Advocacy & Safety - Intersection design - the dutch way

a link to momentum magazine's video article about the latest dutch intersection design. interesting. Can't say I'm for it over our AASHTO existing best practices, but apparently a much safer intersection by design.

momenteum magazines video - intersection design the dutch way (http://momentummag.com/videos/intersection-design-the-dutch-way)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA&feature=player_embedded

Unless the motorists are traveling very slowly and are much more passive than they are here (true enough in NL), then this design requires a cyclist to keep his/her head on a swivel and becomes a very dangerous game of dodge-car.

In our current standard, the only issues are:
1. right turning motorists must be able to see the cyclists they are overtaking on their way to the right turn lane. In the event that the cyclists is going faster than the motorists, the cyclist must adjust to the turning motorist that he/she is overtaking. These are standard maneuvers for traffic regardless of mode, so they are second nature.
2. Left turning cyclists must change lanes. Again, this doesn't require any special knowledge or skills. The only safety issue here has to do with extremely fast moving traffic, which is still and issue in the Dutch model.

In the Dutch model, cyclists going straight must contend with right-turning traffic. In our system, where motorists do not stop at their limit line, the cyclist must deal with motorists who are coming up from behind, hence the head-on-a-swivel complaint.

Really, if motorists are properly trained and will follow the law, then the designs don't really matter. If motorists are narcissistic scofflaws, then there are no designs that will guarantee reasonable safety for road users. I've lived where the modal share of cycling was much higher than any Dutch city, and the key was traffic law enforcement with zero tolerance. The infrastructure is irrelevant when motorists don't feel any sense of entitlement.

the NL has a deeply ingrained bicycling culture, and their infrastructure reflects that. 40 to 50% of all trips are by bicycle. they are taught from an early age that the bicycle isn't just for recreational use but also a form of transportation. along with walking and an excellent public transportation system.

its the opposite in the US. we have a deeply ingrained car culture. the car is king and the bicycle is just a toy not a serious form of transportation. the extreme autocentric infrastructure reflects a very different mentality. how many trips are made by bicycle? maybe a tenth of 1% if we're lucky? so small its not worth mentioning.

the one problem with their intersections is that the light cycle takes absolutely forever. So a left turn for a bike takes twice forever

The extra time my commute would take to do all that wiggle waggling is just plan wrong to force on cyclist. (I see why the dutch like it)

The extra time my commute would take to do all that wiggle waggling is just plan wrong to force on cyclist. (I see why the dutch like it)

sometimes, public safety demands cooperation, even if it means doing the prevailing speed of traffic, or stopping at a traffic signal.

I suspect a cyclist on a bike route with these types of intersections would still get to work faster than a bicyclist stuck like a vehicle and waiting in the perennial traffic jams that crop up all over the aloha state.

sometimes, public safety demands cooperation, even if it means doing the prevailing speed of traffic, or stopping at a traffic signal.

I suspect a cyclist on a bike route with these types of intersections would still get to work faster than a bicyclist stuck like a vehicle and waiting in the perennial traffic jams that crop up all over the aloha state.Do not judge the freeway gridlock to mean that cyclist routes are also gridlocked. This design neither improves safety of efficiency. Adding so many wiggle waggles only adds danger to cyclist. Once a motorist has started a right turn on red, who then has the right of way, the motorist of the wiggle waggling cyclist? How about a cyclist crossing and then suddenly turning left as shown in the video. some cyclist have a hard enough time signaling when going straight, so signaling during a wiggle waggle is asking for more trouble.

But feel free to install it in Seattle and collect some data to prove how much time and safety it gives cyclist.

Once a motorist has started a right turn on red, who then has the right of way, the motorist of the wiggle waggling cyclist?




That's the issue with trying to transplant some European designs here in the US, unless there's signage allowing it, it is illegal for motorists in the Netherlands to turn right on a red light.

Do not judge the freeway gridlock to mean that cyclist routes are also gridlocked. This design neither improves safety of efficiency. Adding so many wiggle waggles only adds danger to cyclist. Once a motorist has started a right turn on red, who then has the right of way, the motorist of the wiggle waggling cyclist? How about a cyclist crossing and then suddenly turning left as shown in the video. some cyclist have a hard enough time signaling when going straight, so signaling during a wiggle waggle is asking for more trouble.

