits it, is the driver of the other car also responsible?
Svip 11y ago
As a motorist (with the licence to drive a bus) and a cyclist, I must stress that it is incredibly hard to see unlit cyclists at night. Particularly on raining nights it is practically impossible. I don't want to hit a bike, and neither does anyone else. But I think putting a focus on making them more visible is a good thing. Then again, I live in Denmark, so my views might be a bit skewed.
- diyorgasms 11y ago
  I agree with you there. Fortunately, in many jurisdictions in the United States, an electric rear light is mandatory.
jmadsen 11y ago
I don't understand why people would have trouble with that, unless they are arguing from a purely selfish perspective. It is essentially "Marine Law" - the most maneuverable must make way way for lesser. Perfect common sense.
- kelnos 11y ago
  Not sure that makes sense in this context, or even reflects actual traffic law. A pedestrian is easily more maneuverable than a car (I can turn on a dime when walking, but a car needs much more time and space), but the car should never have automatic right-of-way over a pedestrian.
  - jmadsen 11y ago
    you mistake my meaning - it is "more makes way for less". With boats, maneuverability. With "road sharers", survivability.
huuu 11y ago
There is a lot more going on in the Netherlands. People start riding a bike when they are 2 years old. So everybody knows how fragile you are on a bike. Most roads cars and cyclist share are 30 km/h roads. You need to have lights while driving at night. And so on.
benou 11y ago
In France, in case of an accident between a car and a "non-car" (be it a cyclist, pedestrian, skater...), the car is considered responsible by default. Of course they will be a police investigation, but if the police can find any evidence of the "non-car" fault, the car is considered faulty.
maxerickson 11y ago
I was in the Netherlands, cycling on the path shown here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/3739+Hollandsche+Rading,+Netherlands/@52.176264,5.175951,3a,75y,176.93h,73.53t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZGrmKNqTy2G3ubECzAbbfA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x47c66be9c7012287:0x54a5b7b300b2fc5b https://www.google.com/maps/place/3739+Hollandsche+Rading,+N... I was cycling south on the bike path, against the flow of the traffic in the lane of the road closest to the path when a work van pulled into the path at speed and nearly killed me (I managed to move over into the median between the path and road in time to avoid a collision). The rest of the bicycling scene was fantastic, but given my short period there, it was quite an experience to record. Last time I mentioned this to a Nederlander they said I must not have had the awareness of a native (I did not link the location that time), but it seems clear enough that a vehicle had no business pulling onto that path to travel (of course they might pull across it into a house or whatever).

wozniacki 11y ago

Do cyclists in Netherlands skip traffic lights and act like they have a chip on their shoulder? Well American ones do. If cyclists are going to share the road, they would see fit have their bicycles registered, pay yearly fees and purchase insurance - both for themselves and the ones they cause harm to [1] - just like motorists do. Anything else is just favoritism. Won't stand in a court of law, here. The next time a cyclist injures someone - fatally or not - I can see the auto lobby getting behind efforts to requiring cyclists treated as motorists. I will gladly chip in for that. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-fatal-S-F-crash-4736312.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-...

