Friday, March 13, 2009

Bicycle safety and infrastructure: European perspectives

The following posting was drafted yesterday in response to a discussion on www.LivableStreets.com looking at different approaches to providing cycle paths and other forms of street architecture modifications, major and minor, to protect the cyclist. The discussants were partially looking at this in the context of New York's ongoing vigorous efforts to develop a major cycling program after many years of neglect.

- Eric Britton, Editor, World Streets

Lessons learned in Europe


International experience at the leading edge, mainly in European cities that are doing the job, put some interesting lessons on the table.

For starters, let’s make sure that we do not allow ourselves to get too comfortable too fast. By that I mean I am not at all sure that the best approach to safe cycling is to start by shopping around for the most attractive cycle path designs to be put in your city's streets here or there. I can understand the temptation but we have here a systemic problem which requires more than occasional attractive street architecture.

Safe cycling is based on the existence of networks which provide a safe travel environment over the areas and routes most taken by cyclists. By which I mean to say that a lovely cycle facility here and there does not by itself promote safe cycling (in fact conceivably it can make cycling even more dangerous). What is needed from the beginning is without letting up to drive toward that basic network. To accomplish this, it means targeting a solution set that is pretty pervasive, far more so than most plans today even dare aim for.

What do you do when what you need to do definitely outstrips the resources, approaches and plans that are traditionally available to you? The only way to do this is to change the rules. That happens in five main parts.

1. Speed reductions:
("Don ‘t leave home without them.")

The first pillar of new mobility policy is to slow down the traffic on EVERY street in the city. I do not say this lightly and I understand the extent to which this runs against long-standing practices and what people regard as their fair interest. But there is no longer any mystery about this at the leading edge. I do not imagine that there is a competent (note the word) traffic planner today who will argue for top speeds in excess of 30 mph in the city. 30 mph is terrific, and though too fast for safe cycling is something which we can reasonably target for the Main Avenue's and thoroughfares. For the rest a policy of 10/20/30 is feasible, fair and do-able. Once you get over the shock.

2. Reclaim street space:

The second prong of the strategy is that the creation of a safe network requires taking over at least portions of a quite large number of streets in the city. This is accomplished in two ways, the first being the alteration of the street architecture, taking over lanes for fully protected cycling. The most popular, parking lane out/bike lane in, often works very nicely when the cycle lanes work against the flow of traffic. The second prong of street reclaiming is the hard edge of speed reductions. In these cases top speeds on the side streets drop to something like 10 to 15 mph, with 10 leading better than 15. Again for most cross-town traffic in Manhattan this should not be a problem.

3. "Occuper le terrain": (French for safety in numbers. )

You are seeing that in New York already, though I have to guess you are not yet at the tipping point on that. But the more people you get out on the street on their bicycles every day, the more that everybody involved moves up a couple of notches day after day in the learning process. The cyclists learn how to behave better to protect themselves in traffic, drivers get accustomed to looking out for those small wavering frail figures, the police learn how to play their part in this learning process, and the system they have today learns and adapts.

4. "Street code":

The Highway Code, a collection of laws, advice and best practice for all road users, which mainly functions as a written basis for learning to drive as well as stipulating the letter of the law (licensing, required safety equipment, default rules, etc.) In Europe this happens at a national level, with room in some places for stricter local ordinances. In the US mainly a state prerogative.


I understand that you are looking into this for New York. Many European cities are advancing on the idea of establishing a far tougher "street codes" specifically adapted to the special and more demanding conditions of driving in city traffic. This is becoming especially important as we start to see a much greater mix of vehicles, speeds and people on the street. The idea is works is that culpability for any accident on street, sidewalk or public space, is automatically assigned to the heavier faster vehicle. This means that the driver who hits a cyclist has to prove his innocence, as opposed to today where the cyclist must prove the driver's guilt (not always very easy to do). This is not quite as good as John Adams' magnificent 1995 formulation whereby every steering wheel of every car , truck and bus would be equipped with a large sharp nail aimed directly at the driver’s heart-- but it can at least help getting things moving in the right direction.



5. It's a Learning System:

Once you start to break the ice to the point where provision of cycling facilities even starts to be an issue, it is probably best to think of the city and the street network as a learning system. And learning of course takes place over time, and if you are lucky leads to a continuous stream of adjustments as you go along. There may be a bit of comfort in that, if you are patient enough, because what it definitely means is that any cycling improvements you can conceivably come up with today has to be thought of not as a solution but as the start of the path. This is very definitely process oriented planning.


* * *


So we really do know what to do, and we do know that it requires a combination of foresight, originality, guile and pragmatic planning from the beginning. Fortunately there is plenty of international experience which backs this up.


