What do we want ? Gradual Change. When do we want it ? In due course

This morning I read yet another comment from a member of the British cycle campaigning establishment which said "It’s taken the Netherlands 40 years to get from where they were in the 70s to what you see there now". This excuse is used often in Britain seemingly as a reason why British campaigners should be happy with less than the Dutch have.

New Scientist magazine in 1981. Just eight years after
Stop De Kindermoord, The Dutch were already ahead and
their success was considered to be worth emulating

But how true is it that the Dutch are "Forty years ahead", and how much sense does it make for campaigners who are supposed to be calling for change to repeat this message ? Should cyclists really expect no more than some minor variation of what they already have ? This is an example of defeatism. Campaigners should surely be looking to close the claimed 40 year gap and not making excuses for the country being so far behind.

Still from a video produced in 1990 about the Dutch Bicycle
Masterplan of 1989. In several languages, it was intended to
help planners and campaigners elsewhere. There was already
an emphasis on children.

It didn't really take 40 years in the Netherlands
It is true that the Stop de Kindermoord protests (note: these protests were for the safety of children. i.e. something with wide appeal. Not for "cycling") occurred forty years ago, but it is not true that it took forty years for the Netherlands to achieve a standard of infrastructure vastly ahead of what Britain has now.

In fact, in 1981, just eight years after those protests, an article appeared in New Scientist praising what had been achieved and suggesting that the UK should copy it.

After another 9 years, just seventeen years in total after the Dutch "Stop child murder" protests, cycling infrastructure and policy in the Netherlands were of sufficient quality that it was worth making a film about it. There are several stills from the film in this post. Follow the link to view the film yourself.

A mother cycling with very young children 23 years ago.
These small children are now adult cyclists, perhaps parents.

Useful change was achieved in the Netherlands within the time it took for a toddler to grow up into a teenager. Children for whom campaigning took place in the 1970s actually got to experience the results for themselves before they were adults. These children grew up into adults with the infrastructure which was built in response to the protests of their parents. Fewer of them died than would have been the case if those protests had not been listened to and their children now benefit from the inertia gained during that period of time.

Why so little progress in the UK ?
So what has happened and continues to happen in the UK ? Has the UK really had less time in which to achieve results, or is just that no real effort has been expended in cycling ? Why has progress been so slow that it can't be measured at all ? Where were the campaigners during all this time ? Have they not had time to respond to the lack of progress ?

Dutch School Children with the freedom to cycle to school
23 years ago. They've grown up and their children now cycle
to school. British children just got training. Their children
got yet more training. It still hasn't resulted in
scenes like this, and never will.

I noted a few blog posts ago that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign was established seventeen years ago. The organisation has been in existence for the same amount of time as it took for the Netherlands to change an entire country's streets to the point where the Bicycle Masterplan video first show-cased the quality of Dutch cycling facilities to the world.

But the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is, like many smaller groups, actually a relative newcomer to campaigning. London Cycling Campaign was founded in 1978. 35 years have passed since they began their campaign for London's cyclists.

Parents of those Dutch children cycled to work. Many are
now grandparents who still cycle. Generations of Dutch
people have benefited.

Sustrans was founded a year earlier than LCC so they've had 36 years in which to foment change right across the country, like the LCC, they've existed for twice as long as it took to transform the Netherlands.

This post was prompted by the text quoted in the first paragraph, written by someone who often speaks out on behalf of CTC. It's a common claim in the UK, and I'm not rounding on this individual, but CTC itself should know better. In cycling terms, CTC is an incredibly ancient organisation. Founded in 1878, they're one of the very oldest cycling organisations on the planet and have had a whopping 135 years in which to campaign for cyclists. That's eight times as long as it took to transform the Netherlands. Unlike the newer organisations, CTC has been there fighting for cyclists, for the entire post-second-world-war period over which cycling has declined.


Time is clearly not the issue. There has been plenty of time for Britain to have achieved all that the Dutch have, and more. Many people have worked very hard for cycling, they've given much of their time over many years, yet progress has not been made. Why ?

New housing developments in the Netherlands were already
designed around the bike 23 years ago. When will Britain
make a start ?

So what went wrong ?
Campaigners in Britain seem to suffer from several problems. They have shown themselves to have low aspirations, not daring to ask for the proven success of the Netherlands to be replicated but instead trying to find some alternative route to mass cycling.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign
I've noted before that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign does not hold the council to high enough standards. This has continued since this blog post was written with the group asking members to support a substandard proposal for roads in their city. Other local groups in other areas of the country have done likewise. Local groups, of course, are run in a small budget and have relatively little influence.

