How wide is a Dutch cycle path?

Surprisingly Dutch law doesn’t state how wide a bicycle path should be. But even though there aren’t any legal requirements there are some very strong recommendations.

One of these recommendations is the design manual “Tekenen voor de fiets” which in Dutch is a pun and means both “Designing for the bicycle” and “Committing to the bicycle” thus making clear that cities and towns following this manual make a deliberate pro bicycle choice and commit to take cyclists’ safety seriously in their municipalities.

Each municipality follows its own rules. At the border between two municipalities this cycle path doubles in width because of that.

Cycle paths

The manual mentioned above states that a one way separated (protected) cycle path should not be narrower than 2 meters (6.5Ft).

This was calculated as follows. Under Dutch law the maximum width of a bicycle is 75 centimetres (roughly 30 inches). But a cyclist can never ride in a completely straight line. Cyclists will always move sideways slightly. The distance they move from their straight line depends on skill, speed, age, experience and the weather but is set to be 25 centimetres (about 10 inches). That would equal an absolute minimal width of 100 centimetres (about 3 feet or 40 inches). But there are more factors that need to be taken into account. There is what is called the ‘shy-factor’ that indicates needed space around obstacles (pot holes, debris, bollards) but even the shadow of the kerb is a factor. Also important; the Dutch feel that cyclists should be able to ride two abreast. Not only because cycling is a social activity but especially because that means a parent is then able to ride next to his/her child. To top it all off, it must be possible for other cyclists to overtake these two riders. All this leads to that minimum of 2 meters. But when a cycle path sees over 150 bikes per hour, that minimal width goes up to 250 centimetres or 8.2Ft. For rural bicycle paths the manual advises to have an additional space between the cycle path and the road-way of 50 centimetres (20 inches) that has to be free of obstacles (like road signs or trees).

Cycle lanes

Just like cycle paths there is also no law for the width of cycle lanes. It is believed they can be a bit narrower than paths because if necessary it is possible to swerve out of the way of obstacles into the road-way.

That is why another recommendation, the “Handbook Road design” (for rural roads) gives a minimal with of 125cm (almost 50 inches). The Cyclists’ union feels that should have been at least 150cm (almost 60 inches) and such lanes should never be next to parked vehicles. Most cities follow the Cyclists’ Union or go further. The cities of Utrecht and ’s-Hertogenbosch both state a minimum of 2 meters (6.5Ft) for their (new) cycle lanes in their own road policies.

Let’s see what all this means in reality.



So the recommendations are actually followed very well. Why is that?

Because cycling is so normal in the Netherlands and almost everybody is at one time a cyclist, the public pressure to create good cycling infrastructure is enormous. The authorities in charge of the roads and streets feel obligated to stick to the recommendations. But there is another reason: liability.

The Dutch Civil Code states that authorities in charge of roads and streets carry a large responsibility for the state of their roads and cycle paths. Article 6:174 states that they have to compensate damages a road user suffers because of a poor state of a road.

Even though this means that a cyclist would have to prove that a road was in such a poor state that his or her damage is a direct result of it, it is still a strong incentive to keep the roads in a perfect state of maintenance. And while you are doing maintenance it is easy to keep the design of the roads up to the latest standards as well.

Cyclevision 2011

This year, Cyclevision was held at FlevOnice in Biddinghuizen in Flevoland. The campsite was about 100 km from home, but there was a complication in that the first event was on Friday evening at a track another 20 odd km from the campsite. I wasn't sure for a long time if I'd go, because I wasn't sure I wanted to cycle there and then take part in an event the same day. It also seemed impractical to turn up on Thursday evening for a race which didn't take place until after 8 in the evening on Friday.

Eventually I decided I would go, and make the most of it. I do it for the fun. It doesn't really matter if I perform less well than usual because I'm never in contention for any prizes anyway.

Harry also decided to ride there on Friday, so we went together. However, because I had a meeting to go to on Monday morning I decided I must come back early, missing Sunday's events. That left only Friday and Saturday.

Friday's event was a one hour time trial, held on the same 2.8 km long high speed test track as Cyclevision had used at the 2002 and 2003 events which I also took part in. Therefore it was a chance to see if I could go faster than back then. Due to having a much faster bike, I was sure I would do so, and so it turned out. However, my speed wasn't particularly impressive. Perhaps 130 km of "warm up" is just too much.