Paris is an example of one that I live with and cycle in every day over a decades-long period of steady adaptation and change. It is definitely not Copenhagen or Amsterdam. It is work in progress. Only a few years ago Paris was a city that was planning almost exclusively for cars and yet over the past decade has gradually began to build up a network for safe cycling. Perhaps not so much safe as safer, and the role of the planners here is to use the full cookbook of approaches in a dynamic organic manner so that each day things get a little bit better. Because all this has become part of the culture, the mainstream culture, it is no longer a big deal and so do the good works are able to go on every day.

Of course if cycling is your game it would be great to be able to import whole hog those terrific physical infrastructures that are found in Dutch and Danish cities. But this takes decades and I do not see it happening overnight in most US cities, New York among them. What is interesting about the Paris example, and we are certainly not the only one, is the manner in which safe cycling infrastructure is being built up step by step and day by day. We are not yet at the point at which we can feel comfortable with Gil Penalosa's "8 to 80 rule", remember, where cycling is safe for your eight-year-old daughter and your eighty-year-old grandfather. But give us a time and we will get there -
and I hope you will too.


Print this article

6 comments:

  1. re: "30mph is terrific":

    30mph/50kph motor vehicle speed limits give too much of an advantage over slower and/or sustainable forms of transport, e.g. bicycles or buses/trams, for the latter especially those not on dedicated infrastructure.

    Moreover, this separated infrastructure costs a lot, and very often in the case of cycling, takes space away from pedestrians.

    Also, 30/50 gets exceeded quite often and threatens the life of soft users of a street who dare to or accidentally intrude upon the fast part of a street.

    I live on a 50kph street in Berlin. Two lanes in either direction. The car traffic flows quickly most of the time. The cycle lane is on former pedestrian space. The pedestrian space is on former gardens, right below balconies made unusable by the 50kph car traffic.

    While 35mph or higher is really bad, 30/50 is still Old Mobility, and it dominates the spaces it touches. It is not terrific, but terrifying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's an excellent comment Todd, and sure as always that devil is still in the detials. When I was writing that piece as part of our New York series, I had in mind their wide North/South avenues, with the protection of wide sidewalks, and very much 24/7 traffic flows. There I think those 30 mph limits might do the trick. But on streets such as you describe, surely not. Have a look at Michael Yeates's excellent article of today on this for more persepctive. Again, thanks for writing. As always.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This document may still prove to be helpful: Safety and Accident Reduction
    http://www.eu-portal.net/material/downloadarea/kt3_wm_en_pdf_ext.pdf

    Pascal J.W. van den Noort
    Executive Director Velo Mondial

    Velo Mondial's Blog
    Google Velo Mondial

    www.velomondial.net
    www.velo.info
    http://spicycles.velo.info
    operations@velomondial.net
    +31206270675 landline
    +31627055688 mobile phone

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is enough experience in Europe with 20mph or 30km/h limits to suggest that
    the default urban speed lint should be 20mph. It is not clear what the speed
    limit should be on major roads, but I suspect that it should be lower than
    30mph. Perhaps this question should be decided by what is best for buses. If
    the bus service has frequent stops, imposing a limit of (say) 25mph is unlikely
    to slow the buses down very much while improving their competitive position
    vis-a-vis cars.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Idea of the integration of all types of traffic sounds very nice, but the motor car by its very nature is a tool of inconvenience, if not violence against lighter and softer participants of traffic: motor car it's a big, heavy item, which claims a lot of space, is bulky and hard to deal with, if you're on foot or by bike.

    One does not has to be hit by car, to feel insecure or inconvenient -- the sidewalks are clogged with the metal bodies, which force the pedestrians to sneak (or squeeze through) between them, or take a longer way.

    Just imagine the sidewalk clogged with hundreds of wardrobes, standing here and there... The Police would take an action, for sure. But if you replace the wardrobes with the cars... Almost everyone is accustomed to the cars and public stops noticing their inconvenience.

    About cycling -- integration with pedestrian traffic is possible on big squares and on wide roads with slow traffic. But to keep cycle traffic competitive to the car transport, is to make cycle traffic non-interrupted.

    From physical point of view, cycle traffic, as every traffic of wheeled vehicles, is easy to simulate.
    Simulation of pedestrian traffic is very difficult, because people can move sideways while walking, and show very complicated pattern of motion. Nowadays the very modern programs allow to simulate pedestrian traffic and the mass of people behaves like a casted metal -- thick, dense fluid, which stops its flow and hardens, when meets any obstacle.

    So the extensive calculations should be made, where integration and where separation has to be applied -- and what result will be achieved.

    Marek Utkin
    Warsaw Poland

    ReplyDelete
  6. believe it or not, making things safer for peds/bikes can also improve conditions for motorists. Besides improving safety overall, putting 4 and 5-lane collectors/arterials on "road diets" and removing signals can lower vehicle speeds but also dramatically improve overall travel times.

    Larry Shaeffer larryshaeffer@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comment. You may wish to check back to the original entry from time to time to see if there are reactions to this. If you have questions, send an email to: editor@worldstreets.org