Red carpet for pedestrians

Groningen's great success in cycling has lead to problems which are not so common elsewhere. One of these is the enormous number of bicycles which need to be accommodated.

Sometimes the pavements (sidewalks) are so attractive for cycle parking that there is little space left for pedestrians to walk on.

In some of the busy areas where cycle-parking puts pedestrians under pressure, Groningen uses red carpets to indicate places where you may not park your bike in order to preserve some space for walking.

The film shows how this works in practice:

Note that the textual captions on this video are only visible if viewed on a computer and not on a mobile device

Our study tours include a visit to Groningen where you will see the red carpet in use.

Bus stops which don't cause problems for cyclists (bus stop bypass, floating bus stop)

This is old infrastructure dating from
the 1980s which no longer exists in
Assen. It was already understood how
to prevent conflict between cyclists,
bus drivers and bus passengers

Buses and bicycles do not mix well. While buses are very large, cyclists are very vulnerable. While average speeds through a city can be similar, buses stop and start regularly, pulling into and out of bus stops as they do so, while cyclists gains their efficiency by not having to stop and start.

The best bus stop bypasses are those
you don't even notice while cycling
like this example in Assen. A four
metre wide cycle-path behind
the bus-stop, with cycle-parking.

Putting cycles and buses in the same space is simply bad design. Conflict is caused as cyclists get repeatedly cut-up by buses pulling into bus-stops, cyclists then have to either wait behind or overtake the bus in order to be able to continue at a reasonably consistent pace. This can happen many times on long streets leading to frustration amongst both the cyclist and the bus driver, and that sometimes contributes towards dangerous incidents, of a type which you don't have to look too far to find on youtube these days. It's very disappointing to find combined bus/cycle lanes are part of London's "Superhighways".


To see all the explanatory captions this video must be viewed on a computer and not a mobile device. Note that the first example no longer exists. There is a programme of constant improvement in Assen.
There are ways of removing conflict between buses and bikes, and much of this can be achieved at the bus-stop itself, even on roads without cycle-paths, by giving the cyclist a better option than to ride with the bus.

That's as close as I could get to where
the bus-stop used to be. Note huge
sewage pipes. Everything is being
renewed at once.

The first example in the video is of an older bus-stop. Examples like this have existed in the Netherlands for at least thirty years (definitely by 1981). My video showing the first type dates from 2008. This stop doesn't actually exist any more as the entire road was considered to be a little past its time, and is now in the middle of a major face-lift which will deprioritize it as a through route for motor vehicles.

The second example in the video, with the cyclist completely segregated from the road, is on a relatively new cycle-path from here to Groningen, part of what was at one time my commuting route. In the video I'm travelling at approximately 35 km/h. I have ridden here at 40 km/h. The cycle-path is designed to support high speeds.

A third example, not in the video:

This stop shows how much the same thing can be achieved on a road (in this case in Eindhoven) where there is inadequate space to have a cycle-path, a bus-stop lane and the road itself. The bus-stop is between the cycle-path and the road, taking up a space in what would otherwise be a row of resident's car parking spaces. When the bus stops, it blocks the road, but not the cycle-path. The road can be narrower than before because it does not need to be wide enough to allow for buses passing cyclists or one driver passing another. In this case also, the cycle-path is continuous along the road on both sides:


Grotere kaart weergeven

In all these cases, which are not exceptional but typical of bus-stops in general in the Netherlands, subjective safety of cyclists is enormously improved over cycling in a lane with the bus because the bus is far from the cyclist. Being next to a bus is precisely the sort of thing that puts people off cycling. The examples with full segregation obviously work better than the older example with the on-road cycle lane. However, the example with the online lane is something which takes up little space and costs little money and should be relatively easy to get support for in other places. Note that being away from the bus also improves journey times for cyclists by removing the need to stop and start for buses.

See more examples of well designed bus bypasses.

This post has been updated to use the term "floating bus stop" because this newly term (2014) has become commonly used to describe bus stop bypasses

Three Way Street - Chaos in New York

Mike Rubbo sent me a link to this video by Ron Gabriel. It's very nicely made, and shows very dramatically the points of conflict which he saw over a brief period of time.

However, I think the way Ron himself as well as other people who have commented on the video talk about what they see is quite telling.

The discussion on Vimeo and on the blog is about "long-standing bad habits" of users of various modes, about "selfish people" and enforcement of the law.

I don't see the behaviour at this junction as being about "bad habits". What I see is simply a very badly designed junction which almost invites people to behave in the way that they do.

Dutch road junctions don't look like and work like this - the designs are different for a reason: A long-standing theme of Dutch road design is the concept of Sustainable Safety. Conflict is removed, collisions are therefore rare and the consequences of those collisions which remain are relatively small compared with other countries. Roads are made self-explanatory so that excessive signing is not depended upon to reduce bad behaviour but the way in which people behave is changed because of their environment. Less "enforcement" is needed when people have no reason to want to do dangerous things. This has resulted in the safest roads in the world.