LCC
LCC still asks for second rate infrastructure in London. They've moved from one campaign to another, and the over-active marketing people have produced a vast pile of press releases along the way. In the PR world of LCC there are always more successes to celebrate, but what they're calling for is lacklustre. For access to the Olympic park in London, LCC requested infrastructure which is worse than that provided for an average Dutch town's small scale sporting facility. "Going Dutch" was accompanied by calls for Advanced Stop Lines and a bizarre requirement for cyclists to turn 270 degrees to the left in order to make a 90 degree right turn was approved of and boasted of by LCC.

Sustrans
For many years, Sustrans has been happy to rubber stamp infrastructure which is of far too low a quality and I've quite a lot of experience with the results. I've pointed out ten years ago that Sustrans routes are impractical because they're often far more indirect than roads to the same locations. In 2006 I had to brake for an underpass through which it was impossible to cycle and then was forced to take to the road because one of their paths proved to be dangerous. Others have also pointed out that Sustrans puts their name on routes which are simply not of a quality that one can cycle on them.

Sustrans continue not to understand how to make cycling useful for the majority of the population.  Since writing this piece, Sustrans have blamed users of their paths for going "too fast". In fact, the conflict which was seen was a direct consequences of Sustrans' design - which mixes walking children with commuting cyclists on a narrow path. They then went on to rubber-stamp a dangerous roundabout design in Bedford which would mix cyclists with trucks on a turbo-roundabout, a junction design which is absolutely not suitable for cyclists even if they're very fast, and which would definitely not work for the independent 11 year olds that Sustrans usually claims to design for (since this blog post was written, the problems with Sustrans have continued. Sustrans have released a cycling infrastructure design standard of appalling quality and backed several other items of bad design in places including Southend).

Quote from 23 years ago: "Making cycling safer, for example
by separating bicycle traffic from car traffic". Why didn't
Britain start 23 years ago ? When will this become official
policy in the UK ?

CTC
The other fundamental problem has been the dogged adherence of "cyclists" in Britain to the ideology of riding on the road. This has led to CTC standing firmly in the way of Britain building the infrastructure which is required to grow cycling, while an increasing majority of the population see cycling as something alien to them. CTC has sadly long had difficulty with seeing the benefit of segregated cycling infrastructure. Bizarrely, they did approve of segregated motoring infrastructure in the form of motorways.

CTC's emphasis has largely been on training, though that's been proven not to increase cycling, and indeed the amount of cycling in the UK now is somewhat down from what it was when the CTC was at its greatest. CTC have also been active in approving of bad design including a roundabout in York and joining with Sustrans to approve the lethal Bedford roundabout design. They've leant their name to cheering about such things as small improvements in cycle parking. (2020 update: In April 2016 rebranded itself as Cycling UK. They still promote cycle training despite there still being no evidence of it leading to more cycling).

There remains great suppressed demand for cycling. People gather at events at which they can cycle in safety. However outside of those events the public image of cycling in Britain is largely of an extreme sport that only "cyclists" take part in. Cyclists are viewed as being militant and angry outsiders. In part this is a result of cycle campaigning which has focused only on the needs of "cyclists" and therefore excluded other people from taking part. It also doesn't help that cycle campaigners often take an anti-car stance which separates them from the majority. It's worth bearing in mind that the Netherlands has achieved more than anywhere else for cycling with remarkably few anti-car policies.

Targets for 2010 in the video from 1990
These targets were (pretty much) met

It's not good enough to say that conditions are good enough for everyone to cycle just because you, as a self-selected member of the small percentage of people who cycle find conditions to be good enough now, already cycle. Other people won't do it until it feels safe for them. An emphasis on training cyclists while still asking for infrastructure which suits only those who already cycle has helped the decline of cycling because it does nothing to address the most common reason why the majority do not cycle.

What do we want ? Gradual change. When do we want it ? In due course !
Think what the target actually is. If you want cycling to grow from 1% of journeys to 27% of journeys and for cycling to be normal for everyone then it must be inclusive of everyone.

Dutch railways stations already had enormous bicycle
parks (though they had to grow to keep up with demand)

Cycling should not be just about "cyclists". Cycling is beneficial for all of society. Children should be able to go to school unaccompanied. Parents should be freed from the school run. All adults who currently feel that they have no alternative but to drive and who find it expensive and stressful, should be able to choose to cycle.  Elderly people and those with disabilities should also be able to experience the freedom of cycling. Society suffers from all the well known adverse effects of excess driving, such as rat-running, road rage, obesity, air and noise pollution and the violent deaths of thousands of people every year.

This is why cycle campaigning needs to grow to be inclusive and not be focused on a tiny minority.

There is really only one place worth looking to in order to find the answers, and that is the one place where these things are already true: The Netherlands. Don't dilute demands by asking for what is unproven or by following examples from elsewhere which have achieved less. Ignore anything which was tried and abandoned in the Netherlands because there is no need to copy mistakes from here or elsewhere.

