Junction design the Dutch - cycle friendly - way

[shermanro]

I'm an American living in Belgium and I can tell you the Dutch know what they're doing.

However, I must point out that in Belgium/Holland and in many other European countries it's illegal for cars to turn right on a red light. In America, drivers just aren't used to looking for cyclists, it's a huge cultural gap that needs to be fixed before cyclists become accepted and are safer on the roads in America.

[kkyt543]

That intersection in the video is /almost/ done. All it needs now is an island in the middle and some arrows directing traffic round the roundabout.

@Fietsbandje, art 185 WVW wordt helaas vaak volledig uit zijn verband gerukt om een fietser financieel te beschermen. Wat mij betreft wordt dat artikel eens grondig aangepast. Zodat fietsers van 16 jaar en ouder gewoon aansprakelijk kunnen worden gesteld, zonder dat de automobilist zich kapot hoeft te procederen.

[leftoverbacon]

I can significant problems for snow removal in northern climates.

[markenlei]

@leftoverbacon the Dutch have to remove snow as well. And there are perfect solutions for clearing the cycle paths of debris, leaves and also snow.

[sonikastudios]

It's interesting how some people think the "convenience" of the cyclists is an issue here. No, it's not. Roads are paid for by taxes paid on gasoline. Bike lanes should be for mutual safety as well as NOT impeding regular car traffic - not to inconvenience drivers in the name of some green stunt. If cars can be sped up, bikes kept safer, I'm all for that solution. Traffic shouldn't slow down for bikes in the name of some green gimmick - it all has to be practical, not ideological.

I like this.

[abamfici]

@sonikastudios roads aren't paid for by gas tax. Google "roads paid by gas tax" and you'll see they're paid for by property tax, payroll/income tax, etc. It's like saying the sales tax you pay on ammunition pays for the whole military.

[jfgutier]

do pedestrians have to step over the curb?

[tintaala]

not convinced this is better. It looks like going straight through is more of a hassle. Can the cyclist go left of the island? If not they have extra distance to go. That would be fine if it made things a lot safer but I'm not sure it does. In N. America either the car is behind you, so they go behind and to the right of you as you change lanes, or they are in front of you (and going faster) so that doesn't affect you anyway. Cyclist can go straight and fast through the junction.

[tetrabee]

@tintaala You forgot to point out that many N. American drivers get pissed off quite easily when you try and take the lane, i.e. slow them down. And at intersections that don't have a right-turning lane, many drivers wanting to do so do not watch for you, think they can make the turn without issue, or they just don't want to wait for you period. For cyclists who are very confident and enjoy fighting for space on the road, the US system works fine. For the rest of us, it sucks terribly.

[nhunt]

I'm not convinced. Seems like the cyclist going straight now has to yield to cars going right, where previously the turning car had to yield to cross the bike lane.

Ok for a few blocks, but a serious impediment for longer distance travel. My 20km commute would have about 30 of these, and I could easily imagine each costing 30 seconds, which would add 15 minutes to a 45 minute ride. Not great.

And the part about the car driver having to look over their shoulder doesn't ring true - the driver

[markenlei]

@nhunt no the cyclists going straight on never has to yield for turning cars. That is the ground rule, straight going traffic including cyclists and pedestrians on the same road always have priority over turning traffic. That doesn't change. The whole design is made with the intention that the drivers do not have to look over their shoulders but can have eye contact with the cyclists and pedestrians because the drivers have already turned when they meet.

[mehblahmehblah]

@nhunt uhm. this actually works in real life. come try it!

[fiftyteeth50]

@nhunt i think the important point is that this is already working in practice, and what we have (in Toronto) is not working at all, and people are getting killed.

[sonikastudios]

@nhunt Bikes should yield to cars anyway. This whole "i'm not burning gas so I'm better" attitude is disgusting.

[fietsbandje]

@sonikastudios It's not about that, it is because cyclists are protected in the Netherlands, since their odds are a lot worse in an accident. Furthermore, cycling is a lot more popular in the Netherlands, thus their presence is emphasized in the rules to increase safety. Another reason is that cyclists do not clog up the inner parts of cities as much as cars do. Environmental reasons are an added benefit, but cycling was popular in the Netherlands before that was even an issue.

[heffeque]

@sonikastudios Cars should yield to bikes anyway. Your whole "I'm burning gas so I'm better" attitude is disgusting.

[markenlei]

@heffeque this has nothing to do with attitude but with basic European traffic law: all turning traffic must yield to traffic going straight on. So here cars turning right MUST yield to cyclists going straight on.

[KaiItza]

@sonikastudios Why should bikes yield to cars anyway? Instead of making them equal. BTW it's only the douchebag cyclists that think that way.

[wankel7]

What does this do to cars being able to turn right on red? Does it shut that down?

[markenlei]

@wankel7 there are only very few countries in the world that allow a right turn on red. The Netherlands is not one of them.

[wankel7]

@markenlei Interesting, are you allowed to turn left on red onto a one way street? When I visited Finland I was surprised to see no stop signs in residential areas, only yield signs. Is that common in europe?

[markenlei]

@wankel7 No red is always stop. No turning anyway for anyone. We don't do stop signs much in Europe, only on junctions with limited vision, although every country has it's own rules and traditions.

[Chinasaurli]

In the US, drivers are supposed to enter the right-most bicycle lane when making right turns, putatively to reduce the chance of head-on collisions with oncoming cars as you come around the corner. Obviously the illustrated design exacerbates this problem, if the problem really exists in the first place.

[jeroenbuis68]

But, when a physically segregated cycle track is applied on the arms of the junction, we do, in the Netherlands, build something that resembles the proposal that is shown here.

