Hacker News Reader

Comment by calderra | Hacker News Reader

ITT: People who've never done any research on this issue making very American conclusions.

Confusion about how these roads work is actually good. It may seem paradoxical at first, but easy to understand roads with ample signage actually breed high speeds, congestion, complacency, and dead pedestrians. Many dangerous intersections have found that removing signage and leaving it up to drivers drastically reduces speeds and improves safety.

Mentally taxing roads slow cars down, make people take alternate routes, and force people to look for pedestrians. You can't juggle your Starbucks and your iPhone when you're navigating unfamiliar roads - AND THAT IS GOOD.

The purpose of a city is not to breed cars, nor is it to allow lazy car drivers a chance to justify their miserable commute.

I mean what, if the drive to work sucks people might just find work closer to home, or lobby for public transportation. Who wants that?

View on HN

I agree that there are too many signs in Canada that don’t help because the roads feel like they support higher speeds.

I don’t think roads need to be mentally taxing as that just causes fatigue to already tired workers commuting. What you can do is offer visual and sensory cues so that the speed limit feels natural. For example, narrowing lanes, gradient changes, road material changes.

I enjoyed riding on this style of road near Amsterdam. It struck me as a very efficient use of space for roads that don't experience high volume traffic on a regular basis. Drivers naturally slowed down and waited their turn to pass when they saw cyclists and oncoming traffic. It made me wish that things like this would exist in the US.

But again, all of my experience riding in the US tells me that this style of road is a terrible idea without two prerequisites:

1. significant increase in difficulty of obtaining a license

2. enforcement of penalties when drivers murder cyclists and pedestrians

The number of times that people have dangerously cut through a bike lane, done high speed close passes, swerved and accelerated into incoming traffic to do a dangerous pass while going 20mph over the speed limit, randomly pulling over to park directly in front of me in a no parking zone in the bike lane, etc, that I have seen in the US, makes me dread this kind of road.

> ITT: People who've never done any research on this issue making very American conclusions.

Skimming the other posts here, people are drawing American conclusions on how drivers would behave. And can you blame them? Drivers have gotten away with slaps on the wrists for killing cyclists and pedestrians for too long in America. [0] These edge lane roads only work if drivers believe that cyclists also belong on the road. But that isn't the case in America.

Unless the States start punishing distracted driving, and enforce stricter licensing requirements, we'll continue to rely on urban planners to protect other road users with infrastructure against idiocy.

[0] - https://www.vice.com/en/article/9bzdpv/you-can-kill-anyone-y...

> ITT: People who've never done any research on this issue making very American conclusions

As an American, it could be that I've experienced and heard of active hostility to bicyclists. It seems like a uniquely stupid American thing. I'm sorry if this is also the case in Europe.

There exist optimization criteria besides "reduce the number of deaths". In particular, the enjoyment of drivers is an important optimization criterion.

Why? and in particular why drivers only?

I'm assuming it's ironic because it made no sense to me either.

> Why?

Because I like it when people enjoy things. Do you not?

> and in particular why drivers only?

Where did I imply "drivers only"?

> Where did I imply "drivers only"?

You only mention enjoyment of drivers in an article about shared roadways. Omitting cyclist is a statement I would argue.

>In particular, the enjoyment of drivers is an important optimization criterion.

Yeah but it's not (it shouldn't be) important for every road. And that's the point. We want roads that drivers prefer for "enjoyment" (I have never enjoyed driving a vehicle) and roads that optimize for bicycle rider and pedestrian enjoyment. The drivers can stay on the driver roads and bicycle riders and pedestrians can stay on the bicycle and pedestrian roads.

> it's not (it shouldn't be) important for every road.

It is important for every road, but sometimes it makes sense to prioritize other traffic types (which is why the OP is reasonable in some circumstances).

> I have never enjoyed driving a vehicle

You are not a modal American in this regard.

Which drivers? Lorry drivers? Race car drivers? Soccer moms? Commuters? Motorcyclists? Regular cyclists? Jockeys? Draft-horse drivers?

I grant you that it certainly is a criterion for optimization, but I would call it important only for race tracks, not public roads.

> Which drivers

Somewhere on the pareto frontier. You can do a good job for most of them.

> but I would call it important only for race tracks, not public roads.

Utility theory doesn't stop working off a race track.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com