Does this look like the result of
successful policy in the UK ?

The future is what you make it. Demand nothing less than best practice loudly enough, repeat it often enough, and make sure that the full benefits for everyone are known and something just might happen. While a multitude of cycling organisations all of which have multiple ideas about what they want, which between them give a mixed and difficult to understand message and which will often offer government an easy and cheap way out, progress is nearly impossible.

There is nothing magical about what happened in the Netherlands forty years ago. This country simply decided on sensible policies which were good for society and it has stuck with them ever since.

The claim has not always been "40 years"
I can remember when campaigners and officials in the UK claimed that the Netherlands was 20, 25, 30 and 35 years ahead. It's the same claim, but it is periodically for the ever longer period of time while no progress is made in Britain.

What does this mean precisely ? It makes no sense whatsoever to justify a a further delay in making cycling accessible to everyone in Britain just because, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years have already been wasted. Fifty years ? Well, if we don't start to jump on people who make this statement, as well as those who use the other excuses for inaction, we're still going to be hearing the same sad refrain in another ten years time.

Update 29 June 2020: Someone from the UK today told me that "it took 50+ to get to NL standards". Slightly earlier than I expected to hear it, but the excuse has again had a few years added on, exactly as I predicted would happen seven years ago...

Andrew Gilligan, London's Cycling Commissioner
The first comment below this blog post, written just a couple of minutes after it went public, pointed out that Andrew Gilligan, London's "Cycling Czar", said two days ago that "it took 40 years to turn even Amsterdam into Amsterdam" in a post which is a teaser for their "vision" which will be launched tomorrow. This is no more true for London vs. Amsterdam than Britain vs. the Netherlands as a whole. Everything above applies. Come on London, you need to aim much higher than you have before.

This is no accident
Being "forty years behind" is no accident. This didn't suddenly sneak up on people, it took forty years to happen. No, being "forty years behind" in cycling is the result of forty years of making deliberate choices not to build the infrastructure which is required to support cycling. It was enabled by forty years of campaigners not saying enough to stop it.

If you want to see for yourself how the infrastructure and policy have combined to get everyone to ride bikes in the Netherlands, there's a study tour in May on which we demonstrate almost everything featured in the many posts on this blog in just three days.

The chant in the title is Kate Fox's idea of what "a truly English protest march" would sound like. It comes from her book "Watching the English". I find it interesting that the 38 page long "Rules of the Road" section of her book goes to much effort to explain how wonderful British drivers are but doesn't actually mention cycling at all, even though it says in the introduction on the first page of this section that it will discuss cycling. That this mode of transport is practically invisible even to an anthropologist studying the English says something about how commonly people cycle in that country.

The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain can rest easy for now. They've only been going for about two years and that's only a quarter of the time that it took for the Netherlands to get to the point that journalists from New Scientist were impressed. But has a quarter of that progress been made in Great Britain in the last two years ?

Turbo Roundabouts. Be careful what you wish for.

After writing about Bow Roundabout in London a week ago, I looked around and found other people had done the same. However, at least two had proposed what is very much the wrong solution. The idea of a "Turbo Roundabout" came up on both the Cyclists in the City and Pedestrianise London blogs. It's not the right solution.

Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. If you're not absolutely sure what a Turbo Roundabout is (in particularly, a "turbo-roundabout" as might be implemented by TfL) and not absolutely sure that it is what you want, then don't ask for one.


This video from the Fietsberaad shows a "Semi"-Turbo Roundabout in Hilversum. It initially appears to work quite well in the video designed to promote the idea, but this is merely a "semi-turbo" roundabout and in many ways actually more closely resembles normal Dutch roundabouts. I caution to look out for where there are two lanes of motor vehicles which need to be crossed at once by cyclists and pedestrians - a case which is excluded from the video:

The next video came up as a related video on youtube. It's a simulation of a Signalised Turbo Roundabout. It shows how motor-vehicles flow nicely around the roundabout, but there is no consideration of cyclists or pedestrians in the simulation:

Indeed, the whole point of the turbo roundabout is to "improve traffic flow". Turbo-roundabouts were never intended to make things better for cyclists or pedestrians. Cyclists don't much like them. The Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union) in the Netherlands has complained about unacceptably long crossing delay times for cyclists at Turbo Roundabouts.

As I said before, "be careful what you wish for". Why ? You might end up with something similar to what is in the next video - a real, live, turbo roundabout in Eindhoven videoed by someone who isn't trying to sell the concept. The title is "Floraplein in Eindhoven very dangerous for cyclists":


Note how crossing double exit lanes causes trouble for cyclists.