However the geometry we apply in the Netherlands is different. The way it is shown here cyclists have to seriously slow down even when continouing straight. In the Netherlands we bend out the cycle track before the junction or we continue straight, but in that case there is no island.

So they mixed up two principles here.

[markenlei]

@jeroenbuis68 It's funny that the Dutch themselves don't even recognize their own infrastructure. You'd better watch the second video too Jeroen. There you will recognize that this is IS the way Dutch junctions work. The swerve to go straight on looks bad in the design, but it indeed feels almost like going straight on in real life.

[jeroenbuis68]

They are mixing it up in this video.

In the Netherlands we do have cycle lanes crossing a junction without physical segregation. The difference with the first (UK) example where cyclists have to move to the left when going straight is that in the Netherlands cyclists continue straight whereas car-drivers have to cross the cycle lane and turn to the right to enter the right-turning pocket.

[whatnameisavailablee]

as a cyclist how do you go straight through the intersection?

[uhhhclem]

@whatnameisavailablee You don't. You stay on the green path, which means that you turn right a bit, make sure nothing's coming on either side, cross, and then turn left a bit. It gives cyclists a cautios way to go straight through intersections, which doesn't exist in the US.

[Navarot2]

and what if there's no traffic lights? you're on your bike and u want to go straight ahead. At the same time a car driver wants to turn right (from the same direction). Who has the right of way (priority)?

[markenlei]

@Navarot2 then the normal priority rule applies and the cyclist has the right of way because traffic going straight on always has the right of way over turning traffic.

[Navarot2]

@markenlei oh, then it's so simple :) Unfortunately, here in Hungary it is a real question, although there are plenty of cyclist too :)

[kegge13]

There are some serious drawbacks. It forms a serious speed limiter for cyclist crossing.

Hardware on the road forces cyclist paying attention to avoid these obstacles, having less time to look around for other traffic.

Also the dimensions tend to be too small, making it difficult to pass with special bikes like "bakfietsen", kiddy trailers, tandems, velomobiles. It might invite cyclist to pass the crossing along the left of the obstacles.

The price for safety is payed by the cyclists.

[Snaus]

I've just discovered your video's. I love them, they're well done and educational (even for someone who's Dutch themself), and they are a great promotion to other countries about giving importance, space and savety to cyclists.

@kegge13 The benefit of these crossings though is that you can take an easy right-turn without waiting. So that evens out a lot with having to making an extra stop on a left-turn. Especially if the lights are well-timed.

And the width should be ok if people don't cut.

[reaperexpress]

There's no doubt that this design is the most pleasant for cycling, but I'm not convinced about the safety aspect. I think that this video exaggerates the danger of crossing at a narrow angle. It's just a lane change. Cyclists usually travel at the same speed or slower than cars so they are clearly in view of drivers. With Dutch design, cyclists can easily come from behind cars waiting to turn right, so drivers still need to check over their shoulder.

[tetrabee]

@reaperexpress If I'm correct the lane change you refer to is what's being stated as "old fashioned" in the video. I have to go through several such junctions on my commutes and it is very unpleasant and unsafe, even with moderate traffic going at 35 mph. Some continue to the intersection while others force you to change lanes to continue straight. This is only safe at all if drivers are paying attention completely. And what's the use of a "safe" system if no one feels safe enough to use it?

[bbeirinckx]

I'm not convinced. The smaller turning radius is a problem for busses and trucks.

[markenlei]

@bbeirinckx there is no difference in the radius, it is exactly the same. There are of course buses and trucks in the Netherlands too.

[bbeirinckx]

@markenlei I did understand that part, but large vehicles are to move closer to the center of the junction, possibly disturbing traffic flow on smaller junctions. Could be I'm wrong, it's just a question.

[markenlei]

@bbeirinckx that is why in the Netherlands each direction has its own green phase. Not only traffic from left or right, oncoming traffic usually has a different green phase too. So the flows do not interfere. The same goes for pedestrians and bicycles that have different green phases. This does not mean there have to be long waiting times. Combining directions very differently than usual in other countries makes that possible.

[gaz545]

I wish Transport for London would see this!

[KrunchyJD]

I dont know if that would work in Australia, the motorist would see you then have more of a chance to line you up for target practice. At leat that is what it feels like.

[markenlei]

@KrunchyJD the ones that see you standing while they are waiting too can never reach you in time since cyclists get green before cars. Usually the green phases are even completely different.

[KrunchyJD]

@markenlei Seriously, the Netherlands is clearly a step ahead, (more like 1000 steps ahead) of Australia. I was partly exagerating to say that the other problem in Australia, is that our motorists are too agressive towards cyclists.

[jbarner13]

This would likely improve safety and make recreational cyclists feel safer at busy intersections, but I would sure hate to see any of these built where they were not really necessary. The cyclist who is traveling straight through the intersection has to weave back and forth too much. I can't image doing this at 20 mph, especially when there might be other cyclists in the lane.

[markenlei]

@jbarner13 This is of course only a schematic version of Dutch style infrastructure in the US situation to show that lack of space is not the issue. If you pause the video at the Dutch version of such a junction at 2:08 (which is the building plan of an actual junction) you see that the weaving is less and more flowing. Still, 20mph is a very unlikely speed for any Dutch cyclist. Especially since that would be faster than cars are allowed to drive in many places (their max: 30kph=18mph).

[KrunchyJD]

@jbarner13 I can easily do 20 Mph on my bicycle, but here in Australia, I would never do that through an intersection, because you cannot trust the motorists. In this way our motorists are their own worst enemy, because you cant trust them you slow down more then you would if you could trust them.

[WestLABoy]

Great explanation! Laying out the design step-by-step, along with the improvements of sight lines, makes the intersection design advantages really clear. I'm hoping someone behind NACTO is watching.