Amsterdam / infrastructure

[pjclinch]

So if I go to Den Haag (as I actually do), and having passed the station bike park which gives one some perspective on the scale of cycle use there, I look around me, all the cycle lanes therebouts will be 4m wide?
Well... no. How do they manage?

The Dutch are pragmatic enough to know you can't put 8m of lane where there isn't 8m of ground spare. There's quite a lot of space between "optimum" and "not enough to be useful". I'll not say for sure 3m enough, but nor (based on what I've seen working on the ground in NL) will I say it's clearly insufficient to be useful.

Pete.

[aspiringcyclist]

According to the CEOGB, the CROW manual has these standards/recommendations:

By definition, cycle tracks (as opposed to on-road cycle lanes) are separated from travel lanes and pedestrians by a barrier, which could be a paved or unpaved verge, a raised curb or some other barrier.1 Standard widths are generally 2.5 metres for one-way tracks and 4m for two-way ones.2 The minimum width for the tracks themselves is 2m although they may narrow to 1.5m at certain intersections. On main cycle routes, track widths should be based on the expected bicycle traffic: for one-way bike lanes, 2m is fine up to 150 bph (bikes per hour, in both directions); 150-750 bph requires 3m (10’) and over that 4m (13’).3

I think the problem of no segregated routes on main roads is still valid. The number of cyclists on the East West Superhighway will be higher than one on a similar track in the Netherlands due to a lack of alternatives.

[TonyR]

According to the CEOGB, the CROW manual has these standards/recommendations:

By definition, cycle tracks (as opposed to on-road cycle lanes) are separated from travel lanes and pedestrians by a barrier, which could be a paved or unpaved verge, a raised curb or some other barrier.1 Standard widths are generally 2.5 metres for one-way tracks and 4m for two-way ones.2 The minimum width for the tracks themselves is 2m although they may narrow to 1.5m at certain intersections. On main cycle routes, track widths should be based on the expected bicycle traffic: for one-way bike lanes, 2m is fine up to 150 bph (bikes per hour, in both directions); 150-750 bph requires 3m (10’) and over that 4m (13’).3

I think the problem of no segregated routes on main roads is still valid. The number of cyclists on the East West Superhighway will be higher than one on a similar track in the Netherlands due to a lack of alternatives.

The expected flow in the Embankment cycle track is 1,800 bph IIRC.

[TonyR]

So if I go to Den Haag (as I actually do), and having passed the station bike park which gives one some perspective on the scale of cycle use there, I look around me, all the cycle lanes therebouts will be 4m wide?
Well... no. How do they manage?

The Dutch are pragmatic enough to know you can't put 8m of lane where there isn't 8m of ground spare. There's quite a lot of space between "optimum" and "not enough to be useful". I'll not say for sure 3m enough, but nor (based on what I've seen working on the ground in NL) will I say it's clearly insufficient to be useful.

Pete.

And is there 8m of space on Embankment?

[mjr]

Just to note that 1.5m is the absolute minimum recommended width for any cycle lane in the Government guidance.

Not for a few years it hasn't been 1.5m. The current advice is "The preferred minimum effective width for a two-way cycle track is 3 metres. These effective widths will need additional clearance where track edge constraints such as kerbs or walls are present (see Table 7.4)." (LTN 1/12 s7.38)

I find it odd that after all the years of complaint about cycle lanes being built to that minimum, suddenly because its called a superhighway and its segregated, its defended as good.

Or rather, it's defended as "a big step" forwards while saying "Much more needs to be done" (LCC PR linked earlier) but that seems far too complicated a position for people who see things as all or nothing.

For comparison the Dutch guidance for such a cycle lane would be 4m wide per direction or 8m total width.

I thought it was 5m total width but maybe I'm out of date or forgetting some aspect: where are you seeing 8m?

[TonyR]

I thought it was 5m total width but maybe I'm out of date or forgetting some aspect: where are you seeing 8m?

