Bicycle traffic in Brussels quadruples!

[slagjumper]

Build it and they will come, use it and more will come.

Bicycle traffic in Brussels increases (http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=37374)

8 March 2007

BRUSSELS – Bicycle traffic in the Brussels region has quadrupled in four years' time to 4 percent of all travel. The daily number of bicycle journeys has increased from 30,000 in 2001 to 120,000 this year, De Morgen has reported.

Cycling in Brussels also turns out to be safer than in Flanders and the Walloon region. Primary young, white, highly-educated residents are using the bicycle in the capital.

Brussels Minister for Mobility Pascal Smet (SP.A) said the growth is due partly to the better cycling infrastructure in the region. He said the snowball effect was the main cause for the growth however: "The more cyclists you see on the streets, the more new ones decide to follow suit."
demographic features (http://www.ibgebim.be/english/contenu/content.asp?ref=1791)

[Bekologist]

wow, bicycling infrastructure increases cycling! I'm not suprised.

...and cyclists using bike infrastructure carries over to more people trying cycling for transportation.

I like it!!

too bad the pathetic vc crewe think faciltites are overrated. shame on them.

the benefits of infrastructure that supports bicycling can have great influences on everyday bicycling. The positive effects of infrastructure is apparant, abundantly proven, in cities across the globe.

[sbhikes]

Of course infrastructure works. If they hadn't built infrastructure for cars we'd all still be walking. It's a no-brainer. Cycing infrastructure increases cycling.

[Bekologist]

the accident rate for cyclists in america is much higher than countries like Germany or Denmark as well.

Facilities and bike infrastructure also have the positive effect of reducing cyclist accident rates.

[Cyclaholic]

It's just common sense to the rest of us.... it would be a revelation to the VC zealots if their minds were not so firmly shut.

[Dahon.Steve]

I wonder how much the city spent to increase the numbers so much? I also wonder what kind of infrastructure they created. (bike lanes, signs and racks)

[galen_52657]

I wonder how much the city spent to increase the numbers so much? I also wonder what kind of infrastructure they created. (bike lanes, signs and racks)

Just taking a wild guess based on other Euro cities, it would be a system of segregated side paths, a far cry from the third-hand crap that passes for 'infrastructure' here.

[genec]

Of course infrastructure works. If they hadn't built infrastructure for cars we'd all still be walking. It's a no-brainer. Cycing infrastructure increases cycling.

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Heres to the general public walking about! :D

[kf5nd]

Nothing yet from HH?

[rando]

wait for it.....

[Bekologist]

Of course infrastructure works..... Cycing infrastructure increases cycling.

yep. america has a high cyclist accident rate compared to infrastructure heavy countries. but the VC claim we're all suppossed to ride in there with the angry drivers on highway speed arterials to work and back, or we're not worthy.


The political manifestations of VC backstabs increasing bicycling in this country.

[sggoodri]

yep. america has a high cyclist accident rate compared to infrastructure heavy countries. but the VC claim we're all suppossed to ride in there with the angry drivers on highway speed arterials to work and back, or we're not worthy.

The political manifestations of VC backstabs increasing bicycling in this country.

Bek obviously wants an argument, so fine. As a longtime proponent of improved infrastructure for safer, more pleasant, and more convenient bicycling, and as a person who also promotes cycling according to vehicular traffic principles, I have to take exception to this attack.

I agree that lots of infrastructure changes such as off-road greenway corridors, short-cut paths, improved connectivity of low-speed streets, bicycle parking, wider pavement on busy roads to allow more comfortable passing distances, etc. can encourage cycling, and that this is good. Most vehicular cycling proponents support these things. Just look at John Allen's web site.

The big question on the minds of most vehicular cycling defenders is this: Does a particular change in infrastructure require cyclists to operate contrary to the normal vehicular rules of the road? It would be interesting to answer this with respect to the Brussels infrastructure changes. If the changes involve designating a section of the sidewalk as a bikeway, rather than facilitating improved cycling on the roadway, then vehicular cycling advocates would disagree with it. If it involves "road diets" to increase the pavement space available for comfortable on-roadway cycling by reducing the need for motorists to change lanes to pass, then that doesn't conflict with the ordinary vehicular rules of the road; rather, it generally encourages vehicular cycling while reducing sidewalk cycling. Similarly, creating off-road bike paths in their own right of way along rail and stream corridors does not conflict with vehicular cycling practices as long as the junctions are designed to be compatible with vehicular traffic rules.