But feel free to install it in Seattle and collect some data to prove how much time and safety it gives cyclist.

Bek is actually spot on. But there's one point missing in his post: The Dutch design is meant to

keep cyclists safe (and they are)
make cycling easy and convenient (and it does)
keep cyclists and motorized traffic apart, thus making all traffic move smoother.

The last point is evident to anyone who has used Dutch or Copenhagen bike paths in rush hours.

2. Left turning cyclists must change lanes.

Huh? Look at the picture again. It's essentially a roundabout. A left-turning cyclist does not have to change lanes, but simply goes around the circle. I did a bunch of riding in the Netherlands this summer, and the design works quite well, but as another poster pointed out, it requires everybody (drivers, cyclists, and peds) to cooperate with one another. Good luck with that in the U.S.

That's the issue with trying to transplant some European designs here in the US, unless there's signage allowing it, it is illegal for motorists in the Netherlands to turn right on a red light.

This is the number one thing I would change about U.S. law if I couuld. Right-turn on red should be illegal everywhere, except in very extraordinary circumstances. Changing that one thing would make roads vastly more pedestrian and bike-friendly, and would require no new infrastructure at all.

Advantages:
1. less likely to be hit from behind
2. less likely to be doored
3. no need to merge for left turn

Disadvantages:
1. more likely to be hit by right-turners (less visible and drivers don't know whether you're turning right or going straight as you reach the corner)
2. more likely to be hit by left-turners (same reasons as above)
3. cyclists parallel and perpendicular have a conflict point before the cement barrier because parallel cyclists with a red light are expected to stop after crossing the perpendicular bike lane
4. cyclist left turns could take two full light cycles (cyclists are forced to turn left like pedestrians)
5. in crowded cities, cyclists might have to yield to heavy pedestrian traffic and might not be able to cross the intersection ahead of right-turn only motorists when the light turns green
6. cyclists approaching an existing red light might not be able to pass all the motorists in the right-turn only chute before the light turns green (similar to #5 above)

Only time will tell whether this system is safer than the one we use in the US. Maybe I'm blinded by my own experience but the new Dutch system seems to create more problems than it cures.

Bek is actually spot on. But there's one point missing in his post: The Dutch design is meant to

keep cyclists safe (and they are)
make cycling easy and convenient (and it does)
keep cyclists and motorized traffic apart, thus making all traffic move smoother.

The last point is evident to anyone who has used Dutch or Copenhagen bike paths in rush hours.

I imagine there are two sets of lights for these? (bike/car)? Do they have right turn on red in the Netherlands?

One flaw I see (assuming an intersection without left turn arrows):

-Cyclists making left turns have to circle around the intersection. Cars going straight would have to stop to allow the cyclists to loop around.

That's the issue with trying to transplant some European designs here in the US, unless there's signage allowing it, it is illegal for motorists in the Netherlands to turn right on a red light.

That, and the utter lack of training for drivers.

The intersection presented presumes drivers are at least moderately aware of cyclists. It does eliminate the full head-turn needed to check for undertaking cyclists, which will incrementally improve Dutch safety, but it would take radical changes in American driving habits to work here.

One flaw I see (assuming an intersection without left turn arrows):

-Cyclists making left turns have to circle around the intersection. Cars going straight would have to stop to allow the cyclists to loop around.

Assuming the intersection is controlled with a light, it's no different than the pedestrian left required now.

If there is no light, then it's just a roundabout.

This is the number one thing I would change about U.S. law if I couuld. Right-turn on red should be illegal everywhere, except in very extraordinary circumstances. Changing that one thing would make roads vastly more pedestrian and bike-friendly, and would require no new infrastructure at all.

+1000. The biggest argument for making right on red legal was that it saves gas... well make cars that shut down when they stop, and that not only saves gas, but saves lives!

