Actually you will find that there are many examples where the Dutch have installed cycle lanes around the outer edge of a roundabout, which is not mentioned.
Your first two are merely subsets of a single segregated form, as are the second two. Hence according to the LCC analysis there are only two forms of roundabout deign to cater for the cyclist in the Netherlands.
There are four basic forms in use in the Netherlands, segregated and unsegregated forms are widely used in urban settings across the country, as is the type used on interurban routes, which designed to cope with a segregated two way cycle facility running alongside a principal highway (an asymmetrical form). I’d note that cyclists are banned from using the principal carriageway on many interurban routes (clearly specified in CROW), hence the high quality facilities, more often than not two way, running alongside.
Finally there’s the turbo style.
Turbo roundabouts have nothing to do with cyclist safety and convenience but are designed to increase capacity for motorised traffic….and still controversial in the cycling community in the Netherlands. In some situations turbo style roundabouts are not merely segregated but completely bypassed via a bridge or underpass (particularly on inter-urban routes) such are the safety concerns. Rather interestingly, and unlike any other roundabout in use in the Netherlands I’ve been able to find, turbo roundabouts have two approach lanes on the main carriageway, which means that cyclists priority can difficult to exercise (probably impossible when traffic densities are high)….hence the safety concerns.
Cyclist priority effectively creates a sub form of the principal forms, as would any other variations in priority. So I’d go back and look at the hierarchy of roundabout design you’ve used.
In addition, you will find that the Danes almost exclusively use an unsegregated form, with blue lines around the outer edge….to the extent of replacing the LLC promoted form with what appears to a nationally standardized unsegregated form. I’d note the Danes don’t seem too keen on roundabouts, so you won’t find too many of them.
Once again, it would be useful to find out why exactly it is that TfL and LCC have chosen the form they have.
Cheers
John Meudell
Ps: I have lots of photos of roundabouts taken all over the Netherlands….unfortunately this forum doesn’t support photographic illustrations.
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:CYCLING-[log in to unmask]] On Behalf OfMichael Cavenett
Sent: 30 October 2013 01:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Examples of Any Cycling Cities Which Don't Segregate?
To my knowledge (and I will gladly be corrected if I'm wrong because that's the whole point of subscribing to these discussion areas) the four types of Dutch roundabout are:
1. turbo roundabout with level crossings
2. turbo roundabout with grade separation for cycling
3. standard roundabout without cycling priority
4. standard roundabout with cycling priority
LCC promotes the last to the exclusion of the others because we think they're the most suitable for high-density urban cities like ours ... a view I believe we share with most Dutch traffic engineers.
You're right that we don't always make these policy positions explicit, but we're a small charity and sometimes it's not possible to explain everything as fully as we'd like.
Mike thanks
By why did you “deliberately visit high density urban cities”, which automatically biases the evaluation. If I were to filter my evaluations on cycling infrastructure, and given the bigger problem in the UK is the legacy aspect of infrastructure, I would have done so on the basis of locations with the highest inventory of legacy buildings and infrastructure.
The problem is the way the messages are being received by politicians and the general public. I find it an uphill task to try and “enlighten” politicians in particular! What is needed is not endless strap lines, that sound nice but open to wide interpretation, but a properly constituted programme of “enlightenment” for politicians, planners and engineers and means methods to change the approach of said planners and engineers.
I don’t think I have ever seen any reference to training and development of transport planners and engineers in all the outpourings of the cycling fraternity. Surely that is a pre-requisite to ensuring safe and effective cycle facilities, sustainably (meaning affordably) planned and constructed.....?.
As I mentioned, as an example, the Dutch have four roundabout designs. What I’m not hearing is why the “Let’s go Dutch” brigade justifying their adoption of just one of those. Maybe it’s my professional training with blue chip international companies, but surely that’s the first question we should be asking…even of our own.
But I’m not hearing any response to that question.
Cheers
John
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Cavenett
Sent: 29 October 2013 09:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Examples of Any Cycling Cities Which Don't Segregate?
We deliberately visited "high density, urban cities in the most densely populated part of the NL" because we're an urban cycling organisation operating in a high-density urban city.
There have been other trips to other places meeting other people, but I wanted to give you an flavour of the effort that we (and others) go to meet local experts, rather than provide an exhaustive list. Your suggestions are useful, and I'll pass them on.
