You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/spectacular-new-floating-cycle-roundabout/ ]Beautiful[/url]
Glorious. Just come back from Belgium, and feel very depressed to be cycling on UK roads again. 😥
It's the eternal question of " why can't we do this here ? "
*sigh*
Looks great but it's clearly a comparatively hideously expensive piece of infrastructure for a set of cycle lanes. Whilst it's obviously a brilliant solution I couldn't imagine something like that being built in possibly more than 3 or 4 countries, if even.
That is fantastic 🙂
The expense was rather more justified as a statement piece of architecture. Using a more conventional bridge technique would be far cheaper with the same ease of use if not the same aesthetics.
*whistful dreams*
it's clearly a comparatively hideously expensive piece of infrastructure for a set of cycle lanes. Whilst it's obviously a brilliant solution I couldn't imagine something like that being built in possibly more than 3 or 4 countries,
Wow, that's a serious lack of ambition. Here's the cyclist/pedestrian only bridge in Carmarthen.
[img] 
[/img]
If they can build nice traffic-free infrastructure like this in [i]Wales[/i], what excuse do we have? 😉
Wonder how long before people are racing round that? would have been more fun if it was sloped like a proper cycle track?
[img] 
[/img]
They missed a trick by not make it "pumpable" 😉
Good point.... Sloped like a velodrome but then with gap jumps over the entrance/exit points. They definitely missed a trick.
Pont King Morgan, lovely bridge that is.Here's the cyclist/pedestrian only bridge in Carmarthen.
But going as it does from the station car park to the side of the A4242, it's much more useful for pedestrians than cyclists. But it's still probably the nicest thing built in Carmarthen since the Romans left.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975564 ]Economic cost[/url] of each road death in the UK is estimated at something like £1.7 million - if infrastructure like this helps to avoid just a single cyclist fatality then it must be worth it; add in the social and emotional costs associated with a fatal accident and it should be a no-brainer for a developed society.
It does connect up to two NCN routes on the station side. But I'd concede that it's another example of the "dual network" style of cycle infrastructure we have in the UK, with circuitous, barrier-clogged mixed-use routes aimed at less confident cyclists, and scary roads for confident cyclists who actually want to get somewhere.
But hey ho. Bloke above says "we can't build fancy bridges for cyclists". He wrong.
It's very impressive but only seems to replace existing cycle lanes with a quicker more elegant solution. The same expenditure on completely new lanes in areas that didn't have them would seem a much better use of resources.
Tonyplym that isn't going to save a single life whereas new lanes might.
Of course if the entirety of the Netherlands is already 100% cycle laned up then it's a great idea and looks fantastic as well.
Brilliant comment by a Dutch cyclist on the [url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/ ]As Easy As Riding a Bike[/url] blog:
"Being asked if in the Netherlands cyclists are allowed on the road/highway is as baffling to us as it would be to you if an American asked you whether, with the NHS and all, you are forbidden to remove your child’s appendix in your garden shed. It is totally irrelevant."
Tonyplym that isn't going to save a single life whereas new lanes might.
If you read that article it explains the rationale for building it. Previously it was traffic light controlled and there was still potential for accidents, even if it was just due to people's stupidity or carelessness. The new design has no lights to jump and therefore less potential for accidents.
even if it was just due to people's stupidity or carelessness
So spend the money where the accidents cannot be avoided by the victims. If you jump a light and get hurt then that's not an accident that's you making a bad call.
But what if it's someone else jumping the light? And victim-blaming aside, people make "bad calls" every day; they shouldn't have to end in injury or death.
Look at the way safety has been designed into our homes and workplaces. Unless you use your electrical appliances with the casings taken off, you're very unlikely to be killed by them. Roads are also being made safer by design (through barriers, rumble strips, lighting and signage) but none of these things help vulnerable road users.
Right, I'm moving to Holland. They have mountains there right?
So do you think that this project was the most cost effective way of saving cyclists lives in the Netherlands? That the same money spent on new lanes in areas that didn't already have them would have less impact? I don't believe that.
