Video of "busiest cycle path in the Netherlands" goes viral, where "private cars are not allowed"... and there's "no congestion"; Police Scotland called out for "incorrect" cycling advice; Magistrate resigns over 20mph speed limits + more on the live blog

As my other reply to mitsky - the important detail is pedestrians and cyclists are "happily sharing the space" only briefly (where they cross).  That works because both have their own clearly marked dedicated spaces e.g. cyclepath and footway.

Pedestrians can relax on the footway as they don't need to consider cyclists at all there.  They won't have people ringing their bells or weaving around and past them.  When they want to cross the street they know where to expect cyclists (the cycle path).  They also don't need to look out for cyclists filtering either side of motor vehicles on the main carriageway.

In turn cyclists don't need to keep slowing for groups of pedestrians (walking 2 abreast! or more!) or dogs etc.  They only have to watch for crossing pedestrians - and those know to expect cyclists in a cycle path so are more likely to look!  It doesn't involve coming to a stop for people to cross either - just a small adjustment of your speed.

There's an article and video on this very space from BicycleDutch here.

In fact - this place has so many cyclists that the city is looking at ways of improving other cycle access so less people are concentrated on one route.

I'm surprised by how little cycle traffic there is. The busiest cycle path here is Paris is far busier and bit of a nightmare to be honest. At rush hour you can expect to queue for 2 or 3 changes of lights to get through each junction and there is a constant risk of getting hit by a bicycle coming the other way on the bidirectional path. To be fair it was built just before COVID. They are planning on changing it, hopefully it will be a bit like the one in the video

I suspect that the NL example may have greater numbers but look "less busy" because the Dutch system is very efficient and (same as we expect from roads) runs everywhere.  They also try to avoid traffic lights for cyclists or manage the timing of these so there are fewer bottlenecks or delays [1] [2] [3].

Interestingly Utrecht decided that there were too many people cycling on this route and are looking at ways of improving connections elsewhere to avoid funnelling so many people into this one space...

Dunno numbers for the Paris one - do you have any info on that?  I know almost nothing about the detail of developments in Paris (NotJustBikes and a couple of other bloggers / articles) and while the overall numbers sound very impressive in the UK (15% of trips cycled, a couple of years back) it appears it's definitely "early days" with the usual teething troubles (and here) of course.

PS Often when there are issues it's most effective to look at the "big picture" e.g. the whole network.  There's an article about Utrecht addressing long waits at a cycle crossing by altering the bus routes.

There are also some interesting more localised "hacks" that have been applied to places with high maximum flow of cyclists in NL.  For speeding up crossing roads at signalised crossings two come to mind:

All-ways-green phase for cyclists (this is not really a hack, think it's pretty well established / tested)

Utilising people's natural "bunching" behaviour when waiting at crossing points (not sure there's an "official" name for this - maybe "tapered crossing?")

I think that is because Paris is doing it all in a confused rush; London by comparison is far more strategic.

mattw wrote:

I think that is because Paris is doing it all in a confused rush; London by comparison is far more strategic.

Perhaps it's actually the opposite?  Again I'm not hot on the details but it seems Paris is actually trying to make it happen at scale, and make it work by building *networks*.  In London (possibly with the exception of the original superhypeway concept) I suspect it's less a deliberate "strategic" slow pace but more the usual "we put one in here for a couple of miles, because we could".  Followed by an indefinite wait until someone has a bright idea about another scheme.

London has the issue of the different boroughs having more autonomy and is much bigger than Paris of course.  And there are boroughs which appear to be taking this on themselves - Hackney?

Still - "What do we want?  Gradual change.  When do we want it?  In due course..."

Yes.

From accounts I have read from recent visitors to Paris, it is very very good ... then you fall of the edge of the new cyclnig infra and it is like former Paris.

Perhaps that is an artefact of any transition process?

mitsky wrote:

Re: the busiest junction footage.

Love the bit at the 26 second mark where someone just calmly walks through the middle of the junction with no fear.
How many people would do the same if it was a normal junction anywhere else full of motor traffic...?

That'll teach me to refresh the page more often!

Yes - obviously agree 

Yep.  Something which many people (especially in the UK) don't know they don't know is that not only are cycles not like cars, but pedestrians can interact with cyclists in a different way than they do with cars.

So by having actual cycle infra (where there are lots of cyclists) compared to a road the width of space that pedestrians need to traverse to is shorter.  That, and the lower speeds, greater manoeuverability and possibilities for easier communication means that you don't need traffic lights and formal pedestrian crossings in almost every case. (Probably this Utrecht street is one of the few in NL that might warrant a marked crossing).