So what's the alternative ? I didn't have any photos or videos of my own to show here because we don't have turbo roundabouts in this area. In fact I've documented before what all the roundabouts in Assen look like. None are turbo roundabouts, and none cause problems for cyclists.

Some other ideas are pointed to by the website set up by people who are campaigning to improve or replace the Floraplein turbo-roundabout. It includes a link to an interesting presentation about alternatives to turbo-roundabouts written by Peter Kroeze of Ligtermoet and Partners.

When observing from afar it can be difficult to tell what really works from what does not work. We've already seen both shared space and strict liability given far too much credit for the cycling conditions in the Netherlands. Let's not add Turbo Roundabouts to the list of things that are misunderstood.

If you want to know what real Dutch cycling infrastructure is really like, why it works, and why cycling is so popular and so safe here, please book a study tour. Not many people have the experience that we have of living and cycling in two countries as different as the UK and the Netherlands, and we can pass a lot of this knowledge on within a few days. Reading blogs like this, reading articles and looking at Google Streetview can only get you so far.

2013 update - Bedford in the UK building a turbo-roundabout 'for cyclists'
A year after posting this blog post, warning that Turbo Roundabouts, no matter how attractive the name sounded, were never intended to be used by cyclists, a story appeared about the "walking and cycling officer" of Bedford in the UK was proposing to use "Dutch experience to improve cycle safety" by building a turbo roundabout which is actually worse than the example from Eindhoven shown in the video above because there is to be no cycling infrastructure at all.

In Bedford cyclists will be asked to
give-way or dismount by these signs,
which have never been used before.
If changing the law, why not do it
for something more worthwhile ?

On the Bedford turbo roundabout, cyclists are supposed to either share the road with cars or to cross the road like pedestrians. They are branding this as "Dutch" even though it is something which you would absolutely never see in the Netherlands. Frankly, it's difficult to imagine a larger mistake than this.

This recalls an online conversation which I had in 2011 with another Bedfordshire planner. He also wanted to build a "Dutch" roundabout which omitted cycling infrastructure. Various reasons why were given, including the "difficulty" of combining existing on-road cycle-lanes with a Dutch style roundabout which had cycle-paths and his idea that "not all" Dutch roundabouts had separate cycle-paths.

The discussion with the Bedford planner prompted two blog posts from me to illustrate what I had said to him in email. One of these posts demonstrated that there is no problem at all in merging from an on-road cycle-lane onto a properly designed Dutch roundabout. The other post demonstrated how every single roundabout in Assen has separate facilities for cycling because that is the norm in the Netherlands. His concept of a "Dutch" roundabout without separate cycling infrastructure was not similar to real Dutch infrastructure.

Cycling infrastructure is not an optional extra on roundabouts. Where cyclists have to use the same roundabout junction, specific infrastructure must be provided.

It's disappointing that after having had this long conversation and tried to explain to one Bedford planner, another should still have similar misconceptions two years later. Note that the first Bedford planner also pushed through his flawed ideas, building a dangerous design of roundabout branded as "Dutch" in Cambridge.

Signed off by campaigners
Despite my warning and others, this project continued. Further investigation by myself in 2014 revealed that the Turbo Roundabout in Bedford had been signed off by representatives of several British cycle campaigning organisations: Tony Russell (Sustrans), John Franklin (Cycle Nation), Chris Peck (CTC), Ruth Jackson (British Cycling), Ralph Smyth (CfPRE) as well as Robert Semple (Transport for London).

It's extremely disappointing to find that campaigners have such low aspirations as to rubber stamp a proposal which is as dangerous for cyclists as this roundabout design.

Update 2015

No on-carriageway markings
Carriageway exit angle too sharp
Double Yellow Lines over c/w exit

A downloadable report is now available about this roundabout. One image, along with its caption, is shown on the right.

I recommend reading the report in full. Amongst other conclusions, it is said that "Arrangement of cycle crossings maximises possibility of conflict between cyclist and pedestrian"which shows the many problems caused by the design used in Bedford.

This mistake should not be repeated.

Find out about proper infrastructure designs.
We run cycling infrastructure study tours precisely in order to try to help councils like Bedford to not make such expensive and dangerous mistakes as this one. Planners need to be educated. They need to learn from the best examples and not just guess at what they think best practice might be. We'd be very happy to host a contingent from Bedford if they'd like to see what the Dutch really do so that future "Dutch" innovation in Bedford can be inspired by the real Dutch infrastructure.

2013 second update
The British arm of a Dutch based company has proposed turbo roundabouts for the UK which I believe would not be built in the Netherlands. Read a blog post about this, including pictures of real Dutch Turbo Roundabouts.

Also read a blog post which summarises several things which are "Dutch" but which should not serve as inspiration.