I wasn't saying that its the MOST cost effective way . . . only that there's a good case for significant infrastructure investment such as the project shown because it only has to contribute to the avoidance of a single serious or fatal accident in order to be a net financial benefit to society. A less aesthetically striking design might have been cheaper to build, but it sounds like the local authority were trying to make a political statement with this structure.
There are very few places in holland that dont already have cycle lanes
It's not just about accidents (although roundabouts are a good place to improve safety. Anecdotally, the few friends who've had bike accidents have either been doored or it's happened at roundabouts) but also about making cycling convenient, quick and attractive and this does all of those.
Then you get more people cycling, a healthier population (the Netherlands has less heart disease than the UK, despite a seemingly ham, cheese and pancake-based diet - OK I'm generalising slightly) and a better overall standard of living. Saying fancy cycle infrastructure is poor value would only be correct if no-one was using it.
The majority of roads in the Netherlands aren't "cycle laned up" and never will be, but where they do it, they do it right.
Of course if the entirety of the Netherlands is already 100% cycle laned up then it's a great idea and looks fantastic as well.
Pretty much I think
So do you think that this project was the most cost effective way of saving cyclists lives in the Netherlands?
Maybe not, but that's not the only reason things get done -
"Every day 25,000 vehicles pass this junction. The city wanted to emphasize this importance. Eindhoven is considered a brain port and feels it has a leading role in innovation and technology. All those qualities had to be reflected in the high quality design for this new piece of infrastructure: “spectacular in simplicity”."
"The area is full of new housing with a lot of children and especially for those kids cycling to school, the new situation is far better. Now, both types of traffic are completely separated in time and also in place, so cyclists can pass this large junction safely and without stopping."
There are very few places in holland that dont already have cycle lanes
On busier roads, yes. On quieter residential streets I think they tend to favour other solutions like traffic management. The main thing is they have a proper network, unlike the UK which tends to have quite disjointed cycle facilities.
On quieter residential streets I think they tend to favour other solutions like traffic management.
Absolutely - residential streets don't have segregated facilities but they're pretty much all 'filtered permeability' - no through road for motor vehicles - so the only vehicles on them are local and the space is often shared.
It doesn't mean there are no collisions - I saw one when I was last in Amsterdam - but when they do happen they're at very low speed (sub 20mph vs the 30+ you get on London back streets). [url= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/ ]Everything you ever wanted to know about Dutch cycling facilities[/url]
Right, I'm moving to Holland. They have mountains there right?
They might not have them now, but they could have them soon:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-09/02/man-made-mountain
A very elegant solution.
One thing I like is that there are only a few small direction signs. If something like it were build in the UK, it would probably be smothered in signs and road markings telling you what you must and must not do.
Amazing ! I hope Boris sees that, then he can pop one of those over every roundabout in London and the counties.
It's very impressive but only seems to replace existing cycle lanes with a quicker more elegant solution.
Could say the same about many road building operations in general.
On quieter residential streets I think they tend to favour other solutions like traffic management.
Yep, but they also have the advantage that motor traffic seems hugely respectful of cyclists, even where there are only one or two. My wife would never ride a bike on a road here (Belgium) but she will do it (with a little persuasion) in the Netherlands.
motor traffic seems hugely respectful of cyclists
Yup, that's because everybody cycles, so no concept of "them and us".
I remember waiting to cross from a cycle track on one side of the road to a track on the other side. A big 4WD just stopped in the middle of the road, and it took me a while to work out that the driver was waiting for me to cross (even though it was an uncontrolled crossing point, and I didn't have priority).
About 25% of the 36000km of cycle tracks in the Netherlands is unsegregated, but still feels very safe to ride on, in my experience.
Absolutely fantastic place to cycle, and it does make you weep to come back to this country and see the state of our transport system.
so rather than having cars moving relatively freely on a roundabout they now have to stop, sit and wait for a green light?
i have always though roundabouts are a good way of keeping the traffic flowing.
could they have built tunnels for the bikes rather than an elevated cycle path for a similar cost, thus not affecting traffic flow?
either way..... they're dutch.
so rather than having cars moving relatively freely on a roundabout they now have to stop, sit and wait for a green light?
