How the Netherlands Does Bike Lanes
Decatur Metro | August 9, 2012
We’ve received a couple of interesting cycling pics from overseas recently. Here’s the first from Angelika with this description…
…with all the recent talk of bike lanes, thought I would send in a pic of a local street in Aalsmeer (near Amsterdam). Bike lanes in The Netherlands are always red brick. When no bikes are present cars can ride side by side encroaching into the bike lanes (as seen in the distance). When a bike is present, the car must stay behind the bike unless it is safe to pass (no oncoming traffic). Makes for very alert and conscientious road users. Can’t help but wonder how the traffic to and from Fifth Ave school would change if one of the local roads looked like this…
Probably some rich liberal politician owns the red brick factory.
I think the factory is unionized and the brick layers all sing solidarity songs while cycling to work.
Just as likely, a rich conservative politician owns the brick factory, and supports it because its in the communities (his) best interest.
Amazing how often a post can go political.
Remember, most auto users in the Netherlands are actually bicyclist who simply had to drive on that day.
Having ridden extensive through the Netherlands, I can say that, quite fortunately, the bike lanes are _not_ always red brick.
We can only dream to aspire to the The Netherlands and Denmark regarding bicycle commuting. The closest thing we have here that is reflective of those countries is Portland and Seattle and even that comparison is a joke. Atlanta/Decatur – never gonna happen without a major cultural shift as Keith F’s post demonstrates.
Anyone know the history of cycling in the Netherlands? As in, what environmental factors led to the reliance of bicycle, even after the car came along?
As Hudsucker notes, it’s flat as a pancake. Also, distances are not great, it’s only about 200 mi from one end of the country to the other. I wonder if post-war economics and unavailability of vehicles and fuel had anything to do with cycling becoming deeply embedded in the culture? Is cycling not also very common in Belgium as well as the Netherlands and Denmark? (I’ve never spent time in that part of Europe.)
Many German cities are very hilly and have far fewer bike lanes than the Netherlands, but in many of these cities cycling as a form of transportation is popular and safe. Based solely on opinion, German society recognizes cycling as a valid form of transportation and that is a critical step in creating a safe environment for cyclists, even though there isn’t an extensive Netherlands’ style bicycle infrastructure.
Good point. I’ve always bought the flat as a pancake argument no questions asked, but perhaps it’s more nuanced than that. German cities do have quite a few cyclists.
Really too long for a blog comment, but the history of cycling in the low countries is pretty interesting. The story includes both natural and built environments, as well as cultural factors.
Bikes off to a strong start in the 1890s, at the same time the US was experiencing a major bike boom itself. Grew tremendously through the war years (establishing a strong cycling culture) and gradually tapered off during the 1950s-60s. The 1970s oil crisis coincided with a general sense of environmental concern and – importantly – threats to existing urban areas. That sparked a renewed interest in actively promoting more urban cycling through the building of safe, comfortable, and efficient infrastructure networks.
It’s an interesting trajectory with car *infrastructure* being seen as an encroaching threat in the small, old urban centers (not to just a global issue). Where as the US has generally embraced car infrastructure and outward-spread, many low country cities hit the limit of their ability and *willingness* to accommodate auto infrastructure at the *expense* of existing urban areas. Germany is a nice third example as it has both higher per-capita car ownership than the US (as well as the famed Autobahns and BMW, VW, etc), but still maintains higher bicycle transportation usage.
http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/cycling-history/
+1 Byron!
Read this on how the Dutch got their bike paths…. seems like they were also on their way to a car-centric nation. Heard recently that London was trying to revamp their cycle scene. http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/09/how-the-dutch-got-their-bike-paths/
Very interesting, thanks!
I love me some brainpickings! (yum brains…)
Fascinating stuff. To me it seems like the higher bike ridership rates overall, even during the auto era, served as a platform for the protests in the 70s. That higher overall ridership rate seems most likely tied to dense cities and perhaps other cultural attitudes.
Even of you screamed “child murder” from the steps of the Capitol and showed the 97% decline in child fatalities in the Netherlands when broader bike policies were adopted I don’t think many of us would blink an eye. Bike riding just doesn’t have the “social issue” status that it does over there.
the picture above shows just one design, in this case of a rural road prioritized for bikes, where drivers are forced to slow down when overtaking, as the car lane width is minimal on purpose)
this post should help explain the Dutch history of cycling (infra).