Of course segregation is targeted where there's greatest need. Contrary to your assertion, I don't know a single campaigner in the UK who thinks segregation should be "generally applied" or operates with a "narrow and inflexible dogma". That certainly doesn't apply to LCC policy formulations, and never has.
On 28 Oct 2013, at 20:34, John Meudell wrote:
Sorry, but you’ve visited high density, urban cities in the mostly densely populated part of the Netherlands. They are not necessarily typical, and to choose to do so suggests a desire to constrain the insight and conclusions.
Whilst CROW is universally accepted as the definitive cycle design guide for the Netherlands, it isn’t necessarily what happens outside of the cities you’ve visited. By way of example, and because it’s topical, I’d note that the Dutch have four generic roundabout designs, only one of which appears in the CROW cycle design guide. Furthermore the currently topical “shared space” concept, which you tend to find in the northern provinces, doesn’t even warrant a mention.
If you have absorbed the CROW guide than I’m sure that you will have noted that, in the cities you referred to, most of segregated facilities correspond to bus routes, in line with the CROW guide, which prioritizes segregation from large vehicles, something that has been practiced for many years. Segregation of cyclists is not as generally applied as most proponents would have you believe, and the CROW guide provides a structure in which segregation of cyclists is prioritized based on route characteristics and setting, a fact that does not often emerge in conversations with non-technical staff.
The fact is that, as with anywhere (and any subject), practices vary, more often than not (at least in the Netherlands) because of context, even though a common set of basic principles apply. To take a balanced and representative view of provision I would have at least ensured I visited a wide range of locations and settings.
And three of the four organizations you met with are campaigning organizations. For a complete view I would have also talked to planners and engineers at provincial bodies, along with officials at the Transport Ministry (which, over the years, I have managed to do).
Having lived and worked in the Netherlands since the mid 70’s, what concerns me is if narrow interpretation becomes converted into equally narrow and inflexible dogma….something that is the very antithesis of what the Dutch do. Indeed, I find narrow and inflexible dogma somewhat insulting myself.
When we at LCC took our study trip to the Netherlands we deliberately visited higher-density urban areas such as Amsterdam, Utrecht and Rotterdam. We were guided by knowledgeable people from CROW, the Dutch Cycling Embassy and the Fietsersbond in order to provide context to what we saw. We also met the architect of Sustainable Safety (now retired) and others from Stop de Kindermoord.
I don't claim to be the world's leading expert on Dutch infrastructure, but I am an advocate. I'm comfortable with this position because I've been to the Netherlands (several times), ridden it, talked about it, compared it with my own experience living in the UK and other countries, read the CROW manual (we have a copy, of course), and done my best to absorb information from countless other blogs (both for and against). I would say the same is true for my colleagues, and resent the cheap jibe that we might be "policy tourists".
As for our trip being a "jolly", I can honestly say our study tour was one of the most tiring weeks I've ever worked.
So rather than insulting those who've taken the effort to experience what it's like across the North Sea, I would reserve scorn for the countless people (the history of British cycle campaigning is littered with them) who dismissed Dutch cycling facilities without ever having seen them.
On 28 Oct 2013, at 18:34, Jim Davis wrote:
I have to admit, I bought one, scanned each page and then made it available on a private Google Drive for other Board Members of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain (it still can't be bought electronically) which took great patience and dedication :)
John - You raise some interesting points, but surely it also helps to have interpreters of the Dutch cultural and historical background in such people as Mark Wagenbuur, Marc van Woudenburg and of course David Hembrow - a chap that has also banged his head against the wall of British Cycle Campaigning. One of the first things I did as Founder and Chair of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain was to organise for a group of us to go on his Study Tour as it's all very well extolling the virtues of Dutch cycling infrastructure but quite something else to see it in context and how it's used and why a particular solution was selected in the first place. Most of us continue to go back to gain further background understanding - indeed, I am heading to Amsterdam at the end of the week (partly for the day job for World Architecture News). The difference being that unlike many, when we rode off the ferry at Harwich we were still convinced it could be done here and it was far from being a jolly. I think it would be insulting to arbitrarily write these opinions off, or dismiss them as the views of 'policy tourists'. Assuming you meant CEoGB of course!
I also think it's a bit better than the previous UK arrangement of totally ignoring the Netherlands (et al) except on a CTC Tour sheet which I used to post to members on a regular basis :)
Founder & Board Member, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain
Making riding a bike as easy as riding a bike
There are quite a few sites that offer a download, but I'm wary of handing over credit card details to a relatively unknown (to me) site - one being
gobookee.org.
