It's quite common in the Netherlands to see couples cycling along hand in hand. It's also quite common to see people who are retired cycling, and they hold hands too.
This couple are cycling into the city centre, along one of the main routes - a bicycle road along a canal on which cycles have priority over cars.
How many hours have they spent together on their bikes ?
How many kilometres travelled ?
How many wonderful experiences shared by bike ?
In the Netherlands, the over 65s make 24% of all their journeys by bicycle.
And... what road conditions are required to make this possible ? Just how much subjective safety does it take for people to keep people cycling for their entire lives, and to allow people to continue to cycle hand in hand in later stages of their lives ? This bicycle road is no longer a through route for cars, but it does allow through travel for bikes. The result is segregation of modes without a cycle path.
Many cyclists dread roundabouts due to the need to ride fast around them (hoping not to find the road slippery due to spilt diesel), be in the right lane etc. For some people, the need to use a roundabout on the road is good enough reason to cycle along a different route or to avoid cycling altogether.
However, Dutch roundabouts don't cause these problems for cyclists due to being designed a little differently from those in the UK and most of the rest of the world. This design maximises subjective safety of cyclists.
The photo shows a typical Dutch roundabout viewed from the air.
Cyclists are not expected to use the road, but have a segregated cycle path which avoids the roundabout. Note that the central reservation on the road where the cycle path crosses is wide so that a cyclist only has to cross one stream of traffic at a time and can stop part way across the road. This choice of stopping is made by the cyclist, and is not forced when unnecessary by use of barriers.
Also note that the crossing for cyclists is one car length removed from the roundabout itself, meaning that a driver can be stopped waiting to get onto the roundabout without blocking cyclists who are crossing.
On some roundabouts, motorists must give way to cyclists crossing the arms of the roundabout, though that is not shown on this photo nor the accompanying video which shows a similar roundabout in use here in Assen. Despite this lack of priority, from personal experience I find it is rare that one has to do more than slow a little at these locations.
Note how the children ahead of me negotiate the roundabout efficiently, just regulating their speed a little to synchronize with a car coming from the right. I have to slow a little to synchronize with a passing car from the left. It is rare that you have to stop completely.
In addition to the features of the roundabout which are concerned with cyclists, there are also other differences from the British style of roundabout. Note that there is only a single lane of traffic going around the roundabout rather than multiple lanes, and also that the cars entering and leaving the roundabout have to turn quite sharply to do so. This reduces speeds on the roundabout and increases safety.
It is also quite common for cyclists to avoid roundabouts in other ways, such as by using underpasses, so that they're barely aware that the roundabout exists at all. Read more about the safest designs for roundabouts in the Netherlands.
There are now many posts on this blog about roundabouts. Please click to read them all. The photo comes from a presentation given by Wybe Nauta on the May 2008 Study Tour.
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.
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.
Stopping on a bike and restarting again has a similar effect on the cyclist to travelling hundreds of extra metres, so regularly stopping for junctions makes cycling less viable as a means of transport.
One of the many joys of cycling in this country is that the cycle paths allow you to make progress without stopping too often. There are many ways that this is arranged, including having the paths away from the roads and taking different routes. For instance, on most of our cycle journeys from home here we don't meet any traffic lights at all. I can cycle to the centre of the city seeing no traffic lights while driving there I would encounter a minimum of two sets. I can cycle to my dentist and meet one set of traffic lights, or drive there and go through five sets.
The video shows another example. At this traffic light junction the lights default to green for bikes and only switch directions to allow motorised vehicles to pass on the road if they drive up to the detector and wait for a while. They get a maximum of six seconds or so and then it's back to green for cyclists again. It's like a button controlled pedestrian or cyclist crossing, but in reverse. As you'll see in the video, I could cycle through this without stopping. I usually can.
There are other clever things done with traffic lights here, such as having a simultaneous green phase for bikes to go in all directions at once, which again increases the average speed of cyclists.
A few years ago in the UK I measured the average time for a green for a motorist or pedestrian at a crossing near where we lived and found that while motorists had an average delay of under 8 s and a maximum of 30 s, pedestrians had an average delay of 38 s and a maximum of a minute. There are also crossings at which cyclists using a shared use path have to stop and press more than one button to cross a single road. Cambridge recently installed a junction with four button presses being required to cross a single road.
Many many years ago I read an article written by Mike Burrows which said, to summarise, that if you'd done most things on a bike, and liked to go fast, but never tried racing, then it was worth giving it a go at least once as it's a very amusing thing to do and you'd probably meet some very decent people too. It prompted me to give it a try in 1999 and I found this to be absolutely right. I raced recumbent bikes from then until 2005 with the BHPC in the UK. I'd like to repeat Mike's advice. Try racing. It's fun.
In the UK I raced a Speed Ross bike which was nice and light, but competitive for racing only because of the existence of the "Sports Class" for bikes which were usable on roads as well as on a track.
I sold the Ross before emigrating so I only have one recumbent now, a rather well worn Pashley PDQ. It's a fine touring bike, but it isn't very fast. Mine is fitted with panniers, baskets and multiple sets of lights as I use it for touring.
A couple of weeks ago I was told of an upcoming race in Groningen organised by the NVHPV and the old interest was re-ignited so today I rode the bike the 30 km to Groningen this morning to take part. As expected, there were a bunch of very friendly people at the event and it was a whole lot of fun.