See @aspiringcyclist's extract from CROW above for bi-directional flow rates over 750 bikes per hour

[Bmblbzzz]

That extract from CROW is confused; it says "for one way paths" then gives bike-per-hour figures "in both directions". 4m is wider than a UK motorway lane, 8m is wider than many two-way A roads. I'd say those figures are highly aspirational.

[Ellieb]

I'm in Amsterdan at the moment. I haven't seen many cycle tracks any wider than the Embankment. I have to say, cycling on what is there is a joy, but a lot of the reason behind that is the Dutch attitude to road use. Everyone is far more tolerant of each other than in the UK. This isn't just car drivers tolerating cyclists, it is every type of road user tolerating each other. This does, however mean that people will step out or pull out whenever they feel like it and you just have to avoid ( in a relaxed manner). Despite this, being on a segregated track still feels much nicer than being on the road.

[mjr]

Watching videos of real-world cycling around the Netherlands, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-uVs0_eC0 around Amsterdam, can show what's actually on the ground. They suffer compromises and old mistakes too, although maybe not as badly as we have. I suggest their average is still better than ours, though, and I'd much rather have that here than most of what we have.
[youtube]ob-uVs0_eC0[/youtube]

[aspiringcyclist]

I think it actually means 2m for one way and then 3m/4m for two way, however it isn't clear either way.

By the way it wasn't a CROW manual extract; it was a quote from the CEOGB.

[reohn2]

I'm in Amsterdan at the moment. I haven't seen many cycle tracks any wider than the Embankment. I have to say, cycling on what is there is a joy, but a lot of the reason behind that is the Dutch attitude to road use. Everyone is far more tolerant of each other than in the UK. This isn't just car drivers tolerating cyclists, it is every type of road user tolerating each other. This does, however mean that people will step out or pull out whenever they feel like it and you just have to avoid ( in a relaxed manner). Despite this, being on a segregated track still feels much nicer than being on the road.

This is what the UK is short of,there's far too much aggression,with a them and us attitude that prevails.Bullying by might on our roads seems to be a pastime a significant element indulge in,we are a far too aggressive society IMHO compared with our continental counterparts.

[Vorpal]

I'm in Amsterdan at the moment. I haven't seen many cycle tracks any wider than the Embankment. I have to say, cycling on what is there is a joy, but a lot of the reason behind that is the Dutch attitude to road use. Everyone is far more tolerant of each other than in the UK. This isn't just car drivers tolerating cyclists, it is every type of road user tolerating each other. This does, however mean that people will step out or pull out whenever they feel like it and you just have to avoid ( in a relaxed manner). Despite this, being on a segregated track still feels much nicer than being on the road.

This is what the UK is short of,there's far too much aggression,with a them and us attitude that prevails.Bullying by might on our roads seems to be a pastime a significant element indulge in,we are a far too aggressive society IMHO compared with our continental counterparts.

I'm not convinced that British culture is very much worse than other places in that regard. What I do think is that there is a somewhat greater social acceptance of aggressive driving and anti-cyclist sentiment. I also think that quite a bit of the hostile road environment can be attributed to high traffic density. This increases the likelikhood of problems, increases the number of idiots one encounters in a given ride, and increases driver frustration levels. All of those things combine to create the road environment.

It's not like that everywhere, not even everywhere in the UK. There are some lovely places to ride a bike. There are also some places that seem prone to problems, even if they have relatively low RTC rates.

With effort and investment, or even just time, sentiment can be changed. It has worked for drink-driving and some social issues- I'm sure it can for vulnerable road users, too. But at the moment, it seems to be going to wrong way, and that can't change until the problem is acknowledged.

[pjclinch]

It's not like that everywhere, not even everywhere in the UK.

I'm lucky to live in a place I consider quite benign for cycling, finding I get a good measure of consideration and I have a feeling the number of good overtakes (where you think, "I wish everyone did it like that") has gone up a lot over the last couple of years.