So, as a vehicular cycling proponent, I am interested to learn what Brussels actually did. Did they encourage cyclists to ride on sidewalks and sidewalk-type paths instead of the roadway? Did they make the roadways more pleasant for cycling according to the normal vehicular rules of the road? Did they create more alternative routes? Did they implement policies that discourage motoring? Some combination of these? Which actions likely produced the greatest improvements in conditions for cyclists? Which were hardest on motorists? Which actions are likely to be politically viable or successful in the USA?

-Steve Goodridge

[Bruce Rosar]

Cycling in Brussels also turns out to be safer than in ... (http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=37374 Bicycle traffic in Brussels increases)I thought the following comment by a Belgium cyclist (http://www.eu-cg.info/info.html) was interesting:
Traffic in Brussels is notorious, but most cyclists will tell you that it seems much worse when you are in a car. They will also tell you that drivers are not more aggressive towards cyclists in Brussels than in other cities, and in fact most Brussels drivers are not hostile to cyclists who ride in the traffic. We do fear the drivers with 4 arms, though - those who change gear, change direction, smoke and use the mobile phone at the same time! A lot of research shows that the health benefits of cycling are far, far greater than the risk of an accident.

[Helmet Head]

Bek obviously wants an argument, so fine. As a longtime proponent of improved infrastructure for safer, more pleasant, and more convenient bicycling, and as a person who also promotes cycling according to vehicular traffic principles, I have to take exception to this attack.

I agree that lots of infrastructure changes such as off-road greenway corridors, short-cut paths, improved connectivity of low-speed streets, bicycle parking, wider pavement on busy roads to allow more comfortable passing distances, etc. can encourage cycling, and that this is good. Most vehicular cycling proponents support these things. Just look at John Allen's web site.

The big question on the minds of most vehicular cycling defenders is this: Does a particular change in infrastructure require cyclists to operate contrary to the normal vehicular rules of the road? It would be interesting to answer this with respect to the Brussels infrastructure changes. If the changes involve designating a section of the sidewalk as a bikeway, rather than facilitating improved cycling on the roadway, then vehicular cycling advocates would disagree with it. If it involves "road diets" to increase the pavement space available for comfortable on-roadway cycling by reducing the need for motorists to change lanes to pass, then that doesn't conflict with the ordinary vehicular rules of the road; rather, it generally encourages vehicular cycling while reducing sidewalk cycling. Similarly, creating off-road bike paths in their own right of way along rail and stream corridors does not conflict with vehicular cycling practices as long as the junctions are designed to be compatible with vehicular traffic rules.

So, as a vehicular cycling proponent, I am interested to learn what Brussels actually did. Did they encourage cyclists to ride on sidewalks and sidewalk-type paths instead of the roadway? Did they make the roadways more pleasant for cycling according to the normal vehicular rules of the road? Did they create more alternative routes? Did they implement policies that discourage motoring? Some combination of these? Which actions likely produced the greatest improvements in conditions for cyclists? Which were hardest on motorists? Which actions are likely to be politically viable or successful in the USA?

-Steve Goodridge
:beer:

I have nothing to add.

[Bekologist]

steve, can you support american increases of on road bike infrastructure like quality bike lanes, dude?

Portland, for example, although not perfect, has quintupled bicycle use counts while keeping accidents flat, a decrease in indexed accident rates.

SAFER, MORE BICYCLISTS BIKING. can you support that 'vision' despite your banter against bike facilties that are wrongfully described as 'against' vehicular operation of bikes on the road?

steve, i think you just don't want bike infrastructure like bike lanes- of which your community has none of any value, if I recall correctly.

[Bekologist]

Brussels, London, Portland, Victoria, Bogota, Copenhagen,

ALL cities with increases in bike ridership by increasing facilties. and reductions in indexed accident rates.SAFER CYCLING, MORE CYCLISTS.

Why do the vc crewe insist on the illusions of vehicular parity if it means few people will use bikes in a community?

