Pragmatism. When campaigners and planners should use it. How such things as car parking and beer delivery in the Netherlands are made to coexist with excellent cycling infrastructure

Cycle-paths in red. The truck has to travel a considerable
distance along cycle-path to reach the club and then
must drive the same way back again to leave.

It may not look like it, but the photo above is actually an example of very good infrastructure being used as intended.

The photo shows where cyclists have gained a great cycling facility due to pragmatism. I'll explain, with help from the map on the right:

The club building was built on a strip of land between the large and wide ring-road (in effect an urban motorway) and part of the existing cycle-path network. There is no way to access this sports club except via the cycle-path. No other route exists and there is nowhere to build another route. Therefore there is no choice but for deliveries to the sport club to use the cycle-path. Football players and audience members also cycle. There's a car park nearby which can be used but it's a fair walk between there and the club.


The junction between two cycle-paths from where I took the photo. The speed bumps are designed to have no effect at normal cycling speeds. They are an effective measure to slow mopeds, permitted on this cycle-path, at the junction.
Trucks using the cycle-path leave in the same direction as they entered. They don't continue and use the cycle-path as a through route because there's a busy cycle-path junction in the way. The cycle-path isn't abused as a through route by drivers.

As part of redevelopment of this area, cycle-paths were widened and gained a smoother and more robust surface. This is a big plus for cyclists. The small cost is that a truck has to come along here perhaps once or twice a week to make deliveries. The alternative in this situation would have been to convert the cycle-path into a road or to not have built the sport club at all.

In this case, pragmatism means an obvious and large win for cyclists. It also serves footballers who cycle to the pitch and like to drink beer afterwards.

Examples in residential areas
There are many other examples of this way of thinking all across the Netherlands. Two of them within a few hundred metres of our home are shown here:

Two homes in this location in Assen have garages next to each other which open onto the cycle-path. The cycle-path is therefore used very occasionally by car by those two families. A very minor inconvenience for cyclists in comparison with the major gain of being able to use this cycle-path and its associated tunnel to avoid a large and very nasty traffic light junction. Cyclists never have to stop at those traffic lights because this facility exists. A major gain for cyclists due to a little pragmatism.

The house was built long before the cycle-path. The residents of the house need access by car to their garage. It's no problem at all that they are given this access. Cyclists gain a marvellous wide and efficient cycle-path. Most cyclists won't realise that part of this "cycle-path" is actually a road.

Bicycle Roads. Segregation without cycle-paths

Part of a bicycle road in Assen. This very popular very high quality route for cycling provides the shortest possible way into the centre of the city for people who live in a new suburb. It was only possible to provide this by being pragmatic. There is no through traffic here so the only motor vehicles along this short stretch of road are for access to ten homes situated along here. Most of the time, this works as a de-facto cycle-path which is 5.5 m wide. A huge improvement over this being a route into the city by car, as it was until 2007.

Cycling is safest, most pleasant and most efficient when cyclists do not have to "share" with motor vehicles. The greater the extent to which motor vehicle and cycling routes can be unravelled, the greater proportion of the road network can be dominated by cyclists. It's not possible to achieve this while roads remain as useful through routes by motor vehicle.

There are many ways in which cyclists can be segregated from motor vehicles without building cycle-paths.

Nearly car free streets in the centres of Dutch cities provide excellent cycling conditions while also allowing access by car. Pedestrianized zones in the Netherlands usually allow access by bike. These situations are almost opposites of one another, in that motor vehicles mustn't create problems for cyclists in the first while cyclists must not create problems for pedestrians in the second. We have examples of both which work extremely well.

Maintenance vehicles
It's a rare person who complains that maintenance vehicles will occasionally drive along cycle-paths, but of course they must do so.

Good maintenance of cycle-paths as well as such things as cutting grass or dredging canals next to cycle-paths will always require access by some maintenance vehicles. This cycle-path in Assen belongs to the local water board. It's an essential part of our flood defences but also forms a very useful cycle route. The slight downside is that we very occasionally have to share it with a maintenance vehicle.

Also in the countryside
In the countryside there are many cycle-paths used mainly for recreational use which were once farmers' tracks or which go through natural areas by following a similar line to vehicles used for maintenance within those areas.

This photo is from last Sunday's recreational rides through the countryside near Assen. A beautifully smooth cycle-path which was once a farm track. It's still, necessarily, used by the farmer so occasionally we meet tractors along here. The farmer has gained a much smoother tractor path than he had before while everyone else gains a wonderful facility for cycling in the countryside.