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-got-their-cycling-infrastructure/
also this for extra reference http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/history/ + http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html
PS: flatness, distances and driver behaviour are often used excuses. From 1955-1975 the Dutch cycling rate plummeted by 75%. Reason: car-centric policies > lack of safety. We don’t cycle so much these days because ‘it’s flat’, but because we changed road design (for all). Distances: the majority of trips around the world are short trips: on avg 60% are less than 5 km (3 miles), whether in the States, Europe, Asia or Australia, etc. Regarding ‘drivers riding bikes too’: people don’t cycle because drivers cycle too, it’s more basic: cycling is a viable option for all people (all ages), so anyone can opt for a mode that’s appropriate, whether driving, cycling or walking. Because cycling and cycle infrastructure is taken seriously and expectations are met, the road environment diminishes conflicts, not enhances them.
My first morning in Denmark, we watched the bicycle rush hour from the restaurant – young people and very old ones pedaling along, with briefcases, children, and/or dogs in tow – it was wonderful to see them rolling by without having to look over their shoulders for threatening cars.
Hope I live long enough to see ANY route around Atlanta that I could ride in that kind of situation.
Well for one thing it’s flat as pancake. Just like where I grew up in Florida. Makes it very easy to cycle. Unlike Atlanta where if you’re not going down you’re going up. And up…
Although it’s not readily apparent most of the major north south arteries run along the ridge line.
I lived in Holland for a couple years, and bicycles were ubiquitous and safe and fun. Teen lovers rode side by side, holding hands, their panniers filled with flowers or books or bread. On a Sunday morning you’d see people of all ages riding, big smiles on their faces. No one wore helmets (except for sport cyclists) and the key to all of this was simple: a cycling infrastructure that clearly separates bikes from cars. If you have this kind of demarcation, the streets fill with happy healthy people.
American cities are getting there, too. I was in Portland a couple weeks ago, and its cycling infrastructure is better each year. Most areas of the city have good dedicated bike routes, and especially in the Northeast part of the city they were filled with bike traffic, hundreds of cyclists gliding along. We can do it here. Decatur is already showing its leadership. The bike routes along West Ponce, especially once you get out of downtown, are great, and we have one of the few dedicated bike left turn spots — painted green — in the Southeast. We should be proud. We have a long way to go, but we’re headed toward a future of happy, healthy, safe travel. Go Decatur!
And speaking of bikes, I was hoping Decatur Metro might link to the Ethicist’s recent editorial on why it’s ethical for cyclists to ride through red lights. Here’s the URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/if-kant-were-a-new-york-cyclist.html
I did. Back in the Morning Metro a couple days back.
How did I miss that?! I’ll go back and look at the comments….
Blech, ridiculous article. Laws are laws, not ethical decisions, and actually work pretty well for cycling. Ride safe and follow the law. When the law conflicts with safe riding – not just personal inconvenience – use good judgement and then go back to following the law.
The articles and videos about how the Netherlands made cycling safe and ubiquitous as a mode of transportation are fascinating. I had assumed that it was just that things evolved differently over there–i.e. I remember Anne Frank describing Miep riding her bike during WWII so I assumed that cycling was just a tradition that persisted. Not at all. It was a deliberate, orchestrated development away from the car culture with its traffic, pollution, safety and oil-dependency issues to bicycle friendly roads and related infrastructure. And it took advocacy to happen. Very enlightening and even hopeful.
This looks like where me and my old road bike need to be. One itsy, bitsy, whine: No one, but no one is wearing a helmet. I know that the danger from being hit by vehicles is low becaus of the bicycle infrastructure. But people must still fall from their bikes occasionally for other reasons, like braking to avoid obstructions or darting cyclists or operator error. Ironic that Netherlands is so progressive with cycling as alternative transportation, and one of the motivations of advocacy groups was to avoid child pedestrian-motor deaths. Yet it isn’t into what’s now standard for child safety in the U.S.: bike helmets. You only get one brain, no matter who’s fault the injury is.
At Home in Decatur – I know I will never convince you otherwise but helmets are not in the culture of bike commuters in Europe – it is all about getting on your bike with your regular clothes or business clothes for whatever season and going to work or going to the store etc. No skin tight spandex padded pants, colorful jerseys or stiff cycling shoes that clip into the pedals. No handlebar computer to calculate your speed and mileage, no padded fingerless gloves – and crazy and unsafe as it sounds – no helmets.
I never wear a helmet when I ride my dutch bike to YDFM or to the post office or to downtown Decatur for lunch – on that bike I always ride on secondary roads and am rarely going more than 20 MPH. When I ride my “road bike” I ALWAYS wear a helmet, tight spandex padded pants, colorful jersey, stiff cycling shoes to clip into my pedals and fingerless gloves – I ride on busier roads as well as secondary roads and go much faster.