The extra time my commute would take to do all that wiggle waggling is just plan wrong to force on cyclist. (I see why the dutch like it)

Leave earlier.

the one problem with their intersections is that the light cycle takes absolutely forever. So a left turn for a bike takes twice forever

Takes twice as long in a car too... so leave earlier. Or do you prefer the lifestyle of danger?

One flaw I see (assuming an intersection without left turn arrows):

-Cyclists making left turns have to circle around the intersection. Cars going straight would have to stop to allow the cyclists to loop around.
The video displays notes on the lower right explaining that there are separate colors and timings of lights for the different types of traffic. However, I can also see how it would be either a very good thing, or potentially confusing at times.

Takes twice as long in a car too... so leave earlier. Or do you prefer the lifestyle of danger?

Whatever he prefers, I see you prefer gross hyperbole.

Whatever he prefers, I see you prefer gross hyperbole.

No I prefer to leave earlier, ride on roads that are designed for all traffic vice just the automobile, and to not have to listen to folks whine about having to wait for 2 more minutes because their time is so much more precious than mine.

The video displays notes on the lower right explaining that there are separate colors and timings of lights for the different types of traffic.

A lot of the intersections of this type in the Netherlands have no light at all. Cars give bikes right-of-way.

A lot of the intersections of this type in the Netherlands have no light at all. Cars give bikes right-of-way.
You make me a bit jealous of the Netherlands, then. Here in the U.S., I'd fear such an intersection. It's tough enough for people here to understand a simple red light meaning stop.

You make me a bit jealous of the Netherlands, then. Here in the U.S., I'd fear such an intersection. It's tough enough for people here to understand a simple red light meaning stop.

It took me a long time to get used to passing on the right in Denmark, much to the annoyance of drivers.

I wonder how this works at intersictions where there is high cycle traffic. It looks like if more than one or two cyclists wait for a green light where the video says they will it would block the cycle lane to cylists comming from their left who have the green light.

Edit: Ah! I see. The cycle lanes are much wider than they appear in the first video.

Correct me if I,m wrong, but I think that in the Netherlands, bikes have the legal right-of-way in most situations. Cars must yield to bicyclists. Thus drivers who have grown up under this system and are more than likely routine cyclists themselves, are very aware and deferential to the bicycle traffic around them. Having driven and ridden in Holland, a few times, I felt very safe riding my bike thru crowded city streets. Of course you have thousands of bicycles plying these streets so you just go with the daily flow. It's VERY DIFFERENT from cycling in the USA!

The more I watch cycling videos (see the cycling videos I shared in my profile), the more I feel the urge to move to Europe (except the UK, of course).

I'm telling you -- I'm feeling jealous of those who live in Europe and I get so tired of the car infrastructure. There are car dealers everywhere from my apartment (32304) to Wal-Mart (W. Tennessee Street in Tallahassee). Plus, there are cars which are too close to sidewalks. Here's one example shown in Google Street View (https://maps.google.com/?ll=30.45894,-84.352019&spn=0.012541,0.020621&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=30.459013,-84.352284&panoid=aj8pt7ZK8VI5hjccXt7ttw&cbp=12,9.96,,0,30.83). What's worse is that I have 100% lack of confidence in being in the road.

West Tennessee Street may have bike lanes, but they are completely useless! I mean, last two weeks or so, I came out of Wal-Mart (after I do grocery shopping) able to see the traffic lights without any problem since it's almost night time (6:00 PM EST) and when I got into a bike lane heading east, I had no problem until the bike lane ends nowhere that I can go. I've made a left hand signal to change lane and I didn't have any problems until about 30 seconds later when I got honked. I had no choice but to travel between the left white lane and the grass as I was afraid to ride against the flow of traffic. But there's a hill to my right that leads down to the sewer system which I had to ride my tricycle and keep to my left a bit as I safely get to the sidewalk up ahead of me. Instead of crossing the intersection just to get back to the westbound sidewalk, I continued heading east only to find out that the sidewalk ends before the underpass where trains passes over the street. So, I headed back toward the intersection, crossed the street when I get a green, and went back home while feeling fainted.