Anyway, here's the video I made going to, during and after the race. Apart from the race itself, there's quite a bit showing the cycle paths I came home on afterwards:


There are many other reports, videos, photos of the event. You can find them on the ligfiets.net website.

Many thanks to all those involved in organising this excellent event.


Grotere kaart weergeven
The last part of the video shows most of the first third of my route home. It is (more or less) as shown on this map.
Read my review of the Sinner Mango Velomobile.

Cycling infrastructure is cheaper to build than not to build

I've often written before about the growing network of inter-city cycling superhighways in the Netherlands.

Sometimes people wonder how the country can afford to build such infrastructure for cyclists. However, given the benefits which accumulate to the country from increased cycle usage, cycling should never be seen as a cost so much as as a benefit.

A new report from the Fietsberaad spells this out for the superhighways:

The proceeds that can be attributed to bicycle highways considerably outweigh the costs. The next couple of years approximately €100 million will be invested in bicycle highways in the Netherlands. That will lead to future annual profits of at least €144 million in travel time gained, better health and environmental benefits.

Goudappel Coffeng consultants has calculated this by means of a traffic model. It employed two different scenarios: one involving the construction of 675 km of bicycle highways and another one with the additional assumption that by 2020 half of all cyclists will employ an electric bicycle.
The number of car journeys will fall by 0.7% in the first scenario and if the electric bicycle continues its advance, by 1.6%. The number of journeys by public transport falls more: by 0.9% and 2.7% respectively. The number of bicycle journeys increases by 1.3 and 3.3% respectively.
Goudappel also studied the mobility effects for the region Rotterdam/Den Haag in particular. There car use decreases by 1.4 and 2.3% respectively and public transport by 2.3 and 3.9% respectively. The number of bicycle journeys increases there by 2.2 and 3.8% respectively.
For the entire country, improved bicycle provisions will cause travel times by car to fall by 3.8 million hours, as a result of less congestion, and 9.4 million hours due to increased use of electric bikes respectively. Assuming a value of € 10 for an hour’s travel by car, this will yield approximately € 40 million a year in the case with only bicycle highways, growing to €100 million with bicycle highways in combination with an increased use of electric bicycles. Health effects will contribute another €250 million to the ‘electric scenario’ according to the model calculation, as well as €8 million thanks to the CO2 reduction. Overall this leads to a profit of €358 million. For the scenario without electric bicycles Goudappel calculates proceeds of €144 million annually.

While it's normally quicker to cycle than to drive in the Netherlands, it's also worth reflecting on that cycle infrastructure makes journeys better for drivers too.

Cycling sisters

David is away this weekend at Cycle Vision so I thought I would write the blog for a change. What he doesn't know won't harm him will it?

A few days ago I was cycling home from college and whilst waiting to cross the canal a young woman and a little girl drew up beside me. The little girl looked at me, smiled, and said "fietsen leuk" - "cycling is nice". I smiled, agreed with her  and asked if they had time to stop and talk to me, luckily they were happy to do so. We stopped on the cycle path and chatted for 10 minutes and I took photos.

I discovered that they are sisters, the older sister is 19 and has just graduated and the little sister is 5 and has Downs syndrome. They often cycle together on this special tandem which they have hired from the local council for 4 years. They pointed out the waist and foot straps which keep the little girl safely on the bike even if she decides to ride "no hands" or looses concentration. Both parents also regularly cycle with the little girl and they have bought her a trike for later on for independent cycling. It was nice to meet them both, I forgot to ask their names, so thanks to the lovely cycling sisters.

Raalte - a town without "clearly visible reasons" for its high cycling rate ?

A new Fietsberaad article discusses how Raalte has "a high percentage of bicycle use without any clearly visible reasons".

When I read this article, I immediately thought this was the type of press-release from the Fietsberaad that was ripe for quoting out of context by that special breed of cycling campaigner who is against cycle-paths. David Arditti pointed out this morning that this has indeed happened.

For a reader with no experience of the Netherlands, the Fietsberaad article is actually very misleading. I've cycled through Raalte a few times now, on the way to visit a friend in Deventer. Last time, I stopped for a beer at this cafe before continuing:


Grotere kaart weergeven

The cafe is on the edge of a pedestrian area, which as is normal in the Netherlands also allows bicycles. While sitting there, any number of bikes went past. It is not a busy through route for cars.