2014 update. Assen is building a turbo roundabout
Assen is building a turbo roundabout to serve a motorway junction in the south of the city. As such, it is correctly being built in a place where there are many motor vehicles but where neither pedestrians nor cyclists have any reason to go. Watch a video showing this roundabout and how difficult it is even to get near it by bicycle.

How "Bikeability" and "Cycling Proficiency" have failed British cyclists.

Bikeability is the current form of cycle training in the UK. It is now almost the only thing to do with cycling which is funded by the British government, and it has become a small industry with "Bikeability registered providers" offering services around the country.

Bikeability is described by the British government as being "cycling proficiency' for the 21st Century!". They say that this training "gives you the skills and confidence to cycle in modern road conditions".

British children preparing for battle - photo courtesy of Bikeability website.

In a recent press release announcing more funding for Bikeability, it further claimed that “This Government is strongly committed to cycling – it is a crucial part of building a healthy and sustainable transport network for the future. That is why we have provided £11m of funding this year for the Bikeability programme, which not only promotes the benefits of cycling as a healthy and enjoyable way of getting around, but enables children to do it safely and confidently.”. They also say that it "promotes a healthy life style choice and ensures that the children are safer when cycling on our busy roads.”

However, once again the British public are again being sold short. Sadly, the truth is that "modern road conditions" in the UK still look remarkably similar to 40 year old road conditions in the Netherlands.

The same Dutch street in the 21st century.
Not much like Britain any more.

1960s Dutch street scene.
Very like Britain now.

Not only is training not nearly enough to reverse a long term decline. In fact, it's not enough to make any measurable difference at all. Peter Miller made these graphs a few weeks back which show that while walking to school is on the decrease and driving continues to increase, "cycling is lost in the noise at the bottom".

While conditions remain as they are on Britain's roads, cycling for most people will not progress further than the very first achievement in Bikeability level 1, which reads: "Get on your bike, start cycling, then stop and get off".

Where did the training emphasis come from ?
According to the CTC, they proposed "cycling proficiency" in 1936. However, not until 1948 did the government "endorse RoSPA to roll out CP".

Cars vs. bikes in the UK

In other words, the whole history of cycle-training in Britain has been over a period while cycling declined.

The decline of cycling in Britain
It is often not appreciated just how popular cycling once was in the UK. In 1949, no less than a third of the total distance travelled on the roads in the UK was by bike: 23.6 billion vehicle km vs. 46.5 billion km for all motor vehicles combined. Just 20.3 billion vehicles km were by private car and taxi. i.e. more distance was covered each year by bike than by car. This is a remarkable level of cycle usage, and something that no nation, including the Netherlands, can claim today.

Cars vs. bikes in the UK (zoomed)

In 1959, after ten years of cycling proficiency, this was down to 13.6 billion vehicle km by bike and 104.2 billion km for other vehicles. In this initial period of cycle-training, the absolute distance travelled by bike had more than halved and proportionately it had reduced to a third of what it was. As time went on, cycling declined even more.

An enthusiast: Ten years ago with my eldest
daughter "ready for battle" on Britain's roads.

It is quite fair and accurate to say that cycle training, in all its forms, has not only failed to do anything at all to increase cycling rates in the UK, but it has also failed to do enough to stem a very rapid decline.

What we are left with in the UK now is an almost total lack of cycling a few people due to economic reasons and a keen group of enthusiasts. These are the people who have stopped cycling from declining to zero. In Britain I was one of them and of course I trained my children to cycle as safely as possible under the circumstances.

What caused the decline ?
I am, of course, not saying that cycle-training caused a decline in cycling. That's not the case at all. Rather, as cars became more affordable they displaced bikes from Britain's roads. Due to a lack of good subjectively safe conditions for cycling, driving became the least bad option for most people. It costs a lot to drive in the UK. It is often reported that a high percentage of the income of people on low salaries goes into the petrol tanks of their cars. However, people continue to drive despite of this cost. It's not a positive choice, but a reaction from people who don't see that they have a choice. Driving in the rush-hour is a source of stress, not pleasure. However, other alternatives including cycling are worse.

If not only training, then what ?
After 62 years of the same approach producing the same results in Britain, it is time for a change in policy. The only sensible approach is to copy the Netherlands as this is the country where cycling has most successfully resisted the rise of motoring, and even risen once again after the reasons for the decline were noted and action was taken.

Infrastructural change is needed to make cycling desirable. Obviously starting sooner rather than later would be best, and therefore it would be best if recent calls for change were listened to, rather than waiting for another thirty years to pass.

Once the infrastructure is in place, training can then come into its own. The efforts of people who train cyclists will no longer be wasted.