The links below take you to several examples of these principles at work, some of which if adopted in New York could reduce the problems at junctions like this:

• Simultaneous Green lights for cyclists, keeping cyclists and motor vehicles apart.
• Roundabouts designed to keep modes apart.
• Avoidance of traffic lights for cyclists
• Short delays for crossing the road for cyclists and pedestrians
• Cycle Paths to provide cyclists with their own space
• Streets which prioritize cyclists, or pedestrians, over drivers (not just back streets, but those which take the most direct route)

Most of these examples deal with cycling more than other modes. The others deal with pedestrians. There are reasons for this emphasis.

It's quite common in other countries that cyclists are singled out for more criticism than other groups. There is a reason for this. While there are sidewalks for pedestrians and roads for drivers, cyclists have no true place of their own and are left with a choice of "sharing the road" rather unequally with motor vehicles or riding illegally on the sidewalk. Cyclists are an out-group not only in social terms but also in terms of road design.

Road design overall is in general rather too dominated by motor vehicles. That's certainly the case in New York, and while New Yorkers walk quite a lot, conditions for cycling remain poor. This contributes to the still very low cycling rate of the city. There is an inadequate level of all three types of safety for cyclists and the lack of subjective safety is especially clear from watching the video.

Even amongst those who are brave enough to cycle in the city, few would want or encourage their children or grandparents doing the same thing.

There is a solution to this problem, but it doesn't come from maintaining the design status quo while enforcing rules. Design of infrastructure needs to change to reflect the usage which you want to have and to encourage people to behave in a safe way. It's especially important at intersections.

Peace breaks out between cyclists and drivers

Please note that this video has explanatory captions which are only visible if viewed on a desktop computer. You will not benefit from the explanation if you view on a mobile device.

The video shows one of the simultaneous green junctions in Assen. At junctions like this, which are increasingly common in the North of the Netherlands, cyclists travelling in all directions are given green lights at once and can cross in any direction including diagonally. While cyclists cross, the junction holds all motor vehicle traffic behind red lights. Therefore all conflict between bikes and cars is removed.

Simultaneous Green junction. Cyclists go in all directions at once, and while the lights are green for bikes, all motor vehicles have red lights. Complete safety, as well as convenience and speed for cyclists.

Simultaneous Green also can be combined with other measures. At this particular junction cyclists can make conflict free right turns against a red light at three of the four corners. On one corner of the junction it is also possible to make a left turn against a red light without conflict.

Note how even large trucks can pass through the junction without causing any concerns to cyclists because cycles are separated from motor vehicles in both time and space.

Disabled person on a tricycle leads
the charge diagonally across a large
SG junction in Groningen

Dutch roads are engineered to remove conflict. This is a large part of the reason why it is that cycling is subjectively safe enough that cycling is a common activity for all age groups. In the video you'll see many adults and children, and also disabled people using the cycle paths. None feel threatened. They do this not because of a false feeling of safety - the high subjective safety that they feel is backed up by conditions which make Dutch cyclists the safest in the world even if in many cases they are groups of distracted teenagers, people making telephone calls as they cycle, or whatever.

Very large junction in Groningen
with successful SG treatment

Drivers are not permitted to use cycle paths, and cyclists are not permitted to use these roads. This is something which people from other countries who don't understand often object to. However, in situations like this there is simply no gain to be had by riding on the road.

Very small example in Assen, equally
successful. SG junctions scale well
to all sizes and do not have to take
up a lot of space. See several
examples on our study tours

The delays here for cyclists are not so short as in the example which I showed a few days ago. Here, cyclists and drivers have the same timings at the traffic lights and are delayed equally. However, cyclists actually have a significantly shorter average delay than drivers because only cyclists can make some of their turns without stopping at all.

If you were to ride on the road then you would on average have to wait longer than if you used the cycle path. It is quite clear where the desire is: cycle paths sometimes have barriers to stop drivers from using them but roads don't have barriers to stop cyclists. There are many examples on this blog of places where cycling infrastructure improves speed for cyclists vs. drivers.

The video was made from the North East corner of the junction in this map, pointing the camera to the West:

Note how the four corners of this junction are each different from one another. Simultaneous Green junction design works at asymmetrical junctions and it scales from joining very small roads (one example is Assen is a single lane for cars with contra-flow cycle-lane to very large junctions. Click for larger map

The number of cyclists shown in the video is typical for an average morning in April. I tried counting, but it's rather difficult to do so. There are in any case over a hundred bikes in the first five minutes. Some times of day are more busy, some less so. Assen is quite a small city, with only 65000 residents, but on average they make over 70000 journeys each day between them.

How the junction was at the start of 2007.
The old-fashioned "protected intersection"
design which some people still think looks
futuristic. Don't campaign for this old design.
It is very much less convenient for cyclists
and certainly not safer. There have been
no reported cyclist crashes or injuries at this
location since the junction was improved.

