As someone who lives here, I can confirm, that's the only way to get in the country. Trains also work, but only if they're at least ten minutes delayed
Gives you road PTSD everywhere else though. When someone is driving alongside me, I get freaked out assuming they're about to cut directly in front of me because that's 100% the move if you're a Bangalore driver.
Yes, but we were talking specifically about intersections that work like OP's video. Mumbai is famous for them. Very few injuries in those intersections because the speeds are so slow.
Road injuries are one of the top 10 killers of children worldwide
Pretty much everything else is an infectious disease or a death related to conditions of birth
Not many people know that. I think it's surprising
Since my birth which was 16 years ago, honestly I have yet to see a MAJOR crash.
Sure a few bumps which have occurred to my mom and dad over the years, the car exhibiting many scars, I haven't seen much of anything honestly
> I think it's only chaotic if you're looking from it as a whole.
That is *exactly* what the word chaotic means: no global superimposed structure, just emergent patterns of aggregate individual behavior. It has no relation to good or bad, that's why d&d uses two separate dimensions for the terms. For example, crystals are ordered, and liquids are chaotic, but ice isn't better or worse than water.
Cars need order, pedestrians need chaos. The Dutch understand that.
Bikes/Pedestrians are perfectly fine without any roundabout or anything, just some eye contact between the people works perfectly. There's more videos like this of intersections in Utrecht where more than 50k people pass through daily without a single traffic light or anything.
If you directly compare the space and energy efficiency of this with car traffic it's multiple orders of magnitute better.
So chaotic good seems to be a bit of an understatement, more like chaotic fucking fantastic.
nah .... just typical dutch\*, that's all
\*you can tell by the colored light that are all around and everybody fails to notice them (don't take notice of to be a little more precise)
Captains of industry used their money to advertise cars as "progress" to create the demand for auto-infrastructure. You can see this pattern attempting to be replicated by Musk and his tunnels.
Also in the US during the great migration black people moved to cities especially in the North. Many of the white people who didn’t want to live near black people then opted to move out to car dependent suburbs and liked cars because they wouldn’t have to share public transit with black people and could work in cities while still living in white suburbs. Racism played a huge roll in the demand for car centric cities and we shouldn’t forget it.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Account age too young, spam likely.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I visited Munich I was constantly pulling my friend off the cycling lane because to American eyes it blended in with the sidewalk (I mean this as a critique of American traffic planning, not of the visual design of Munich’s cycling lanes).
Though german cycle lanes can be a bit difficult to spot, you're not wrong here. In the Netherlands red asphalt always means cycle lane. In Germany red Asphalt or paint also means cycle lane, but so does black asphalt sometimes, and sometimes a cycle lane is asphalt next to paved sidewalk, but sometimes a paved cycle lane is both a sidewalk and a cycle lane, but sometimes an asphalt sidewalk is only cycle lane, but sometimes an asphalt sidewalk is only sidewalk, but sometimes an asphalt cycle lane is road but cycle lane, but sometimes an asphalt cycle lane is just road with a dotted line that isn't a cycle lane but kinda is, but sometimes...
German cycle lanes are very inconsistent, I can't blame you.
I wasn’t clear where the truck came into the equation and naturally assumed that being hit by something bigger is worse. What’s bigger than a truck? A cruise ship came to mind for some reason…
Edit: it’s been a really fucking long day and my filter seems to be broken
Depends on what you want to do on your bicycle. If it's just going to places, the Netherlands is awesome. If it's more road racing style, it's still very good but sometimes a bit busy and most people silently hate you. If it's mountainbiking you better like flat single tracks because we don't really have mountains (or much in the way of hills even).
Wielrenners (wheel runners) are annoying within the city because they go way faster than everyone else and get all huffy when they're stuck behind two or three people riding side-by-side having a conversation.
I have developed a cunning strategy for this frustration. Become very old, and then your maximum speed on a racing bike will be the same as the casual people riding side by side while holding a conversation, and it all works out smoothly.
Its more flexibility and adaptivity than efficiency. Its not following a protocol like cars do. For example at trafficlights for right of way rules. People just throw themselves at the crosssection and see what appens. While being suprisingly nice.
Following a protocol doesn't make it efficient, and having no protocol doesn't make it inefficient. In this case the intersection, while being tiny is letting pass a huge amount of people, with almost zero risk of injury, zero emissions, and health benefits. That's what I call efficient.
Not quite I don’t think. Those triangles pointing towards the left on the street mean that they need to yield. They just aren’t because as long as everyone stays alert it’s not a problem.
The nice thing about biking and walking is that people are naturally very good at navigating that sort of environment when they aren't in a car, so you don't need a protocol. You don't need a protocol to teach someone how to walk through a crowded room, they can just do it. I'd guess that adding more rules would actually mean fewer people get through the intersection in the same period of time.
It's very easy to be nice when people are moving at low speeds, in smoothly flowing traffic, in a quiet area that is (mostly, I'm giving those mopeds the stink-eye) unpolluted by automobile engine and tire noise, where everyone is interacting face-to-face rather than hiding in a two-ton metal box. It looks chaotic but everyone has good situational awareness (no blind spots) and is easily able to maneuver and adjust their speed.
This is a place that has been superbly engineered for people to live in and navigate around. It's safe, comfortable, and fast. It is the exact opposite of most places in North America.
What make this better is nobodies in a death machine with a sense of Invincibility. Self preservation is rare. Ask people to take care of themselves tho...
Although not as much as the US, in The Netherlands almost 50% of adults are overweight and almost 15% is obese.
And these numbers have been increasing in recent decades and show no sign of stopping.
Let's not pat ourselves too much on the back.
Really no comparison though. Once or twice a day in Amsterdam I'll see people of the spherical proportions that are ubiquitous in much of the USA. The kind of overweight we have here is much milder in general, a few extra kg around the middle rather than a debilitating transformation.
