Hoofdmenu

Subpagina's verschijnen in de rechterkolom, boven

Hello world

It's a shame that this website is unreadable for most people.

At least there are some items in English, see right column and below.  

Videos of traffic lights not working

The Case against 'Speed kills'

The Case against LCC and Road Use Charging  

Shared Space is all around us - Traffic in Morocco

Global warming page (N. Lawson , Scared to death) and Climate Change Answers

Hm, this lane is next to the pavement, so it must be for cyclists ?

A warning against Dutch cycling experts

From This is London 15.3.10

Boris Johnson must do more to stop cyclists being killed to encourage greater numbers onto London's roads, according to Dutch experts.

My view

“Bike paths to protect cyclists from traffic” is an outrageous, shallow, lethal and dogmatic belief, promoted by bicycle campaigners. Only on the surface they seem safer. The truth that intersections exist and are by nature more dangerous than roads has somehow not yet reached the separation advocates. How does a bike path protect a cyclist on a crossroad ?
There is a lot of research indicating, almost proving that separate paths are less safe. And unsafety is just one of the problems, I have listed 22 of them (baluw.nl – in dutch).
Paths eat space. In the Netherlands many streets have been ruined by this. Shopping streets had the pavement cut back to a ridiculous 2 - 3 metres.
Paths restrict freedom of movement, turning right (UK) becomes much more difficult. That's why many cyclists ride against the flow on a path (at least in NL) instead of the longer, more dangerous route prescribed by the planners. So imagine the mayhem on our 2 metre wide paths with potholes (another downside), with bicycles, scooters and bakfietsen riding at differing speeds in both directions, combating for space.
Apart from the narrow and meandering paths, cyclists are hindered by traffic lights, speed humps and other planners' output.
Thus only fools call Amsterdam the “world's cycling capital”.

Blind spot accidents: Signals are lethal

It doesn't take that much of figure out that traffic lights are the main cause of blind spot accidents.

Traffic lights accumulate road users, then they launch them. A stampede instigated by the authorities. Drivers of left-turning HGVs must look in all directions and spot all passing and oncoming cyclists.

Mirrors are useful, but even good drivers can't use five at a time.

This situation also causes time-pressure; no driver can wait and see forever.

Compare these bouts of traffic with crossroads without lights (absent or not functioning). Here people arrive evenly, and they can filter in turn.

HGVs can move to the curb, simply negotiating with the one cyclist, if any. A lot safer for cyclists, a lot easier for HGV-drivers.

I have put this analysis to many responsible bodies in the Netherlands.

Most of them did not reply, none challenged it.

The factor traffic lights has not been investigated, but all reports mention that the accidents do occur near working lights. It can be assumed that this is the case 9 out of 10 times.

Blind spot accidents are only the tip of the iceberg. Traffic lights cause many more serious injuries and deaths. They are truly lethal. Again, this has not been directly investigated, but it can be deduced from many reports. There is no research that proves or even indicates that lights improve safety.

The suggestion in the report by Transport for London’s road safety unit that it may be safer for cyclists to jump red lights is not quite supportive of current traffic management.

We must abolish them speedily.

Traffic lights are not the only factor in blind spot accidents, however.

Drivers sit at the right side, without a proper view of the area to the left. Mirrors are merely a second-rate aid. It is far better to seat the driver at the left (there are far fewer cyclists etc. on the right). What about UK and continental companies swapping HGV's ?

Other, less feasible solutions are : an assistant driver or transparancy by design, similar to buses.

Many point to the cyclists and shove an amount of blame on them.

But wait: most of the victims waited at red, then started off to go straight, expecting right of way from left-turning traffic. How wrong is this?

At present, with the terrific lights, some propose a new rule for cyclists: stay clear from HGVs. Adjacent rule: cyclists must go forward on red, when near a HGV. Without the signals, there is no need for such absurd rules.

Overtoom, Amsterdam, 1 death, 1 severe injury in 2007

Amsterdam traffic

[written 2004]

From a global perpective, the Centre of Amsterdam is not the worst traffic affected : bicycle use is high, public transport is reasonable, car use is restricted by high parking fees (rates) and a cap on the number of permits for residents. Cars are effectively concentrated on arterial roads (Hoofdnet Auto or HA), with low numbers driving on residential streets.

On the other hand

• The arterial roads are congested at peak hours, and some of them have illegal pollution levels. Many shopping streets are part of HA and must accomodate trams as well, so walking is confined to a narrow strip;
• The pedestrian area is very small;
• Car traffic is relatively little restricted;
• There is only 1 car free square (but it has a bike lane right across);
• The majority of streets and all canals are lined with parked vehicles;
• The public transport network is too wide : there are no buses, the canal area is not served well by trams (map at GVB , choose: lijnenkaart)
• The large fleet of taxis serve only a few people, and otherwise keep the ranks filled.

There is no prospect for real improvement. Let’s examine some government policies.

Note: since 2002, Centrum has its own government (Stadsdeelbestuur & -raad), and in many traffic topics/areas, both governments (City - District)claim authority.

• No change in parking, the fees will go up and some groups (teachers, nurses) will get a zone permit by priority.
• No change in public transport : cutbacks in timetables are possible due to problems with the new fleet (Siemens’ Combino); an experiment with a canal area circle bus route (Opstapper) is merely surviving.
• On the transport departments website, it’s difficult to find any innovative and effective plans.

Baluw proposes a series of ideas on these pages, so start learning dutch.

Concrete over the Betuweroute ?

Read on Spiked  :  a bold and convincing proposal: Concrete over the railways. 

"In spite of each rail journey being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of 20p per passenger mile, its fares are much higher than comparable journeys by coach. Megabus return fare to Birmingham is £2.50 [or higher, subject to moment of booking Baluw] compared to a rail fare of between £20 and £92.

The fuel efficiency per passenger mile travelled by train is no better than that of an average diesel car carrying two people. [subject to the number of passengers in the train Baluw]

If the 10,000 miles of railway lines were concreted over and turned into trunk roads, with no traffic lights and crossroads, to be used only by lorries and coaches, it could carry between five and 10 times as many passengers per hour as the railway. The advantages would be enormous. Instead of one train of several coaches leaving every 30 minutes, dreamliner coaches carrying over 50 passengers, in considerable luxury, would be able to depart at five-minute intervals."

I instantly thought about the Betuweroute (new east-west freight railway), hadn't someone proposed to make it a lorry track? Yes, in an edition of Zembla (current affairs tv), NL-MP Pieter Hofstra said this.

Incredible as it seems, 'asfalteren' may be an escape route, as there's a big gap between the running costs of the Betuwelijn, or the price operators are supposed to pay for the use of it, and the price they are able to pay (related to the normal rail freight revenue).

Free public transport

Anzir Boodoo writes this about a "free at point of use" public transport. (It) would...

• be severely overcrowded in certain places - where would the additional revenue for new capacity come from (areas such as Scotland which have introduced free travel for the over 60s have grappled with this problem, so it's not insurmountable, just expensive)
• fail to provide a barrier to vandalism, virtually all of which is caused by non ticketholders accessing public transport stops/stations. Rail stations in the UK with ticket barriers have reported up to 90% reduction in vandalism.
• not foster a sense of environmental responsibility, as people would be encouraged to travel more (as with the idea of cars being "free at point of use")
• not provide any clear incentives for operators to improve or maintain the quality of service - they'd get passengers anyway.

From discussion in Café Mobility