In my view, cycle training, especially of children, is valuable. However, it is only a small part of what is required. It can't result in a higher cycling rate unless conditions are changed such that cycling becomes a desirable activity. Governments which want to increase cycling cannot rely merely on training. They have to invest in cycling infrastructure. The evidence shows that on its own, attempting to train cyclists to cope with ever degrading road conditions simply does not increase cycling rates.

I took a course as a cycle trainer in the
UK and was given this badge. Sadly
this was not a high quality course.

Of course, some people will question the cost of providing proper cycling infrastructure. The best infrastructure in the world costs about €30 per person per year. This is not a large amount out of the nation's budget. If Britain could achieve just ten percent of journeys by bike, far fewer than in recent history, the payback would be much larger than the cost. The extent of the infrastructure required is no more overwhelming than in the Netherlands. Britain isn't nearly so huge and spread out as some people think. In fact, the population density of England is comparable with that of the Netherlands and the population density even of relatively sparsely populated Wales is comparable with that of the Dutch province of Drenthe, where we live.

Britain's transport budget next year is 22.4 billion pounds or around 420 euros per person per year from central government (this is not the total spent). Building decent infrastructure for people to cycle in the UK is easily affordable, but Britain seemingly prefers to spend money on such things as ever larger ships for the navy, trying to rejuvenate the same rather antique military aircraft not just once, but twice. Britain's defence budget is one of the largest in the world. For next year is over 47 billion pounds, is approximately €880 euros per person per year. That's substantially more than the total amount of money than leaves the country each year.

Wasteful projects such as these, and an over-reliance on imported fuel for motorized transport, are the means by which Britain has achieved a cumulative deficit three times as large as that of Greece. Cycling is part of the solution to the country's financial problems.

I was initially prompted to write this after reading the response by a cycle trainer, Londonneur to a post by David Arditti on the Movement for Liveable London. Cycle trainers in the UK work very hard at what they do. However, one should never confuse "working hard" with "achieving results". Cycle training can help a few nervous but keen individuals to cycle in a hostile environment. However, it's not something which scales to support the entire population in cycling for a significant proportion of all journeys. To achieve this requires cycling to be an efficient and safe means of transport. Changing the streets to increase subjective safety and give cyclists more direct routes is the way to achieve this.

All figures were published by the DfT.

A "magic" roundabout ?

The Crap Walking and Cycling in Waltham forest and As Easy as Riding a Bike blogs have both recently posted interesting critiques of the "Magic Roundabout" in York ("spin over substance", "Putting some paint around the circumference of a roundabout does precisely nothing for cyclists", "Would you want to send your child to school on cycling infrastructure like this?"). Elsewhere it is described as a formidable obstacle for cyclists.

Here it is from the air:

Courtesy of Bing Maps. This design has similarities with the worst roundabout designs ever used in the Netherlands but little in common with the safest roundabout designs.

The CTC wrote about it in 2003 (page 6 here), saying much about the "continental style" of this roundabout and implying that it was influenced by the Dutch by referring to CROW documentation from the Netherlands (amongst others) as being an inspiration. On the Magic Roundabout, cyclists are encouraged to use a 1.2 m wide on-road cycle lane which goes all the way around the outside, and on one entry point they're expected to use a cycle lane of the same width sandwiched between two lanes of motor traffic.

Comparison with a Dutch roundabout
For a cyclist, the supposedly "continental" style "Magic Roundabout" of York looks nothing at all like a real roundabout as seen over here on "the continent" in the Netherlands. This second example is a typical Dutch roundabout, chosen simply because it's an example close to our home, but which is of the safest design used in the Netherlands. It should appear at a similar scale on your screen to that of the above example from York:

Note that in Assen cyclists do not ride on the road around roundabouts, but have completely separate paths. Read more about this roundabout, which is a good example of the safest design in the Netherlands.

These aren't particularly busy roads, but that doesn't mean that cyclists aren't better off away from them. There is no need to ride on the roundabout itself at all. Cycle paths around this roundabout are 2.5 m wide where single direction and 4 m wide where bidirectional.

We ride this way regularly as it's part of the most direct route to the city centre (see the whole journey from which this is a part ). A video made when riding past this roundabout also looks nothing like the video from York:

Read more about a truly safe Dutch roundabout design

Approaching and riding past this Dutch roundabout involves no conflict and no drama. No-one has concerns about riding here themselves, and no adult has concerns about their school age children cycling past this junction. This is just as well because many go past here in order to get to school. This type of infrastructure contributes to the high cycling rate of Assen, and as similar roundabouts are found right across the country, to the high cycling rate of the Netherlands as a whole. What's more, this is also extremely efficient for a cyclist to use. You never have to stop when riding in this direction, and rarely in the opposite direction. In my view, this is truly a "magic" roundabout because so far as cyclists are concerned, it's almost been made to vanish.