While this video and blog post illustrates one junction, the pleasant conditions it creates for cyclists are not atypical but the norm. There is no need for everyday cycling to be a competition for inadequate space or a fight for dominance. It is not necessary that cycling should be about being strong enough (physically and mentally) to take on the roads, nor is it necessary that cyclists should need to be confident enough to "take the lane" to prevent larger vehicles from causing danger. Cycling does not have to be an extreme sport. Rather, for most trips, most of the time, cycling should merely be a way of getting to your destination, quickly, safely and without stress. That's what it's like here.

Finally, if you're thinking that this road is much wider than roads in your own country, you're probably wrong. This street, Groningerstraat, is actually the same width as a road in Cambridge in the UK which is supposedly "too narrow" for proper cycle provision. The excuse of "we don't have enough room" is rarely, if ever, actually true. The Dutch find space for bikes, no matter what the width of the road. In fact, this junction itself shows an example of this. The Western side is more cramped than the Eastern side, but both sides work as well as they can for cyclists, given the available space.

2013 update:
It's perhaps of interest that transforming this junction cost just €32K from the cycling budget. Transforming the entire road was not very expensive either by the standards of other countries. Not only is the Dutch budget for cycling larger than in other countries, it's also spent far more efficiently than in other countries. As well as matching the expenditure level, the efficiency also needs to be matched if you want to "catch up" with the Dutch.

This new video shows the same junction as at the top of this post from the point of view of a cyclist travelling from the South West to the North East of the junction.

More examples of what works.

Road rage on Dutch roads

The same spot two days later. Not the same cars or drivers.

This Thursday I had my first "road rage" incident since we moved here nearly four years ago. It's taken that many years, and about 40000 km of riding for one slightly unpleasant thing to happen to me. I used to expect it far more frequently in the UK.

On my commute, there is only one place where this could happen. Haren. This small town, just south of Groningen, is famous for its Shared Space, and I've also written before about how drivers ignore the speed limit on the very road where the incident occurred.

Many people I know, and myself too, avoid cycling through the Shared Space area because it's unpleasant to cycle through. I always take the back streets through Haren, avoiding the area with the shops in it (which also of course means that I've never bought anything from those shops). Many drivers also avoid it because it's horrible to drive through. The result is that Haren is the only place I've found so far in the Netherlands which has a problem with rat-running - drivers trying to avoid the Shared Space area instead drive aggressively through these back streets. Shared Space creates problems even outside its own boundaries due to these extra cars in the back-roads which ought to be properly be the preserve of cyclists and residents

The back roads have 30 km/h speed limits, but they are not arranged so that they are especially inconvenient for drivers to use as through routes. As a result of this, they have become de-facto main routes for drivers avoiding the Shared Space. Almost no drivers adhere to the speed limit.

Having given some background, here's what happened:

I was riding along Nieuwlandsweg at 36 km/h. This is well above the 30 km/h speed limit, but I've become accustomed to being overtaken by almost all cars here whatever speed I ride. As I approached the junction with Hertenlaan and Onnenweg, I could see a car in my mirror which was rapidly approaching from behind. When I got to the junction, there was traffic coming from the right which I had to give way to (that's the law - everyone gives way to the right). The first of these vehicles was a tractor pulling a trailer, and it was was followed by two cars. Due to having stopped, the car behind me caught up with me and stopped right behind me.

When the vehicles from the right had made their turn, I set off and almost immediately was close behind the second car. It turned out that the tractor was doing a maximum of 28 km/h and all of us were following it at this low speed. This didn't stop the driver behind me from becoming impatient and trying to overtake, but it was impossible so instead he/she went into the middle of the road, got 3/4 of the way past me and then started tooting the horn. I got in front and rode as close as possible to the centreline at 28 km/h (the speed of the cars and tractors in front of me) until first the car behind turned off to the left and sped down a side-street in the general direction of the shops and offices, and later on the cars and tractor in front turned down other side roads and I could get back up to a normal cruising speed.

As these things go, it was actually very minor. I wasn't crashed into or pushed off the road deliberately, nothing was thrown at me, no-one punched me. After I made it clear that I was staying where I wanted to be, the driver pulled back and didn't follow excessively close behind. However, these things which I've mentioned all happened to me when I lived in Britain, and they all happened a lot more often than once in every 40000 km of cycling. By comparison, cycling here has been miraculously free of hassle from drivers.

However, that's not because Dutch people behave particularly differently when behind the steering wheel of a car. As this incident shows, put people in the same situation and they behave in much the same way. In general, Dutch road designs call for design to be obvious so that correct, safe behaviour becomes the way that people will naturally drive. This incident occurred in a rare place where drivers and cyclists are crushed together, creating conflict.