CROW ordering is paper copy only I believe. About £85. Haven't heard about an electronic version.
No, bought mine at VeloCity in Munich a few years back….cost an arm and a leg (for a self-financing researcher….they don’t do discounts (I did ask))! Somewhat distressingly, despite having exposure to lots of highways engineers and their organizations across the UK, the only other copy I’ve ever come across was in the possession of CTC headquarters.
Do you know how to download CROW by the way? I've seen it for download on sites that may or may not be trustworthy? Anyone had any experiences there?
Actually, yes, the parameters for segregation and non-segregation are quite clear in the CROW……but I suspect few outside the Netherlands have “read” that document.
To be honest I’m really quite disappointed with the “Let’s Go Dutch” campaign in the UK. Most of the proponents have only spent a few days on a jolly designed to fulfil the intent of a small cadre of campaigners, few of whom take the time to gain an understanding of the wider transportation and spatial planning contexts, highways safety approach or the national culture within which those take place.
This is one of the areas I feel the cycling research communities efforts have fallen down (though I’ll agree I’m not as widely read as some). That said, having lived and worked (and cycled……and caught buses and boats and trains and aeroplanes!) in a number of countries I have (of necessity) learnt to understand, and work with and within, the cultural frameworks and norms of the particular country I’m in.
To somehow extract cycling elements without critical examination of the context and frameworks within which this activity takes place, in my view, will tend to undermine the quality and robustness of the analysis.
Don’t get me wrong, having lived, worked, cycles (and caught buses and boats and trains and aeroplanes) in the Netherlands since I first moved there in the 70’s, I’m all for going Dutch (or any other country of city where cycling is comparatively safe and convenient). But, without recognising and addressing the context and culture within which cycling take place, results are likely to be, at best, inconclusive and, at worst, downright dangerous.
The same would apply for any trans-national comparisons.
As far as I know, Segregation is a function of volume, speed and presence of lorries. Isn't it defined pretty clearly in the CROW manual?
Probably sent while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos
Has anyone read City Cycling? Segregation, as you call it, is a necessary item in the engineering and planning toolbox of creating a liveable city - as are filtered permeability, car parking charges, pedestrianisation and other vehicle restraint measures.
the question you ask seems to beg the answer that segregation is the answer, and having attended the debate at UWE on the subject where you were proposing segregation, one might be forgiven for thinking that there might be some researcher bias here! That debate came to no conclusion, since as you point out, there are a large number of variable factors at work together and isolating the effects of any single factor is practically impossible. Since it is so difficult to identify any single cause and effect, it would be misleading to try to prove that one single factor is or is not responsible for changing levels of cycling. It is indeed unlikely that any single factor has a significant effect, and there are examples of this e.g. Milton Keynes with an extensive segregated network, but low levels of cycling.
Surely a better approach than the almost impossible task of trying to identify a single cause and effect, would be to identify which combination of factors has acheived significant changes? There may be examples which show that segregation has some effect, and some which show the opposite, but in both cases, it is likely that other factors had a significant effect also. Or perhaps looking at what factors were influential in common with segregation.
To say that segregation is or is not the answer is asking the wrong question.
I am currently writing a book with the working title 'Why Transport Isn't Moving' (for UIT Cambridge
www.uit.co.uk). A few of the chapters will deal with issues related to cycling.
The more you look into the broader questions of 'what causes what?' you realise that the typical question: what difference did policy X make? is almost always impossible to answer. Over the longer term, politics, infrastructure, culture and behaviour are all related to each other. It may, however, be possible, to approach a question from a different angle. One way of looking at the old chestnut about segregation versus 'cycling on normal roads' is to ask:
Are there any examples of cities in developed countries with high rates of cycling (e.g. over 20% modal share) which do NOT have an extensive network of segregated cycle routes?
A 'cycle route' is not the same as a 'cycle path' of course. 'Segregation' may take many different forms, including filtered permeability i.e. roads closed to through traffic except bikes. In several years of studying European 'cycling cities', I have never found an example of such an exception. I have never been to Japan. Osaka is the only city which appears in the international top lists. I understand there are few cycle paths, but pavement cycling is normal (tolerated though not legal). Osaka also has narrow historic streets where segregation is not needed. I can't find any English language literature about cycling in Japan.
Is anyone aware of any examples, or anything which has been written which might help to answer this question?
Best Regards
Steve Melia
Senior Lecturer
Transport and Planning
University of the West of England