[sggoodri]

steve, can you support american increases of on road bike infrastructure like quality bike lanes, dude?

Portland, for example, although not perfect, has quintupled bicycle use counts while keeping accidents flat, a decrease in indexed accident rates.

SAFER, MORE BICYCLISTS BIKING. can you support that 'vision' despite your banter against bike facilties that are wrongfully described as 'against' vehicular operation of bikes on the road?

steve, i think you just don't want bike infrastructure like bike lanes- of which your community has none of any value, if I recall correctly.


The devil is in the details. Did Brussels build what you call "quality bike lanes" that allow operation according to vehicular rules and aren't in the door zone? If so, how did they do this in an existing built-up urban environment? Did they remove on-street parking? Did they reduce the travel lane count? Did they do this with the support of the affected motoring population, or against their will? These are important considerations when it comes to actually changing the built environment. Having spent two terms on our Planning and Zoning Board as the resident "bike and pedestrian advocate" and seeing what happens when the non-cycling majority controls transportation infrastructure, I have lots of questions about practical implementation.

That's the thing about taking a practical approach. There's not much point pushing for an infrastructure change that has no chance of being passed by elected officials, nor is there much point in supporting infrastructure changes that don't actually increase safety or convenience for cyclists. We managed to get bike parking required at most destinations; we got wider outside lanes planned for most of the busy roads; we got improved connectivity required by ordinance for low-speed streets; we got more mixture of land uses and closer proximity of trip endpoints for human-powered trips; and we got greenways upgraded to wider standards widths and more useful routes. And, we have our annual Cary Cycling Celebration. Oh yeah, we also got Cary designated as a Bicycle Friendly Community by LAB.

So yes, more cyclists riding more safely, and more conveniently, has always been part of my goals as an individual, as a P&Z board member, and as an officer for our bike club. However, I've always supported the idea that facilities for bicyclists should be designed in a manner compatible with cycling according to basic vehicular rules. I wonder how the Brussels facilities are designed? I don't pass judgement on a facility plan one way or another until I know the details. I think that's what separates me from facility idealogues.

[Bekologist]

you can't say 'I support bike lanes', can you?

you can't support integrated road infrastructure for bikes if it includes the lines you dread, can you?

i think 4 percent is still woefully low, percentage wise, but it sounds like increasing infrastructure increased cycling and cyclists safety there.

Copehagen has almost 40 percent of city trips by bike, Victoria almost 10 percent. Berlin over 25 percent.

THESE kinds of numbers from those cities show massive increases in bicycling via infrastructure. I have a haunting suspicion that respect for bicyclists along unaccomodated roads also follows in these cities.

[slagjumper]

I've read that the average speed of cars is only 11km/hr! That would make cycling more enjoyable even if there where no bike lanes. Plenty of thought and money went into the creation of the cycling facilities. In some places good sense is common. While people in Brussels may be more liklely to support bike facilities, Americans can learn to adapt in time.

I favor a “soccer paradigm” approach that focuses on getting more kids out riding. Did any US resident, 30 years or older play soccer as a kid? I am just not satisfied with the state of things now. Surely some streets can be made slower speed in the top 20 or “NFL team” cities. Some areas could use well thought out painted lanes. I admit that there were some problems with some bike lanes, but that does not mean that we should stop looking for improvement.

http://www.velo.irisnet.be/en/cycleways_en.htm
also
http://www.velo.irisnet.be/en/cycle_commuting_en.htm
There are other financial incentives for commuting by bike as well.

How about the "Advanced cycle boxes" that, "...enable cyclists to position themselves in front of cars in order to be able to turn left more easily, and also increase their visibility."

[Bekologist]

NINE categories of 'cycleways'.

amazing what a forward thinking and vigorously supporting bikes with on the ground infrastructure can lead to!

American cities are soo far behind the times, and way too wedded to automobiles for transportation.

[sggoodri]

you can't say 'I support bike lanes', can you?


Nope. I've seen too many bad implementations and useless implementations to provide the kind of blanket endorsement that less picky facilities advocates do. Door zone bike lanes, debris-filled bike lanes on low-speed, low-traffic streets, narrow bike lanes painted in the gutter, bike lanes striped up to the intersection to the right of right-turning traffic, etc. Some people never saw a bicycle-specific road marking that they didn't like. They are more interested in paint than performance; I'm more interested in performance for cyclists than separating road users by vehicle type. I don't believe that separating users by type is good for cyclists when the resulting performance of the separated facility is worse for cyclists than the normal, integrated roadway of identical pavement width.

