German cycle paths vs Dutch cycle paths.

The German cycling organisation, the ADFC, recently published alarming criticisms of cycle paths in general which have in turn been widely criticized by Dutch commentators. Remembering my own experiences on German cycle paths, I decided to make a video comparing the situations on the two country's paths, which you can see above.

Waiting to cross the road in Essen. In Germany this often
means a multi- stage crossing (more than one red light)
and a long wait. It's not like that in the Netherlands.

I understand why German cyclists are dis-satisfied with their cycle paths. The quality obviously varies from one place to another, but in many cases they're simply not built with anything like the quality that is required to ensure the safety and convenience of cyclists. However, they have made a mistake in criticizing all cycle-paths.

Dutch cycle paths are different. They've done a proper job. This is why Dutch cycle paths really are both convenient and safe. They are designed to be used by everyone, regardless of ability of experience. Fast cyclists use the same infrastructure as children, and elderly people.

The video above doesn't claim to be comprehensive. Rather, it's the result of my looking at a small amount of video that I shot in Germany, mainly near Leer as well as near the border around Rütenbrock, and finding how the Dutch had treated similar situations here in the Netherlands. Having visited other parts of Germany, and read comments by Germans about their cycle paths, I think it's fair to say that the conditions presented in the video are not far off normal.

Essen: Take your pick by bike. Do you prefer a narrow
shared-use path or a four lane highway ? In the Netherlands
we don't have shared-use paths. We do have wide efficient
cycle-paths.

Germany actually presents quite an interesting case. The cycling rate varies by a remarkable degree between different areas, and does so with the quality of cycling provision. While German cycle paths may not always be of an adequate standard, where there are extensive networks people cycle in quite high numbers.

British cyclists, comparing only with what they get in the UK, are frequently impressed by German cycle paths. I had several people say just this to me at a recent cycle show in Germersheim. The difference in quality between Britain and Germany goes a long way to explain why under 2% of journeys in Britain are by bike vs. 10% in Germany.

The Beauty and the Bike project compared the situation for German and British teenagers, showing quite clearly that cyclists in Germany in many places have an advantage over cyclists in the UK.

However, the difference between Germany and the Netherlands also explains why the Dutch cycling rate is nearly three times that of Germany. Any place which wants to truly achieve a high cycling rate really needs to copy from the Netherlands, where 27% of all trips are by bike. This country has achieved such a high rate of cycling because the experience of everyday cycling is not remotely like taking part in an extreme sport.

Essen: "Cycle friendly city" ?

The still photos in this post show cycling conditions in Essen in Germany, a city which is struggling a little with cycling and currently has a modal share of around 5% of all journeys by bike. Despite this, the city makes the claim of being a "cycle friendly city." The first photo shows someone waiting to cross several lanes of motorised traffic (the green overpass can also be taken), the second shows a narrow shared use path to which the alternative route is a four lane each side road. Apart from the lacklustre infrastructure, and cyclists facing a huge number of cars on the roads, there is also a problem of speed limits being ignored. A taxi driver told us that the 50 km/h speed limit referred to "50 km/h for the front wheels and 50 km/h for the back wheels."

A large part of the problem with Essen is caused by post second world war reconstruction, with the then considered to be "modern" wide roads. However, these problems due to old-fashioned car dominated planning can be overcome, as Nijmegen demonstrates.

Lessons to be learnt

German cycling infrastructure is quite
comprehensive, but the quality is often awful
In this example sight lines are bad, priority
isn't obvious and the cycle-crossing is not
even straight.

On the positive side of things, in much of Germany you do find a reasonably tight grid of cycle infrastructure of some type or another. A tight grid of high quality subjectively safe routes is what enables cycling, just as has been found in the Netherlands. This is why cycling is possible by a fairly wide range of people in Germany and why roughly 1 in 10 journeys in that country are made by bike. However, the quality of this network falls well below that of the quality of cycle infrastructure in the Netherlands. This makes it is un-usable or inconvenient for those want to cycle fast (hence ADFC complaints) and not particularly easy to navigate, quick to use or so safe as it should be. In my view, the difference between the modal shares of Germany and the Netherlands can largely be put down to the difference in quality of the different country's cycle infrastructure as demonstrated in the video above. Germans want to cycle more, but their infrastructure makes it less attractive than it should be.

We've enjoyed cycling in Germany on holiday, but this is not
nearly wide enough for a bidirectional path. It's also too close
to the road, and there are cars parked on it !

For campaigners
Campaigning for better infrastructure is a negotiation. If you ask for Dutch infrastructure, you are unlikely to get Dutch quality of infrastructure in the first instance. You may, if you're lucky, get the equivalent of German infrastructure instead. However, ask only for German infrastructure and you're very unlikely to get that either. If your aim is to see everyone cycling then always ask for the very best. i.e. infrastructure which works for all cyclists including the young and the old and the sporty, not a compromise which doesn't work for everyone. Campaigners must not have low aspirations.

2013 update
Earlier this year a German TV programme showed how Germans are amazed at how bad cycling is in London. More recently, another German TV programme covered many of the same issues as I pointed out in my video about the problems with German cycling provision.

There's a lesson here. While countries like the UK may think that countries like Germany have achieved something worth emulating, this is not the right place to look to in order to progress. You need to set the highest possible standard, not set about copying something which the people who live with it don't actually find to be good enough.

The best examples of cycling infrastructure to emulate are to be found in The Netherlands, but even here you must be careful to select only the best examples. Don't assume that Dutch contractors will inherently do the right thing, because they won't.