We've probably got a few generations of finding our way there from where we are in the UK (if we actually go in this direction...) but here's how it can work.

Note: I'm not saying that mixing pedestrians and cyclists on a shared use path is a good thing.  It's not, because they're not convenient for anyone in most cases.  Only suitable where there are very few of either mode.  (Probably that's why we like 'em in the UK - there's no intent to increase the number cycling and pedestrians are a secondary concern to those in cars anyway...)

Shared routes can be fine; it depends entirely on the ped / cycle traffic mix and volume, and the specificiton of the path. 

The issue is when a Council declared a narrow (eg 1-1.3m) footway to be "shared" because they do not want to do it professionally.

mattw wrote:

Shared routes can be fine; it depends entirely on the ped / cycle traffic mix and volume, and the specificiton of the path. 

The issue is when a Council declared a narrow (eg 1-1.3m) footway to be "shared" because they do not want to do it professionally.

Hmm... well I obviously agree that local authorities in the UK reach for this to "magically" make cycling provision on the cheap without needing to build anything.  And that actually sets back active travel.

"Yes" they can be OK technically - in that traffic mix and volume is indeed critical.  Hence the usual Dutch solution to "routes for non-motorised traffic in the countryside" is effectively a shared-use path.  However (this sounds irrelevant but I think it's important) it's not actually to build a "shared use path" or a "footway that cyclists can use".  It's the opposite - build a cycle path only.  It's always legal for pedestrians to use cycle paths and cycle paths will likely end up being a bit wider than a normal footway.  And the whole works because of very low volumes of both cyclists and pedestrians.  And likely most often far fewer pedestrians than cyclists (e.g. between more widely-separated places).

And yes, I personally find some of the shared paths around Edinburgh still to be preferable over using the roads.  However ... that is very dependent on volume of pedestrians.  They're currently not very busy - there are plenty of quiet times.  And I'll very rarely go on ones that are favoured by people strolling e.g. the canal, the Water of Leith path.  If I take the bike there it's invariably for "leisure" and with no intent to go quickly.  And even then I'd not bother during high tourist season, or if it's a non-working day and nice weather etc.  (Those two routes have other issues also e.g. they're narrow - but widening them wouldn't change things, because people walking spread out.)

However I'd say the general answer is "No, shared routes are not fine".  Stating that as an intent is setting up conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.  If "active travel" becomes more popular then the degree of conflict only increases.  It seems designing in conflict is a given in the UK.

In general pedestrians and cyclists have quite different requirements.  A very small number of pedestrians can make using a shared use path inconvenient for cyclists.  Naturally people tend to travel in social groups of two or more, and will spread out to fill the available space (here's a minimal illustration of this).  Start-stop cycling is very inefficient.

Equally it feels significantly less relaxing if you're strolling but listening out for bells / looking behind you, or you suddenly realise someone is passing by you quickly.  I don't think having to listen for frequent ringing of bells is a good solution.  If you watch footage from the Netherlands you'll notice that despite bells being a legal requirement they are almost never used, even when passing pedestrians where the two modes interact.

Sustrans did a poll some time back clearly trying to assess "how many pedestrians are too many for comfort" on a cycle route, and I hope people indicated - as I did - "very few indeed".

Interesting paper on the subject.

In our Council Area afaik they are nearly all shared footpaths (shared paths and cycle lanes being the two cheapest solutions from 1980-2020), which when newly built will be 2.5m wide usually.

They work well on out of town roads where there are few pedestrians, and in some places there are line-down-the-middle pavements where both halves are 2m+. These also generally work OK, but we do not have mass cycling - increasing slowly, however. 

We do have off road cycle tracks, but these universally have anti-access barriers.

mattw wrote:

In our Council Area afaik they are nearly all shared footpaths (shared paths and cycle lanes being the two cheapest solutions from 1980-2020), which when newly built will be 2.5m wide usually.

They work well on out of town roads where there are few pedestrians, and in some places there are line-down-the-middle pavements where both halves are 2m+. These also generally work OK, but we do not have mass cycling - increasing slowly, however. 

We do have off road cycle tracks, but these universally have anti-access barriers.

Yes - this is normally sadly how it is.  I'm fortunate in repeatedly picking places with an inheritance of "capital" in the form of former railways lines which have been repurposed as shared paths.  As you say, the width is crucial and - if you're lucky - a former railway route may use more of the available space which can mean 4+ metres.

Given the small amount of use often these come out as some of the better travel spaces* in the UK (because completely separated from motor vehicles, green environment etc).