I've long believed that the main reason why conflict between cyclists and motorists is rare in the Netherlands is that we exist mainly in parallel universes, and rarely have to directly interact. As a cyclist, either you're on a cycle path, or you're on a road which doesn't have cars on it. This rare exception shows how it should not be done.


Grotere kaart weergeven

Pedestrianization without adverse effects for cyclists

Explanatory captions on this video are visible only if you play the video on a computer and not on a mobile device.

It may seem surprising to some, but these photos and video show a pedestrianized area in the Netherlands. It's in the shopping and social centre of a brand-new housing development on the outskirts of Assen. Cyclists are allowed. The signs say so.

These are not old buildings in an old city centre. Everything you see here was built in 2009 and 2010. The official opening was in December of 2010. Shortly before, this was farm land.

It's a very child friendly place. Children can be seen in the video running amok in front of a delivery van, which has to move at a very slow speed as a result. They also ride on various small-scale human powered vehicles in the shopping streets. This suburb was designed to enable 2/3rds of primary school children to cycle to school.

Everyone knows that pedestrians come first here, and behaviour is according to this principle. But note that the design is according to this principle as well.

Cyclists are allowed to cycle all the way through the pedestrianized zone, and ample cycle parking is provided outside all the shops to encourage cyclists.

However, this is not a through route for cyclists. Cyclists whose destination is elsewhere, and who wish to get wherever they are going faster, will take other more convenient, faster routes rather than riding through here. This is important as it makes no sense at all to have a pedestrianized area which is also a major through route for cyclists.

What's more, it's actually unusual to see a van being driven in this location. A delivery only road built behind the shops serves for most deliveries.

You can see the main route from the centre of this city to the centre of this housing development in a previous blog post. Another post shows part of the route in the opposite direction.

You may be wondering what happens should you want to drive here ? Well, actually you can do that too. This whole place is in fact built on top of an underground car park. Residents living in apartments here not only have the legally required secure bicycle parking, but also have have allocated secure car parking under the development. Visitors to the shops can also drive.

Aerial photograph from 2007.
No permanent buildings yet in the
centre, but many facilities were
provided as temporary buildings.

Car parking here is free of charge. It often is so in the Netherlands, a country which is not "anti-car" as some cycling advocates imagine it must be. Should we ever want to buy a large item here which could not easily be transported by bike, there would be no problem with driving to these shops. However, we probably never will do this. Cycling is too convenient.

Free indoor car park. It never fills up.

The only driving route from our home to this place (in blue) has two sets of traffic lights on it and three roundabouts. It starts off by heading in the wrong direction, and the distance is significantly further than any of the many plausible routes by bike (some shown in red). Additionally, if we cycle then we can park our bikes directly outside the shops. A car would be buried somewhere underneath and involve a few minutes walk to the shops:

If it were not possible to park your bike immediately outside the shops, and if bikes had to be placed in the same underground car-park as cars, then this would make the car much more competitive in terms of time. Perhaps it could even be quicker than cycling if you were lucky at the traffic lights.

This is why in order for pedestrianization not to favour the car over the bike, it has to accommodate cyclists very well. That's exactly what we see here. The sign shows that it's a pedestrian area, but underneath it says "cycling allowed". A nice simple message, and an essential one. Take away easy access by cyclists and you actually create a car-oriented pedestrianized area which promotes driving over cycling. I've seen that before,  more than once.

Free indoor cycle-park at a school in
the complex. Overflowing.

This new centre provides not only a range of shops (supermarkets, baker, toy shop, stationery, flower shop, chemist, hair-dresser, opticians etc.), but also primary schools, adult education facilities, a sport hall, cafes and restaurants, a public library, a town hall, health and fitness centre, medical centre. It's a proper centre for the community. And of course all these things are convenient to cycle to.

As the whole area is not yet complete, this temporary cycle path (3.5 metres wide, smooth asphalt) provides access for people who live north of the centre:


Before any of the above was built
People lived in Kloosterveen for several years before the shopping centre shown above was built. During this time there were temporary facilities provided on the edge of the site now covered by the new central development:

Temporary car-parking by temporary supermarket, chemist, post office and snack bar

Temporary cycle-path leading directly to the cycle-parking in front of the temporary supermarket

By the provision of temporary shops, people were allowed to form the habit of shopping locally rather than arranging their lives around making longer journeys in order to go shopping.

If I show something old, someone always says "but you couldn't do if it were new". If on the other hand, I show something new like this, someone always says "but you couldn't do it if it were old". However, the city centre of Assen also provides an excellent example of somewhere which is both pedestrian and cycle friendly, and Assen is 750 years old. Where there is a will to do so, cyclists can be accommodated well anywhere. Policy in Assen prefers cycling, so we get cycling. If you do what works then mass cycling is possible anywhere.

I published this a bit earlier than originally planned after hearing about troubles with pedestrianization in Canada.

The centre which is the subject of this post has its own website.