And the results ?
My average speed in the 50 minute race was just over 34 km/h, a result which actually surprised me as it is certainly quicker than I used to ride that bike and not far off the speed I used to ride the Ross. However, over here it's different.
Most of the entrants rode either velomobiles or low racers. There is no "sports class", and nor is one needed, as it's perfectly safe to ride these bikes over here on the cycle paths. They're also very practical machines and many of the owners use them for long commutes, or even for transporting their dog as on the right...
The winner of the race rode his velomobile at an average of 49.6 km/h. It wasn't a delicate machine unpacked from the back of a van, but was ridden to the event. On Monday it'll be used for his commute.
However, in the main race today I was second from last. It got worse in the results from the standing start lap nor the flying start as in both of these events I simply got slower and slower as I'd already used my energy on the first race !
As well as the superior bikes, I think it comes down to something that Eddy Merckx once said to an aspiring cycle racer: "ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike". The Dutch do ride their bikes. They do it an awful lot, and they're very quick on them.
Today's competitors were fast. The average speed was over 41 km/h instead of a bit over 33 km/h at the last race on a similar circuit that I took part on in the UK. In that event I finished 19th out of all 55 competitors and was first in sports class. Even at today's speed I'd only have slipped a few places. That's quite a difference. I'm seriously outclassed.
By the time I got back home I'd covered 112 km. All of it was enjoyable, including the ride home with other competitors from Assen at a speed I could keep up with on a newly constructed super smooth cycle path.
Update 30/9/2008
The winner of the race, H@rry Lieben, averaged nearly 50 km/h. He had video cameras on the front and back of his velomobile, and put these two excellent videos on youtube. I'm the guy going slowly with the baskets...
A couple of months ago, Fernando in London bought a basket and support from me to transport his dog, Fosse. Yesterday, Fernando kindly sent me some photos of the two of them taking part in the London Freewheel ride last week.
This was the second year of the Freewheel, and it was wildly successful: 100000 people were attracted to ride their bikes on 12 km of closed roads in the capital.
The success of the event shows just how attractive it is to be able to cycle without having to be constantly concerned about motorised vehicles. It's a good demonstration of how increasing subjective safety results in more people cycling, even if the improvement is just for one day.
Clearly the pent-up demand to cycle that is present in most places also exists in London.
Imagine the rate of cycling that London could achieve every day if the infrastructure in the city was redesigned with emphasis on increasing subjective safety for cyclists so that it was always to the level experienced on the Freewheel.
Fernando's basket is the extra large size that I make for transporting dogs, and it's mounted on a sturdy front rack.
I have another photo of Fernando and Fosse together, accompanied by photos of other people with their dogs on their bikes.
We organise holidays over here in the Netherlands where we always have this degree of subjective safety. We would also be very pleased to have the transport planners from wherever you live visit to take part in a Study Tour so that they can see the result of achieving this.
I noticed yesterday as I put it away that my town bike had managed to clock up exactly 4001 km on its bike computer.
The computer was given to me for Christmas by my children and fitted around the middle of January. January 15th to September 26th is 255 days, so this bike has covered an average of 15.6 km, or just less than 10 miles, each day.
So how does this break down ? First, what this doesn't include:
Two days of 90 km+ when the PDQ broke down in the middle of a tour earlier in the year and I had to swap bikes.
Is that it ? No. The PDQ also has a bike computer and has done 2500 km in the same period. It was a surprise to me that all the little daily utility rides added up to more than the "big" rides, but they do. I've no idea how far the Xtracycle has gone, but that does the post office run a couple of times a week and did a 100 km weekend due to visiting a basketmaking exhibition (only 40 km away, but I also had to get between the venue, the campsite, the barbecue etc.). The folding bikes do very little by comparison.
So, that's about 7000 km in total so far this year, and I'm in line for 10000 km by the end of the year. I'm looking forward to the next 3000 km !
And what is this bike ? It's an anonymous 1980s British made "all steel" 3 speed equipped bike with proper 26" wheels (26" x 1 3/8 or ETRTO 590 - over an inch bigger in diameter than MTB 26" wheels). It's also still got its original steel mudguards and chainguard, so it's a bike you can ride in any clothes without getting dirty. It's not light, it's not at all flashy, it wasn't expensive when new, but it's very reliable, very comfortable and definitely suitable for everyday use.
The bike actually came to me by an unusual route. It was found dumped in a lake north of Cambridge some years ago when walking the dog.
It looked a bit of a state, but the only thing that made it unrideable was the state of the tyres and needing a few more spokes in the rear wheel. It's since had a new chain (steel chainrings aren't like alloy ones and last almost forever), another set of new tyres, a proper dynamo light system (what would it have cost me in batteries by now if I used battery lights ?), new brake blocks, a new brake cable, a black hammerite paint job to replace the nasty red/white that it had from the factory, a new black saddle to match the paint (and to replace a damaged one) and a new front wheel hub when I rebuilt the wheel that last week. Apart from fixing things which had been broken by the person who'd dumped the bike, these are parts that eventually wear out on any bike.
The bike is fitted with matching front and back baskets which carry a lot of shopping between them, and it's gained a couple of small Dutch influences in the form of the very useful wheel lock and the "Blij dat ik fiets" sticker on the rear mudguard. This translates to "Happy that I cycle". And riding along comfortably on this bike, I smile as much as the figure on the sticker...