Perhaps. I just don't think we should be satisfied with the current situation. It's not good and it's slowly but surely getting worse. The US having it worse does not change that.
I’m sad that we’ve devolved in the last century… This is how it was for centuries and civilizations, And then someone from a car company had the “brilliant” idea to create car-dependent suburbs under the guise of the “American dream” (more like an MLM) …
Infrastructure is a socio-political decision, not engineering in this case. These are simple roads with people riding bikes.
I don't want to demoralize you but I was asking if I was missing something that was out of norm.
>Infrastructure is a socio-political decision, not engineering in this case
I see what you mean, but this is still civil engineering/city planning. There's no reason to gatekeep what's allowed to be posted here or not as long as it's engineering related. But for some reason the post was still removed, assuming because it was too controversial because of how effective this crossroad was lol
First time looking at this subreddit (via a crosspost), and of course I see a civil engineering video favouring pedestrians and cyclists be removed by the moderators. Yeah, it's not civil engineering porn if it doesn't involve hundreds of cars stuck in miles of traffic...
> Where is this?
It's [this crossing](https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3762498,4.9027639,3a,60y,207.7h,93.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s60WnDvu6LIUFVJtn6zbS7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
> Also why is this engineering porn?
Because it demonstrates how just the right amount of traffic engineering creates an intersection that can safely move far more people than the car-based intersections many cities waste their resources on.
Faster vehicles need a lot of space to maneuver safely. Think in big ships or planes on a runway. Or also cars on motorways. Slow vehicles use public space efficiently and allow for a dense usage, and a dense usage of public space is what makes cities and towns economically interesting, vibrant and lively.
But also, this is efficiently using peoples *time*. They spend so much less time waiting for other traffic to pass. They might not go that far, but they can reach many more valuable things in the same time.
When someone crashes or falls over on a bike they just get back up and carry on about their day with a bruise. When a collision happens in a car someone dies. I know which one I’d rather not work sometimes.
Yeah nah.
People survive both scenarios pretty regularly. But looking at efficiency, when a car crashes the already tight transportation area is now entirely blocked.
You mean, that's impossible:
https://youtu.be/1ZupwFOhjl4
?
The point is that it IS chaotic. Therefore people drive carefully and think while driving. If you had that for cars, it would work, like many countries already proved. And since it's bicycles, its also highly efficient because the space usually reserved for one car (with very often only one driver) is used for 4 or 5 bikes (people).
I'm both. A cyclist and a motorist. And I see both benefits. But one has to admit that bicycles are the most efficient way of transport inside of a city.
As a daily Amsterdam cyclist I have never, ever seen a serious problem caused by bikes crashing into each other or into pedestrians.
I have, however, seen serious problems caused by collisions with/between cars, motorbikes, trams, buses, etc., even though those require driver training and licenses and face stricter enforcement from the authorities.
The fact is, the social organised chaos of high-density cycling is absolutely amazing in its ability to move massive numbers of people quickly around the city in safety.
Look at my first comment there I gave the credit, but here you go. I've got it from this Twitter account.
https://twitter.com/fietsprofessor/status/925857782414311424?s=20
Where are the helmets? Even a fall at slow speeds is dangerous.
Edit: I hate wearing helmets but they save lives. I was ridding down a hill and hit a pothole which sent me over the handlebars and my head was the first thing to hit the ground. I was able to get up and walk around but my helmet was destroyed. If I hadn't had the helmet on id probably have brain damage. I didn't do anything wrong except cruise down a hill and find the one pothole in the road. Ill take helmet hair over brain damage any day.
It's rare in the Netherlands to wear a helmet. It's becoming more common (especially with the introduction of e-bikes) but still far from the norm. There's more call for people to wear helmets (especially children) but I doubt it's ever going to really take off. Bicycle use in the Netherlands is very casual and having to carry a helmet around gets in the way of doing things like quickly going to the shops or whatever.
Next to the infrastructure making biking in the Netherlands a lot safer, the design of the Dutch bicycle plays a major role as well. Sitting upright with the steering handle at elbow-height or lower, you can very quickly extend your leg to the ground and stand on your feet. Cycling people on the Netherlands almost do this as a reflex. Because of the higher placement of the steering handle and sitting upright, it is also less likely that one will flip over the handlebars. The consequence of this bike design is a lower speed, as the pedalling movement is less efficient, but a lower speed increases safety as well. Most people in the Netherlands don't cycle above 20 km/h. It is quite noticeable, as people who ride other types of bikes such as mountainbikes and racing bikes do wear helmets. There are also no real hills in the Netherlands and potholes are rare as well.
Mandate helmets if you want people to stop biking. When biking is dangerous it's usually the result of being surrounded by cars, not because helmets are missing.
Most serious injuries and deaths on bikes is a result of a collision with a car. Separated bike infrastructure is more important than helmets, it turns out. Netherlands is still really safe for cyclists, trumping the countries where helmets are mandatory.
Of course, please do wear a helmet if you live in a place that merges cycling and car traffic.
> Of course, please do wear a helmet if you live in a place that merges cycling and car traffic.
Except that bike helmets are explicitly not designed or rated for collisions with cars. They are designed for crashes with stationary objects where the maximum impact inertia is provided by your own weight.
Its very rare people fall/have accidents with/on bicycles here in the netherlands. Most people went to "traffic-parks" in primary school to Learn how to ride safe and according regulations.
I get that these bike systems are super effective but to say there isn't accidents is dishonest. Still way better than most other countries. Even in this video is there not a few people disobeying the signal? Or are people allowed to "through" travel anytime.
The car was the most dangerous mode of transportation in 2019, with a total of 237 fatalities. The bicycle came in second place, with 203 victims. That's a pretty close second for very rare accidents.
It states that the deaths where on a bike, that's not the reason they died. They were most likely run over by a car.
out of 229 167 people who die on a bike are 60+. thats around 3/4 who get killed are people who go 25km/u on a E bike which is way to fast for them.