Sustainable safety

The Dutch concept of "Duurzaam Veilig", Sustainable Safety, has lead to this country having some of the safest roads in the world. Over ten years, between 1998 and 2007, the number of traffic fatalities in the Netherlands fell by an average of 5% per year due to the policies within the framework of "Duurzaam Veilig". This is a decrease of 300-400 deaths overall, more than a 30% improvement in safety for the already relatively safe Dutch road network.

A clear downward trend in traffic deaths

So what is "Duurzaam Veilig" and what does this mean ? Let's start with what it is not. Frequently I see from the UK that there are calls for drivers to be better educated, for cyclists to be better educated, for pedestrians to wear brighter clothing so they are seen more easily and to take the responsibility for avoiding being hit by motor vehicles. This is not sustainable safety. Sustainable safety is not about punishing people for making mistakes, but about preventing those mistakes from occurring.

While a good level of education of drivers in particular (as they are the ones bringing lethal force to the roads) is important, it is never possible to completely eliminate the chance of error, or of frustration leading to violent behaviour, if conflict is designed into the way in which roads are used. What's more, people are often tired or distracted. These things cannot be solved by education, they are a result of being human.

Dutch roads are dramatically safer now
than in the early 1970s. Child fatalities
on the roads have dropped by 98%. Just
9 children died on Dutch roads in 2013

What the Dutch have done is to reduce the frequency of conflict between road users and to to reduce the lethality of those crashes which still inevitably occur. This has involved changes in infrastructure to keep vulnerable road users away from the lethal force of motor vehicles, design of junctions so that routes do not cross each other at speed, as well as some changes in the law and education of road users about how to behave in a safe way (i.e. drunk driving, taking a break on long journeys...).

Speed limit reductions are a useful tool, both in town and in rural areas (but note that merely posting speed limit signs is not enough on its own). Out of a total of 120000 km of roads in the Netherlands, 41000 km have had the speed limit reduced from 50 km/h to 30 km/h roads and over 33000 km have been reduced from 80 km/h to 60 km/h. From the article: "Currently over 70% of all 30km/h neighbourhood connector roads have speeds reduced at intersections and/or stretches of road, and 45% of 60km/h roads." It is estimated that 51 to 77 traffic fatalities were prevented by the 30 km/h roads and 60 more due to the rural 60 km/h roads.

On many of the 30 km/h roads, measures have been taken to exclude cars.

Cycle-paths well away from traffic
remove conflict and danger.

Also, roundabout construction is credited with saving an estimated 11 lives. However, it goes beyond this. Traffic light junctions in the Netherlands do not work in the same way as similar junctions in the UK. In most cases, drivers who have a green light can go without having to negotiate with other drivers or cyclists who also have a green light but who are travelling in different directions. The conflict between, for instance, cyclists travelling straight on and motorists turning right has been removed by junction design. What's more, cyclists can avoid many traffic lights therefore avoiding all the danger caused by those junctions.

The measures have proven to be socially cost-effective, as benefits are a factor of four higher than costs. It's a common theme with Dutch policies concerning transport and in particular cycling that measures are not seen as a cost, but as a benefit. The Netherlands is a rich nation, in part due to sensible design of roads.

Of course it's all OK to have the world's safest roads, but to influence people to ride bikes you also need Subjective Safety to make cycling feel safe enough that people want to do it, and want their children to do it too. This has been addressed by a number of means, leading to the world's highest rate of cycling, and happily the same things which increase real safety and work for sustainable safety also work to increase subjective safety. The result is the highest rate of cycling in the world, with very high participation by the broadest possible population of cyclists, and what this means sometimes takes people by surprise.

Read also another blog post which explains about the importance of Sustainable Safety. Also about how the necessary segregation of cyclists from drivers is achieved even without cycle-paths because cycling routes are unravelled from driving routes.

Shared Space in Haren

Shared Space: Cyclists followed closely by a
taxi keen to overtake

Over the last few years there has been much buzz in the press outside this country about Shared Space. This is the idea that if you get rid of separation between different modes of transport that everyone will be forced to interact on a more human level and a reduction of accidents will result.

It shows a remarkable faith in human nature to expect this to happen, and I'm sure we'd all like it to be true. But is it true, or is this just a case of The Emperor's New Clothes ?

Shared Space - Does the cyclist fit in that gap ?

The idea started over here in the Netherlands with Hans Monderman, who achieved some fame with these ideas before his untimely death earlier this year. I am sure that his intentions were entirely good, but having lived with the results of this type of planning for a while now, I think it is time to cut through the hype that even Hans acknowledged surrounded his work.

Shared Space - pedestrians have to wait for
gaps in traffic before running across the road

There are quite a few Shared Space influenced areas near where we now live. These photos were taken in Haren, a suburb of Groningen about 25 km north of Assen.