It is a totally different mindset and circumstances – I realize I only have one brain and I am still taking a risk by not wearing a helmet on my Dutch bike, but I am just trying to explain the difference between the cycling cultures -
What’s a Dutch bike?
I love the idea of folks cycling in street clothes although I’ve never quite figured it out myself. I tried it years ago in Boston and the pantyhose always ran and I got catcalls if I tried to wear a skirt, even a skort. I’m just surprised that helmets haven’t caught on in Europe as one more marker of bike power. They are so light-weight and cheap now. Unless your hair is wet when you put them on, they no longer give you helmet hair. The problem must be that they are not electronic. Maybe if iTunes were piped in somehow (in a non-distracting manner, of course, like the car radio). We don’t want them to get smartphone features since cyclists texting would not improve safety. (Did see that by the way the other day: a cyclist with click-in pedals, at the light, balancing on the curb with no feet on the ground and texting with no hands on the handlebars! I guess the back pockets of cycling tops are no longer just for snacks and drink, but also for smartphones)
I just call my bike that because it is in the style indicative of the bikes you see in Holland, Denmark, England, northern Europe in general.. It has full fenders and a rear cargo rack with a milk crate attached which is great for grocery runs.
Check out this link to the great new bike shop in downtown Decatur called Houndstooth Road. In the “Bicycle” link click the website for Pashley – which are British made bikes – very classic – and you can buy one right here in downtown decatur!
Oops – forgot to include the link – http://houndstoothroad.tumblr.com/
Wow. How is it that this hasn’t shown up on DM yet? A new shop in Decatur and we don’t know about it? So we’re up to 3 bicycle shops now–this, the new one on Ponce, and Bicycle South?
It was posted on DM back in April: http://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/04/16/european-bicycle-retailer-houndstooth-road-coming-to-church-street/
Wear a helmet if you like, but please don’t force the rest of us to do so. There seems to be quite a bit of contradictory evidence as to whether and how bicycle helmets increase safety. Example: “Minor head injuries are usually as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object. Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading this force. More serious injuries, on the other hand, are often as a result of angular or rotational acceleration, which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common brain injuries sustained by road crash victims that result in death or chronic intellectual disablement. Cycle helmets are not designed to mitigate rotational injuries, and research has not shown them to be effective in doing so. To the contrary, some doctors have expressed concern that cycle helmets might make some injuries worse by converting direct (linear) forces to rotational ones. These injuries will normally form a very small proportion of the injuries suffered by cyclists, but they are likely to form a large proportion of the injuries with serious long-term consequences. In this way helmets may be harmful in a crash, but this harm may not be detected by small-scale research studies.” That’s just one tidbit. http://cyclehelmets.org/1039.html
Until there is more conclusive evidence either way, it should remain a personal decision.
I would go further and say it should always be a personal decision. And it would be nice if others, who are free to wear or nor wear whatever safety gear they like, would leave the rest of us alone.
A bike helmet is mostly designed to keep you from cracking your skull open in a very serious accident. Most people don’t go fast enough to have to worry about this as a serious risk. Most of us who are over 30 never wore helmets when we were kids, fell off our bikes dozens of times, and were no worse off for it. In less erious accidents a bike helmet won’t even stop a concussion any more than a football helmet would. And oh by the way, many of you pat yourselves on the back for making your kids always wear helmets — the helmets are not adjusted properly and are really offering next to no protection. I see countless kids with helmets that are not even close to properly fitted.
Like Phototrekker, I always wear my helmet for commuting and riding my road bike, but that’s because I am riding long distances and going fast. When I ride my bike 5 blocks to the pool, or a mile to get a haircut, a helmet is not necessary.
Making kids wear helmets makes kids not want to ride their bikes. My son rode his bike 5 blocks to the pool one day on flat residential streets in Avondale. A cop actually stopped him — a 7 year old kid. Now, guess what — he’d rather not ride his bike at all. So much for “let’s move.” I fail to see how this is good for him or anyone else. (Cue someone stepping in to tell me they know what’s best for my son in 3, 2, 1 . . .)
I got pulled over not long ago by an Avondale cop as well. I was in the *designated left turn lane* going south on Clarendon onto Larado at the Savage Pizza – on my way to YDFM. I proceeded to make a left of course, as I was in the left turn lane, but failed to raise my left arm to signal the obvious and he pulled me over to tell me I didn’t signal my turn.