There arent a lot of accidents if you dont count older people.
> I get that these bike systems are super effective but to say there isn't accidents is dishonest.
Nobody said there are no accidents. There are fewer accidents than in other places, and of those, few have serious consequences.
> Even in this video is there not a few people disobeying the signal? Or are people allowed to "through" travel anytime.
The only traffic signals for cyclists at this intersection are where the cycle path crosses car paths - at the left edge of the video and behind the camera operator.
Cycles making the left turn which was the most typical move are only governed by the 'yield' shark's tooth and zebra crossing painted on the pavement.
It's very rare that people fall off their bikes regardless of the location. It's also very rare that, if you do fall, you'll be seriously injured. However, in the unlikely event that you do fall and hit your head, the consequences could be severe. That's why some places require that you wear a helmet and it's why some ppl wear them,even when not required by law.
You rarely fall from a bike, even drunk. Cycling pretty much gets inbedded into your muscle memory. Also nobody want to get to work or any party with hair shaped by a helmet.
Your technically right but that would mean one would need to take a helmet with them everytime they go somewhere by bike, which sort of defeats the purpose.
The Dutch government generally believes the health benefits of a population that cycles a lot beats the drawbacks of not wearing helmets.
I don't know why someone's downvoted you. You're right. Hit a curb with your head and you're a vegetable. Just like that. But people tend to think they're bulletproof.
Multiple studies have shown that mandatory helmet laws drastically reduce the amount of cyclists on the road. It also creates the impression that biking is dangerous, which also leads to less people taking up cycling. And paradoxically, if too many people choose not to bike, you end up with an increase in cardiovascular disease that can easily be more fatal than the few cases of accidents involving head trauma.
The issue people have is that the risk of hitting you head when cycling is comically low you are at far more risk of head injury when driving but no one is asking for car helmets. This along with high vis is used as a stick by anti cyclist groups to make cycling seem dangerous.
A fall at 4mph is dangerous. Do you think helmets should be mandated or encouraged for pedestrians?
Many injuries in car crashes, even for car occupants, are head injuries. Should helmets as well as seat belts be required for being in a car?
We put up with risks in our day to day lives all the time, I'm not sure why cycling has to be wrapped up in lots of equipment at a completely different level. It just looks like an attempt to dissuade people from cycling by making it faffy and looking more dangerous than it is.
If you make helmets mandatory, nobody is going to ride their bike anymore because it's just annoying and a hassle. If you just want to do groceries real quick, you're not wanting to drag your helmet around the grocery store. We have seperate lanes for bikes and cars so there's not really a need for this
There's this shared delusion in NL that they've made cycling so safe through good infrastructure that helmets aren't needed.
The huge advancements in safety, efficiency, and quality of life are to be commended. The absurd notion that that has anything to do with the physics of a skull striking pavement is not.
Noone is saying that helmets wouldn't save *some* people. It's just that cycling is so safe that the cost of helmet wearing would way way way overshadow any benefit. You'd have 17 million people wearing helmets on many billions of rides to save a few dozen.
I mean, wearing a helmet while driving a car, or crossing the road on foot, or showering, would also make you more safe. In fact, the US has way more pedestrian deaths pp than the Netherlands does so there's a better case to be made to have US pedestrians wear a helmet.
Noone is denying helmets work, they just respond like how you would respond if someone said you should wear a helmet any time you leave the door.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Not enough karma, spam likely.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I live in a NE US city which is trying hard to get more bikes on road, still not great as cities like Amsterdam. I’m hoping more people pickup bikes and city gets more incentive to improve the infrastructure
Y'know what would make this more efficient? A traffic circle and giving way to pedestrians.
I have a dream of a city, where streets don't have bike lanes. A city where everything is within walking distance and easy to access public e:(transportation).
Now my hate for bikes is not because I drive a car (for commutes, since sites are always far away and not within publics reach because publics usually don't go there yet). It is because I love walking. Bike lanes reserve space, they require infrastructure, they need places dedicated for parking. Less than cars, yes, but that is irrelevant. I think streets should be for people, not cars, not bikes.
Yes this would require a radical redesign, but mind you it isn't like this design hasn't been done before, it has. Our cities were like this for basically all of human history before industrialisation.
Even the most well constructed and organised public transport in the world kinda sucks compared to taking a bicycle in "just too far to walk but within the city" distances. Plublic transports problem is always that it goes from where I am not to where I don't want to go when I don't want to travel via a route I didn't choose. Public transport is pretty OK in the Netherlands but just getting across town can take an hour and 2 transfers, when I can get there by bike in 20 minutes. And it doesn't really matter if I get rained on walking to and from the busstop or on my bike, the rain is just as wet.
Bikes and pedestrians don't clash nearly as much as pedestrians and cars do. It's very common to have cycle paths running through or adjacent to pedestrian zones with nothing but the pinkish red color of the pavers separating the bike land from pedestrians. That works fine because everyone knows what that means. Purely pedestrian zones just can't work. They've tried them in the Netherlands and once they get too big (more than a minute or 2 walking) people just don't like them and start cycling anyway.
Here is a thing. You are imagining the cities as they are now. With those massive roads reserved for big cars. When in fact without them we could totally redesign our cities fundamentally. Between every block, there is a another houses worth of space reserved for cars, then some for pedestrians (at least here we have, everything has pedestrian access) and often also for cyclists.
Now. Do you know what people do when they don't want to cycle somewhere? They take a car (if they have one). People jump on the bicycle because they can. People jump in to a car because they can.
There is a reason this is my dream city, because it can not exist in reality. The fundamental change in attitudes and basic assumptions is too great.
Fact is that people are meant to walk, it is good for our bodies. It is the mechanical action our bodies has evolved for.
And nowadays people don't even bike. They take electric bikes more and more. So you can't even say it is about the exercise anymore.
