Rules as code for more responsive governance [LWN.net]

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 22, 2023 18:23 UTC (Wed) by anton (subscriber, #25547)
In reply to: Rules as code for more responsive governance by paulj
Parent article: Rules as code for more responsive governance

Such mandatory cycle paths are generally /very/ well designed and maintained

If they were, there would be no need to make them mandatory. Cf.: motorways are not mandatory; they are so well designed that motorists use them voluntarily. All the cycle paths (in the Netherlands and elsewhere) I have seen have always been inferior to the carriageways (never mind motorways) that one would use to travel the same distance with a motorized vehicle.

to post comments

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 11:29 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't know, the ones I used were generally well built and well maintained. Not sure which ones you are thinking of.

Also, as a cyclist you often had /more/ direct routes available to you via cycle-paths than via roads. The cycle-paths can go through parks and other places, and take shortcuts that are not available to motor vehicles.

There are, in some places, some really old cycle paths, that were built a /long/ time ago - like at the start of the whole push in the 70s to build segregated cycle paths. Those can be a lower standard, not wide enough, paving slabs instead of a smooth surface, etc. - cause the design standards of today just hadn't been developed yet. E.g.: https://goo.gl/maps/2Ar2LaYc8eCMCRnj7 - that one is pretty much unchanged in my lifetime (probably built/converted from footpath some in/around start of my life). Why they havn't updated it, I don't know. But I don't think it gets a lot of cycle traffic either.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 13:55 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Oh, and my sense is that for any route with any kind of significant cycle traffic, the mandatory cycle paths will be at - or upgraded in a reasonable amount of time - to modern standards. Less used paths maybe less so.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 15:44 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (17 responses)

The mandatory cycle paths (G11 sign) tend to exist either where there is no road, or next to roads with a speed limit over 60km/h, often without a shoulder. If you want to risk the road then it will still be the car's fault if they hit you, but frankly, why would you risk it? Generally, any cycle path is better than the road (though this isn't the case in other countries). Also, I'm not sure if the translation "mandatory" is really covering the right meaning here.

Motorways have their own limits, e.g. you're not allowed on them if you can't go at least 60km/h. I've been in countries where they allow cyclists on the motorways and it scares the bejesus out of me.

As for the quality of the road: the requirements of a surface where a vehicle is going 100km/h are vastly different to that of a cyclist going 15-25km/h. Just like high-speed train rails have different requirements that tram rails. The square in mv^2 goes pretty quickly. (The cycle paths are usually rated for car weights because they often double as access roads).

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 16:20 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (7 responses)

I'm trying to get a sense of what "mandatory" means in this context; my understanding of it as described by paulj is that if you're cycling on a road that would normally permit bicycles, but there is a mandatory cycle lane next to it, then the police would have some way of penalising you for not using the cycle lane.

But that doesn't quite fit with "it will still be the car's fault if they hit you" - if it's a mandatory cycle lane in this sense, then it bans you from cycling on the road at all, and thus it's not the car's fault (although their insurance may still be asked to shoulder the cost, just not the blame).

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 16:26 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (6 responses)

A mandatory cycle path in NL is /required/ for cyclists to use - outside of special circumstances (very wide self-propelled cycles). It is _unlawful_ to cycle on a road beside a mandatory cycle path in that case. Yes, the cops _will_ stop you. I think the exceptions are discussed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ5Qertz2OA

In the UK a mandatory cycle /lane/ means something else: This refers to a cycle lane demarked from the rest of the road by a solid white line. It is unlawful for a /motor vehicle/ to enter such a "mandatory" cycle lane. Cyclists are generally always allowed to cycle on the road - other than some exceptions (motorways, and IIRC a small number of busy A-roads where it is so signed).

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 16:29 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (5 responses)

And if I'm cycling illegally on the road next to a mandatory cycle lane, and you drive into the back of me, would I be at fault for the accident that results (because I shouldn't have been there), or would you be at fault, or would fault be shared equally (me at fault for being there, you at fault for not spotting an obstacle in time)?