Guess which one won an award ?

Caption is from the Transport Initiatives website. But
this dangerous design should never have won an award.

Unlike the York roundabout, the example in Assen didn't win any awards. No-one said that it was a novel idea which "should be copied by other engineers around the world." (just a few days after this blog post was published, that link was password protected - I guess someone in York reads this blog). No consultancy company still refers to it as an example of their award winning design. For the Dutch, this is nothing but a normal roundabout. In any case, people don't seem to be quite so keen on handing out awards for things like this on this side of the North Sea.

The problem with things like the Magic Roundabout in York is that sometimes the hype gets out of control. It may well be a safer design than the previous junction, but it's a missed opportunity. It could have been so much better, but as so much hype and praise is heaped upon the roundabout it's difficult for other people to notice this. The hype is still believed. Cycling England referred to it quite positively, there have been proposals to copy the "Magic Roundabout" elsewhere in the UK, similar ideas are published as guidance in Australia. The BBC recently said that the "British roundabout" might be conquering the US, and a much hyped example like this could well be held up as a better than average design to copy.

It is often difficult to counter the opinion of an "expert". However, it seems quite clear that in reality the Magic Roundabout shouldn't be an example which is copied. Planners who want to do the right thing for cyclists would be better advised to look at Dutch examples instead.

The Assen roundabout used as an example in this blog post is not unusual. Another post details every roundabout in Assen. Every single roundabout in Assen uses a better design than the "Magic Roundabout" in York.

The CTC and segregation

When I took this photo a few months back I thought it illustrated quite well the type of segregation from normal roads which the CTC in Britain has always supported - the motorway on the left behind the barrier giving motorists a way of travelling faster off normal roads - vs. the type of segregation which they generally are not so supportive of - the cyclepath on which my bike and trailer and the child heading in the opposite direction are using to ride in greater safer than by sharing the road with the van.

Anyway, this is really just an introduction to something I think it well worth reading elsewhere. David Arditti has written a very good piece called "1934 - The moment it all went wrong for cycling in the UK" on the history of campaigning around cyclepaths in the UK.

I took the photo a few months back on the return run of one of my frequent rides to get bicycle racks from a bicycle manufacturer in Hoogeveen.

Cyclists' Special

Way back in 1955, this popular film was made of cycling in Britain:

Part two can be viewed on youtube

It's a great film. I find it interesting to see that once-upon-a-time, British Rail bent over itself to make taking bicycles on trains easy even occasionally for large groups - this film was made by an organisation which existed specifically to make films like this.

Britain was a very different place when this film was made. It was normal to cycle. When that film was shot, in 1955, British people still each cycled an average of over 350 km per year, a figure very similar to modern day Germany, and about a third of that now in the Netherlands. This was a time when people travelled in total a lot less than they do now so these are significant figures. British people made these bicycle journeys over the very same landscape as where many people now make excuses about hills and the weather to explain the current low cycling rate in the UK:

Many British people don't realise that even within their own lifetime, before motoring took over from everything else, it was quite normal for all sorts of people to ride bikes for everyday journeys.

Of course, the group in the film aren't entirely average. They're cycle-tourists, and have relatively fancy bikes. You can see that from the dropped handlebars (British touring bikes traditionally have dropped handlebars, usually set a little higher than most racers would have them) and from the derailleur gears which many of them have.

"Hills or headwind don't put me off,
A Sturmey Archer hub gives wings to my bike."

The film was made a time of transition, when tourists started to use derailleurs instead of the same three speed Sturmey Archer hub gears as normal everyday bikes had. Yes, those hills were once ridden on bikes with three gears, and little was made of it. In fact, contemporary advertisements tended to stress how easy it was to climb a hill with the luxury of three gears.

The change in British attitudes regarding cycling took place over many years. Rather like the proverbial frog in a pan of boiling water, many people didn't notice what was taking place around them. Drivers in Britain, who have had the infrastructure of the entire country altered to suit them, now quite commonly believe that they are the victims of a "war on the motorist". Indeed, the government has just taken more steps to placate them.

Meanwhile, many British cycle campaigners have continued to campaign for the same thing as they always have. i.e. the "right to ride on the road", even though those roads have become a far more hostile place for cyclists than they used to be, and decades of campaigning on these same issues have not resulted in any progress. The reason is quite simple: the over-abundance of motor vehicles makes British roads an unpleasant place to be on a bike. This is now the main reason why people don't cycle.

It makes me very happy to see that there is at last a move in the UK now towards campaigning for the same sort of infrastructural change as prevented the Netherlands from suffering from the same fate as befell the UK. You can find examples of this here, here and here. It took time for the decline to occur, and it will take for cycling to grow back. However, there is enormous pent-up demand, as can be seen anywhere that something attractive to ride on exists.