2014 update

Rural German bidi cycle-path in 2014. Too narrow, too bumpy

A recent organised bike ride from Haren in the Netherlands to Haren in Germany and back again gave an opportunity to try out some more German cycle-paths and the results were similar to what I'd experienced before.

Assen, the Dutch city which we live in, only started to claim to be a "cycling city" once and after the cycling rate climbed above 40% of all journeys. The website where the claim was made then was rearranged, and there is now no such claim made for our city.

Just how safe are Dutch cyclists and Dutch cycle paths ?

Dutch cycle-path. Four metres wide
and well away from the road. In this
case used by school children.

I've pointed out before that the Netherlands has the safest roads in the world, and that cycle paths have also lead to this country having the safest cyclists in the world. However, for some this evidence simply isn't enough. In the English speaking world in particular, "experts" continue to insist on the ludicrous idea that cyclists are safer in the proximity of cars than without them. However, these countries also continue to have a stunningly low cycling rate.

Now the Germans have joined in too !

The Fietsberaad reports that...

Dutch cycle-path. Four metres wide
and taking a completely different
route to the road. It's good enough
for racing cyclists and it's good enough
for you too.

According to ADFC, the German Cyclists’ Union, people should cycle where they are safest: on the road among cars. Not on separate bike paths, as this would be more dangerous according to various studies. In the United States this news is eagerly distributed by opponents of bike paths. Dutch experts obviously refute this report.
The main argument in the German report is that cycling in the Netherlands is dangerous as 40% of all traffic accidents involve cyclists, whereas these only account for 27% of all travel. And this in spite of the number of bike paths. In Germany, on the other hand, there are fewer bike paths, as well as lower numbers of bicycle accidents in relation to the percentage of travel by bicycle. Conclusion: bike paths are dangerous. This conclusion about the (supposed) danger of separate bike paths in the Netherlands is however by no means well-founded or warranted.

As a matter of fact in the Netherlands cyclists are victims of traffic accidents in not 40% but even 50% of all cases, data provided by Fietsberaad demonstrate. But the percentages and statistics of CBS/Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Managements do not at first glance reveal that the overwhelming majority of these casualties are caused by unilateral accidents. A study by SWOV concluded that 80% of all bicycle accidents consists of unilateral accidents and accidents among cyclists. Moreover, this percentage is increasing. A mere 20% of all accidents involving cyclists concerns motorised vehicles, and numbers are falling steadily. The ADFC article emphasises accidents with motorised vehicles, whereas the main problem in the Netherlands consists of these unilateral accidents, instead of collisions with other vehicles, for example cyclists colliding with bollards.

Dutch cycle-path. Secondary route.
Three metres wide, parallel with
"busy" road. Part of a dense grid
of high quality cycle-routes which
go everywhere.

Anyway, unilateral accidents cause in general only minor injuries. A study by Consument en Veiligheid into unilateral bicycle accidents (November 2008), commissioned by Rijkswaterstaat Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart (RWS DVS), revealed that the annual number of treatments at Emergency Departments (SEH) after unilateral bicycle accidents is approximately 46,000. Approximately 6,000 of these victims require hospitalisation. The estimated annual number of traffic fatalities caused by unilateral bicycle accidents is 50. In 2007 there were 189 traffic fatalities among cyclists in the Netherlands.
And finally, improved safety by separation of traffic has by now been conclusively proven in the Netherlands. See for instance the fact sheet ‘Kwetsbare verkeersdeelnemers’ by SWOV (July 2009). This argues in favour of a complete separation of traffic participants with large differences in mass and speed. After all, in serious bilateral conflicts between for instance a car and a cyclist the inequality ratio is huge: 126. This means that in these types of conflicts the number of cyclists injured is 126 times higher than the number of motorists, seeing as people are well-protected in their cars and run relatively little risk at low speeds. In accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians the inequality ratio is a mere 1.7. In accidents involving two cyclists the ratio is of course 1. For the safety of cyclists it is therefore better to separate them from motor vehicles by providing separate bike paths.

Dutch cycle-path. Four metres wide
in quiet residential area

It's also worth pointing out that the view of safety is a bit different here. There are three types of safety to consider if you want to achieve a rate of cycling which is comparable with the Netherlands, or the safety that cyclists enjoy here.

You may also be interested in the concept of Sustainable safety which has lead to a continuing increase in safety in the Netherlands.

I have made a video comparing Dutch and German cycle paths.

Older people cycle in the Netherlands
In addition to the points made by the Fietsberaad statement above, another fact worth pointing out with regard to Dutch cycling crash statistics is that there is a far wider cycling demographic in the Netherlands, including many people who are more prone to injury when cycling and who simply don't cycle in other countries with anything like the same frequency. Retired people cycle for around a quarter of their journeys in the Netherlands and they are the unfortunate victims of 2/3rds of all the injuries and fatalities. Note that the collisions in which these crashes take places almost always involve only the retired person. No other cycles or other vehicles are involved in most cases. Without this more vulnerable group cycling, Dutch injury and death statistics when cycling per km travelled are already the best in the world and they would look about three times better than they do now if it were not for this additional burden of also having the most vulnerable cyclists in the world.

The photos show four of the many different cycle paths within a few hundred metres of our home in Assen, with different types of cyclists using them to cycle with a remarkable degree of safety compared with elsewhere. It's impossible to over-state the importance of a high density grid of extremely high quality infrastructure.