The centre of Haren is very busy and cyclists really need to look out there. By Dutch standards, I find it not a very pleasant place to cycle. It's the only place that I've had to do an emergency stop in this country to avoid a crash and if the Shared Space part of the town was any more than a few hundred metres long, I think I'd take another route to completely avoid it.

Take a look at the photos that I took on the way through. There are cyclists being pursued by a taxi, another who has been overtaken as he pulled out to get around a parked car, a pedestrian at the side of the road who is having trouble getting a chance to cross, and, well, cars, cars and more cars. Some of them blocking the pavement. At least the speed limit is just 30 km/h, and Dutch drivers seem more aware of their responsibilities towards vulnerable road users than some of those elsewhere.

Shared Space - cars, cars, cars. It's not for bikes.

I am far from the only person to see Shared Space in this way.

If you watch this video about Haren you will see a comment by youtube user "dgoedkoop" which reads "Heel wijs om alleen op de winkeliers in te gaan, en niet op de weggebruikers. Want de fietsers zijn er zeker niet blij mee, dat de fietspaden zijn weggehaald!

Dat lijkt sowieso het grote nadeel van Shared Space, want in het filmpje uit Drachten kwam ook al naar voren dat er 'slechts' enkele ongelukken met fietsers waren gebeurd."

This translates as "It looks like what the shop-keepers wanted, not the road users. Cyclists certainly are not happy that the cycle paths have been removed. It looks like the great problem with Shared Space, as seen in the video from Drachten, is that 'just a few' crashes between cars and cyclists have been caused."

Shared Space - more cars, few bikes

That is far from the only criticism. The link above about "hype" includes a quote starting "Ik woon zelf in Haren..."

This translates as "I live in Haren where Mr Monderman has convinced the local government that his philosophy is best. Now, many residents of Haren find the situation has become less safe. It is true that more accidents have not resulted, but the subjective safety has got worse. People feel less safe in the new situation. I think that many more near-accidents occur."

"According to Monderman, pedestrians and drivers have to be friendlier and to look out for one another, and then zebra crossings and suchlike are not needed. It doesn't work in practice. At the insistence of many organisations (parents organisations, Fietsersbond (the cyclists union), several zebra crossings have been laid."

Cartoon in the Fietsersbond newsletter

In general, cyclists do not like it. Fietsersbond has objected a few times, including in an article in the November 2007 issue of their newsletter "Vogelvrije Fietser" (that's where the cartoon comes from).

This acknowledges that Monderman had become a hero outside the country, but also includes many negative comments from cyclists in the Netherlands.

There are comments from cyclists who are interviewed in which they say that they have to look out much more and that they don't like it. That it has lead to an atmosphere of "might is right" in which some cyclists come off worse, and that it makes people less happy to cycle.

It should be noted that while there are more Shared Space areas here than elsewhere, they are still comparatively rare in this country. There are around 100 areas designed in this way, mostly just single junctions in the centres of villages and small towns. Segregated cycle paths continue to join these places together, and in most cases the majority of the infrastructure is still designed on traditional, successful, Dutch lines with a high degree of segregation of cyclists. If you've heard of Dutch infrastructure increasing the number of cyclists, that is where to look as that is what 99% of the infrastructure looks like. The majority of the infrastructure is designed to avoid conflict in line with sustainable safety principles which have lead to an improvement in safety in the Netherlands.

Pavement cycling is very rare in the Netherlands because
cyclists have cycle-paths. However, cyclists feel unsafe in
Shared Space so they use the "pavement" parts of these areas
even though it's not allowed. Not good for pedestrians. 

To me, Shared Space is at its most successful in small villages of just a couple of hundred homes which already had little traffic and where there is really not much of a problem to start with. In bigger places, it can be quite unpleasant.

Pedestrian crossings had to be installed because it turned
out that drivers don't "share" with people crossing the road.
This crossing then had to be moved because it did not work
in the original location, close to other things which
drivers had to concentrate on. Note that the cyclist feels
the need to ride far to the right in "the door zone"

One of the reasons why the Dutch have had such success with controlling traffic is that they try things out. Shared space is but one of a series of brave experiments. I am sure that the better aspects of it will continue to appear in new infrastructure, but the less successful aspects will be left behind. I note that a recent road layout change in Assen right next to a "shared space" style junction from a few years ago did not expand on the shared space but represents a return to more traditional Dutch design with segregated cycle paths.

I am glad about this. It would be foolish to abandon the high level of subjective safety that has lead to such a high degree of cycling. It would take years to build enough cycle unfriendly infrastructure to really impact on the level of cycling, but once the decline started it would carry on for decades.

Normal Dutch cycle-path outside of the Shared
Space area of Haren

For me, cycling in places like this is the closest I come in this country to the conditions in cycle unfriendly towns of the UK where cycling is a fringe activity. I find I am happy to be out of it and back on the normal Dutch provision as shown here further along in Haren.