Here's one place where I would support wide striped bike lanes as being better than no pavement increase at all: mid-block locations on freeway-like roads with minimal junctions. Bridges might be an example. In fact, the stripe might be better than no stripe, considering the possible safety advantages to low-visibility cyclists at times of poor visibility on very high speed roads. But, the lanes would need to be swept, and that's a tall order around here.

But back on topic: did Brussels build wide bike lanes outside of the door zone, or did they designate some sidewalk locations as bikeways, stripe some door-zone bike lanes, and increase the cost and inconvenience of motoring? Or some combination of such?

[randya]

Ooooh! Forsterite pile-on! Three on one! IMO, the difference between Europe *in general* and the US *in general* is that European motorists don't seem to have the angry vehement attitude towards cyclists that a fair amount of American motorists do.

[slagjumper]

I'm more interested in performance for cyclists than separating road users by vehicle type. I don't believe that separating users by type is good for cyclists when the resulting performance of the separated facility is worse for cyclists than the normal, integrated roadway of identical pavement width.What do you mean by performance? Sounds like you should be on a track. That's like a Lamborghini owner complaining that the roads are not designed to make optimal use of her machine! If a little debris is going to freak you out, why not go to a 1.5 inch tire?

[sggoodri]

In some of the facilites are suggested and some are mandatory. What do you mean by performance? Sounds like you should be on a track.

I mean performance like my new electric razor outperforms my old worn out one by simply working better. Is the facility more hazardous than an integrated roadway at a typical cycling speed, or require lower speed to accomplish the same level of safety. Is the pavement designated for cyclists rougher, or more likely to cause a flat than an ordinary road? Does it really reduce conflicts with motorists, or make them worse? Like you said, some bike facilities are mandatory-use under law; the cyclist ends up prohibited from using the better section of roadway.

I've never been in a bike race. I've never seen a bike track except on TV.

[Bekologist]

steve, your discrimination against integrated, on road bike lane stripes boarders on the pathalogical.

[slagjumper]

I mean performance like my new electric razor outperforms my old worn out one by simply working better. Is the facility more hazardous than an integrated roadway at a typical cycling speed, or require lower speed to accomplish the same level of safety. Is the pavement designated for cyclists rougher, or more likely to cause a flat than an ordinary road? Does it really reduce conflicts with motorists, or make them worse? Like you said, some bike facilities are mandatory-use under law; the cyclist ends up prohibited from using the better section of roadway.

I've never been in a bike race. I've never seen a bike track except on TV.
I've raced BMX as a kid and was on the local banked track last week for the heck of it. I see no significant issue here. A rougher road might make it easier to stick a turn, but tear you up if you hit an oil slick and wipe out. I generally match the bike to the surface and conditions.

But I am not so sure that you or I would be the primary beneficiaries of better bike facilities and bike education. Likely it will be the many men and woman who have not ridden in several years, or kids who will be out getting more, safe exercise. You know, the ones ride on the sidewalks now.

As far as motorists being inconvenienced that is funny. They are inconvenienced by all sorts of things, like speed limits, insurance, price of gas and the occasional accident, increased traffic counts, longer commutes, pollution, and poor health. I would hope that to some extent it is a democracy’s job to protect the minority. But then I could just be young and idealistic.

[kalliergo]

you can't say 'I support bike lanes', can you?

Nope. I've seen too many bad implementations and useless implementations to provide the kind of blanket endorsement that less picky facilities advocates do. Door zone bike lanes, debris-filled bike lanes on low-speed, low-traffic streets, narrow bike lanes painted in the gutter, bike lanes striped up to the intersection to the right of right-turning traffic, etc. Some people never saw a bicycle-specific road marking that they didn't like. They are more interested in paint than performance; I'm more interested in performance for cyclists than separating road users by vehicle type. I don't believe that separating users by type is good for cyclists when the resulting performance of the separated facility is worse for cyclists than the normal, integrated roadway of identical pavement width.

