Just to compare, this is the utopian dream for Toronto:
There are approx. 18 cars and trucks in that image.
They are taking up SIGNIFICANTLY more space, and are causing traffic.
Still, we keep saying, "give us more of this, please!".
Insanity or stupidity?
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
Unpopular opinion: getting rid of cars is good, but if you've ever been to the streets of Amsterdam, it's a bike nightmare.
Streets are generally narrow, so bikers form a neverending swarm and barely regard the pedestrians. From a bikers' perspective, you're constantly riding in a flow, so you can't really afford to stop or turn over for a break.
Amsterdam should either figure out how to manage that flow, or expand the public transportation like buses and trams - which are really the most compact ways to drive people around.
As a person who regularly cycles through Amsterdam (even the centre), the issus is tourist pedestrians. The city does a bare minimum to cater for these travellers, because most of the visits are temporal.
As a cyclist and/or pedestrian, I am never frustrated by locals cycling or walking.
The rule is "its harder for a cyclist to stop than a pedestrian, so be predictable with where you are going and we'll all avoid an accident".
The flow people you walk about is a problem for travellers, not for locals.
As a visitor, you very quickly learn to look out for bikes. They're nearly silent and they're everywhere. Look before you step into a bike lane or it's going to end in tears. The problem is that, later in the evening, the tourists have some weed and a few trippels, then they're back out on the streets again, with no remaining situational awareness.
Might be true - I haven't been there for long enough to adapt. But in the hindsight it often felt like this rule was taken into an absolute where you might have to wait a solid minute to then swiftly run through the crossing, hoping you won't be run over. And it's way worse in the city center, yeah.
And how would that nightmare be if everyone was in a car?
Amsterdam doesn't have much of a bicycle issue, really.
No better, indeed. Just pointing out that there are current issues with the way it's organized, so there is a lot of room for improvement and it shouldn't be seen as a perfect bike utopia it's often posed as.
If you ask me, Scandinavian countries often have a better thought out bike infrastructure, with plenty of separate bike lanes that are planned in a way as to allow bikers and pedestrians to easily coexist and have plenty of space.
Scandi cities are far lower-density than Dutch cities.
Dutch person living in Norway: 1. Amsterdam has perhaps the worst biking infrastructure in the Netherlands, 2. It’s much better than anything you will ever find in Norway.
Speaking as someone who was thrown into being a pedestrian in this city with no training:
Just go slow and steady (don't dash forwards) and the cyclists will go around you. Telegraph what you're up to if you're worried.
The only reason cars would be safer if because of how ineffective they'd be (i.e. average speed of 2km/h).
Stuff like knowing that standing on red means you're in the bike lane makes it a lot less scary.
And yeah the worst spots are directly outside the central station, and probably on the bridges in the Jordaan. Apart from that you can pick up the rhythm in under an hour.
Thanks for your notes :)
Having cyclists all around comes with all sorts of unwritten rules, people need to get used to it for it to function properly. Amsterdam has a lot of tourist that aren't used to the bicycle-culture, don't know the unwritten rules, and at the same time to local populace expects them to, so that causes problems. You'll notice that other dutch cities like Utrecht and Groningen have it figured out much better, have a far smoother experience, but perhaps have it easier because there are less tourists.
The thing is that these rules are not “unwritten” at all. They are part of the (written down) traffic code. To give an example, you have pedestrian zones where you are not allowed to bike, and you have regular roads where pedestrians need to keep to the sidewalk. Also, you have bicycle paths meant for cyclists only, and sidewalks meant for pedestrians only. When you walk on the road or on a cycling path you are violating the traffic code, not some unwritten rule.
No matter how you cut it, I'd rather be hit or nearly hit by a cyclist than by a F150.
Driving comes with WRITTEN rules and drivers can't even seem to follow them like full stops at stop signs or pedestrians having the right of way at crossings. At least with a bicycle if some rules are ignored by either side the risks are far less deadly.
Fair!
Amsterdammers hate public transport.
I had an English friend who learned to bicycle. It opens the city up in ways that are not possible with even great public transport.
For example, the Vondelpark goes roughly east/west for some distance. Crossing that north/south by bicycle takes a few minutes. Crossing by public transport means going around it, basically.
Some cyclists ignore lights and crosswalks, like some pedestrians. But overall it basically works. Just look left and right before stepping into a street and you'll probably be fine.
Sounds like poor planning and issues of a relatively old city. On the other hand, same is the issue with bicycles, so, yeah.
Yes having a park is “poor city planning”.
No, but putting a park on an important lane is; besides, some of the electric transportation can be seamlessly integrated into the park environment for those who need it.
Serious question: how would you plan a park in the center of a city such that it’s not in between two places? Don’t tell me that you would move it to the outskirts of the city. Having green inside the city is exactly the point!
Small quiet trams are generally pretty good for that. They don't require anything but two rails and overhead wires, and the rest can be as green as you like, as shown by many European cities. Sure, you won't be able to put it everywhere, or else you'll decrease safety and isolation, but one or two rails on most crucial sides are an option.
You're never going to get public transport to every street corner. It can always be better, but honestly having big sections of green without streets running through them is a good idea, not something to plan away....