In my view, Shared Space is the one real mistake that has been made in the Netherlands. It's not liked by cyclists, and it really doesn't work well for cyclists.

Update 13th December 2008
I've found three more references to shared space in Haren:

This one includes a response from a Haren resident which says "Citizens club Haren for elderly and children is very much against the shared space in our village Haren. The results during last elections prove this by a unknown shift in elections results. So, beware! As father of two small kids and for my elderly parrent i'm just afraid because of many, many small unregistred accidents of people bumping into each other. We fully disagree with the public statement that we should let our kids run in front off cars to slow down traffic! Just mad and our web campaign won't stop."

This academic paper includes the following in its conclusion: "...there still are noticeable conflicts, and this leads to criticisms by engaged parties, both car drivers and ‘sojourners’. They do not feel safe. In fact pedestrians and bicyclists run more risk than car drivers. The mobility of children, people with handicaps and the elderly is limited; children are not allowed to freely walk around independently; the handicapped and the elderly feel themselves cornered and obliged to use the area as little as possible. They pay the toll."

This one (from the guide dog organisation in the UK) includes this section from people who live in shared space areas: "All of the participants reported greater difficulty using shared surface areas than areas where there is a pavement separated from the road. Several participants considered that most vehicle drivers reduced their speed in shared surface areas and that most vehicle drivers and cyclists were considerate of pedestrians using shared surfaces. However one participant commented that '9 out of 10 cars would stop for me. My difficulty is recognising the 10th'. Use of shared surface areas. All except one of the participants regularly used local shared surface areas alone, without a sighted companion, but found this difficult. One participant commented that: 'We have to use these areas or we will lose our independence'. One participant, older than the others, reported that he no longer used shared surface areas unless he was with a sighted companion."

Some newer blog posts show very much better alternatives to Shared Space.

May 2012 update

High school students surveying people
in the shared space. "Is it safe here ?"

We visit Haren regularly as part of our Study Tours. On the May 2012 tour, entirely by chance, we visited at the same time as a local school was doing a project in the Shared Space. Some students were noting how often drivers gave priority to cyclists when the cyclist had priority (this is a huge problem in shared space areas as drivers tend to assume priority through force). Other students were interviewing people. I filled in a questionnaire which had questions which included whether you felt safe in Haren in general, whether you felt safe in the Shared Space area, and whether you avoided visiting Haren because of the Shared Space.

There is only one reason why this work was being done specifically about Shared Space, and that is because it remains controversial and unpopular in the Netherlands, even though some "experts" still promote it.

It was quite clear from listening to the responses given by other people that it's not popular.

Hans Monderman: 'It's a nice place to be'

2013 update
Whenever it is pointed out that Shared Space doesn't work, someone is guaranteed to pop up and claim that whatever example is being pointed at isn't a proper "Shared Space". This is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. An "attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion". It doesn't work with Shared Space because Hans Monderman himself is on record as saying that Haren's Shared Space is a good example. You can see this for yourself in a video of him talking about Haren.

Shared Space is one of a number of things which are misinterpreted from the Netherlands.  Please read another blog post which explains how while the Netherlands is still the leader in cycling, that doesn't mean that everything from that country is equally worth copying.

If "Shared Space" does not work, then what does work ?

Confident cyclists use all of a "nearly car free" street.
It is not "Shared Space" because cars are excluded.

"Shared Space" receives a lot of attention overseas despite having fallen out of favour in the Netherlands. It's not popular here and most town centres do not work on a "Shared Space" basis at all. They are not "shared".

"Nearly Car Free" or "Autoluwe" streets are very common in the Netherlands and very popular. To the uninitiated, such streets can look like "Shared Space" and it is common for these two concepts to be confused by overseas commentators. However, NCF is a concept which pre-dates the hype about "Shared Space", which remains popular, and which works precisely because the streets are not shared on an equal basis with cars. Read more about Nearly Car Free streets.

2014 Update. How safe is Haren really ? More to read

Haren's shared space is
highlighted in red. The
Blue and yellow flags
show collisions and injuries
between 2007 and 2012

There has been much speculation about whether Haren's shared space is safe. Shared Space advocates claim that there's been a reduction in collisions while those who dislike the Shared Space point out that incidents are common.

I now have figures. Between 2007 and 2012, there were 28 collisions and at least five injuries in the shared space are of Haren. As you'll see from the map on the right, the busy road leading to the shared space from the south east and away again towards the north west does not have the same rate of collisions or injuries as does the short shared space section. In about the same length of road outside the Shared Space there was just one collision and this resulted in no injuries. Read more about how the supposed safety of shared space has been exaggerated.

There are also now several other blog posts about shared space. One shows the considerably better environment which resulted from removing motorised traffic from a shared space while another demonstrates how shared space takes away the rights of the vulnerable. Both of those are illustrated with video.

All posts on this blog about Shared Space can be viewed by clicking here.