And yes, in the UK, we don't have the same concept, which is why I'm enquiring - but we can create a similar thing by banning cycling on a road, then providing a mandatory cycle lane on the same road, which means you can't cycle on the rest of the carriageway, but can on the cycle lane.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 16:37 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

I don't know how the dutch justice system would allocate blame in such a scenario. But if you were on a normal bike, you'd have been there unlawfully.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 24, 2023 21:39 UTC (Fri) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (3 responses)

If you're not cycling on the "mandatory cycle path" then you may be fined if you're on the road instead (it happened ~2100 times last year). That doesn't however make it your fault if you get hit by a car though. And all of this is subordinate to the basic rule "don't create unsafe conditions". If it's safer for you to be on the road, then you should be.

The allocation of "fault" is largely a legal act here though. The car has compulsory third party insurance, the cyclist doesn't. So by law the "fault" is placed with the car because that's the easiest. Since everybody already has health insurance, disability insurance, etc placing the "fault" with the cyclist doesn't actually benefit anyone. It's not like the cyclist will be able to sue the driver for millions, it just doesn't work that way (assuming the cyclist survives in the first place).

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 25, 2023 12:00 UTC (Sat) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (2 responses)

Is fault placed with the car, or merely liability? That is, does the law say the driver and cyclist are equally to blame for the accident happening (the fault), but the driver has to shoulder all the liability (the financial burden that fault brings with it) because they are the more dangerous entity (which is why they have compulsory third party insurance, whereas cyclists don't)?

I'm asking because this is a very different setup to what I'm used to, and I'd prefer not to misrepresent it; I'm clear on the criminal side (if the police catch the cyclist not using a mandatory cycle lane, the cyclist faces penalties via the criminal route, usually a fine), but I'd like to get the civil side completely clear in my head.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 25, 2023 14:33 UTC (Sat) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (1 responses)

Thank you, that's a better way of describing it in English. The law (Article 185 WVW) is about the more general case "zwakke verkeersdeelnemers" (weak road users) which covers cyclists and pedestrians but also applies to sign posts, buildings and other inanimate objects. The driver of the car is always liable ("aansprakelijk"), even if it's not their fault ("schuld").

However, the car driver has a much higher duty of care, and the barrier to declaring an accident the fault of a cyclist/pedestrian is quite high. You have to demonstrate the actions of the cyclist/pedestrian could not have reasonably been foreseen and the driver made no mistakes. Additionally, any cyclist/pedestrian under the age of 14 is by definition not responsible, they are assumed to be unpredictable. The maximum reduction in liability is 50% in any case.

Criminally, for the driver the result is either "dood door schuld" (death by negligence) or an unfortunate accident. Any fine for the cyclist/pedestrian is administrative, unrelated to criminal law.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 26, 2023 14:59 UTC (Sun) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

This all makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it clearly to me - it's always nice to understand how a problem is solved in another country.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 16:20 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (7 responses)

Mandatory ("verplicht") cycle paths in NL really are _mandatory_ for cyclists to use. It's not lawful to cycle on the road where there is such a path - unless there are some special circumstances. The cops can and _will_ stop you if you cycle on the road. (Been there, done that. ;) ).

As for motorways, in UK, a motorway is actually /more/ pleasant to cycle on than some of the A-roads. It is not lawful to cycle on a motorway, but there are sections of the A1 in northern Ireland that are basically motorway standard, i.e. with a high shoulder - and those sections are *far* less dangerous or frightening to cycle on than the sections of the A1 that are at the normal A-road dual-carriageway standard (i.e. no high hard shoulder).

Cycling on the motorway-standard part wasn't idyllic, but at least I had my own lane (the hard shoulder), and separation from the fast traffic. But when it reverted to the normal-A-dual-carriageway standard and the shoulder disappeared, I had to share a lane with fast passing traffic, and that road was _terrifying_. I had to get off it and find another route (longer and windier).

In general, A-roads in the UK (96km/h if single-lane in your direction, 112 if dual) are _horrible_ to cycle on - and /worse/ than motorways for cyclists.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 16:21 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (6 responses)

"high shoulder" -> "hard shoulder", i.e. a lane at the side, for emergency use if a vehicle breaks down.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 17:54 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (5 responses)

Modern UK motorways don't have hard shoulders ...

