Hacker News Reader

It's not a either or thing. Both help. I'm a Dutch guy living in Berlin. Berlin in the last few years has upgraded their infrastructure quite a bit to make things safer for cyclists. This is of course something that my home country the Netherlands started doing after the oil crisis in the 1970s. The result of decades of policies and regulations is that that is now a very safe place to move around by bike. There are very few traffic situations where cycling traffic is mixing with normal road traffic. That really cuts down on the accident rate. Berlin has some catching up to do on that front.

Here in Berlin, the leading cause for traffic deaths is trucks taking right turns at speed and not noticing the cyclists in their dead angle. Happens a couple of times per month. The way to prevent that is 1) mirrors/cameras 2) installing concrete curbs to force the trucks to take the turn properly (slow down, take a wider turn so they can actually see what's lurking in their dead angle). In the Netherlands neither of those things are optional. Almost any significant right turn will have those curbs and they really work. Also crossings are super well organized and there's just very little room for misunderstandings. Any place with abnormally high accident rates gets prioritized for a little makeover. And forget about being allowed on the road without the required mirrors.

This Volta truck has a great design that should help enormously in countries with less regulation / established policy on this front. These are designed to go into areas where normal traffic isn't even allowed. So lots of pedestrians and cyclists. Even in the Netherlands they should help. You never get to perfect safety so all little bits help. And I imagine the enhanced visibility is helpful in general for drivers.

> installing concrete curbs to force the trucks to take the turn properly

What do you mean by concrete curbs? How do they compare to other curbs and how do they help? Are they just so large and tough that they damage the truck if it runs over the curb?

Curbs that separate the bicycle lane from the main road:

https://chi.streetsblog.org/2015/12/01/cdot-pilots-bike-lane...

In the context that this article is discussing bikes are legal and entitled to use the road. Labelling those people as "rogue" is disingenuous.

Even if they weren't legal under current laws, dedicating the majority of public space to a specific mode of transport has been show to lead to pretty sad results: clogged roads and crowded footpaths.

Why should it be that when I switch from driving mode to walking mode, I lose the right to access that public space?

The core problem is that we have huge bulks of metal driving at high speed through out cities, with drivers that are unable to observe their surroundings, and even when they do take too much time to come to a safe stop.

You are right about solving infrastructure: cities should be people-centric, not car-centric. Ban motorized traffic wherever people need to live. Invest in public transport, sharing services, walkability.

We have to think of what kind of city we want to live in, and then work back from there.

Personally, I want to live in a city where a 6 year old can walk or bike to school, safely, on their own.

Many of the pedestrians and cyclists killed are following traffic laws. Truck drivers simply kill them when they turn right while overtaking.

Also, as I said in another comment, traffic laws are not constitutional, they can and should be adapted.

Biking is a weird thing. You're not a car but you're not a pedestrian. It's really not safe for you to be where pedestrians are (and sometimes it is illegal) but cars want you out of their way. Additionally as a biker if you try and be courteous to cars it is almost always at the expense of your personal safety.

> I would rather the government focuses on infrastructure to solve for these problems than the manufacturers. Everybody wins then.

I agree 100% and liked what another user said - we have to imagine the city we want to live in and build backwards.

Large trucks driving through city centers and killing pedestrians who moving around the neighborhoods they live and work in and the pedestrians are "rogue road users"?

Forget the truck, not referring to the truck, but what if these changes are made to cars? So, now to accommodate these road users, your car will be made of tin can instead of thicker Aluminium sheets. As a biker, that is good news to you, but as someone who paid $x0,000 for my car I wouldn't be happy obviously.

Bikers drive like trash in most countries, why should car users take the hit for that?

The people riding bikes you are observing in the middle of the road are obeying the rules and trying to stay alive by preventing close overtakes. Roads were designed for people, horses and bikes - why have we let cars take over?

I am not in favor of lane blocking, blocking an entire lane leading to pile up of vehicles 100x heavier than them so a biker can go on a joy ride in the middle of the road which is actually illegal in most countries, including Singapore.

Because the car users drive an inherently dangerous vehicle, easily killing the biker in a crash. The weaker need more protection.

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-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/). 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.

Pedestrians 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.

If 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.

> 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.