However it’s Danish, so it ought to be taken with a grain of Læsø Salt
What’s improper with that picture up high? It is only a bunch of cyclists stopped at a site visitors gentle. Besides it’s a T intersection with no pedestrians seen, and no bike owner has ever stopped for a purple gentle at an empty T intersection within the historical past of biking, as a result of there’s actually no logical purpose to. In France, they even modified the legal guidelines so you do not have to.
Cyclists patiently ready for lights/ Lloyd Alter/CC BY 2.0But in Copenhagen, you see individuals stopped at purple lights on a regular basis, as a result of normally, the principles all make sense, and the town is designed for the wants of people that bike in addition to individuals who drive. So individuals typically settle for the principles as a result of they perceive who they’re for and why they’re there. As Chris Turner wrote:
Automobiles aren’t individuals, and their wants aren’t solely not the identical however typically stand (and transfer) in battle. This perception — not superhighways for bikes — is Copenhagen’s best contribution to the worldwide dialog about city sustainability.
YES. Design for various wants and also you get totally different reactions. So when Carlton Reid writes that in Denmark,”lower than 5% of cyclists break site visitors legal guidelines whereas driving but 66% of motorists achieve this when driving,” it is as a result of the site visitors legal guidelines make sense. Reid continues (my emphasis)
The examine was carried out for the Danish authorities by consulting agency Rambøll utilizing video cameras sited at main junctions in Danish cities, together with Copenhagen. It was discovered that simply four.9% of cyclists broke street guidelines once they had been driving on cycleways. This rose to 14% of cyclists when there was no biking infrastructure current. (Need fewer scofflaw cyclists in your metropolis? Set up cycleways.)
Lloyd Alter/ A method avenue in New York/CC BY 2.zero
Precisely. You need individuals to obey the principles? Design infrastructure that truly is smart for individuals, not only for automobiles. When I’m in New York Metropolis I perceive completely why everybody goes via purple lights; they’re on each single block and they’re timed totally for automobiles, in order that on a motorbike you hit a purple virtually each time. When all the pieces is designed round automobiles, it is no marvel that folks on bikes do stuff like this.
© Chris Turner
In Copenhagen, there are bike highways the place the lights are timed for the bikes, not the automobiles. The lights aren’t each couple of hundred toes. There are footrests on the intersection in order that it’s a stress-free cease. No marvel individuals are blissful to do it.
Dangerous infrastructure design results in dangerous habits on bikes
In virtually each case it’s not a authorized downside it’s a design downside. I’ve written about this earlier than, complaining about New York Metropolis and its silly one-way Avenues, when a tweeter responded that the regulation is the regulation:
It’s towards the regulation, and harmful to all. There is no such thing as a good excuse.
— Xanax! At The Disco (@grack2bxact) April 5, 2018
No. This isn’t a authorized challenge, it’s basically about dangerous design. Cyclists do not undergo cease indicators or trip the improper approach as a result of they’re evil law-breakers; neither are most drivers who go over the velocity restrict. Drivers do it as a result of the roads are designed for automobiles to go quick, in order that they go quick. Cyclists undergo cease indicators as a result of they’re there to make automobiles go gradual, to not cease bikes. TreeHugger Emeritus Ruben commented on a submit about this:
Lloyd Alter/ Palmerston Avenue, Toronto, with cease indicators each 266 toes to decelerate automobiles/CC BY 2.zero
I discovered in design faculty that The Person is At all times Proper. It would not matter what you assume you will have designed, the consumer’s behaviour tells you what your product or system really IS…. An important instance is how roads are designed for 70 km/h, however then signed for 30 km/h–and then we wag our fingers on the speeders. These drivers are behaving completely usually for the system. If you happen to wished individuals to drive 30 km/h, then YOU FAILED. The individuals are not damaged, YOUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN.
The true lesson from the Copenhagen examine is not that cyclists are good and drivers are dangerous, however that if you happen to design your infrastructure for everybody, then the legal guidelines are seen to be truthful to everybody, and the bulk will comply with them. If the system is not damaged, neither are the legal guidelines.