No, the roundabout was traffic light controlled before, and was a PITA because even when it was green there would be a constant stream of bikes going past so you could never pull onto it. Most large junctions whether roundabouts or not are traffic lighted, the ones that aren't traffic lighted are a pain because the Dutch don't seem to know how to indicate.
could they have built tunnels for the bikes rather than an elevated cycle path for a similar cost, thus not affecting traffic flow??
Pretty much all the roundabouts on that road have tunnels for bikes. The Hovenring isn't being lauded as the most practical solution, it just looks cool and Veldhoven / Eindhoven are pretty affluent areas with a big surplus in the 'geemente' coffers, so why not?
motor traffic seems hugely respectful of cyclists
As well as everyone cycling, one big factor which influences motorist behaviour is that the default position is that the motorist is at fault if they hit a bike, the onus is on them to prove their innocence.
[quote=leffeboy ]My wife would never ride a bike on a road here (Belgium) but she will do it (with a little persuasion) in the Netherlands.
I was hugely impressed with belgian cycling when we did a quick three day road trip earlier this year (zeebgrugge - ghent - ypres - zeebrugge), if dutch cycling is much better it must be fantastic!
[quote=alpin ]so rather than having cars moving relatively freely on a roundabout they now have to stop, sit and wait for a green light?
i have always though roundabouts are a good way of keeping the traffic flowing.
Well the first point about lights has been dealt with, but having traffic lights on roundabouts is not unusual, we have loads around here (east / south manchester) including one at the junction of the M67 and the M60, where there are no bikes at all
From doing the Tour of Flanders Sportive earlier this year, it seems that cycle paths are certainly prevalent in Belgium, and they're pretty good on the whole, but not as wide as Dutch standard specifies and tend not to be segregated except by bevelled kerbs. So I could understand why someone who's cycled in Holland wouldn't like them.
the default position is that the motorist is at fault if they hit a bike, the onus is on them to prove their innocence.
I hear this quoted a lot, but my understanding is that it's civil liability only (i.e. it only takes effect when it comes to sorting out insurance claims) and isn't that big a deal.
There's definitely a different attitude over there though, news reports of collisions between motorists and bikes are similar in tone to reports of pedestrians being knocked down by cyclists over here.
Bloke above says "we can't build fancy bridges for cyclists". He wrong.
+1
[img] 
[/img]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateshead_Millennium_Bridge
And also...
[img] 
[/img]
Not a particularly exciting bridge, but it's part of an exciting project.
And here is an example of a much much uglier, but considerably cheaper UK solution to crossing a roundabout that is about 2 minutes from where I am right now:
i have always though roundabouts are a good way of keeping the traffic flowing.
That was my understanding but I'm seeing more and more signal controlled roundabouts all over the place. M4 J24 Newport east is now some crazy arrangement with a road through the middle of it as well so that for one route you don't actually go 'round'. I'm not a traffic engineer but suspect that there's a level of congestion beyond which roundabouts don't work - if traffic is coming in a constant stream you can't join - and as the UK road network gets ever more congested more and more roundabouts 'break'.
Yeah. I suspect the other issue is that large numbers of drivers completely fail to negotiate roundabouts correctly, so the lights at least keep them at safer speeds.
<sarcasm> Are you suggesting they're dealing with bad and dangerous driving through expensive changes to infrastructure - I thought that all problems could be solved with a bit of training </sarcasm>
🙂
I thought that all problems could be solved with a bit of training
And helmets. Don't forget helmets 😀
if that roundabout was built in the UK, there would be "Cyclists Dismount" signs and baffle fences every 10 meters.
The Local Transport Note on cycle facilities says:
The sign to diagram 966 (CYCLISTS DISMOUNT) may be used together with the sign to diagram 965, or on its own. [b]The sign should be provided only where cyclists are required to use a pedestrian crossing facility that they cannot legally cycle on, at the entrance to a pedestrian area, at a location with a low headroom or width restriction (e.g. a subway or bridge) or at places where visibility is restricted to such an extent that cycling would be unsafe [/b]
We have fairly decent guidelines in the UK (albeit with a few glaring issues, like merging with main road traffic at narrow points) but traffic planners are free to ignore them.