When to be pragmatic

Signage on another ex farm track
Cycles only - tractors excepted

Cyclists should never have their journey made less convenient, less direct or less safe due to motor vehicles. Cyclists should never be given a choice of either a "safe" or a "fast" route to take, all routes must be both safe and fast. All routes should work for all cyclists. We don't plan roads for timid new drivers differently to how we plan for experienced drivers, and the same should be true for cycling. Cyclists should not be forced to fight for space with motor vehicles as this is not a fight fought on an equal basis and it cannot be won in favour of the majority of people cycling, regardless of training or experience.

In practice, places which don't provide good infrastructure for cycling simply have fewer cyclists. Compromises on quality lead to fewer people cycling, so quality should never be compromised. Progress is not made by adopting low aspirations reflected in inadequate design guidelines as these in themselves come to stand between potential cyclists and cycling. Cycling expands in popularity only by winning a popularity contest, by being the most attractive contestant. To encourage people to cycle, cycling needs to become the most pleasant and convenient way to make a journey.

There will always be places where cyclists must come first but where access by motor vehicle is sometimes also required. We shouldn't be afraid of this, but instead make sure that it is something which is planned correctly so that 'sometimes' really does mean 'sometimes'.

Occasional use by a resident's car or by a tractor or maintenance vehicle, as shown above, is not a problem for cyclists using cycle-paths any more than it is if a cycle-path is occasionally used by an equestrian or pedestrian. This is where real pragmatism comes in. Near 100% segregation of cyclists from motor vehicles can be achieved so long as we accept that there will be very small compromises. There should never be wholesale compromises on quality. Nothing should be compromised easily which will diminish the overall experience of cycling.

Equestrians have their own paths
and are not normally expected
to be found on Dutch cycle-path.
This surface is better for horses
than the asphalt or concrete
required for a proper cycle-path

Where we can't be 'pragmatic'
While they are sometimes thought of as synonyms, pragmatism and compromise have quite different definitions. Pragmatism demands that dogma be put aside so that we can make a rational choice and take a practical point of view. As an example, while we don't normally want trucks to be driven along cycle-paths, I've yet to hear anyone argue against snow-ploughs driving along cycle-paths in winter. The examples above fall into similar categories.

On the other hand, to compromise is to make a concession. We should do this only as little as possible and if a good outcome can still be guaranteed. Of course, in real life there will always be compromises, but they should come as late as possible in the process of campaigning

Campaigners should always be pragmatic but compromises should be rare.

Problems for cyclists arise when other modes come to dominate what should be cycling infrastructure or if accommodating these other modes changes the design of what should be cycling infrastructure so that it in fact becomes more suited for another mode. This principle applies even if it affects only part of the day.

There's no point in suggesting that usually "empty" roads which fill with motor vehicles at rush hour or at school times are suitable for cycling because at those times of the day, which will also be busy times for cycling, they won't be suitable.

Designs encouraging cyclists and pedestrians to share cause conflict because these two modes are not compatible. Similarly, shared spaces for cars and bikes have proven to be dangerous. These also are not truly a cycling measure but readily demonstrate exactly the problems caused by allowing other modes to dominate.

Sometimes suggestions of compromise comes not due to another mode, but because of specious reasons such as false environmentalism. This also needs to be resisted. Any problem that can be caused by a cycle-path and cyclists using it is minute next to the problem which would be caused by building a road and people making their journeys by car instead of by bike. This comes up remarkably frequently.

Cycling declined quickly in the UK as planners
concentrated only on motor vehicles and cars took
over the roads

Of course, not planning to accommodate cyclists safely at all is the biggest compromise and it remains the biggest danger. This is what led to huge declines in cycling in many nations. Dutch cycling also went into free-fall, but the decline was turned around in the 1970s due to concerns about rights and safety of children.

Any of the situations described in the last few paragraphs are a compromise too far because such compromises damage cycling.

Where motor vehicles dominate it's important that there should not be "sharing". In those locations it's essential to provide proper cycle-paths and well designed junctions to prevent clashes between cyclists and motor vehicles and it's essential that these are conflict free. This is the only way to make cycling pleasant and convenient for the entire population.

Distraction technologies

Most people recognise that there are good reasons to try to reduce the proportion of journeys made by driving.

There are many things out there which may may look initially like a good idea to help to achieve this, but most are simply distractions.

