Comment by ndsipa_pomu
2 days ago
It's astounding that we can't seem to just copy successful ideas from other countries and then ensure that all the councils etc. adhere to the standards.
Of course, it doesn't help that the UK seems to keep producing highly aggressive drivers that want to punish cyclists that dare to use the public roads.
ideas are only one part of a successfully functioning sociotechnical system. The bike intersections won't work if users behave differently (just like how automobile traffic is terrible if you get different driving styles mixing).
You might interpret that clearly true statement in two different ways:
- That it's not feasible to incorporate this style of traffic design elsewhere since cultures differ
- That we need to consider how traffic engineering (eventually) shapes user behavior.
I'm convinced the second one is the one that quite quickly is much more predictive of outcomes. These Dutch-style intersections make the safe behavior natural and intuitive, and habits will adapt quickly where they're used _consistently._
To be explicit: the whole point of road design like this is that it does _not_ rely a lot on training users on details of the rules of the road. In fact, precisely those remaining quirks (e.g. scenarios when traffic approaching on-road white yield triangles nevertheless has the right of way in the Netherlands) are the exceptional vestigial weakness that proves just how obvious the rest is.
Of course, if every town picks it's own patterns to follow, that's going to be less predictable for road users, and thus frustrating and ultimately dangerous.
One of my favorite moves is when the Dutch simply don’t provide any guidance whatsoever in certain intersections. No signs. Brick or stone paving.
It really works! "When you don't exactly know who has right of way, you tend to seek eye contact with other road users. You automatically reduce your speed, you have contact with other people and you take greater care."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
2 replies →
Which in turn means only most aggressive cyclists stay on the road. In London more than half cyclists jump the red light.
This sort of comment always comes up. Cars break rules too and there is a more of them. What’s the point being made?
One point is that traffic lights are designed for the benefit of drivers. Most of the time, cyclists can easily and safely navigate through a red light as they take up so much less space than cars. e.g. turning left at a junction (assuming UK driving on the left) can be done without causing any inconvenience for drivers and will often be safer for a cyclist than having to wait at a red light and then deal with drivers who've only just looked up from their phone and might not have seen you.
It's notable how RLJing differs between cyclists and drivers. RLJing drivers will see a light turn to amber and then speed up so that they can get through the junction before the other directions can start moving. Obviously, speeding up to RLJ is very dangerous to pedestrians who might be crossing.
Car drivers potentially face consequences in terms of loss of license, and should be carrying insurance if something happens. No equivalence for cyclists and honestly the Netherlands is the least safe I've felt as a pedestrian in regards to hostile cyclists.
1 reply →