Cycle lanes (again!).

[Bollo]

The cycle facilities in The Netherlands are not all that perfect. In my recent experience, 'fast roadies' using the cycle paths in Holland and Belgium are a total PITA and should really be riding on the road.

Being a PITA roadie (and a MAMIL to boot!) this is my experience also. Don't get me wrong - riding in the Netherlands (less so Belgium) is a less stressful and safer experience, but it can feel very constrained. Away from the cities, the facilities can often be narrow and poorly surfaced. On more than one occasion I've looked across from a bit of a rubbish compulsory fietspad to the quiet, wide, well surfaced road and whimpered like a dog looking at an inaccessible pie.

I'll acknowledge this isn't for everyone and it's difficult to reconcile the needs of very different types of cyclists. Given the choice, I'd rather have effectively unrestricted access to the roads and better driver behaviour than enforced segregation.

 

[tonyg52]

I agree with Bollo plus in the Netherlands those dam motorised scooters are allowed on the cycle paths.

 

[summerdays]

But it's not just about us existing cyclists... one thing that non cyclists ask for is cycle provision away from traffic, and if we want to tempt the weaker cyclists to leave the car behind.....

 

[tonyg52]

Genuine question: If my Dutch alter ego were to go out for a weekend ride of 100-200km, would he be required to do it all on cycle paths? Or just the urban bits? Would I/he be required by law to get off the (motor vehicle) road?

I'm by no means a "fast roadie" but having to ride on segregated facilities all day would put me off.

It is mandatory to use cycle lanes in the Netherlands.

 

[tonyg52]

And do they extend across the country or are they confined to urban areas?
If my Dutch alter ego were to go out for a weekend ride of 100-200km, mostly riding between towns, would he be required to do it all on cycle paths? Or just the urban bits?

Are there places which it is impossible to access by bicycle due a lack of cycle lanes, or are they only mandatory when provided?

There are cycle lanes over much of the Netherlands they are extensive in urban areas but are also used as commuting corridors between urban centres. The only on road cycling I have done in the Netherlands was around Maastricht and around the The Vaalserberg.

 

[Tim Hall]

What I found just mind boggling during my recent (first) bike trip to Belgium, was the care the motorists took around cyclists. Example: five of us making touring type progress along a cycle path adjacent to the road. We're slightly spread out. The lead rider comes to a side road on the right, which we need to cross and continue on our way. At the same time a car approaches us from behind, wanting to turn right into the side road. The driver brakes and waits, not just for the lead rider (who was slightly ahead) but for all five of us to clear the junction. Presumed liability doesn't half make them concentrate.

 

[Bollo]

It is mandatory to use cycle lanes in the Netherlands.

I believe there are optional and compulsory lane in the Netherlands (square and round signs respectively, but I might have that wrong), but in my limited experience the compulsory dominate.

But it's not just about us existing cyclists... one thing that non cyclists ask for is cycle provision away from traffic, and if we want to tempt the weaker cyclists to leave the car behind.....

I'm happy to acknowledge that but the danger is we lose existing rights to ride on most roads while becoming a hostage to fortune in terms of the quality of dedicated provision. Given the geographical constraints of many UK towns and cities, I'd prefer to see better shared use of the existing road space by managing motorised vehicle access, volume and speeds rather than hacking in half-assed segregation.

Hills are also an issue that gets forgotten when we start getting misty-eyed about the Netherlands. The UK isn't alpine, but an awful lot of it is a bit lumpy. I'm about to ride to my local supermarket about a km away. In the journey there and back I'll have to huff up 3 8%+ inclines. Segregation or no, that is going to change a country's relationship with the bike.

Also, as @Tim Hall has pointed out, you can improve the safety of cyclists without a single pot of white paint through legislation and enforcement and a shift in the attitude of drivers.

 

[mjr]

Thing is, people like mjr, although they do a lot of good campaigning, are also on a crusade to get cyclists off the roads.

No, I'm not. I'm just as happy (maybe more so) when roads are humanised and become safe enough to walk and cycle on.

But cyclists belong on the roads.

And tracks and bridleways and... We aren't motorists and don't need to be constrained like they are, but the thing is, people like User13710 are on a crusade to make us all behave like motorists and fit compulsory engine noise generators to our bikes. (I know that's probably not true, but neither was the lie about me.) http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/17/everyone-needs-to-share-the-road

The point is that the infrastructure does not work well for both groups. It worked pretty well when cyclists were all on Dutch bikes going to school and work.

There was never such a time since the infrastructure's been there. I've read similar claims a couple of times recently, that there was a golden age when Dutch infrastructure works and now it doesn't because people ride different bikes. Where's this idea come from?

Fast roadies don't appear to have much by way of suitable provision in The Netherlands, and become a right PITA to share cycle paths with, especially on Sundays.