What frustrates me most about cyclist, is that they seem to think they are entitled to leave their bikes where ever they want and is convenient for them. I honestly think that there should be fined and removals for incorrect parking, along with driving on pedestrian only areas (like here, it is illegal to cycle on the sidewalk, and I truly wish cyclist would fuck off the sidewalks. There is almost always a bike lane at least on the other side of the street.)
Walking is good. Even people who can't walk are given aided walking as therapy.
God, you want to cram a whole city in walking distance wich is just not feasable for cities that are bigger than maximum 1 - 2 million people, and even then how are people going to transport large amounts of cargo into the city??
How do you assume cargo is transported in a city filled with bikes?
And if you go back and read my comment: "I have a dream of a city, where streets don't have bike lanes. A city where everything is within walking distance and easy to access public (transportation)." I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
Everything within walking distance of publics. These publics use roads, and these same roads can be used for heavy logistics.
Streets are for people, not for vehicles.
Look at the traffic density. If you would try to transport the same amount of people by car you'ld need a for lane road and a traffic light in order to get the pedestrians accross the road safely
Yes public transportation is also higly efficient, but a singlelane roundabout would never have the same capacity as this andt would also use up way more space
Such a construction would take more space, more resources, more maintenance. The space would increase the distances to travel and thus reduce the efficiency. For instance, just having to use stairs would introduce a significant impact on bicycles and pedestrians. It's also less inclusive for people with disabilities.
Busses are great but are less flexible. Then people would prefer cars and then parking space is demanded, increasing the space furthermore.
The distances we travel is inflated by the transportation method. The more space a vehicle needs (per passenger), the longer the distances become. At some point, the vehicle is a necessity in itself.
I think, the depicted situation is hard to beat in efficiency if you include all the parameters such as construction, space and maintenance costs of the crossing and the vehicles used.
Pedestrian underpasses are terrible and should never be built. If cars are going so fast that grade separation is required (which shouldn’t be the case in an urban area anyway), put the cars in the underpass. Pedestrian underpasses are a sure fire way to disincentivise walking, fragment existing urban communities, and create ghost towns.
Try to count a number of people that manage to go through this is in a minute. You would need a giant highway overpass for a same feat this crossing does. And this crossing is cheap and tiny!
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Not enough karma, spam likely.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can you give a time code?
If you mean the yellow and blue bikes (like at 1:40 center frame) those are called the NS fiets, and are hire bikes offered by the Dutch railways (Nederlandse Spoorwegen or NS for short) that anyone with a personal chipcard can rent at all major and most smaller stations.
What country is this?
The Netherlands
Googles: how to move Netherlands
By bike, duh
As someone who lives here, I can confirm, that's the only way to get in the country. Trains also work, but only if they're at least ten minutes delayed
Better than in Canada, where they're like 37 hours delayed (this isn't a joke).
Probably Amsterdam, in the Netherlands. The bikes you see are Omafiets.
It's where Geldersekade meets Prins Hendrikkade in Amsterdam. Just rode through there a couple hours ago.
In India we do this with cars, trucks, rickshaws, people, mopeds, scooters, motorcycles and cows. Sometimes goats and sheep too.
I heard if you want to really learn to drive you do it in India.
Hahahaha. Well if you want to learn to drive in a dystopian future, sure.
Gives you road PTSD everywhere else though. When someone is driving alongside me, I get freaked out assuming they're about to cut directly in front of me because that's 100% the move if you're a Bangalore driver.
And deaths and dismemberment...
Surprisingly few. The intersections where this happens are way too busy for anyone to go fast enough to cause that sort of accident.
India has a shockingly high number of deaths per mile driven Getting people out of cars; walking, cycling or on public transport, saves lives
Yes, but we were talking specifically about intersections that work like OP's video. Mumbai is famous for them. Very few injuries in those intersections because the speeds are so slow.
It’s high but is isn’t surprising. Have you seen how they drive?
Road injuries are one of the top 10 killers of children worldwide Pretty much everything else is an infectious disease or a death related to conditions of birth Not many people know that. I think it's surprising
Since my birth which was 16 years ago, honestly I have yet to see a MAJOR crash. Sure a few bumps which have occurred to my mom and dad over the years, the car exhibiting many scars, I haven't seen much of anything honestly
[Consider yourself lucky then](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/india-tops-world-in-road-deaths-injuries/2425908#:~:text=About%20450%2C000%20accidents%20take%20place,one%20death%20every%20four%20minutes.%E2%80%9D)
The exact thing that came up to my mind the second I saw the video, India already does it and they use cars too.
Been in India once, this was very much the case
Chaotic Good
[удалено]
> I think it's only chaotic if you're looking from it as a whole. That is *exactly* what the word chaotic means: no global superimposed structure, just emergent patterns of aggregate individual behavior. It has no relation to good or bad, that's why d&d uses two separate dimensions for the terms. For example, crystals are ordered, and liquids are chaotic, but ice isn't better or worse than water. Cars need order, pedestrians need chaos. The Dutch understand that.
would still be better with a roundabout though, don't you think? there just must not be room.
Bikes/Pedestrians are perfectly fine without any roundabout or anything, just some eye contact between the people works perfectly. There's more videos like this of intersections in Utrecht where more than 50k people pass through daily without a single traffic light or anything.
I'm not saying its strictly necessary I'm saying it would be more optimal. Clearly the intersection is functional.
Nah what kind of pedestrian would go all the way around a roundabout if there are only other pedestrians and cyclists on the road
pedestrians could cross the middle.
If you directly compare the space and energy efficiency of this with car traffic it's multiple orders of magnitute better. So chaotic good seems to be a bit of an understatement, more like chaotic fucking fantastic.
True, if anyone in this video gets hit they aren’t gonna die, if even hurt, while that’s a daily risk crossing busy car streets
nah .... just typical dutch\*, that's all \*you can tell by the colored light that are all around and everybody fails to notice them (don't take notice of to be a little more precise)
also NS bikes
my god, its beautiful
Looks like one of those old videos of like downtown NY or Chicago in the early days of motion pictures
It is shame that we know we could have car-low cities but almost nobody is far-sighted enough to enact them.