Makes me laugh though as before moving here I lived in East Atlanta village area where the idea of a Atlanta city cop pulling you over for not signaling your left turn while in a designated left turn lane was ludicrous – as was an expected quick resonse to real emergency.
Adults can do what they want. But the American Academy of Pediatrics is pretty convinced by the evidence that helmets protect children. That’s why I’m surprised that the Dutch advocates who pushed for bike lanes on the basis of children’s safety didn’t also get behind the issue of safe helmets for children. But Europe is quirky that way. Some of the same countries that were way ahead of us about being environmentally sound about gas and power use, were way behind us for a while in terms of smoking and second hand smoke.
I’ve cracked two helmets after a fall from a bike–the kind of crack where the styrofoam is completely breached with the only the thin cosmetic skin holding the 2 or 3 pieces together. Once was years ago on a country road going slowly uphill when I hit some debris and the last time was when I was riding behind my young son slowly on a sidewalk and he stopped suddenly. That convinced me that I always want something between my head and the pavement so that it’s what cracks, not my skull.
IMHO, bicycle helmet wearing among adults is a matter of social norms. When helmet wearing was less common here, it seemed dorky. But now, when most experienced cyclists wear helmets and helmets are designed to be more aerodynamic and cool looking, it’s the bare head that looks dorky to me. But adults are free to make their own judgments on the data and look dorky!
The American Academy of Pediatrics may be operating on obsolete data that was fallacious in the first place. Their website states, “The bicycle helmet is a very effective device that can prevent the occurrence of up to 88% of serious brain injuries,” and cites: Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC (1989) A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 320:1361–1367.
According to the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation, “This claim originates from a single source – Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 1989 – and has never even been approached by real-world evidence anywhere. The research on which the prediction was made has been widely criticised for fundamental methodological errors. The researchers themselves revised their prediction downwards to 69% for head injuries in 1996 (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 1996), but this too remains greatly in excess of real-world experience. In places where helmet use has become significant, there has been no detectable reduction in head injuries relative to cycle use.” http://cyclehelmets.org/1027.html
There is lots of information at this website, and links to lots more. Their bottom line:
If wearing a helmet is the difference between you having the confidence to cycle (or to cycle more) or not, you should wear one! The health benefits of cycling outweigh greatly any negative consequences of helmet use.
On the other hand, if wearing a helmet makes it likely that you will cycle less, then the balance of advantage is cycling without a helmet.
If helmet wearing is unlikely to affect the amount you cycle, you may like to consider the following. Interpretation of the data can be controversial, but examination of the wider evidence from places where helmet use has become significant suggests that the following are reasonable conclusions:
If worn correctly, a cycle helmet may afford some protection against minor, largely superficial, injuries to the head.
A helmet is unlikely to offer protection against more serious or life-threatening injuries.
You are more likely to hit your head in a crash if you wear a helmet.
There is evidence that helmeted riders may crash more often (Erke and Elvik, 2007 has found a 14% increase in risk in Australia and New Zealand). This could be particularly the case if wearing a helmet makes you feel better protected.
A helmet may increase the very small risk of the most serious brain injuries that lead to death and chronic intellectual disability.
The likelihood of serious head injury when cycling is extremely small, and hugely outweighed by the health benefits of cycling.
In all cases you should regard learning to cycle skilfully as your most effective defence against injury of any kind.
Note: Reference to choice in wearing a helmet clearly does not apply where helmet use is mandatory.
Wikipedia has a surprisingly good summary of the types of research done on bicycle helmets, results, strengths and weaknesses, and the positions of proponents and skeptics. I tend to respect the work of organizations like Safe Kids USA, the National Safety Council, American Academy of Pediatrics, and CDC. But I can see that there’s other respectable groups who look at the research differently. I plan to wear a helmet and my children will too, if I have a say so, and I will feel more stylish than dorky. But none of this explains to me why helmet wearing hasn’t caught on in Europe other than it’s just not the social norm.
this idea of bike lanes would Never work here in Atlanta….this is a car city….
now if the bicyclists would obey the rules of the road, that may be a good beginning
Great attitude bobbi. Atlanta was a walking city then a street car city long before the automobile. Public policy can have profound effects. When the city and region invested in streets for cars and trucks only and failed to invest in public transit it became a “car city.” If the city and region would invest in other forms of transit such as bike lanes things could rapidly change.
How can we get a bicycle lane down S. McDonough/ Oakview? Who do we need to petition?
Oakview’s being repaved right now and, because of the old streetcar right-of-way, is wider’n hell. Perhaps the neighbors should make a late night run to Home Depot for some white paint…