It is good that people should see for themselves what these schemes look like, and particularly cycle through them. We cycle right through Haren on our Cycling Study Tours. We also show you good examples of what works, including nearly car free streets.

I feel afraid, I get harrassed. I'm not welcome there.

The title is a comment from someone involved in Critical Mass in San Francisco and reflects the lack of subjective safety experienced by that cyclist on the streets of San Francisco other than on Critical Mass day. The interview is a part of Ted White's 1999 film "We Are Traffic", which I have just re-watched.

It's interesting to watch this film again. The protesters are a product of their situation. I can understand them wanting their one day each month of dominating streets that are normally not pleasant to cycle on. They also make some very good points about wanting to rebuild community on the streets. There is a lot of good intention there. However, while they've made a leap of imagination in their environment, they still have relatively low aspirations. One of the interviewees says about cycling as transport "Not everybody can make that decision... it's really absurd to assume that they can." The problem in front of them is so big that even the protesters are aiming low (over here cycling crosses all demographic boundaries. Young and old, rich and poor, black and white, male and female. Virtually everyone cycles. Not for all their journeys, but for a great number of them.)

I'm not a fan of "critical mass." It takes a confrontational line which unfortunately has resulted in alienation and conflict and while the views expressed in the video were generally very positive, I perceive that the confrontation has become the aim for some participants. Ultimately I feel it has amounted to very little. Most importantly, it's actually failed to create a true "critical mass." While the amount of shouting and hooting by those involved makes it sound huge, and the film is shot in such a way that there appear to be a huge number of cyclists, one of the riders in the film lets slip how many there are. He says that he counted and that there are 190-200 cyclists on the demonstration. He says "This is a big ride."

Critical mass in San Francisco has grown and now attracts an average of around 1000 participants (wikipedia). However, for a special event this is still not a largenumber given the population. San Francisco's population is over 3 million. 7 million if you include the metropolitan area.

Over here in the small city of Assen there are just 65000 people. However, between themthey make an average of more than 70000 cycle journeys every day. Critical mass is an event which really doesn't have a place in the Netherlands. There have been occasional events calling themselves "critical mass", but they're protesting about other things.

What we can never know is what might have happened in the 16 years that critical mass has been taking place in cities around the world if the participants had put their energies into taking note of where the truly successful cycling cultures are (i.e. here) and tried to replicate that success in their own countries. A thousand people spending a couple of hours once a month for 16 years amounts to over 40 man-years of effort.

For me, "We are traffic" is an interesting glimpse of another world. It's a well made film, but is limited simply because critical mass as a movement isn't offering much. However, 7 years earlier, Ted White made another film which I think is timeless and wonderful:

The conflict of the later film is missing and interviewees in this film are all glowing with enthusiasm about cycling.

The name "Critical Mass" came from "Return of the Scorcher", another Ted White film dating from 1992. It was used to describe when a group of Chinese cyclists forced their way into traffic in the film. You can see at this point that cycling is already under stress in China in the early 1990s. Once cyclists are forced to be in conflict with vehicles, the feelings expressed in the title of this blog post come to the fore. For many people this is a reason to want to be in a car. What's more, bicycles have in some instances been banned from streets. Cycling has unfortunately declined sharply in China since the film was made, but it was inevitable given what has happened in China.

"Return of the Scorcher" also visits the Netherlands. Amongst the interviews we hear a beautiful story from an old Dutch couple about their honeymoon by bicycle during the second world war (you can hear this interview at 19:30 in the video above). The Dutch cycling culture is far more healthy than the Chinese. Cycling here has increased since the film was made. The difference between this country and China is that the Dutch cyclists are being looked after in the way that infrastructure is designed. They are not expected to compete with cars on an unequal basis.

The equivalent scene of lots of cyclists crossing the roads at once in the Netherlands would be not of people having to get in the way of cars and cause them to stop, as in the Chinese example, but of the simultaneous green junctions which allow cyclists priority over all other traffic. Not only does this remove conflict on the streets, but as cyclists get a green light twice as often as drivers, it also increases the convenience of cyclists relative to drivers.

Perhaps the world would be a different place now if the name of the cycling protest had been taken from a different part of this film. One which presented cyclists in a less pressured situation, and within a country where cycling was being promoted. Perhaps if more notice had been taken of Michael Replogle's comment 22 minutes into the film that "Infrastructure tells you what to do. The way we design our streets tells you how to behave in those streets. It tells you about modes of travel to use and how to use them," then the result might have been different. Perhaps then we would see different patterns emerging in those nations where "critical mass" takes place, but where a true critical mass of cyclists still has not appeared.

Cycling needs to be for everyone, not just for a counter cultural minority.

To see infrastructure which really encourages cycling as a means of transport, come and visit us here in Assen. "We Are Traffic" is also watchable online. Also, both films are available to buy. Also note that I'm aware of the limitations regarding my crude man-years calculation.