Slashdot Mirror

The Laweiplein Shared Space "squareabout" in the small town of Drachten, highlighted in red, has been the subject of much hype. Many claims are made for a low accident rate here but the evidence does not support this. In fact, this one intersection was the scene of more cyclist crashes and injuries than the conventional Dutch roundabout a few metres to the east. It causes more injuries to cyclists than all twenty-one roundabouts in Assen combined and is the second most dangerous location in Drachten for cyclists. Blue flags for crashes, yellow where injuries have occurred.

[...]

Many sources, Wikipedia included, include a claim that "yearly accidents were reduced to 1" in the centre of Drachten due to the introduction of Shared Space. This claim does not stand up to much investigation. Even the Laweiplein on its own has double the claimed accident rate for the entire city centre, and that's just one junction. Look at the rest of the city centre, part of which is shown right, and you see many more. The claim of there being just one accident per year simple does not stand up to any analysis at all.

Eh? I see nothing unsafe about his cycling. The main danger for cyclists (motor vehicles) is far away from him.

Shame he has a crappy mountain bike, though, as that won't last too long with everyday use.

In the Netherlands, the timers are set up to benefit pedestrians and cyclists. I.e. exactly the opposite of what is described here. Not only is this far better for people walking but it also completely solves the reported problem.

The safest design for traffic lights for cyclists is the simultaneous green design. This removes all conflict and takes danger with it.

This blog extolling Dutch road design innovation is nonetheless quite dismissive of the "glowing paint" idea, and mentions the use of glass bead retroreflectors (as in the UK) as a much better idea. It makes a good case.

but this isn't one of them...

If you want to emulate the impressive road safety and convenience of roads in the Netherlands, copy the good stuff, not the hyped stuff.

There is no single place called "Europe". It's a continent with many countries, some of which have cities where as many as 60% of all journeys are by bike while others are like France, where it's almost the same as the USA and nearly all journeys are by car.

There is no single place called "Europe". It's a continent with many countries, some of which have cities where as many as 60% of all journeys are by bike while others are like France, where it's almost the same as the USA and nearly all journeys are by car.

It may seem "green" to have a school bus running on electricity, which may (there's been some discussion about this in the comments) genuinely result in slightly lower CO2 emissions from the power plant where the electricity is produced than it would be burning diesel directly, but apart from collecting children who genuinely live a long way from school, why do you still use buses at all ?

Here in the Netherlands, almost all children cycle to school. I don't just mean short distances. Some ride up to 30 km (18 miles) in each direction to get to a school of their choice meeting their educational needs.

Don't make the mistake of thinking it's easier here. This is not a warm climate like California. It's cold here in winter. The snow which falls on the cycle-paths used by the children has to be swept clear so that they can ride to school.

Not only is this a good thing for the environment and for the physical health of the children (Dutch children have a very low rate of obesity) but the freedom which children have is a good part of why UNICEF rates Dutch children as having the best well-being in the world. American children unfortunately rate very badly by comparison. Travelling by school bus, whether powered by electricity or diesel, is a large part of the reason why.

So please look further than merely to consider which energy source to use for your buses. Your children would benefit far more from a comprehensive network of cycling infrastructure which made cycling into a safe, convenient option for them.

It may seem "green" to have a school bus running on electricity, which may (there's been some discussion about this in the comments) genuinely result in slightly lower CO2 emissions from the power plant where the electricity is produced than it would be burning diesel directly, but apart from collecting children who genuinely live a long way from school, why do you still use buses at all ?

Here in the Netherlands, almost all children cycle to school. I don't just mean short distances. Some ride up to 30 km (18 miles) in each direction to get to a school of their choice meeting their educational needs.

Don't make the mistake of thinking it's easier here. This is not a warm climate like California. It's cold here in winter. The snow which falls on the cycle-paths used by the children has to be swept clear so that they can ride to school.

Not only is this a good thing for the environment and for the physical health of the children (Dutch children have a very low rate of obesity) but the freedom which children have is a good part of why UNICEF rates Dutch children as having the best well-being in the world. American children unfortunately rate very badly by comparison. Travelling by school bus, whether powered by electricity or diesel, is a large part of the reason why.

So please look further than merely to consider which energy source to use for your buses. Your children would benefit far more from a comprehensive network of cycling infrastructure which made cycling into a safe, convenient option for them.

It may seem "green" to have a school bus running on electricity, which may (there's been some discussion about this in the comments) genuinely result in slightly lower CO2 emissions from the power plant where the electricity is produced than it would be burning diesel directly, but apart from collecting children who genuinely live a long way from school, why do you still use buses at all ?

Here in the Netherlands, almost all children cycle to school. I don't just mean short distances. Some ride up to 30 km (18 miles) in each direction to get to a school of their choice meeting their educational needs.