On the way into Raalte, I rode on this cycle path, which linked up with all the other cycle paths and cyclist oriented roads which made up my 100 km journey that day:


Grotere kaart weergeven

When in Raalte, I rode on these cycle paths to get to the cafe in the centre:

Grotere kaart weergeven


Grotere kaart weergeven


Grotere kaart weergeven

Note that just like elsewhere in the country you can see all age groups cycling and especially children cycling on their own, with the high degree of subjective safety necessary to make this a reality.

On the way back out of the town, I rode along here:

Grotere kaart weergeven

For the Netherlands, this infrastructure, joining up everything, is just considered to be normal. You can go to any town in the country and find this cycle paths and roads prioritized for bikes which link up everything. Elsewhere, this would be exceptional, but for the Dutch, this is not something to make a fuss about. That is what the article is trying to say - that the town has had success with promotion of cycling given normal infrastructure for cycling but without any extra special big projects for cyclists.

It's misleading to think that Raalte used only "audacity" to achieve a high cycling rate. Like anywhere else in this country, the infrastructure of this town emphasizes cycling as a means of transport in a way you don't find outside the Dutch borders.

Please don't make the mistake of believing that the "audacity" mentioned in the Fietsberaad article has anything at all to do with promoting cycling in other countries. It doesn't. Only when you already have the extensive and well designed infrastructure can you can say you don't have to do much to get people to cycle. They're starting from a completely different base here.

Please read Mark Wagenbuur's comment which goes further in explaining the headline is a case of an unfortunate translation of the original article more than anything else.

To copy Dutch success you need to copy successful Dutch policy
We offer study tours in order to help to educate people about real cycling policy. We show what truly works as well as demonstrating what does not. Lessons are learnt from both these things. Because we're native English speakers we do not suffer from the translation difficulties which can otherwise occur.

Like the rest of the country, Raalte isn't perfect, of course. I found an obstruction there last year. However, that wouldn't have been possible if not for the fact that the cycle paths existed, and one particularly pleasant one coaxed me into riding towards the wrong end of the town.

When the shops close on a Saturday

Dutch shopping habits are often frowned upon by foreigners. Shops close early (6pm on working days) or are even closed all day (on Sundays). This means that most working people can only go shopping on a Saturday. At least before 5pm, because shops close even earlier on a Saturday...

What's that got to do with cycling? Well... why don't we stand on a street corner one such Saturday from 4 to 5 pm and see all the people coming back from that very shopping trip. The whole demography of a Dutch city cycles by right before our eyes! And it's pretty!



Many people carry bags. A lot of the bags are just hanging from the handle bars. Officially that is illegal, but that would not be widely known.

Note that all ages are represented. Not just the 20 to 40 year old commuting males. In fact that age group seems under-represented in this video. And, since this is a Saturday, hardly anyone is a commuter in this video anyway. Many children cycle on their own, some are even also unaccompanied. A great number of the cyclists are over 60, men as well as women. The weather wasn't very good that day, just 16 degrees (61F), it was very windy and it had rained off and on... but that didn't stop any of these people from taking their bicycles to go shopping.

All signs of a healthy cycling culture. But it may be under threat.

On June 22nd many people in the Netherlands became rather concerned by news reports that the European Commission would want to make it mandatory for all these cyclists to wear high visibility vests. For the Dutch an alarming thought. One Dutch member of the European parliament immediately stated: "This [report] implies that cycling is dangerous when in reality it is the safest means of transport. Cyclists should not be yellow canaries". Which from the Dutch view point is understandable. Just imagine all the people in the above video in those vests or even worse, the ones in this rush hour video. It would blind everybody! So is this really what the European Commission wants? It is always good to go back to the source of such reports. I found the press release and the message is not quite what it became in the Dutch press: "High-visibility reflective vests should be carried in vehicles for all occupants, say MEPs. Cyclists, too, should be encouraged to wear helmets and reflective vests after nightfall, they add".

"Encouraged" and "after nightfall". So not mandatory and not at all time. Still, from a Dutch view point a ridiculous idea going against everything cycling stands for in the Netherlands, where road deaths have already decreased enormously by investing in good cycling infrastructure.

The failure of British electoral reform and how it relates to cycle campaigning

There was recently a failed attempt to reform the electoral system in the UK.