PebblesHD 11y ago
Registration and Insurance isn't a bad idea actually...
- buro9 11y ago
  London has over 6,000 cycles that are registered with clearly visible numbers, and with the cyclist on the bike known. It's called the cycle hire scheme. In this time, not a single cyclist has been tried for anything, and yet several of them have been killed by HGVs. Registrations aren't stopping cyclist fatalities.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    It is notable, though, that almost all London bike deaths seem to be from being run over by HGVs. Cyclists (stereotypically) loathe cars, but are not killed by cars. I don't really have own experience of London traffic, but from reading newspapers, it looks like you should do less to cars and more to heavy goods vehicles and buses.
    - buro9 11y ago
      Buses haven't caused that many deaths either. It really is just the HGV, and the construction industry related HGV at that. "You should"... well I and very many others are. However the essence of the issue appears to come down to a mix of the economics of being a HGV driver, local politics, and the nature of congestion and traffic in an old city. The economics is that HGV drivers are paid by the job. They are effectively incentivised to complete a job as fast as possible to increase their earnings. Being paid to go faster isn't very compatible with driving safer. The politics is a blend of TfL (Transport for London) not having the authority to re-design many junctions, local councils wishing to maximise traffic flow, and residents not wishing to tolerate construction traffic outside of work hours. This means that construction traffic can only operate during the work day (when it's most congested), on roads that were not designed for such a volume of HGV traffic, with junctions not designed for cyclist safety or space. A very recent HGV fatality is directly contributable to Westminster Council refusing to implement recommendations by TfL to make a junction next to a bridge safer... this was last week, you'll find the info online easily enough. The last point relates to the city itself. You'll see from other comments that the best thing to do is to segregate cyclists from the motorised traffic, but that requires space. London is an old city and we cannot move buildings and streets to accommodate this segregation outside of more than a handful of wide boulevards and roads (such as the Embankment where it is being done). We can only achieve segregation by turning 2-way streets into 1-way streets (as is being done on Tottenham Court Road), but even then that adds pressure to surrounding roads. There are limits to what can be done to provide extra space and re-designs to existing junctions and roads. Possibly the best thing is the cross-London move to a 20mph speed limit. But the biggest remaining thing that could be done might be to change the economics of the construction industry in London. Perhaps just place an outright ban on HGVs that do not meet some strict requirement for operating in such a busy metropolis. Perhaps just change the status of road fatalities by HGVs such that they are considered a Health and Safety issue of the work-site that the work is being done for... i.e. if the victim's family can sue the construction site for death then perhaps that will change the job incentives enough to bring in safety features, etc. But yeah, we are on it.
- witten 11y ago
  It's actually a horrible idea, and is generally a money loser in terms of licensing and enforcement as well: http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/24/no-a-bike-license-fee-doesnt-make-any-sense/ http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/24/no-a-bike-license-fee-...

baddox 11y ago

But I feel like the causal direction might be mixed up here. There are two phenomena: Netherlands is safer for cyclists, and Netherlands punishes automobile drivers more for hitting a cyclist. You seem to be implying that the latter causes the former. But it seems to be that both could be caused by a third (potential, I don't actually know) phenomenon: that the ratio of cyclists to automobiles in the Netherlands is much higher than it is in the US. It's easy to see why this third phenomenon could cause the first two. Now, granted, the author's complaints about US automobile manufacturers' influence on society can still apply, because that can at least partially explain the lower ratio of bicycles to automobiles in the US. There are undoubtedly other contributors to this low ratio, like the significantly higher median income and vastly lower population density of the United States.

c22 11y ago
The dutch have done significantly more to encourage bicycle trips than this one law. Bike paths, separated bike lanes with independent signals, removal of (previously existing) automobile-focused infrastructure in cities, etc. These changes were fought for and implemented with the absolute intent of increasing bicycle access and they have been wildly successful.

jinushaun 11y ago

I'm a cyclist in the U.S., but have no problem admitting that probably 90% of the time, the cyclist is at fault. I've ridden bikes in Europe with real bike lanes—U.S. urban cycling culture is not Dutch cycling culture. There is not a culture of responsible cycling. We don't have real bike lanes. We don't stop for red lights. We don't stop for pedestrians. As a result, the U.S. also does not have many drivers or pedestrians that are sympathetic to cyclists. In general, I am ashamed of my fellow cyclists in the U.S..

Nrsolis 11y ago
Come to NYC. We have Citibike here and messengers and delivery people on bikes. And it's horrible. The bicyclists ROUTINELY violate nearly every sane traffic law on the books. They go the wrong way against traffic, refuse to stop for stop lights or pedestrians in crosswalks, ride on sidewalks, have few if any safety features like headlights or taillights, and on and on. If cyclists would simply follow the traffic laws that already exist, there would be many fewer deadly accidents between cyclists and pedestrians (yes, you read that right) and cyclists and cars.
- terravion 11y ago
  In New York cars routinely violate every law on parking, they break the speed limit on every block, change lanes without signaling, and block intersections. If cars would simply follow the laws that already exist there would be many fewer deadly accidents between cars and people who die when hit.
  - kika 11y ago
    If your thought was to object to the statement you're replying to then probably it went wrong.
  - Nrsolis 11y ago
    The traffic congestion in NYC keeps the speeds down, not to mention the potholes in the road. But a cyclist running a red light is so commonplace in NYC that they think that it's not even a ticketable offense. http://nypost.com/2014/09/24/most-cyclists-are-still-ignoring-red-lights-despite-nypd-crackdown/ http://nypost.com/2014/09/24/most-cyclists-are-still-ignorin...