Absolutely right.

The excellent, well-designed, on-road facilities we hear about all the time, the ones that are touted as making cycling safer and more convenient, don't actually appear very often in the real world (in North America). The "other kind," the ones Steve described, do appear, with depressing and distressing regularity.

As we've said several times here, recently, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, when on-road bicycle facilities are implemented, the details are just plain wrong, much more often than they are right. This is just what one ought to expect from autocentric governments, planners and engineers, who answer to an autocentric constituency and whose real mission is to make cycling convenient -- for motorists.

The image below is of a "modern" bike lane at an intersection in Larkspur, California. As the comedian said, I've got a million of 'em.

http://66.127.105.250/cycling_images/magnolia_dartmouth_1_sm.jpg

[Bekologist]

is that brussels, kalirego?

you too are anti-facilities. clear enough.

Brussels. increased cycling for transportation using bike infrastructure. Yes, north american facilties design is still weighted too heavily towards the automobile.

If i had a choice of roads that, like steve describes in his city, have little or no bike-specific infrastructure, and few bicyclists, or roads heavy with bike infrastructure, with a lot of bicyclists on the roads, I have to choose the latter.

I feel the anti-facilities vc have a hand in discouraging greater use of bikes for transportation in this country.

Brussels, Copenhagen, Berlin, Bogota, Victoria, Portland, London, and other cities all across the globe are increasing the use of bikes for transportation via bike infrastructure.

[sbhikes]

Whenever I tell peole where I work the first thing they ask is if I get to use the bike path to go to work. It's everybody's dream to someday use the bike path to get to work. I'm living the dream. And I see more cyclists now than ever before, with a greater variety of ages, a greater variety of bikes, and a greater variety of demographics (not mostly homeless and poor people anymore.) Good facilities work.

[noisebeam]

Nope. I've seen too many bad implementations and useless implementations to provide the kind of blanket endorsement
...
Here's one place where I would support wide striped bike lanes as being better than no pavement increase at all: mid-block locations on freeway-like roads with minimal junctions. Bridges might be an example. In fact, the stripe might be better than no stripe, considering the possible safety advantages to low-visibility cyclists at times of poor visibility on very high speed roads. But, the lanes would need to be swept, and that's a tall order around here.
This is common sense. It is unfortunate that in the zest to create the illusion of a 'bike friendly' road so many poor bike lanes are striped. Like Steve I support wide outside lanes and specific/limited bike lanes - this includes wide and maintained 6' bike lanes striped on the longer fully intersectionless stretches of higher speed roads - specifically with no striping for the 200' proceeding any intersection. I also support lowering speed limits with enforcement on some roads as well.

Al

[noisebeam]

Whenever I tell peole where I work the first thing they ask is if I get to use the bike path to go to work.
Duh. Folks who rarely to never ride a bike with limited experiece with the range of facilities implemented assume they make for easy and safe riding. I get that too "oh, did you find a route to work with bike lanes?" and "I can't ride to work since there are no bike lanes my way" Theve learned as a motorist that to bicycle they must stay out of the way of cars, which no type of facility can do.

(now of course some paths like yours in SB are fantastic, clear well maintained, shorter than the roads and with minimal intersections and I know you are talking about this great path, but remember not everyone lives/works such that they can take advantage of this route.)

Al

[kalliergo]

is that brussels, kalirego?

Is that a disingenuous question, Bekologist?

As stated in the associated post, that's a photo of a bicycle facility in my neighborhood.

you too are anti-facilities. clear enough.

Nope, I'm strongly in favor of the most-available and realistic facilities -- smooth, well-designed roads for all users. I am, in general, opposed to segregated bicycle facilities, because the ones that actually get built tend to endanger and inconvenience me, and to confuse motorists and other cyclists, rather than the opposite.

Proponents of painting keep insisting that "good, well-designed" bike facilities are a good thing. They might be, in some perfect world, I suppose, but in the parts of the real world I've cycled through, almost every effort to provide "good" segregated facilities has resulted in marked failure.

The photo was a reminder: Remember what the real world looks like.

I feel the anti-facilities vc have a hand in discouraging greater use of bikes for transportation in this country.