Britain has for many years had a first past the post electoral system. It results in absolute rule by a small majority, and many people don't like this. Due to this system, no vote that I cast in the UK ever counted for anything, as no-one who I ever voted for got any power at all.

Many people would like to see this system replaced by a system of proportional representation which results in the views of the country being proportionately represented in parliament. This has been discussed for many years in the UK, and many people want such a system. No-one's votes would be "wasted" simply because they live in an area where they are outnumbered by people with a different view. The Netherlands has a proportional representation system, as do many other countries, and while there is much whining in Britain that this would create problems, it seems to work just fine here.

Anyway, how does this relate to cycling, and how to campaign on cycling ? Well, the recently lost vote in Britain was not on switching to a truly proportional system, but instead about a switch to using Alternative Vote. This actually is only a very minor tweak to what the country already had, and keeps the problem of the winner-takes-all aspects of FPTP. Frankly, it makes no real difference to the injustice of the voting system in the UK, but merely makes voting more complicated.

The end result of campaigning for something which no-one really wanted and few were enthusiastic about is that nothing has changed. Britain is keeping the old system. According to some, the chance of a lifetime has been lost.

However, frankly, I've rarely seen a campaign less likely to succeed than this one. What a large number of people in the UK wanted was real electoral reform, giving proportionality. There was never, and could never, be huge demand for a very small change to the existing system. The public were left wondering why they should be interested in a mere procedural change. Why bother ?

An "achievable first step" ?
People in the "Yes" group openly talked about this as "an achievable first step" towards PR, even though it's not a step at all. There is no natural progression from AV to PR. No reason for AV to exist before PR is possible.

Reform campaigners had been fooled by the opposition into making a compromise before their campaign got started. As a result, they were asking people to vote for something they never wanted in order to perhaps get to vote again later for something they did want. Naturally, there was little support for voting for something that few people ever wanted in the first place, so the campaign was always doomed to fail.

This has echoes in cycle campaigning. Self-styled "realists" amongst cycle campaigners ask not for what is actually needed and possible, but for what they think is "achievable given current standards". This also will fail to achieve mass support, and fail to achieve even the minor changes that they work towards because they will inevitably be forced to compromise again before implementation. Even the best possible result of such a style of campaigning is that a poor standard of cycle infrastructure results.

Why are both these groups so timid ? Why are they diluting their own message, and therefore losing supporters before they've even had a chance to build a movement ?

Applying the same thinking to recent successful campaigns
Let's consider what other campaigns in recent history would have achieved if they'd taken the same approach:

• Mahatma Gandhi achieved something by actually making a stand. He did not ask for slightly lower taxes on salt, he made salt himself without paying tax. Despite the obvious risks involved, this attracted a mass following.
• Nelson Mandela, with the ANC's Defiance Campaign demanded "conditions which will restore human dignity, equality and freedom to every South African." They did not ask for a slight improvement in conditions, but true equality.
• Martin Luther King said "we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." (read the whole speech. It's powerful stuff).
• The incident with Rosa Parks on the bus didn't end merely with the section sign on the bus being in a fixed position so that she wouldn't have to move in the future, but with the end of segregation on the bus and a good start on ending it in other places as well.
• Harvey Milk didn't ask just ask for gay people not to be beaten up on Tuesdays.

It is possible to get a mass movement behind real change, but not behind irrelevant change. Campaigners need to keep this in mind. When working towards change for cyclists in the UK.

These children in Assen have a right
to safety which is enforced by
sympathetic infrastructure design.

Equality ?
Why talk about civil rights and equality campaigners in the context of cycling ? Well, what else are we asking for but the equal right of cyclists to go about their lives in peace and safety without harassment and danger ? Campaigners must be bold. They must ask for the best possible result they can imagine, not an easy compromise. Compromises might be inevitable along the way, but no successful negotiation starts by asking for less than you really want and nothing good will come of celebrating a bad compromise as if it's the best possible outcome.

The Dutch campaign about child safety was the right approach. It was a big, bold issue behind which everyone could be allied, whether or not they were interested in cycling or "cyclists". This resulted in a reduction in the annual number of child deaths on the roads to a twentieth of the previous figure. That success helped to pave the way for the infrastructure which everyone in The Netherlands benefits from now.


Many people fall into the trap of having low aspirations. Make sure you're not one of them. You don't have so much time as you think.