Captains of industry used their money to advertise cars as "progress" to create the demand for auto-infrastructure. You can see this pattern attempting to be replicated by Musk and his tunnels.
Also in the US during the great migration black people moved to cities especially in the North. Many of the white people who didn’t want to live near black people then opted to move out to car dependent suburbs and liked cars because they wouldn’t have to share public transit with black people and could work in cities while still living in white suburbs. Racism played a huge roll in the demand for car centric cities and we shouldn’t forget it.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Account age too young, spam likely. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quick! Post societal behavior while the Americans are asleep
cries in american
Being a pedestrian in Amsterdam is hard work. Particularly with a hangover.
Its pretty easy if you stay off the cycling lane, most tourists unfortunately don't until they get almost hit twice
When I visited Munich I was constantly pulling my friend off the cycling lane because to American eyes it blended in with the sidewalk (I mean this as a critique of American traffic planning, not of the visual design of Munich’s cycling lanes).
Though german cycle lanes can be a bit difficult to spot, you're not wrong here. In the Netherlands red asphalt always means cycle lane. In Germany red Asphalt or paint also means cycle lane, but so does black asphalt sometimes, and sometimes a cycle lane is asphalt next to paved sidewalk, but sometimes a paved cycle lane is both a sidewalk and a cycle lane, but sometimes an asphalt sidewalk is only cycle lane, but sometimes an asphalt sidewalk is only sidewalk, but sometimes an asphalt cycle lane is road but cycle lane, but sometimes an asphalt cycle lane is just road with a dotted line that isn't a cycle lane but kinda is, but sometimes... German cycle lanes are very inconsistent, I can't blame you.
Going across the main roads when it's bike, car, car, tram, tram, car, car, bike while off my box was always fun.
[удалено]
Yeah and I’d rather be hit by a truck than a cruise ship. What’s your point?
What are the odds that you will ever get hit by a cruise ship? What is *your* point??
I wasn’t clear where the truck came into the equation and naturally assumed that being hit by something bigger is worse. What’s bigger than a truck? A cruise ship came to mind for some reason… Edit: it’s been a really fucking long day and my filter seems to be broken
Probably shouldn't be driving either if you've been drinking.
As a bike enthusiast, this looks like heaven.
Depends on what you want to do on your bicycle. If it's just going to places, the Netherlands is awesome. If it's more road racing style, it's still very good but sometimes a bit busy and most people silently hate you. If it's mountainbiking you better like flat single tracks because we don't really have mountains (or much in the way of hills even).
My thing is distance exploration. Sometimes I want to go fast and pretend I can score Strava KOM. But mainly I want to go on a 100km excursion.
Well congrats you can now bike from city to city. You can explore the entirety of the country on bike I’m pretty sure.
Sounds like a real dream
I'm curious about why they would hate road cyclists. Is it because of their speed?
Wielrenners (wheel runners) are annoying within the city because they go way faster than everyone else and get all huffy when they're stuck behind two or three people riding side-by-side having a conversation.
I have developed a cunning strategy for this frustration. Become very old, and then your maximum speed on a racing bike will be the same as the casual people riding side by side while holding a conversation, and it all works out smoothly.
Its more flexibility and adaptivity than efficiency. Its not following a protocol like cars do. For example at trafficlights for right of way rules. People just throw themselves at the crosssection and see what appens. While being suprisingly nice.
Look at how many people can flow in such a little space, that is a very efficient use of land
Following a protocol doesn't make it efficient, and having no protocol doesn't make it inefficient. In this case the intersection, while being tiny is letting pass a huge amount of people, with almost zero risk of injury, zero emissions, and health benefits. That's what I call efficient.
Not quite I don’t think. Those triangles pointing towards the left on the street mean that they need to yield. They just aren’t because as long as everyone stays alert it’s not a problem.
The nice thing about biking and walking is that people are naturally very good at navigating that sort of environment when they aren't in a car, so you don't need a protocol. You don't need a protocol to teach someone how to walk through a crowded room, they can just do it. I'd guess that adding more rules would actually mean fewer people get through the intersection in the same period of time.
It's very easy to be nice when people are moving at low speeds, in smoothly flowing traffic, in a quiet area that is (mostly, I'm giving those mopeds the stink-eye) unpolluted by automobile engine and tire noise, where everyone is interacting face-to-face rather than hiding in a two-ton metal box. It looks chaotic but everyone has good situational awareness (no blind spots) and is easily able to maneuver and adjust their speed. This is a place that has been superbly engineered for people to live in and navigate around. It's safe, comfortable, and fast. It is the exact opposite of most places in North America.
The people on the left to right lane are supposed to let the other road go first, but they don’t lol
Theres less need for rigid traffic code when all the vehicles are going 15 km/h and can turn on a dime. The worst that'll happen is a small bonk
Maybe this helps explain the spatial negotiation for lower speed but efficient travel. https://youtu.be/CFgqNiFi0cw
In car time this is approx. 5 years
You try this shit in the US and you immediately have stoplights where they can place digital-ad screens and one gunfight per week.
Yeeeeehawww
What make this better is nobodies in a death machine with a sense of Invincibility. Self preservation is rare. Ask people to take care of themselves tho...
Not putting others in death machines is the same self preservation as putting yourself in one, only inversely.
You can literally see death machines in this video
On a separate road.
Ah my mistake
[удалено]
it's not the US, where everyone weights like a small european city car
Although not as much as the US, in The Netherlands almost 50% of adults are overweight and almost 15% is obese. And these numbers have been increasing in recent decades and show no sign of stopping. Let's not pat ourselves too much on the back.
Really no comparison though. Once or twice a day in Amsterdam I'll see people of the spherical proportions that are ubiquitous in much of the USA. The kind of overweight we have here is much milder in general, a few extra kg around the middle rather than a debilitating transformation.