Pedal on Parliament organiser David Brennan visited Dundee earlier this year and wondered aloud online where all the infrastructure was. Replies from POP supporters (i.e., people who tend to be on board with the idea that we need a bit more) tended to be less worried about its lack here than one might have expected. We don't have much fast/heavy intimidating traffic, so less need to be removed from it, and given the available budgets we'd sooner they didn't bother with half-measures.

Having said that, with my Workplace Cycle Instructor hat on, a significant number of my clients are after training to get from paths on to roads, and they haven't done it without extra help because they're afraid. If people are avoiding the roads in Dundee I'd be amazed if they're not being put off in Glasgow and Edinburgh (and London) which are much, much busier.

Pete.

[reohn2]

I'm not convinced that British culture is very much worse than other places in that regard. What I do think is that there is a somewhat greater social acceptance of aggressive driving and anti-cyclist sentiment.

That seems a contradictory statement IMO.
It's that aggression and the police's lack of response to it that encourages it,particularly where cycling incidents are concerned.

I also think that quite a bit of the hostile road environment can be attributed to high traffic density.

I sort of agree,though most of the close/punishment o/takes I get are on wide traffic free roads where there's plenty of room

This increases the likelikhood of problems,increases the number of idiots one encounters in a given ride,and increases driver frustration levels.

The idiots and frustrated drivers are one and the same generally,and it's because they can get away with their antisocial and dangerous behaviour they carry on with it.

All of those things combine to create the road environment.

All of those things combine to create the bad road environment I encounter daily in the UK.
Yesterday was nice 55miles of untroubled country road riding.The reason,no nutters were encounted,a rarity where I live.

It's not like that everywhere, not even everywhere in the UK. There are some lovely places to ride a bike. There are also some places that seem prone to problems, even if they have relatively low RTC rates.

But it's not the places,it's the people for the reasons highlighted above!
That said some areas are more benign than others but on occasion when you're being lulled into a sense of benign safety,up pops the occasional loonie.
Perhaps it's me,I may stand out as someone who looks ripe for abuse!

With effort and investment, or even just time, sentiment can be changed. It has worked for drink-driving and some social issues- I'm sure it can for vulnerable road users, too. But at the moment, it seems to be going to wrong way, and that can't change until the problem is acknowledged.

I couldn't agree more.
"Mr Cameron,it's about the police force".
"yes Mr R2"
"We'd like one"

[Vorpal]

I'm not convinced that British culture is very much worse than other places in that regard. What I do think is that there is a somewhat greater social acceptance of aggressive driving and anti-cyclist sentiment.

That seems a contradictory statement IMO.
It's that aggression and the police's lack of response to it that encourages it,particularly where cycling incidents are concerned.

It's not a contradictory statement. I was countering

there's far too much aggression,with a them and us attitude that prevails.Bullying by might on our roads seems to be a pastime a significant element indulge in,we are a far too aggressive society IMHO compared with our continental counterparts.

A somewhat greater acceptance of aggressive driving and anti-cyclist attitude is not the same as an agressive society where a significan element indulge in bullying.

The idiots and frustrated drivers are one and the same generally,and it's because they can get away with their antisocial and dangerous behaviour they carry on with it.

I disagree. I think that most of the bad encounters / incidents that I have had are with people who either aren't paying sufficient attention, lack awareness, or simply don't realise how intimidating a motor vehicle is. A few have been people in a hurry who clearly think their needs are greater than mine. Only a very, very few have been down to people bullying or deliberately abusing vulnerable users.

It's not like that everywhere, not even everywhere in the UK. There are some lovely places to ride a bike. There are also some places that seem prone to problems, even if they have relatively low RTC rates.

But it's not the places,it's the people for the reasons highlighted above!
That said some areas are more benign than others but on occasion when you're being lulled into a sense of benign safety,up pops the occasional loonie.
Perhaps it's me,I may stand out as someone who looks ripe for abuse!

I doubt that it's you. I also don't think that it's only down to people, but the design of an area also affects it. And some towns seem to be worse than others. Some counties seem to be worse than others. It's hard to know how much the physical environment affects it, if the culture is a bit different form one place to another, or if the differences are purely down to something like population density.