I've been passed by fast roadies on wide smooth cycle paths - or they might be roads that are dead-ended for motorists, as it's sometimes difficult to tell which is which! Maybe some roadies are better than others at choosing appropriate routes, but the same is true in this country. http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/27/cycling-infrastructure-slows-down-cycling

Genuine question: If my Dutch alter ego were to go out for a weekend ride of 100-200km, would he be required to do it all on cycle paths? Or just the urban bits? Would I/he be required by law to get off the (motor vehicle) road?

No, not required in general. You would probably find some sections of compulsory cycleway, but they really are very different to what gets passed off as cycleway in most of the UK. http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/25/well-be-stuck-on-terrible-cycle-paths

It is mandatory to use cycle lanes in the Netherlands.

You missed out the word "some" and I think you mean compulsory. It's compulsory to use some cycle lanes. While the UK doesn't have the same compulsion directly, it is created in a few places by banning cycling on the adjacent carriageway, either by declaring it a motorway or special road, or just a simple ban.

The driver brakes and waits, not just for the lead rider (who was slightly ahead) but for all five of us to clear the junction. Presumed liability doesn't half make them concentrate.

And it also made them concentrate years before it was introduced!

Presumed liability alone hasn't succeeded in encouraging mass cycling anywhere, has it? http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/30/liability-laws-will-make-people-drive-safely

I suspect that it's a variation on the old "safety in numbers" ideas, in that enough people cycle that every motorist has friends or family that do and encountered multiple cyclist interactions while learning to drive.

 

[mjr]

Oh dear... praying in aid a CEGB web-site...

What's the Central Electricity Generating Board got to do with that site?

 

[Tim Hall]

What's the Central Electricity Generating Board got to do with that site?

This site has been made possible due to the hard work of volunteers, and with support from the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain.

 

[summerdays]

The thing is that people will readily point to something that doesn't exist as the reason for not doing something. Bringing that item into existence doesn't necessarily mean they will then do it. They might then just move on to a different reason.

Maybe, but I've accompanied cyclists who have asked for my help with returning to cycling and they much prefer cycling off the road and are really happy when you can help them sort out a back roads route to where they want to go. I'm always exploring so I get to know all sorts of possible routes (yesterday's exploration ended in a stone stile and 2 steps so I won't take that route again but it was more shaded than the alternative route). So not all people use it as an excuse.

 

[NorthernDave]

I thought planners just scribbled up any old crap to fill a quota.

The biggee.the budget the more crap they'll build.

I know it has it's own thread, but the Leeds - Bradford Cycle Super Highway (CSH1 and CSH2 as we now must call it) is a prime example of a frankly ridiculous budget being blown on a back of a fag packet scheme.
While parts of it are verging on excellent (the section either side of York Road between Killingbeck Drive and Selby Road, for example), it then merges into a mess of traffic lights, wandering diversions, narrow (1 bike width) sections that force you into the door gap zone or confusing priorities where at one junction bikes on the cycle path have right of way, to the next one where they don't. And to top it all, CSH2 dumps you on one side of Leeds city centre and you have to make your own way on crowded roads to the far side of the city centre where CSH1 starts as the scheme didn't include a route through the city...

 

[Tigerbiten]

Genuine question: If my Dutch alter ego were to go out for a weekend ride of 100-200km, would he be required to do it all on cycle paths? Or just the urban bits? Would I/he be required by law to get off the (motor vehicle) road?

I found the more major the road, the more likely to be yes. But the more major the road, the more likely there will be a good-ish cycle path.
I once got stopped by the police in the Netherlands for cycling on a quite major-ish road into a town after losing the cycle track.

 

[mjr]

Apologies if, in the context of a relatively clumsy forum, I am not completely clear. Yes I agree that more safe routes could be beneficial, after all the majority of people would prefer safe. The difficult part of the equation is how we determine what constitutes safe. How safe, how much coverage in both space and time? I don't accept that the easy and obvious represent the overall best answers.

While @summerdays is talking about back roads and I think quiet and less stressful, the above is talking about safe. I think that's misunderstanding the desire not to deal with motorists.

In the survey of why people in my local area don't cycle, far more people felt the roads were too busy than felt they were unsafe.

 

[classic33]

I know it has it's own thread, but the Leeds - Bradford Cycle Super Highway (CSH1 and CSH2 as we now must call it) is a prime example of a frankly ridiculous budget being blown on a back of a fag packet scheme.
While parts of it are verging on excellent (the section either side of York Road between Killingbeck Drive and Selby Road, for example), it then merges into a mess of traffic lights, wandering diversions, narrow (1 bike width) sections that force you into the door gap zone or confusing priorities where at one junction bikes on the cycle path have right of way, to the next one where they don't. And to top it all, CSH2 dumps you on one side of Leeds city centre and you have to make your own way on crowded roads to the far side of the city centre where CSH1 starts as the scheme didn't include a route through the city...

And it's being extended, but not through the city centre.