That's why I'm showing lack of confidence to be in the road. I wanted to travel to places in Tallahassee even if there are no bike lanes or sidewalks.

Anyway, pardon me if I am going completely out of topic for the thread. I'm hoping to move to a place where I'll feel a lot safer being in the road even though I have a visual impairment.

Here's a video showing how such an intersection (or close to it) works in practice:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBwMRGxtZ9k

Here's a different treatment, a roundabout with no lights. As you'll see, cyclists have the ROW and cars consistently yield to them. And the sightlines are clear--no 'right hook' because the cyclist is coming from behind the car.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEXD0guLQY0

I have very limited cycling experience in the NL, just a week, but every day in that week, in country, town, and city. I found it every bit as easy, conflict-free, and enjoyable, as these videos show.

Actually I did have one type of problem. Approaching intersections like this roundabout, if I found I was going to arrive at the same time as a car I'd often slow down to allow them to go first, out of habit from the US---which would only annoy them as they intended to yield to me. If I really wanted to slow down, say to wait for my wife, I'd have to dismount from the bike to let motorists know I was not going.

In the second video, at 1:30, wishful thinking if that is going to happen in the US. In the US, the motorist would be hitting the accelerator pedal instead of the brake, especially if it was Bubba driving Truckzilla.

In the second video, at 1:30, wishful thinking if that is going to happen in the US. In the US, the motorist would be hitting the accelerator pedal instead of the brake, especially if it was Bubba driving Truckzilla.

yeah, from an American viewpoint there were some real sphincter tightening moments in that second vid. Fortunately there arent as many roundabouts in the States. I do think the intersection design could be made to work here though.

I still think a better solution in the U.S. is to just make cyclists more commonplace. Changing lanes on a bicycle is no more dangerous than changing lanes in a car.

@GraysonPeddie - You need to start riding on the road and don't let cars boss you around. It takes a while, but once you get the confidence, you'll find many more areas opened up to you on a bike.

Correct me if I,m wrong, but I think that in the Netherlands, bikes have the legal right-of-way in most situations. Cars must yield to bicyclists. Thus drivers who have grown up under this system and are more than likely routine cyclists themselves, are very aware and deferential to the bicycle traffic around them. Having driven and ridden in Holland, a few times, I felt very safe riding my bike thru crowded city streets. Of course you have thousands of bicycles plying these streets so you just go with the daily flow. It's VERY DIFFERENT from cycling in the USA!

I am not sure, but I believe you are wrong. I don't think cyclists have any automatic ROW over motor vehicles, but I do believe that in event of a collision, the driver of a motor vehicle is considered at fault for not avoiding a vulnerable road user.

I also believe that the motorists of the Netherlands are vastly more aware of cyclists, get educated on road use far better than drivers in the US, and accept cyclists as part of their every day traffic. Also in the US there is a mentality that cars are king and more power is better... hence the proliferation of SUVs to the extreme of the Hummer. Note that in much of Europe the small car is more often used and is not hailed as a form of ego stroking as is the case in the US.

Stop the second video at the 1:59 mark. The cyclist is about to cross the road with one car approaching from the left and another approaching from the right. Do this in the US and you are toast. In the video, both cars stopped for the cyclist.

Claims that it is safer cycling in the Netherlands are probably true given this type of driver behavior. I don't see, however, that the road design, i.e. the infrastructure design, is necessarily safer. The issue seems to be the education and attitude of drivers. That's what is needed in the US. This isn't to dismiss infrastructure enhancements but no design is safe given the current attitudes of many drivers and many cyclists as well.

I still think a better solution in the U.S. is to just make cyclists more commonplace. Changing lanes on a bicycle is no more dangerous than changing lanes in a car.

@GraysonPeddie - You need to start riding on the road and don't let cars boss you around. It takes a while, but once you get the confidence, you'll find many more areas opened up to you on a bike.
I have posted my response here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/850369-Concerning-850019-Intersection-design-the-dutch-way-page2) in order to keep the thread on-topic.

I'm reminded of the fable of Stone Soup. For those of you who haven't spent thousands of hours reading to younguns, it is a story about a destitute con man who happens upon the cottage of an old woman. He convinces her that he can make a marvelous soup from just some water and a couple of magical rocks that he has. Well, as he boils the rocks, he keeps tasting the soup and lamenting that it would be so much better with one more item (which happens to be readily available from the woman's garden, and which she happily provides). In the end, the "stone" soup, made up of garden vegetables, is indeed wonderful, but it's not the stones that made it so.

The bicycle-specific infrastructure in Northern Europe are the stones. They're in the soup (wonderful urban cycling conditions), but are wholly unnecessary. It is all the vegetables: The strict liability, the traffic law enforcement, the driver training, the traffic laws, the social standing of cyclists relative to motorists, and so on, that make it work. If you just bring those stones across the pond without the vegetables, it's not going to be much of a meal.

I am not sure, but I believe you are wrong. I don't think cyclists have any automatic ROW over motor vehicles, but I do believe that in event of a collision, the driver of a motor vehicle is considered at fault for not avoiding a vulnerable road user.
.

Some Dutch cyclists take strict liability to the extreme and just cut out in front of traffic _as if_ they had automatic ROW, because they know the cars will yield.

yeah, from an American viewpoint there were some real sphincter tightening moments in that second vid. Fortunately there arent as many roundabouts in the States. I do think the intersection design could be made to work here though.

Even with signage, getting car drivers to understand they actually have to stop would take lots of effort, and probably lots of broken limbs (or worse).

Note that in the video, the intersection is marked with "shark teeth' to indicate cars must yield. Dunno' about Holland, but in other parts of Europe, the right-of-way is sometimes reversed and bikes have to yield in a similar situation. Getting American drivers to understand which is which would be hopeless.

I'm reminded of the fable of Stone Soup. For those of you who haven't spent thousands of hours reading to younguns, it is a story about a destitute con man who happens upon the cottage of an old woman. He convinces her that he can make a marvelous soup from just some water and a couple of magical rocks that he has. Well, as he boils the rocks, he keeps tasting the soup and lamenting that it would be so much better with one more item (which happens to be readily available from the woman's garden, and which she happily provides). In the end, the "stone" soup, made up of garden vegetables, is indeed wonderful, but it's not the stones that made it so.

The bicycle-specific infrastructure in Northern Europe are the stones. They're in the soup (wonderful urban cycling conditions), but are wholly unnecessary. It is all the vegetables: The strict liability, the traffic law enforcement, the driver training, the traffic laws, the social standing of cyclists relative to motorists, and so on, that make it work. If you just bring those stones across the pond without the vegetables, it's not going to be much of a meal.

Nope. Conditions in the Netherlands and the USA were very similar up through the 50s and 60s, including terrible fatality rates for not least biking children. Only when they started implementing bike infrastructure did the fatality rate decrease for cyclists.

Strict liability came later - sometime in the late 80s, I believe.

That goes for Denmark, too, by the way.

Even with signage, getting car drivers to understand they actually have to stop would take lots of effort, and probably lots of broken limbs (or worse).

Note that in the video, the intersection is marked with "shark teeth' to indicate cars must yield. Dunno' about Holland, but in other parts of Europe, the right-of-way is sometimes reversed and bikes have to yield in a similar situation. Getting American drivers to understand which is which would be hopeless.

Heh. I doubt that Americans are any stupider when behind a wheel than are Danes, Dutch, Frenchmen etc. But there may be a point about the education.

Correct me if I,m wrong, but I think that in the Netherlands, bikes have the legal right-of-way in most situations.

Here http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g188590-c3581/Amsterdam:The-Netherlands:Cycling.In.Holland.html it seems from the correction that

"Bikers do NOT always have right of way. Generally sppeaking, if it is unclear who has right of way (by lines on the road, "stop" signs or traffic lights) the road user who comes from the right has right of way."

Similar to Danish regulations.

Nope. Conditions in the Netherlands and the USA were very similar up through the 50s and 60s, including terrible fatality rates for not least biking children. Only when they started implementing bike infrastructure did the fatality rate decrease for cyclists.

Strict liability came later - sometime in the late 80s, I believe.

That goes for Denmark, too, by the way.

The statement that traffic conditions were very similar between the USA and the Netherlands up through the 50s and 60s is completely incorrect. Indianapolis and Amsterdam aren't comparable now, and were not then. The only reason that I can deduce for why Hagen believes such utter nonsense is some form of ideology.

The statement that traffic conditions were very similar between the USA and the Netherlands up through the 50s and 60s is completely incorrect. Indianapolis and Amsterdam aren't comparable now, and were not then. The only reason that I can deduce for why Hagen believes such utter nonsense is some form of ideology.

You are, I hope, aware that the Netherlands is not just central Amsterdam. Eh?

the one problem with their intersections is that the light cycle takes absolutely forever. So a left turn for a bike takes twice forever

I don't even want to think about what this would do to my commute. As it stands now there is one intersection it is almost impossible to avoid and it is one where traffic is backed up from a nearby main street. If that major street intersection (Fallbrook and Ventura in Woodland Hills CA) had this setup and the seperate green light bit it would get worse. So worse that traffic would be backed up a half mile on the Ventura Freeway.

If it were only there I could find alternatives, miles out of my way and adding 30% to commute time. If they were everywhere I'd have ot consider commuting by bike, and rejecting it cuz I know just how many pissed off drivers would be out there.

http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John Forester http://www.bikeforums.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=14806035#post14806035)
The statement that traffic conditions were very similar between the USA and the Netherlands up through the 50s and 60s is completely incorrect. Indianapolis and Amsterdam aren't comparable now, and were not then. The only reason that I can deduce for why Hagen believes such utter nonsense is some form of ideology.




You are, I hope, aware that the Netherlands is not just central Amsterdam. Eh?

It is Hagen who made the claim that traffic conditions were very similar between the USA and the Netherlands up through the 50s and 60s. I challenged that as to two cities, but Hagen has provided no evidence as to the validity of his claim for the nations in general. Well, Hagen, what evidence do you present for the similarity of the traffic conditions between the two nations during this period?

Nope. Conditions in the Netherlands and the USA were very similar up through the 50s and 60s, including terrible fatality rates for not least biking children. Only when they started implementing bike infrastructure did the fatality rate decrease for cyclists.

Strict liability came later - sometime in the late 80s, I believe.

That goes for Denmark, too, by the way.
So, when the Dutch started to build segregated infrastructure, the CARnage instantly disappeared. Later, just because it seemed like a good idea but not because the infrastructural changes were found to be inadequate, the Dutch began adding in the other vegetables, of which strict liability is but one.

It sure sounds like a load of hogwash to me. If the infrastructure was sufficient, then there was no need for further changes. If the stones weren't sufficient to make a pleasing soup, then there would logically be vegetables added.

I think your ideology is in the way here. What happens when this sort of thing is dropped in to an American roadscape? Well, locally I've watched a "cyclepath" be used as a place to park cars and as a passing lane (with cyclists in place, no less) for motorists. I remain unconvinced that the stones can make a decent soup.

Nope. Conditions in the Netherlands and the USA were very similar up through the 50s and 60s, including terrible fatality rates for not least biking children. Only when they started implementing bike infrastructure did the fatality rate decrease for cyclists.

Strict liability came later - sometime in the late 80s, I believe.

That goes for Denmark, too, by the way.If the original infrastructure changes were working so well as you claim, why would anyone even consider the need for special bicycle light cycles or strict liability?

If the original infrastructure changes were working so well as you claim, why would anyone even consider the need for special bicycle light cycles or strict liability?

Belt+suspenders? I'm seeing a false dichotomy here. Seems what works is a combination of seperated facilities and strict liability. Why try to parse it out?Aren't results what really matter?

Belt+suspenders? I'm seeing a false dichotomy here. Seems what works is a combination of seperated facilities and strict liability. Why try to parse it out?Aren't results what really matter?If you really only care about ending bicycle accidents, you could ban bicycles and have a zero accident rate. After all the end results are all that matter.

Of course some wish to consider the other impacts of the actions they take.

Belt+suspenders? Do you really need both a belt and suspenders to hold up your pants?