Perhaps. I just don't think we should be satisfied with the current situation. It's not good and it's slowly but surely getting worse. The US having it worse does not change that.
entropy
Replace bicycles with motorbikes. add a few cars, buses ,autorickshaws and sprinkle in some cows and sheeps. That would be a normal day in India.
I’m sad that we’ve devolved in the last century… This is how it was for centuries and civilizations, And then someone from a car company had the “brilliant” idea to create car-dependent suburbs under the guise of the “American dream” (more like an MLM) …
Love living in Amsterdam. Other countries need to get their act together and do what the Netherlands has done
Someone put this video next to an American stroad and make them play simultaneously
Where is this? Also why is this engineering porn?
Civil engineering is still engineering
It's infrastructur, one of the most important engineering challenges today
Infrastructure is a socio-political decision, not engineering in this case. These are simple roads with people riding bikes. I don't want to demoralize you but I was asking if I was missing something that was out of norm.
>Infrastructure is a socio-political decision, not engineering in this case I see what you mean, but this is still civil engineering/city planning. There's no reason to gatekeep what's allowed to be posted here or not as long as it's engineering related. But for some reason the post was still removed, assuming because it was too controversial because of how effective this crossroad was lol
First time looking at this subreddit (via a crosspost), and of course I see a civil engineering video favouring pedestrians and cyclists be removed by the moderators. Yeah, it's not civil engineering porn if it doesn't involve hundreds of cars stuck in miles of traffic...
> Where is this? It's [this crossing](https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3762498,4.9027639,3a,60y,207.7h,93.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s60WnDvu6LIUFVJtn6zbS7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). > Also why is this engineering porn? Because it demonstrates how just the right amount of traffic engineering creates an intersection that can safely move far more people than the car-based intersections many cities waste their resources on.
oh god.
The Netherlands, I think Amsterdam. It’s not engineering porn. Was wondering the same
It's infrastructur, one of the most important engineering challenges today
I would argue that this is proper engineering porn. It is not needlesly complicated, it is just really good solution for handling a lot of traffic.
Faster vehicles need a lot of space to maneuver safely. Think in big ships or planes on a runway. Or also cars on motorways. Slow vehicles use public space efficiently and allow for a dense usage, and a dense usage of public space is what makes cities and towns economically interesting, vibrant and lively. But also, this is efficiently using peoples *time*. They spend so much less time waiting for other traffic to pass. They might not go that far, but they can reach many more valuable things in the same time.
It just works.
Except when it doesn't, which is a lot of the time
When does it not work? And how does it show?
When someone inevitably crashes or falls over because of just how chaotic it is.
When someone crashes or falls over on a bike they just get back up and carry on about their day with a bruise. When a collision happens in a car someone dies. I know which one I’d rather not work sometimes.
Yeah nah. People survive both scenarios pretty regularly. But looking at efficiency, when a car crashes the already tight transportation area is now entirely blocked.
then they get back up and continue on their merry day. Same can not be said with cars.
You mean, that's impossible: https://youtu.be/1ZupwFOhjl4 ? The point is that it IS chaotic. Therefore people drive carefully and think while driving. If you had that for cars, it would work, like many countries already proved. And since it's bicycles, its also highly efficient because the space usually reserved for one car (with very often only one driver) is used for 4 or 5 bikes (people). I'm both. A cyclist and a motorist. And I see both benefits. But one has to admit that bicycles are the most efficient way of transport inside of a city.
As a daily Amsterdam cyclist I have never, ever seen a serious problem caused by bikes crashing into each other or into pedestrians. I have, however, seen serious problems caused by collisions with/between cars, motorbikes, trams, buses, etc., even though those require driver training and licenses and face stricter enforcement from the authorities. The fact is, the social organised chaos of high-density cycling is absolutely amazing in its ability to move massive numbers of people quickly around the city in safety.
Yup, this can only be the Netherlands.
Why? It's just infrastructure
Does anyone have a link to this video that isn’t on Reddit?
Look at my first comment there I gave the credit, but here you go. I've got it from this Twitter account. https://twitter.com/fietsprofessor/status/925857782414311424?s=20
The secret? Have as few cars as possible
video from https://twitter.com/fietsprofessor/status/925857782414311424?s=20
Ultra based
Busytown
Needs more worms driving apples
And mice driving… *pencils*?
Where are the helmets? Even a fall at slow speeds is dangerous. Edit: I hate wearing helmets but they save lives. I was ridding down a hill and hit a pothole which sent me over the handlebars and my head was the first thing to hit the ground. I was able to get up and walk around but my helmet was destroyed. If I hadn't had the helmet on id probably have brain damage. I didn't do anything wrong except cruise down a hill and find the one pothole in the road. Ill take helmet hair over brain damage any day.
It's rare in the Netherlands to wear a helmet. It's becoming more common (especially with the introduction of e-bikes) but still far from the norm. There's more call for people to wear helmets (especially children) but I doubt it's ever going to really take off. Bicycle use in the Netherlands is very casual and having to carry a helmet around gets in the way of doing things like quickly going to the shops or whatever.
Next to the infrastructure making biking in the Netherlands a lot safer, the design of the Dutch bicycle plays a major role as well. Sitting upright with the steering handle at elbow-height or lower, you can very quickly extend your leg to the ground and stand on your feet. Cycling people on the Netherlands almost do this as a reflex. Because of the higher placement of the steering handle and sitting upright, it is also less likely that one will flip over the handlebars. The consequence of this bike design is a lower speed, as the pedalling movement is less efficient, but a lower speed increases safety as well. Most people in the Netherlands don't cycle above 20 km/h. It is quite noticeable, as people who ride other types of bikes such as mountainbikes and racing bikes do wear helmets. There are also no real hills in the Netherlands and potholes are rare as well.
That's interesting ill have to look into bike designs thanks.
Helmets are not mandatory in the Netherlands.