One high-tech device that occasionally gets a bit of publicity is the Segway. It travels at the speed of a slow cyclist over a distance that anyone can cover on a bike, and it's expensive. However, it's championed by some as a "breakthrough".

So, what's not to like ?

• There's no-where to put any luggage or shopping except in a rucksack or other bag on the person.
  
• There's no way to carry a passenger (either child or adult)
  
• It's slow compared with a bicycle. Just 20 km/h (12.5 mph) maximum speed.
  
• It's very heavy to lift (around 50 kg) if you should need to move it. So forget carrying it onto a train, for instance.
  
• It uses batteries which will at some stage have to be disposed of or recycled.
• It is utterly dead in the water if the battery runs out as you're riding it.
• It does not promote physical fitness
• It costs... HOW MUCH ?

And that cost is of course a complete killer. $5,350 to $6,400 in the US plus another $1600 or so every 2 to 3 years when the battery needs replacing. Are you going to buy one for each of your children to ride to school ?

I've tried the Segway. It's a very neat device, technically clever and as easy to control as its promoters say. I didn't fall of it like George Bush did. I also think the developers did very well to produce it at all. However, that doesn't get over the basic pointlessness of the device. A bicycle is more useful in every way.

Mind you, there's no end to the silly ideas which get a bit of publicity every so often. Some people simply can't get used to the idea that bicycles actually are a really good way of getting about and they'll suggest virtually anything else. The Independent has even recently suggested that cycle lanes should be shared with horses. There are many impracticalities (e.g. are there enough stables should everyone decide to ride a horse ? Who will look after them ? How many injuries will be caused due to people thrown from horses ?) and I can also think of a brown, slippery and very smelly reason why this is a bad idea...

The Guardian writes about Fiat supporting a competition which picked a modified snowboard with handlebars as a good transportation alternative. They suggest that a skateboard would be a better alternative. It sometimes seems anything is to be considered in place of the already existing and proven bicycle.

I've nothing against horses, segways, snowboards, nor the people who ride any of these things. However, they are all examples of distraction technologies. Things that are promoted as ideal forms of transport when they are not, and when the truly practical alternative - the bicycle - is ignored by the British press, even though they're susceptible to reproducing the most preposterous green wash.

Even over emphasis on cycle training is missing the point. The reason that people don't cycle is that cycling feels unsafe. It is also viewed as inconvenient. If you really want to increase the rate of cycling, you need to tackle these problems directly by increasing subjective safety and directness so that people find cycling an attractive means of transport.

8th April 2009 update. Here's another example. I also recently wrote about over-reliance on the price of fuel.

Update 2014: This stuff just keeps on coming. There's now a proposal for London to have "Skycycle", a network of cycle-paths built in the sky. This is a proposal for a very sparse network (220 km in total, about the same as the length of cycle-paths in Assen, but London's population is more than 100x as large) which won't go near most homes or most destinations. It's another distraction from what is really needed.

Luckily, it's crazy enough that it'll probably never be built. However, it will waste time, and London really does not have time to waste.

The picture at the top is of another, older, distraction technology: The "Bicycle Railroad". This was a late 19th century idea of a pedal powered monorail, which come back time and time again. This example is in the Velorama bicycle museum.

Walking the dog

It's legal here to walk a dog while cycling.

It's great for the dog too, as they get to go a little faster than a human's walking pace, which is like a snail's pace for a large dog.

Most of all, though, it's pleasant for people as they feel happy enough to do it.

The law seems to think that more than one dog would be difficult to control while cycling. Only one dog at a time is legal. However, I've seen people ride right through the very centre of cities here with two dogs on leads.

It's not just dogs that get to have this fun. The photo on the right shows someone leading a horse.

There's a different attitude to safety on bikes here, brought about by a much higher level of safety for cyclists than in most parts of the world. Both of these photos were taken on the cycle paths which are a large part of the reason for the very high subjective and actual safety.

There are no helmets, no fluorescent clothing, no vehicular cycling. Riding a bike here is safe without those reactions to a hostile environment. I'm not mocking those who adhere to such things presently. They can make sense in context. Back when I lived in the UK I also did all of these at different (or sometimes the same) times. I also used to think it wasn't a good idea to lead a dog by bike...

A later blog post includes a video of walking harry by bike. So also products for cycling with pets.

We sell some solutions for carrying dogs by bicycle

The first photo is of me with our dog, Harry. He also appears on youtube. Another way to transport a dog is in a bike basket. I also have a later post including a video of cycling with Harry.