I don't mean to disagree that there are situations where this is useful. I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).

The OP seemed to suggest that people wearing ANC headgear should stop doing so, but both the bell and the ANC-wearing pedestrians are a non-issue in my lived experience.

It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.

▲

lxgr 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

These things take both time and massive political will.

As somebody living in a city that's quite bike friendly, all things concerned, but still not close to Dutch or Danish levels of biking safety, I'll take any "technical solutions that try to solve social/political problems" I can get to make my commute safer.

Also, anything that makes biking feel safer will make more people try commuting by bike, which in turn increases the political will to change traffic laws and space use. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

▲

joe_mamba 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).

Your argument was not a solution. You just said, "NL fixd this, why haven't other countries?" which doesn't add any value.

Have you considered that other cities/countries can't just add infrastructure that hasn't been designed from the start to accommodate bikes the same way NL has without taking space away from pedestrians or cars as the roads have stayed as narrow as back in the 1800s?

And that fixing it is not a switch you can just turn on on a whim, but requires decades of political and societal change around repurposing infrastructure, plus capital, before consensus is achieved? Democracies are complicated, even moreson in times like these.

What do you do until then, when a bell is an instant improvement?

You're commenting off the sidelines without realizing why most countries can't flip a switch and become NL overnight.

>It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.

Yeah but what do you do if they are? There's no ANC wars here, Skoda just made a better bell. Are you also against the development of better bicycle helmets, because where you live you don't need them? Like yes sure, infrastructure is the real solution, but what do you do until that arrives?

	▲	Phemist 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I was not trying to offer a solution, as this will be highly specific to the situation in your locality and pretty pointless for me to spend time on. I am merely identifying this as a root cause, which for some reason strikes a nerve. Why does Skoda, a car manufacturer, care so much about interactions between cyclists and pedestrians? As you say, a bell that penetrates the car enclosures would be much more useful. I suspect a similar reason why pro-safety helmet lobby groups in NL received a lot of funding from these same car manufacturers. I digress.. For your information, post-WWII infrastructure developments in NL were initially highly car-friendly. This only started to change in the 70s and 80s, when the government started to actually create bicycle-related traffic policy, after collective protests (e.g. popular pro-bicycle protest songs were written, children refused to go to schools unless bicycle paths were laid, etc.) also helped by the oil crisis of the time. So, no it can't be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed in reasonable time (and not an unspecified amount of decades, political capital and funding). We are even living through a repeated history right now.