Don't make the mistake of thinking it's easier here. This is not a warm climate like California. It's cold here in winter. The snow which falls on the cycle-paths used by the children has to be swept clear so that they can ride to school.

Not only is this a good thing for the environment and for the physical health of the children (Dutch children have a very low rate of obesity) but the freedom which children have is a good part of why UNICEF rates Dutch children as having the best well-being in the world. American children unfortunately rate very badly by comparison. Travelling by school bus, whether powered by electricity or diesel, is a large part of the reason why.

So please look further than merely to consider which energy source to use for your buses. Your children would benefit far more from a comprehensive network of cycling infrastructure which made cycling into a safe, convenient option for them.

It may seem "green" to have a school bus running on electricity, which may (there's been some discussion about this in the comments) genuinely result in slightly lower CO2 emissions from the power plant where the electricity is produced than it would be burning diesel directly, but apart from collecting children who genuinely live a long way from school, why do you still use buses at all ?

Here in the Netherlands, almost all children cycle to school. I don't just mean short distances. Some ride up to 30 km (18 miles) in each direction to get to a school of their choice meeting their educational needs.

Don't make the mistake of thinking it's easier here. This is not a warm climate like California. It's cold here in winter. The snow which falls on the cycle-paths used by the children has to be swept clear so that they can ride to school.

Not only is this a good thing for the environment and for the physical health of the children (Dutch children have a very low rate of obesity) but the freedom which children have is a good part of why UNICEF rates Dutch children as having the best well-being in the world. American children unfortunately rate very badly by comparison. Travelling by school bus, whether powered by electricity or diesel, is a large part of the reason why.

So please look further than merely to consider which energy source to use for your buses. Your children would benefit far more from a comprehensive network of cycling infrastructure which made cycling into a safe, convenient option for them.

It may seem "green" to have a school bus running on electricity, which may (there's been some discussion about this in the comments) genuinely result in slightly lower CO2 emissions from the power plant where the electricity is produced than it would be burning diesel directly, but apart from collecting children who genuinely live a long way from school, why do you still use buses at all ?

Here in the Netherlands, almost all children cycle to school. I don't just mean short distances. Some ride up to 30 km (18 miles) in each direction to get to a school of their choice meeting their educational needs.

Don't make the mistake of thinking it's easier here. This is not a warm climate like California. It's cold here in winter. The snow which falls on the cycle-paths used by the children has to be swept clear so that they can ride to school.

Not only is this a good thing for the environment and for the physical health of the children (Dutch children have a very low rate of obesity) but the freedom which children have is a good part of why UNICEF rates Dutch children as having the best well-being in the world. American children unfortunately rate very badly by comparison. Travelling by school bus, whether powered by electricity or diesel, is a large part of the reason why.

So please look further than merely to consider which energy source to use for your buses. Your children would benefit far more from a comprehensive network of cycling infrastructure which made cycling into a safe, convenient option for them.

It may seem "green" to have a school bus running on electricity, which may (there's been some discussion about this in the comments) genuinely result in slightly lower CO2 emissions from the power plant where the electricity is produced than it would be burning diesel directly, but apart from collecting children who genuinely live a long way from school, why do you still use buses at all ?

Here in the Netherlands, almost all children cycle to school. I don't just mean short distances. Some ride up to 30 km (18 miles) in each direction to get to a school of their choice meeting their educational needs.

Don't make the mistake of thinking it's easier here. This is not a warm climate like California. It's cold here in winter. The snow which falls on the cycle-paths used by the children has to be swept clear so that they can ride to school.

Not only is this a good thing for the environment and for the physical health of the children (Dutch children have a very low rate of obesity) but the freedom which children have is a good part of why UNICEF rates Dutch children as having the best well-being in the world. American children unfortunately rate very badly by comparison. Travelling by school bus, whether powered by electricity or diesel, is a large part of the reason why.

So please look further than merely to consider which energy source to use for your buses. Your children would benefit far more from a comprehensive network of cycling infrastructure which made cycling into a safe, convenient option for them.

The most effective and most economical way to reduce traffic jams has been shown to be... to build bicycle paths and encourage more cycling.

This may seem illogical, but it's not. Every extra bike really does mean one fewer car in a traffic jam ahead of you.

Cars cause far more congestion for other cars than do bikes, which are smaller and if they are ridden on separate cycle-paths (which can be designed to attract cyclists due to being faster than riding on road) then those bikes are nowhere to be seen.

The most effective and most economical way to reduce traffic jams has been shown to be... to build bicycle paths and encourage more cycling.

This may seem illogical, but it's not. Every extra bike really does mean one fewer car in a traffic jam ahead of you.

Cars cause far more congestion for other cars than do bikes, which are smaller and if they are ridden on separate cycle-paths (which can be designed to attract cyclists due to being faster than riding on road) then those bikes are nowhere to be seen.

The most effective and most economical way to reduce traffic jams has been shown to be... to build bicycle paths and encourage more cycling.