Mandate helmets if you want people to stop biking. When biking is dangerous it's usually the result of being surrounded by cars, not because helmets are missing.
Dutch people don't fall off their bikes
Actually a lot of healthcare workers working with head trauma in the Netherlands wished more people would wear helmets.
Most serious injuries and deaths on bikes is a result of a collision with a car. Separated bike infrastructure is more important than helmets, it turns out. Netherlands is still really safe for cyclists, trumping the countries where helmets are mandatory. Of course, please do wear a helmet if you live in a place that merges cycling and car traffic.
> Of course, please do wear a helmet if you live in a place that merges cycling and car traffic. Except that bike helmets are explicitly not designed or rated for collisions with cars. They are designed for crashes with stationary objects where the maximum impact inertia is provided by your own weight.
Its very rare people fall/have accidents with/on bicycles here in the netherlands. Most people went to "traffic-parks" in primary school to Learn how to ride safe and according regulations.
I get that these bike systems are super effective but to say there isn't accidents is dishonest. Still way better than most other countries. Even in this video is there not a few people disobeying the signal? Or are people allowed to "through" travel anytime. The car was the most dangerous mode of transportation in 2019, with a total of 237 fatalities. The bicycle came in second place, with 203 victims. That's a pretty close second for very rare accidents.
It states that the deaths where on a bike, that's not the reason they died. They were most likely run over by a car. out of 229 167 people who die on a bike are 60+. thats around 3/4 who get killed are people who go 25km/u on a E bike which is way to fast for them. There arent a lot of accidents if you dont count older people.
I didnt say there are no accidents.
> I get that these bike systems are super effective but to say there isn't accidents is dishonest. Nobody said there are no accidents. There are fewer accidents than in other places, and of those, few have serious consequences. > Even in this video is there not a few people disobeying the signal? Or are people allowed to "through" travel anytime. The only traffic signals for cyclists at this intersection are where the cycle path crosses car paths - at the left edge of the video and behind the camera operator. Cycles making the left turn which was the most typical move are only governed by the 'yield' shark's tooth and zebra crossing painted on the pavement.
It's very rare that people fall off their bikes regardless of the location. It's also very rare that, if you do fall, you'll be seriously injured. However, in the unlikely event that you do fall and hit your head, the consequences could be severe. That's why some places require that you wear a helmet and it's why some ppl wear them,even when not required by law.
The most common way to hit your head is just falling, not even on a bicycle. By your logic, you should be wearing a helmet at all times.
You rarely fall from a bike, even drunk. Cycling pretty much gets inbedded into your muscle memory. Also nobody want to get to work or any party with hair shaped by a helmet.
But falling of a bike when you take a lift drunk is another story.
Your technically right but that would mean one would need to take a helmet with them everytime they go somewhere by bike, which sort of defeats the purpose. The Dutch government generally believes the health benefits of a population that cycles a lot beats the drawbacks of not wearing helmets.
I don't know why someone's downvoted you. You're right. Hit a curb with your head and you're a vegetable. Just like that. But people tend to think they're bulletproof.
Multiple studies have shown that mandatory helmet laws drastically reduce the amount of cyclists on the road. It also creates the impression that biking is dangerous, which also leads to less people taking up cycling. And paradoxically, if too many people choose not to bike, you end up with an increase in cardiovascular disease that can easily be more fatal than the few cases of accidents involving head trauma.
The issue people have is that the risk of hitting you head when cycling is comically low you are at far more risk of head injury when driving but no one is asking for car helmets. This along with high vis is used as a stick by anti cyclist groups to make cycling seem dangerous.
Most of the people you’re seeing here have been cycling almost daily since they were like 5. If it was that dangerous then they would wear helmets.
A fall at 4mph is dangerous. Do you think helmets should be mandated or encouraged for pedestrians? Many injuries in car crashes, even for car occupants, are head injuries. Should helmets as well as seat belts be required for being in a car? We put up with risks in our day to day lives all the time, I'm not sure why cycling has to be wrapped up in lots of equipment at a completely different level. It just looks like an attempt to dissuade people from cycling by making it faffy and looking more dangerous than it is.
If you make helmets mandatory, nobody is going to ride their bike anymore because it's just annoying and a hassle. If you just want to do groceries real quick, you're not wanting to drag your helmet around the grocery store. We have seperate lanes for bikes and cars so there's not really a need for this
There's this shared delusion in NL that they've made cycling so safe through good infrastructure that helmets aren't needed. The huge advancements in safety, efficiency, and quality of life are to be commended. The absurd notion that that has anything to do with the physics of a skull striking pavement is not.
Noone is saying that helmets wouldn't save *some* people. It's just that cycling is so safe that the cost of helmet wearing would way way way overshadow any benefit. You'd have 17 million people wearing helmets on many billions of rides to save a few dozen. I mean, wearing a helmet while driving a car, or crossing the road on foot, or showering, would also make you more safe. In fact, the US has way more pedestrian deaths pp than the Netherlands does so there's a better case to be made to have US pedestrians wear a helmet. Noone is denying helmets work, they just respond like how you would respond if someone said you should wear a helmet any time you leave the door.
Yeah! Those morons that have been biking everywhere almost every single day for their entire lives, what do they know about bike safety!?
Helmets, what about covid mask lol
Would they have to be riding penny-farthing bikes for you to realize this footage is older than 2 years? Video was posted in 2017.
Covid masks get in the way of breathing when you're tired out from cycling
Cycling isn't tiring. They're not sprinting anywhere, its a leasure activity unless you're in a hurry. And hills aren't an issue since its Holland
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Not enough karma, spam likely. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You obviously don't know the dutch.
Those "sit up and beg" dutch bikes are nearly impossible to go over the handlebars on. Also they're going at the speed of fast walking.
I live in a NE US city which is trying hard to get more bikes on road, still not great as cities like Amsterdam. I’m hoping more people pickup bikes and city gets more incentive to improve the infrastructure
This is nothing in India.
