Intersection design, the Dutch - cycle friendly - way

965K views · 15 years ago · explainer · evergreen

A BicycleDutch video explaining how the Dutch design road junctions to be safe for people on bikes. It shows how separated lanes keep cyclists and drivers from crossing paths at intersections.

HN people use it as the standard example of a solved problem: cycle-friendly junction design in the Netherlands, cited in threads about bike lanes and unsafe turns.

“Well guess what, we've figured this out decades ago in the Netherlands”

20 comments from Hacker News

k
@kmondo2016 · in “Junction design the Dutch – cycle friendly – way”
Submitted the video to Hacker News.
RecommendsView on HN
I
@IkmoIkmo2015 · in “Münster’s iconic ‘waste of space’ photo keeps on giving”
Welcome :) There's quite a few interesting videos on traffic design in the Netherlands, junction design is a big topic, as well as separating lanes. Videos like these might be fun to watch: ▶ this video If it piques your interest, there's more comprehensive videos too like this one which is still only 5 minutes: link
RecommendsView on HN
_
@_dain_2023 · in “The decline of net neutrality activism”
illegal as in, it is substantially illegal for anyone to alter the built environment to make it more walkable/bikeable -- be it landowners or the local government. because of strict zoning/planning regulations, outdated road design manuals, parking requirements, etc. car-dependency is encoded into law, in the sense that the system is set up so that the default outcome always results in car-friendly development, while any attempt at pedestrian- or cycle-friendly development is subject to arbitrary delays, legal challenges, and needs discretionary exemptions. example: it has been known for decades that Dutch-style intersections[1] are safer than status quo designs, but until very recently it was an odyssey to get one built in the UK or the US, because the transportation authorities have not-invented-here syndrome and won't listen to empirical evidence from abroad (which undermines the claim of traffic engineering to be a scientific discipline). hell, sometimes they'll insist on a "pilot study" even when a design has been a success elsewhere in the same country! but building a junction with inadequate pedestrian and cyclist amenities is easy, so long as it meets safety standards for motorists. another example: the law says you need to build X amount of car parking spaces in a development, but demands no amenities for cycle storage. or, this[2] disgusting litany of regulatory excuses for why a pedestrian crossing outside a school wasn't allowed be made safer, because nothing can be allowed to reduce traffic speed. furthermore, in some places the law as written really does de facto criminalize safe cycling. for instance, requiring that cyclists never stray out of the bike lane, even when it contains dangerous obstructions[3]. or, traffic lights that don't detect cyclists, so the lights stay red forever, so it's impossible to proceed without either breaking the law or waiting for a car to come up behind you and trigger the sensor. there are many cases like this -- the law doesn't literally say "you can't cycle", but following the law rules out cycling in any safe and practical sense. and then there's the absurd fake crime of "jaywalking" ... [1] ▶ this video [2] link [3] link
CitesView on HN
j
@jmyeet2022 · in “Investigating the effects of bike lanes in Minneapolis”
People not familiar with the US may not realize just how hostile US cities are to cyclists (and pedestrians). Some examples: 1. Turning right at red lights. Legal in most of the US. This is a huge safety issue for pedestrians and cyclists; 2. Many streets don't even have widewalks; 3. Many major roads don't even have any form of pedestrian crossings. For example, I had Google Maps tell me to just run across an 8 lane highway (at least there was somewhere safe to stand in the middle) where the speed limit was 45mph. Why? There was absolutely no alternative. In comparison, many freeways or highways in other countries will regularly have dedicated pedestrian crossing bridges. 4. In cities with a dedicated cycling lane in many US cities it gets used as extra parking, forcing cyclists out onto the road. Some I have sympathy for (eg delivery drivers) but many other people just don't give a shit they're blocking a lane of traffic and creating a safety issue. 5. Many Americans never walk anywhere so are an annoyance (if not an outright safety hazard) on any space shared with cyclists. I routinely see runners refuse to get out of the way in a dedicated cycle path. Many are oblivious and will just walk onto a cycle path without looking. I've had many near-misses this way. So there are a lot of things you can do to improve this situation, most of which doesn't take exttra room. For example: 1. Netherlands style intersections designed to improve cyclist safety [1]; 2. Suburbia is dominated by cul-de-sacs to avoid car through traffic. These back streets should have dedicated cycle paths (to avoid cycling on highways) combined with car-free connections to allow through-traffic and safe crossings o fhighways with lights if necessary; 3. Instead of road->cycle lane->parked cars create separation with road->parking->cycle path where the cycle path has a physical barrier to avoid people using it as parking; 4. Have islands separating traffic on roads. In addition to making driving safer, this island can make cycling safer as you can half-cross the road and then cross the rest when it's clear without impeding traffic or risking being hit; 5. Splitting straight and turn right lanes. This will create another island for safety and less guessing on what motorists will do. I guess I could summarize this as "just do what Amsterdam does". [1]: ▶ this video
CitesView on HN
M
@Muximize2021 · in “The great bicycle boom of 2020”
Or you could build protected intersections, as is standard in the Netherlands: ▶ this video
M
@Muximize2021 · in “The great bicycle boom of 2020”
Protected lanes should be accompanied by protected intersections as well: ▶ this video
M
@Muximize2020 · in “Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work and nobody wants”
It's one of the things Copenhagen can learn from the Netherlands, where it's a solved problem at most intersections: link ▶ this video Also see link from 6 minutes on for right turns in Copenhagen.
h
@hannasanarion2019 · in “Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study”
I don't think you understand what was meant by those things. Here's a video explanation: ▶ this video
X
@Xylakant2019 · in “Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study”
The Dutch have that figured out, too. There’s so many bicycles around that you practically have to expect them everywhere any time. More bicycles make all bicycles safer. Intersections of car lanes and bike lines should also be designed in such a fashion that the lanes meet mostly at a right angle. Sharp turns and buffer spaces. A sharp turn slows the car traffic and the right angle at the intersecting point makes it easy to check for crossing (cycle) traffic. See for example this video ▶ this video
CitesView on HN
j
@jerry19792019 · in “Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study”
I think the Dutch have come up with a solution to the rear-right problem: ▶ this video
a
@alistairSH2019 · in “Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study”
Dutch style protected lanes. 1:55 if you only want to see the left turn... ▶ this video
a
@adrianN2018 · in “Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street”
You can do a lot better than the normal US way. This is how the Dutch do it: ▶ this video