This may seem illogical, but it's not. Every extra bike really does mean one fewer car in a traffic jam ahead of you.

Cars cause far more congestion for other cars than do bikes, which are smaller and if they are ridden on separate cycle-paths (which can be designed to attract cyclists due to being faster than riding on road) then those bikes are nowhere to be seen.

Given that falls on stairs are the second largest cause of unintended injury It would be better if the UK could propose that people incorporate exercise in their daily lives by riding bicycles for transport. Unfortunately, the UK has invested almost nothing in making cycling into the safe form of transport that it could be.

Given that falls on stairs are the second largest cause of unintended injury It would be better if the UK could propose that people incorporate exercise in their daily lives by riding bicycles for transport. Unfortunately, the UK has invested almost nothing in making cycling into the safe form of transport that it could be.

In my perfect dream state there would be noise limits along with speed limits.

Welcome to the Netherlands, where speed limits are lower in built up areas specifically to keep noise under control. This is just one of the measures taken.

Quite right. The economics of bike share don't come even close to making sense.

Average journey lengths in the US and Canada are not nearly so long as many people think they are. In fact, 40% of all urban journeys in the US are 2 miles in length or less. Note also that not all journeys are commutes, but even when commutes are looked at (I have the numbers for Canada) we find that the longest average commute distance is in Toronto... and it's just 9.2 km. i.e. less than 6 miles. This is a cycleable distance. Note that the longest commutes in Europe are in the Netherlands - the same country as has the highest cycling modal share in Europe.

All the numbers to support these statements can be found here, and answers to many of the other false arguments for why cycling cannot happen wherever it happens to be that you live can be found here.

What the US suffers from is an appalling lack of good planning for cycling. If a decision was taken to copy what works to promote cycling in the Netherlands (i.e. the most effective policy in the world which has resulted in the highest cycling modal share in the world, in a country where people are rich and own as many cars as they want to own) then you might have a better chance than by continuing to follow policies which actively work against cycling.

Average journey lengths in the US and Canada are not nearly so long as many people think they are. In fact, 40% of all urban journeys in the US are 2 miles in length or less. Note also that not all journeys are commutes, but even when commutes are looked at (I have the numbers for Canada) we find that the longest average commute distance is in Toronto... and it's just 9.2 km. i.e. less than 6 miles. This is a cycleable distance. Note that the longest commutes in Europe are in the Netherlands - the same country as has the highest cycling modal share in Europe.

All the numbers to support these statements can be found here, and answers to many of the other false arguments for why cycling cannot happen wherever it happens to be that you live can be found here.

What the US suffers from is an appalling lack of good planning for cycling. If a decision was taken to copy what works to promote cycling in the Netherlands (i.e. the most effective policy in the world which has resulted in the highest cycling modal share in the world, in a country where people are rich and own as many cars as they want to own) then you might have a better chance than by continuing to follow policies which actively work against cycling.

Average journey lengths in the US and Canada are not nearly so long as many people think they are. In fact, 40% of all urban journeys in the US are 2 miles in length or less. Note also that not all journeys are commutes, but even when commutes are looked at (I have the numbers for Canada) we find that the longest average commute distance is in Toronto... and it's just 9.2 km. i.e. less than 6 miles. This is a cycleable distance. Note that the longest commutes in Europe are in the Netherlands - the same country as has the highest cycling modal share in Europe.

All the numbers to support these statements can be found here, and answers to many of the other false arguments for why cycling cannot happen wherever it happens to be that you live can be found here.

What the US suffers from is an appalling lack of good planning for cycling. If a decision was taken to copy what works to promote cycling in the Netherlands (i.e. the most effective policy in the world which has resulted in the highest cycling modal share in the world, in a country where people are rich and own as many cars as they want to own) then you might have a better chance than by continuing to follow policies which actively work against cycling.

Average journey lengths in the US and Canada are not nearly so long as many people think they are. In fact, 40% of all urban journeys in the US are 2 miles in length or less. Note also that not all journeys are commutes, but even when commutes are looked at (I have the numbers for Canada) we find that the longest average commute distance is in Toronto... and it's just 9.2 km. i.e. less than 6 miles. This is a cycleable distance. Note that the longest commutes in Europe are in the Netherlands - the same country as has the highest cycling modal share in Europe.

All the numbers to support these statements can be found here, and answers to many of the other false arguments for why cycling cannot happen wherever it happens to be that you live can be found here.

What the US suffers from is an appalling lack of good planning for cycling. If a decision was taken to copy what works to promote cycling in the Netherlands (i.e. the most effective policy in the world which has resulted in the highest cycling modal share in the world, in a country where people are rich and own as many cars as they want to own) then you might have a better chance than by continuing to follow policies which actively work against cycling.

No, drivers are not always at fault in the Netherlands. This has been discussed at length and explained in English.