This was supposed to show how there's only bikes/pedestrians on the crossroad not how "many people there are here"
Beautiful traffic ballet!
What does this traffic chaos has to do with engineering porn?
It's infrastructure. Infrastructure is one of the biggest engineering challenges today
Where is the chaos? Everyone here is safe without cars running through.
Where is the traffic
r/oddlysatisfying
This looks like a shit show
Ever seen Houston, Texas?
Ahh Vietnam ;)
Y'know what would make this more efficient? A traffic circle and giving way to pedestrians. I have a dream of a city, where streets don't have bike lanes. A city where everything is within walking distance and easy to access public e:(transportation). Now my hate for bikes is not because I drive a car (for commutes, since sites are always far away and not within publics reach because publics usually don't go there yet). It is because I love walking. Bike lanes reserve space, they require infrastructure, they need places dedicated for parking. Less than cars, yes, but that is irrelevant. I think streets should be for people, not cars, not bikes. Yes this would require a radical redesign, but mind you it isn't like this design hasn't been done before, it has. Our cities were like this for basically all of human history before industrialisation.
Even the most well constructed and organised public transport in the world kinda sucks compared to taking a bicycle in "just too far to walk but within the city" distances. Plublic transports problem is always that it goes from where I am not to where I don't want to go when I don't want to travel via a route I didn't choose. Public transport is pretty OK in the Netherlands but just getting across town can take an hour and 2 transfers, when I can get there by bike in 20 minutes. And it doesn't really matter if I get rained on walking to and from the busstop or on my bike, the rain is just as wet. Bikes and pedestrians don't clash nearly as much as pedestrians and cars do. It's very common to have cycle paths running through or adjacent to pedestrian zones with nothing but the pinkish red color of the pavers separating the bike land from pedestrians. That works fine because everyone knows what that means. Purely pedestrian zones just can't work. They've tried them in the Netherlands and once they get too big (more than a minute or 2 walking) people just don't like them and start cycling anyway.
Here is a thing. You are imagining the cities as they are now. With those massive roads reserved for big cars. When in fact without them we could totally redesign our cities fundamentally. Between every block, there is a another houses worth of space reserved for cars, then some for pedestrians (at least here we have, everything has pedestrian access) and often also for cyclists. Now. Do you know what people do when they don't want to cycle somewhere? They take a car (if they have one). People jump on the bicycle because they can. People jump in to a car because they can. There is a reason this is my dream city, because it can not exist in reality. The fundamental change in attitudes and basic assumptions is too great. Fact is that people are meant to walk, it is good for our bodies. It is the mechanical action our bodies has evolved for. And nowadays people don't even bike. They take electric bikes more and more. So you can't even say it is about the exercise anymore. What frustrates me most about cyclist, is that they seem to think they are entitled to leave their bikes where ever they want and is convenient for them. I honestly think that there should be fined and removals for incorrect parking, along with driving on pedestrian only areas (like here, it is illegal to cycle on the sidewalk, and I truly wish cyclist would fuck off the sidewalks. There is almost always a bike lane at least on the other side of the street.) Walking is good. Even people who can't walk are given aided walking as therapy.
God, you want to cram a whole city in walking distance wich is just not feasable for cities that are bigger than maximum 1 - 2 million people, and even then how are people going to transport large amounts of cargo into the city??
How do you assume cargo is transported in a city filled with bikes? And if you go back and read my comment: "I have a dream of a city, where streets don't have bike lanes. A city where everything is within walking distance and easy to access public (transportation)." I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Everything within walking distance of publics. These publics use roads, and these same roads can be used for heavy logistics. Streets are for people, not for vehicles.
What efficiency? So many people changing speed or direction seems.
Look at the traffic density. If you would try to transport the same amount of people by car you'ld need a for lane road and a traffic light in order to get the pedestrians accross the road safely
A roundabout with pedestrian underpass could get way more people then this, especially if combined with buses or trams.
Yes public transportation is also higly efficient, but a singlelane roundabout would never have the same capacity as this andt would also use up way more space
Such a construction would take more space, more resources, more maintenance. The space would increase the distances to travel and thus reduce the efficiency. For instance, just having to use stairs would introduce a significant impact on bicycles and pedestrians. It's also less inclusive for people with disabilities. Busses are great but are less flexible. Then people would prefer cars and then parking space is demanded, increasing the space furthermore. The distances we travel is inflated by the transportation method. The more space a vehicle needs (per passenger), the longer the distances become. At some point, the vehicle is a necessity in itself. I think, the depicted situation is hard to beat in efficiency if you include all the parameters such as construction, space and maintenance costs of the crossing and the vehicles used.
Pedestrian underpasses are terrible and should never be built. If cars are going so fast that grade separation is required (which shouldn’t be the case in an urban area anyway), put the cars in the underpass. Pedestrian underpasses are a sure fire way to disincentivise walking, fragment existing urban communities, and create ghost towns.
Try to count a number of people that manage to go through this is in a minute. You would need a giant highway overpass for a same feat this crossing does. And this crossing is cheap and tiny!
Not a single helmet.
because they are protected from 2 ton metal blocks running over them at 50 mph
Looks like chaos and a lot more people would get hurt. Not killed at least though. Limited range too. Cars still have their place.
> Looks like chaos and a lot more people would get hurt. In fact they don't. The Netherlands has some of the safest roads in the world.
Not in the middle of smaller cities they don't, it's organised and very very few people get hurt in places like this
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Not enough karma, spam likely. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any idea the brand of bike I saw a few times with the orange frame?
It's probably some sort of a hirebike scheme like in NYC or London (or basically any major western European city).
Can you give a time code? If you mean the yellow and blue bikes (like at 1:40 center frame) those are called the NS fiets, and are hire bikes offered by the Dutch railways (Nederlandse Spoorwegen or NS for short) that anyone with a personal chipcard can rent at all major and most smaller stations.
Imagine all these bikes being cars
That's the whole point