You keep making this accusation. I have to tell you (again?) that encouraging cycling transportation, for me, is secondary in importance to advocating for the rights of cyclists. I'm certainly not going to support what I think of as second-rate segregated facilities, in hopes that more people will ride bikes on them.

[Bekologist]

yep, anti facilities. don't care to increase the use of bicycles as transportation. I see.

See, kalirego, this thread is about BRUSSELS increasing THEIR bicycling community via the use of well thought out, integrated bike infrastructure. 9 types of different cycleways, from the article. Including sharrows, bike lanes, off road bike paths, etc.

Do you have any pictures of Brussels?

[rando]

Brussels Minister for Mobility Pascal Smet (SP.A) said the growth is due partly to the better cycling infrastructure in the region. He said the snowball effect was the main cause for the growth however: "The more cyclists you see on the streets, the more new ones decide to follow suit."

[joejack951]

I'd be more interested in knowing what Brussels did to discourage automobile use. Anyone have info on that?

[SamHouston]

Offered a pleasant, money saving alternative?

[sggoodri]

See, kalirego, this thread is about BRUSSELS increasing THEIR bicycling community via the use of well thought out, integrated bike infrastructure. 9 types of different cycleways, from the article. Including sharrows, bike lanes, off road bike paths, etc.


Can you please point me to the article/URL that describes these nine types of cycleways being used in Brussels? I did not see this in the article linked in the OP; perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

[JRA]

I don't know about nine types of cycleways but the following looks interesting (the first thing the search engine came up with).

Cycling in Brussels
http://www.bicycle.irisnet.be/en/cycleways_en.htm

[bbunk]

Proponents of painting keep insisting that "good, well-designed" bike facilities are a good thing. They might be, in some perfect world, I suppose, but in the parts of the real world I've cycled through, almost every effort to provide "good" segregated facilities has resulted in marked failure.

.

I think it is pretty clear that it worked in Brussels, not a perfect world just better designed roads that work better for all users not just the cars and super VC cyclists.

[randya]

I don't know about nine types of cycleways but the following looks interesting (the first thing the search engine came up with).

Cycling in Brussels
http://www.bicycle.irisnet.be/en/cycleways_en.htm
Yep, count 'em, nine types of cycleways!

:beer:

[markf]

I'd be more interested in knowing what Brussels did to discourage automobile use. Anyone have info on that?

If Brussels is like the other European cities I've been in, they didn't have to do much. European gas prices ($6-$8/gallon), scarce and expensive parking, London's congestion charge ($15 just to drive into the central city each day) and traffic so dense you can't move as fast as a bicycle in many areas make some kind of two wheel travel a no-brainer.

I've been following reports on the recent increase in cycling in London, and apparently they really didn't spend much on bicycle infrastructure at all. In fact, from what I've seen and heard, cycling infra-structure in the UK is far poorer than anything in this country. People just got sick of sky-high fuel prices, overcrowded and expensive public transport, and the $15 congestion charge to enter the city each day, and started riding their bikes instead. Transport for London publishes some excellent cycle-specific maps of the city and hands them out at tube stations and other transport hubs, but these just show which of the already existing streets are best for cycling.

[noisebeam]

I've been following reports on the recent increase in cycling in London, and apparently they really didn't spend much on bicycle infrastructure at all.
Last year I spent a week in London visiting my relatives.
I didn't see much in the way of bicycle specific infrastructure if any at all. Mostly I saw cyclists riding in a vehicular manner.

Al

[sggoodri]

I don't know about nine types of cycleways but the following looks interesting (the first thing the search engine came up with).

Cycling in Brussels
http://www.bicycle.irisnet.be/en/cycleways_en.htm

Interesting. I like the "Suggested cycle tracks" which at least in the photo look like resonably placed sharrows (aka shared use markings.)

The on-road cycle track in the photo appears to be a marked bike lane just outside the door zone. I like the use of what appears to be stamped or textured concrete or pavers in the door zone between the parking lane and the right side of the bike lane. That would seem to discourage riding in the door zone.

They also have cycle tracks between the parking spaces and the sidewalk area. It appears that all of these cycle tracks are compulsory use and that cyclists are not allowed to operate in the normal vehicular manner if the cycle track is on the sidewalk side of parking:

Cycle tracks (PCM) marked on the road surface by dashes on both sides exist in the following cases:

along the side of the road,
along parking spaces,
between parking spaces and the side of the road.