brandonmenc 11y ago

> The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just because that child was "wrong" is what's insane. Even if the kid say, hides behind a tree then decides to cut across traffic without warning? The fact that I'd go to jail for that is what's insane.

ajuc 11y ago
In most place where this could happen there is speed limit, probably to 30 kmph. At that speed you won't kill that kid. Most probably you will even manage to avoid it completely. Even if there's no speed limit - driving in a middle of town, near a path or pavement lined with trees you should be careful, and slow down. And in rare case that there's a tree near motorway and somehow a kid on a bike managed to get there and hide - you will manage to explain yourself before court. What's important is the attitude. IMHO the attitude "anybody who misbehaves on a road deserve to die" is more insane than having to explain yourself after you killed someone, even if it's not your fault. Death has smaller utility than discomfort.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  > the attitude "anybody who misbehaves on a road deserve to die" You are putting words into mouths. It's more like, "acknowledge that if you misbehave on the road, your chances of getting killed increase and it may be your fault." I don't know why it's impossible for some people to hear that without imagining the "deserves" part.

bch 11y ago

I agree 100%, and it's the reason I love, love, love the intersection at 10th and Pike in Seattle (which is arguably a "shit show" for all the odd things that happen there) because it's people first; people can just start walking out into traffic and traffic stops for people. It's a very interesting demonstration. Edit: s/waking/walking/

bsder 11y ago

You want to be careful with these kinds of burden of proof chains. For example, a bicycle is moving much faster than a person opening a car door. It is clearly the fault of the bicycle if he runs into it. Now see the problem? The reality is that cars and bicycles do not belong on the same roads. Period. Bicycles need bike lanes that are separated from roads.

Symbiote 11y ago
Being "doored" is the car driver's fault. Children are taught to look before opening the door.
codfrantic 11y ago
> It is clearly the fault of the bicycle if he runs into it. In the Netherlands, we would say check the street before opening your car door. If you open your car door on a narrow street and a car hits it, is the driver of the other car also responsible?

Svip 11y ago

As a motorist (with the licence to drive a bus) and a cyclist, I must stress that it is incredibly hard to see unlit cyclists at night. Particularly on raining nights it is practically impossible. I don't want to hit a bike, and neither does anyone else. But I think putting a focus on making them more visible is a good thing. Then again, I live in Denmark, so my views might be a bit skewed.

diyorgasms 11y ago
I agree with you there. Fortunately, in many jurisdictions in the United States, an electric rear light is mandatory.

jmadsen 11y ago

I don't understand why people would have trouble with that, unless they are arguing from a purely selfish perspective. It is essentially "Marine Law" - the most maneuverable must make way way for lesser. Perfect common sense.

kelnos 11y ago
Not sure that makes sense in this context, or even reflects actual traffic law. A pedestrian is easily more maneuverable than a car (I can turn on a dime when walking, but a car needs much more time and space), but the car should never have automatic right-of-way over a pedestrian.
- jmadsen 11y ago
  you mistake my meaning - it is "more makes way for less". With boats, maneuverability. With "road sharers", survivability.

huuu 11y ago

There is a lot more going on in the Netherlands. People start riding a bike when they are 2 years old. So everybody knows how fragile you are on a bike. Most roads cars and cyclist share are 30 km/h roads. You need to have lights while driving at night. And so on.

benou 11y ago

In France, in case of an accident between a car and a "non-car" (be it a cyclist, pedestrian, skater...), the car is considered responsible by default. Of course they will be a police investigation, but if the police can find any evidence of the "non-car" fault, the car is considered faulty.

maxerickson 11y ago

I was in the Netherlands, cycling on the path shown here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/3739+Hollandsche+Rading,+Netherlands/@52.176264,5.175951,3a,75y,176.93h,73.53t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZGrmKNqTy2G3ubECzAbbfA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x47c66be9c7012287:0x54a5b7b300b2fc5b https://www.google.com/maps/place/3739+Hollandsche+Rading,+N... I was cycling south on the bike path, against the flow of the traffic in the lane of the road closest to the path when a work van pulled into the path at speed and nearly killed me (I managed to move over into the median between the path and road in time to avoid a collision). The rest of the bicycling scene was fantastic, but given my short period there, it was quite an experience to record. Last time I mentioned this to a Nederlander they said I must not have had the awareness of a native (I did not link the location that time), but it seems clear enough that a vehicle had no business pulling onto that path to travel (of course they might pull across it into a house or whatever).