In Edinburgh we're just starting to see things which look more like continental solutions in that we've built a cycle path along a main street, with a separate footway and where the cycle path is separate from the road.  The latest ones (e.g. CCWEL) aren't like previous (ignoring Leith Walk, never give a cycle route design to tram designers...) and aren't just hopeless "looky-likey" cargo-cult quality.  Albeit they still have issues - biggest is that almost without exception the UK hasn't started to tackle junctions in a sensible way.

* OTOH part of the reason for low use is exactly their "green and shady" nature.  I've heard quite a few folks say they're not "socially safe" (either at night, or all the time) because they're not overlooked by buildings / next to roads.   There can sections which seem "long" between possible access points, particularly for pedestrians.  Some are a favoured haunt of ne'er-do-well youth...

I've yet to ride on one I considered fine for shared cycle use. I usually encounter zombie pedestrians and dog walkers on extender leads on them who show no conceptual understanding they might encounter a cyclist.

Let alone cyclists in the numbers on that video

Plenty of those around here. A blue sign and a bit of paint does not make a cycle path.

I think if I tried following a Sustrans route I'd get lost.

I'll defend Sustrans as making improvements very strategically, but limited by budget / capacity.

eg last year they removed or redesigned 377 access barriers (see the annual report) on their network, and they have been pruning poorer quality paths.

Remember other bodies own nearly all of it.

mattw wrote:

I'll defend Sustrans as making improvements very strategically, but limited by budget / capacity.

eg last year they removed or redesigned 377 access barriers (see the annual report) on their network, and they have been pruning poorer quality paths.

Remember other bodies own nearly all of it.

... but Sustrans signed it off, apparently to get their name on it / get money...

I think the correct conclusion is the Sustrans of say 10 years back was massively overfunded!  However they do seem to have much improved their game on cycling (and accessibility) over the last x years.  People also confuse them (perhaps their fault) with a "cycling organisation" - no, they're deffo "active travel" but again improving on what they write about cycling at least.

It's the whole "road crime isn't real crime" argument.

the little onion wrote:

It's the whole "road crime isn't real crime" argument.

It's a tough one. Is there any other category of law where the majority of people are willing to break it daily? The average person doesn't just do "a little shoplifting" or "not many burglaries", but almost all drivers speed. A significant portion go through amber lights when they could have safely stopped.

Speaking of speeding, is there any other category of law where the "limit" is seen as "don't go much over". If a fishing licence says "maximum five" of a certain species, and the fisherman gets checked, is "what, I only caught six, that's hardly over at all!" a defence?

The real answer is to design roads where what feels like a safe speed to the driver is the speed you want. Then anyone speeding is seen by the vast majority as a miscreant deserving of actual punishment.

andystow wrote:

It's a tough one. Is there any other category of law where the majority of people are willing to break it daily? The average person doesn't just do "a little shoplifting" or "not many burglaries", but almost all drivers speed. A significant portion go through amber lights when they could have safely stopped.

Alcohol and other drugs.  Alcohol use by minors is illegal in some contexts, and alcohol purchase always, but both are common and tolerated.  And it seems to depend on degree - so an example of "it was only breaking the law a little".  For other drugs people are prepared to take greater legal risks - however the law hasn't changed despite a large minority breaking the law.  But I suspect that's because public opinion on that is more polarised.

I do think there is a popular idea of "if enough people disagree, it shouldn't be law (or will be overturned soon enough)".

If "everyone else does it" (and visibly so) plus when you do it nothing bad happens, then you continue.  We've fixed it for driving (in large part through dedicated "driving infra"!) so that despite a high density of drivers and fast speeds people can continue to get away with breaking laws designed to protect without consequence.  (Also with very little enforcement).

Driving is unique though for the potential consequences, the cost to society in general - and yet it being a commonplace activity hence carried out without much more thought than e.g. walking, cooking dinner etc.

andystow wrote:

The real answer is to design roads where what feels like a safe speed to the driver is the speed you want. Then anyone speeding is seen by the vast majority as a miscreant deserving of actual punishment.

True.  And I'd be against the 20mph sign change if it were shown that it had *no* effect - which you might expect.  However a) there is evidence shown that it does in fact bring speeds down and b) changing the car infra to make appropriate speeds self-reinforcing is the work of generations.  And right now "we're on the side of the (bad / unnecessary) driver".

This is the best explination I've seen.

Isn't the crux of the matter, that this law is putting the prohibition onto the behaviour of those going much more sensible speeds and forcing the police to target them to the detriment of limits concentrating on those least likely to slow down when limits are lower and most likely to do harm?

You said this before but nowhere provided evidence that the police are "forced" to do anything.  Quite frankly "sensible" is a pretty subjective descriptor also!