It is compulsory to use the cycle track unless the cyclist needs, for example, to turn left or when it is blocked.


There are some bike paths shown as designated on the sidewalks themselves, but these appear to not be compulsory for cyclists. Also, one of the nine types of bikeways that were counted earlier include general pedestrian areas where cycling is not prohibited. Lastly, some of the bike paths are simply off-road paths in their own right of way.

Some of the bus lanes are allowed for bicycle use, which is nice. The advanced stop lines ("cycle boxes") aren't much use for left turns (one of the purported advantages) unless the cyclist overtakes on the right side of stopped traffic right up to the intersection, which normal vehicular rules and education programs discourage in favor of merging into the position for left turns well before reaching the intersection. However, I like advanced stop lines for better visibility for straight and right turning travel.

Just from the web site, I'd give Brussels a C for cycling infrastructure, since the cycle tracks that are routed in non-vehicular ways (e.g. between parked cars and pedestrians) are compulsory under law. Several of their bikeways, however, are reasonably compliant with normal rules for vehicular operation. The shared use arrows and door zone buffers between cars and bike lanes seem to be a smart idea.

[noisebeam]

The advanced stop lines ("cycle boxes") aren't much use for left turns (one of the purported advantages) unless the cyclist overtakes on the right side of stopped traffic right up to the intersection, which normal vehicular rules and education programs discourage in favor of merging into the position for left turns well before reaching the intersection. However, I like advanced stop lines for better visibility for straight and right turning travel.
One thing I never understood about advance boxes is what happens if one is passing a line of cars on right to get to advance box in prep for a left turn while the light turns to green. That sounds like a harder merge left to negotiate than just getting in line to start with.

Al

[randya]

Just from the web site, I'd give Brussels a C for cycling infrastructure, since the cycle tracks that are routed in non-vehicular ways (e.g. between parked cars and pedestrians) are compulsory under law. Several of their bikeways, however, are reasonably compliant with normal rules for vehicular operation. The shared use arrows and door zone buffers between cars and bike lanes seem to be a smart idea.
I'm curious to know why, if you think the actual facility designs are good, you are so opposed to compulsory use requirements. Surely you're not going to try and 'bring democracy to Belgian cyclists' in the form of US-style VC arguments?!?!?!

Also, I would imagine that there are still plenty of streets in Brussels that have no specific facilities infrastructure and the cyclists and motorists just negotiate over ROW like everywhere else.

[joejack951]

One thing I never understood about advance boxes is what happens if one is passing a line of cars on right to get to advance box in prep for a left turn while the light turns to green. That sounds like a harder merge left to negotiate than just getting in line to start with.

Al

Especially hard for the cyclist who starts to move left as the rest of traffic gets the green.

[noisebeam]

Especially hard for the cyclist who starts to move left as the rest of traffic gets the green.
I really do think these have been engineered to deal with these likely scenarios. I'd just like to understand how. Anyone have experience that can explain?

Al

[Bruce Rosar]

I'm curious to know why, if you think the actual facility designs are good, you are so opposed to compulsory use requirements. And I'd like to know why that government forces everyone who's cycling to use those special places where they exist. Is it because some cyclists don't like those places? Or that cyclists pose a grave danger to the public like drivers of heavy motor vehicles do? Or that the government wants to keep cyclists out of the way?

[Bruce Rosar]

One thing I never understood about advance boxes is ... Anyone have experience that can explain?
The cyclist who wrote A LOOK INTO THE "BIKE BOX" (http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/stopline.htm) might: A "bike box" (or "advanced stop line") ... is unsafe under any of the following conditions:
if there is no traffic signal...
if there is a traffic signal, but a right turn on red is permitted...
if there is not an active warning (signal light) to indicate that the traffic signal is about to turn green...

[Bekologist]

i think the Belgian Government wants to encourage cycling, bruce. That's why they've built up cycling infrastructure. And too, i wonder if they actually 'ticket' the bicyclists that choose to ignore facilites, or just turn a blind eye. you think they ticket a lot of cyclists in Belgium? :roflmao: