Content deleted Content added
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
[[File:13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-25.jpg|thumb|A protected intersection in [[Rotterdam]] in the [[Netherlands]]. A safe way to cross the road on a [[bicycle]].]]
This type of [[intersection (road)|intersection]] has for decades been used in the bicycle-friendly [[Netherlands]], and [[Denmark]]. An alternative philosophy, design for [[vehicular cycling]], encourages having bicycle lanes simply disappear, or "drop", at intersections, forcing riders to merge into traffic like a vehicle operator ahead of the intersection in order to avoid the risk of a ''right-hook'' collision, when a right turning motorist collides with a through moving cyclist. Design policies which do not allow the cyclist to remain separated through the intersection have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years as causing difficulties for less capable riders,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dill|first1=Jennifer|last2=McNeil|first2=Nathan|date=2016-01-01|title=Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2587-11|journal=Transportation Research Record|volume=2587|pages=90–99|language=en|doi=10.3141/2587-11|s2cid=114945037|url-access=subscription}}</ref> leading to lower overall ridership and sidewalk riding,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Prospect Park West Traffic Calming and Bicycle Path Page 12|url=https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012_ppw_trb2012.pdf|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Designing for All Ages and Abilities. Page 2|url=https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=NACTO}}</ref> and being less safe.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Buehler|first1=Ralph|last2=Pucher|first2=John|date=2021-01-02|title=The growing gap in pedestrian and cyclist fatality rates between the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, 1990–2018|journal=Transport Reviews|volume=41|issue=1|pages=48–72|doi=10.1080/01441647.2020.1823521|s2cid=225108005|issn=0144-1647|doi-access=free}}</ref>
==History==
Line 33:
[[File:13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-27.jpg|thumb|The protection of the vulnerable cyclists with a protected junction with bicycle traffic lights.]]
In terms of optimal spacing between the path and motorist lanes, it is generally practice to use 2–5 meters at signalised crossings and one car length >5 m at unsignalised intersections. Providing more buffer space allows vehicles, particularly those turning out of smaller roads, to queue in the waiting area. On the other hand, larger buffers could place the cyclist at a less optimal viewing point from the mainline, and delay the signal operation due to longer distances necessitating slightly longer bicycle signal yellow and all red clearance intervals. The exact optimal distance has been the subject of several studies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schepers|first=Paul|date=2011|title=Road factors and bicycle–motor vehicle crashes at unsignalised priority intersections|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005|journal=Accident Analysis and Prevention|volume=43|issue=3|pages=853–861|doi=10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005|pmid=21376876|via=|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Richter|first1=Thomas|last2=Sachs|first2=Janina|date=2017-01-01|title=Turning accidents between cars and trucks and cyclists driving straight ahead|journal=Transportation Research Procedia|series=World Conference on Transport Research – WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10–15 July 2016|language=en|volume=25|pages=1946–1954|doi=10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.219|issn=2352-1465|doi-access=free}}</ref>
===Signalised junctions===
Line 68:
===Protected roundabouts===
Protected roundabouts or Dutch roundabouts are a variation of protected intersections for lower [[traffic flow]], without the traffic lights.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XBzAOmmIU Video:Dutch roundabout] and [https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/explaining-the-dutch-roundabout-abroad/ blog post] on the Youtube Chain and web site 'BicycleDutch'◘</ref> In the Netherlands, designers have been switching signalised junctions for roundabouts, as roundabouts are safer.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Dutch|first=Bicycle|date=2015-10-12|title=Explaining the Dutch roundabout abroad|url=https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/explaining-the-dutch-roundabout-abroad/|access-date=2021-12-28|website=BICYCLE DUTCH|language=en}}</ref> Specific facilities for cyclists are not needed at quieter roundabouts (<6,000 [[passenger car unit]]s per 24 hours), unless connecting roads have segregated cycle tracks. Cycle lanes on roundabouts may be considered by designers to increase the visibility of cyclists, however they are dangerous as drivers, especially lorries, might have an inadequate view of cyclists using a circulatory cycle lane.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book
For the safety of cyclists, motor traffic speeds should be reduced. Single-lane roundabouts are generally used in the Netherlands. Otherwise, a turbo roundabout can be used, which has multiple lanes and separates motor traffic going in different directions, but multi-lane roundabouts have been found to be especially dangerous to cyclists since many cyclists choose to ride in the outside lane and become much less visible to drivers.<ref>{{
As cyclists will conflict with motorists at the exit arms of the motorised roundabout, priority must be established. In the Netherlands, cyclists will normally be given priority to [[Bicycle-friendly|promote cycling]] over driving.<ref name=":0"/>{{Rp|page=148}} This is the design that has often been transposed internationally, labelled the 'Dutch roundabout', e.g. in [[Cambridge]], UK.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2020-09-26|title=Cambridge's Dutch-style roundabout: Why all the fuss?|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-53947440|access-date=2022-01-17}}</ref>
Line 87:
== Design and publications ==
The Dutch not-for-profit organisation CROW publishes design manuals summarizing best standards for bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands, where biking is a much more dominant mode of transportation than in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.crow.nl/english-summary|title=About CROW – CROW|website=www.crow.nl|access-date=2019-02-27|archive-date=2024-05-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240515051509/https://www.crow.nl/english-summary|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure|title=No helmets, no problem: how the Dutch created a casual biking culture|website=www.vox.com | date = 28 December 2018 | access-date = 12 October 2022}}</ref> The organisation's and country's longer experience with synthesizing biking and driving transportation modes have made CROW's design manual internationally popular. After decades of publications in the native Dutch, an English translation was released in 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.crow.nl/publicaties/design-manual-for-bicycle-traffic-(1)|publisher= CROW| title = Design manual for bicycle traffic | date=2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/02/01/the-dutchs-beloved-bikeway-design-manual-just-got-an-update/ | publisher = Streetsblog USA | title = The Dutch's Beloved Bikeway Design Manual Just Got an Update | website = usa.streetsblog.org | date = 1 February 2017 | access-date = 12 October 2022}}</ref>
=== US Design Guide Controversy ===
Line 93:
In 2011, the primary North American planning organisation NACTO released new design guidelines which claimed to use international best practices while omitting Dutch best practices. This sparked controversy, especially after ambassador of Dutch bicycle infrastructure Mark Wagenbuur criticised NACTO for doing so in a prominent trade blog.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/04/state-of-art-bikeway-design-or-is-it.html |title= blog post: State of art bikeway design, or is it? |publisher=A view from the cycle path| date = 7 April 2011}}</ref> Three years after the furor, Nick Falbo, then part of Alta Planning + Design, a firm behind the NACTO designs, published ‘protectedintersection.com’, which integrated more European design concepts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.protectedintersection.com|title=Protected Intersection|publisher=Nick Falbo| date = February 2014 |access-date=8 January 2015}}</ref>
In 2015, Alta Planning + Design published schematics and some realisations of "protected intersections" in the US and Canada closer to Dutch practice.<ref name="PI evolution">{{cite web |url=https://altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-the-Protected-Intersection_ALTA-2015.pdf |
==See also==
* [[Cyclability]], how well suited an area is for cycling
* [[Cycling infrastructure]], infrastructure used by cyclists
* [[Cyclist crossing]], point where a cyclists crosses a route for another mode of transport
* [[Hook turn]], road-vehicular manoeuvre for turning across lanes of opposing traffic
* [[Right-hook accident]], traffic accident where a turning motor vehicle hits a pedestrian or cyclist
==References==
Line 104 ⟶ 106:
{{cycling}}
{{Cycling
{{Road types}}
| |||