A change in attitudes can come, but only due to a real change in how it feels to cycle. Go back and look at the people in that film again. There are no reflective vests and no helmets. In 1955 people felt safe on a bike on Britain. Remember what I said about pit canaries a while back ?

The chart appeared in a previous post, but I think it worth repeating in a different context. Another small point: Have you ever seen such a large group on a CTC ride ? Touring cycling thrives when more people cycle. All types of touring are popular over here.

More cycle parking at Beilen Railway Station

Extra bike places

BEILEN - By order of ProRail, more covered cycle places have been built at the train station in Beilen. The parking now has room for 624 bike (previously 288). At the same time 64 bike lockers were placed as well as a space for 12 motor-scooters."

Sometimes little stories like this, buried on page 45 of our 56 page weekly free local paper, tell a big story. Beilen is a small town 20 km or so south of Assen with a population of under 10000 people. However, cycle parking at the station is being taken very seriously indeed.

Compare with the grandeur of this press release from First Great Western in the UK:

First Great Western and First Great Western Link’s Transport Integration Manager, Jonathan Radley commented: “As part of the UK’s largest public transport operator, First, we’re committed to integrated transport and helping our customers to make joined-up journeys. This extra cycle parking adds to existing provision at our stations, and we hope will make it easier for cyclists to find a space, particularly at busy times. We’re grateful for help from the Department for Transport and CTC in making this project a reality.”

Customers of First Great Western and First Great Western Link together make almost 60 million journeys a year with many travelling to or from the station by foot, on bikes, by bus, taxi or even by ferry.

Transport Minister Derek Twigg said: “The quality of cycle parking is a key factor in determining how confident cyclists feel about using their bike to get to the station. That’s why fairly simple, low-cost improvements like those at First Great Western and First Great Western Link can have an positive impact in encouraging people to leave their cars at home. We’re pleased to play our part in this scheme, alongside improvements to cycle routes led by local authorities across the country.”

The new parking takes the total number of bicycle spaces at Reading to 160, with 302 at Bristol Temple Meads, 38 at Plymouth, 20 at Southall, 16 at Thatcham (including 4 cycle lockers), 100 at Maidenhead, 4 at Charlbury, 8 at Mortimer (including 4 lockers), 534 (including 10 lockers) at Oxford and 6 at Bramley.

A big and impressive looking press release. But hang on... Just 200 new spaces spread between ten stations ? A total of 302 at Bristol ? That's less than half the total at Beilen, and Bristol has over 400000 residents. More than 40 times the population are fighting over less than half the amount of cycle parking at the railway station. Can it be right that availability of residents of Britain's "Cycling City" have 1/80th of the availability of cycle parking that is normal for a small Dutch village ?

Beilen is a typical Dutch town and has enough parking spaces for 1 in 15 of the population to leave their bikes at the station. Bristol, on the other hand, is the newly crowned "Cycling City" of the UK and has enough for 1 in 1350 people to do the same. Is that enough ? Is it enough to justify such a press release ?

Mind you, they're doing better than Plymouth. That city has a population of over 250000 people but just 38 spaces. Enough for 1 in 6500 of the population to cycle to the station...

Of these cities, Oxford, with it's 151000 population and 534 spaces is doing the best. They've enough spaces for one in every 282 residents. However, Oxford is historically one of the places with the most cycling in the UK. Even there the expectation is that cycling to the station will be over an order of magnitude less popular than in a small Dutch town.

It's not just the railway station of course. When I cycled through Beilen a few weeks ago I took a photo of bikes parked at a bus stop as well as a bit of video which you can see here.

It's sometimes difficult to explain to people from the UK or USA just how much cycling there is here, both in the cities and in small towns. Cycling is incredibly popular in this country. It's not just an incremental difference, but a staggering one. What's more, cyclists are very well looked after, and not only at railway stations. Come and see it for yourself.

3/1/2009 update

Judy went to Beilen and took some photos of the new cycle parking. You can see the new tulip style bike racks under cover in the photo to the right.


There are also secure lockers, for which there is a fee.

You can tell this is all very new because the sand still hasn't settled between the tiled surface.

Groningen's main railway station has nearly 10000 spaces and is added 500 cycle-parking spaces every year until 2015. Groningen has less than half the population of Bristol.

Utrecht makes another interesting comparison with Bristol. Utrecht has just 300000 people, but there are over 14000 cycle parking spaces at the station, and this is being expanded...

Naturally, even with high quality cycle parking as shown here it's also essential to protect your bicycle with a very secure lock.

This might be a good time to mention again that 40% of all train passengers in the Netherlands arrive at the station by bike, and that because they only use a bike for part of their journey none of them count towards the cycling statistics. Also see the other posts about integrated transport.