Cheers,
Wol

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 27, 2023 13:37 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (4 responses)

They've removed them from some high-traffic motorway sections, to squeeze out more space, so it is now /permitted/ for a motorway to not have a hard shoulder, but I think the design preference is still for motorways to have them. And most of the motorways surely still have hard shoulders in UK?

Again, I'd rather be on a motorway (w' hard shoulder) than a busy A-road. The irony is that if you were to cycle on a motorway in the UK, the police may well escort you off it to an A-road that is /nastier/ to cycle on - the same speed traffic, now passing 20 centimetres from you, rather than 2+ metres. But the UK is just generally daft on road safety.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 27, 2023 14:42 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

Design preference is to roll out smart motorways everywhere, I believe. According to the statistics, they are much safer, allegedly, and (provided the tech is working) they should be.

I think most of the motorways I use for the most part don't have hard shoulders any more. M25. M1. A1(M). M62. M20. They haven't yet smarted up the M2 but when the new crossing opens I'm sure they will. M3 I think they're doing. M4 I think they've done. M6/M5 I'm not sure ...

As always, however, when operated by dumb people things go pear-shaped. Case in point, the QEII bridge, there was an accident on the section after the bridge, so they closed the road and forced everyone off at junction 1a. Except that they shut the bridge down to 1 lane, then fed that into a 2-lane exit road!!!

Cue loads of queue-jumping and general anti-social behaviour, which could have led to further accidents. THINK GUYS THINK - if they'd closed lanes 2 and 4, you'd have had everything feeding cleanly into the slip.

Cheers,
Wol

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 28, 2023 9:45 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

Hard shoulders are still part of the design intent for smart motorways though. Just... sometimes they might be used as live lanes at very busy times.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 28, 2023 10:28 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

You drive on different smart motorways than me, then ...

SOME smart motorways have a hard shoulder and say "use hard shoulder". The M62 iirc for example.

Others have emergency laybys with no hard shoulder. The M25 for example.

I can't say which is more common - living in London the latter is much more common round here.

Cheers,
Wol

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted May 21, 2023 16:48 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

> Design preference is to roll out smart motorways everywhere, I believe. According to the statistics, they are much safer, allegedly, and (provided the tech is working) they should be.

They rolled this back several years ago because it turned out they were wildly less safe than hard-shouldered motorways. They were almost as safe in the feasibility studies (with "refuge areas" every 750m, though how you're supposed to get a car with a dead engine into one of those is not clear to me); what was actually built had "refuge areas" every 3.5km or even less often and unsurprisingly are really *not* somewhere you want your car to fail. But it saved money! Sigh.

There is now an ongoing program to put more refuge areas into the existing "smart" motorways, at considerable cost. Alas even the "more" is still only one area every 1.5km, i.e. still only half as frequent as in the feasibility studies.

Rules as code for more responsive governance

Posted Mar 23, 2023 18:51 UTC (Thu) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link]

Why would I risk riding on a cycle path? One of the reasons for using the carriageway is that it is safer to use than a cycle path. That's because it is designed for use by motorized traffic, and that's where traffic engineers take safety (and other features) seriously.

As you write, bike paths are designed with the imagination that cyclist are limited to 15-25km/h, and that leads to designs that are dangerous and that slow cyclists down, in other words: bike paths are unfit for effective cycling. And that's no surprise, they don't exist for cyclists, but for getting cyclists out of the way of car drivers. That's why they are mandatory.

But, you say, what about the risk of being hit by a car from behind? In reality that risk is relatively small and the additional risks of cycle paths exceed this risk by far. Bike path advocates like to feed our imagination with fear from this kind of danger, like you do, but reality is different from the imagination. I think this imagination comes from the experience the car drivers perceive wrt cyclists: If there is oncoming traffic, they cannot pass the cyclist but have to brake, so they imagine this as a danger that allows them to ban cyclists from the carriageway. Other dangers (e.g., on crossings) don't get inflated by the imagination in the same way, but they are much bigger (and increased by bike paths).

BTW, what's mandatory about bike paths that are not close to a carriageway? Will a police officer stop you when you use the carriageway of a road without bike path and fine you for not using a bike path that's 500m away? 1km? 5km?