Some Dutch Cycling infrastructure is older than you might expect, some of it is newer

It sometimes not clear to people whether cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands is a new phenomena or something which has been around decades ago. Sometimes new infrastructure looks "old" or old infrastructure looks "new".

Old infrastructure which looks "new"
Here's an example of a cycle-path and road junction which look right up to date, but which have actually existed for over 60 years.

Parcels containing bike parts beginning their journey to customers. I use this cycle-path several times a week to transport goods like this because it's a main route from the suburb where we live and work into the centre of the city. Note the re-surfacing work being carried out on the other side of the road.

A photo of the same location from 2007 shows an older cycle-path surface and everything looked a bit worn out back then. Tiled surfaces were once quite common on Dutch cycle-paths, this one having survived well past when others had already been replaced. The asphalt came soon after this photo was taken. The cycle-path is in exactly the same location and has the same 2.5 m width, a width which is perfectly fine in most situations for a unidirectional cycle-path, though it would be too narrow if this was intended for bidirectional use.

In this aerial shot (courtesy of Bing Maps), the red arrow shows where my bike was when I took the photo above. You can clearly see the road layout here in which motorists give way to the cycle-path as well as pedestrians crossing the road. You can also see the crossings from left to right for cyclists and pedestrians. In that direction, across the main flow, cyclists do not have priority. I've no explanation for the strangely parked vans.

An aerial photo from 1961 shows almost exactly the same layout. The cycle-path is unchanged apart from the surface but the road from left to right has been reduced from a dual carriageway type arrangement to a normal road. When this photo was taken this was not part of a direct route into the city centre because a bridge a few hundred metres further along would not be built for a few more years. Both the bridge for access to the centre and the dual carriageway road arrangement were influenced by a 1913 plan to make a "harmonious" city. The bridge (the current version of which is visible in a recent video) is useful, but it's a very good thing that the idea of building a ring-road this close to the centre was abandoned. 

New infrastructure which required considerable work to look much as it used to
Someone who was transported through time from the 1940s might not initially notice, but it actually took a lot of work to give this road layout a similar appearance to 80 years ago:

This photo from 2022 shows what looks like a new cycle-path, and indeed it is relatively new, dating from 2008. To the right of the cycle-path is a separate pedestrian path, to the left there's space for car parking, then the road and a canal. Referring to older photos this initially looks like not much has changed. See the next photo.

This photo from the 1940s already showed the canal, the road, the cycle-path and the pedestrian path. But note that at that time the cycle-path and pedestrian path were both narrower, there was no car parking space and there was no substantive buffer between the road (which had a higher speed limit back then) and the cycle-path. When I took my photo I stood in almost the same position as this photographer stood in when he took his photo, but I'm on the cycle-path and he was on the road. The very similar appearance hides major work to create more space alongside a canal in order to enable us to have better cycling provision as well as car parking spaces required with the considerably higher car ownership rate of the present day.

This photo from 2007 facing in the opposite direction (note the same lit up bright red sign on the left) shows where the extra space for the wider cycle-path and car parking came from. The first 1.5 km of the canal running from the city centre to the East was shifted sideways, to the North, by about two metres. Everything was reconstructed from scratch, but the pedestrian and cycle-paths were replaced first and at this point we're cycling on a subsurface (note different colour asphalt from the finished cycle-path).

So in this case the infrastructure looks like nothing much has changed, but actually it took a lot of work to create a situation where the route looks much like it did in the 1940s while actually offering more to modern cyclists, pedestrians and drivers than was the case before.

New Infrastructure which looks "old"

One of the things which sometimes makes people think that something new is "old" is the road surface, or that streets seem to be very narrow. While tiles on cycle-paths along through routes have often been swapped out for asphalt, as shown above, in city centres the opposite has happened: asphalt is swapped for tiles.

A city centre street in Assen. Drivers can access this road, but for them this is now a one-way detour to nowhere. No-one drives a car here unless they need to pick something up from one of the shops. This road surface is used by more cyclists than drivers and by bike this is a two way road which provides direct routes to many locations

This is what the same place used to look like in the 1970s. At that time the street looked very wide and it was used as a major through route for cars, as you can see from the signage. Drivers were served by filling stations on both sides of the street. Pedestrians crossing the road had to walk a remarkably long walk to travel between the narrow sidewalks on either side. Asphalt in the middle of the street provided a good surface for driving cars and narrow cycle lanes as the edge provided an inferior surface for cycling. The photo isn't quite wide enough to show the traffic lights which were needed in this location, but which no longer exist. Absolutely no space could be found for trees. If this was still a main route by car in the 21st century it would have become an extremely unpleasant place.

Go back a little further in history and we find that the same street once looked like this. The current layout resembles an attempt to return to how this street looked before it was temporarily taken over by completely car oriented thinking. But what we see now is all completely new and accommodates customers visiting the shops by car, while also excluding the through traffic. Also notice that from the first photo right down to this one people are using similar designs of practical everyday bicycles. This near perfect design has never gone out of date because it works so well.

What can we learn from this
Initial impressions can be misleading. Sometimes what looks new is old, or what looks old is new.

The Netherlands had cycling infrastructure early in the 20th century, but this was not always valued and there are many examples of early cycling infrastructure being removed in the mid 20th century in order to provide more space for cars. There are also many historical examples of lacklustre infrastructure with inferior surfaces or which took longer routes than driving. It was not until the mid 1970s that the value of cycling infrastructure was recognised again after a series of protests, and it took until the 1980s until the necessity of a full grid of efficient go-everywhere infrastructure was acknowledged, after which quick progress was made.

Click for a more about how this city centre was transformed twice during the twentieth century, first to accommodate more cars and then to exclude them. There are also many more before and after photographs showing how Dutch roads changed over time.

How bidirectional cycle-paths improve cycling safety and efficiency

Click for more information about the railway station including the excellent convenient access between the platform, the extensive cycle parking and these cycle-paths.
Imagine if sidewalks (pavements in the UK) for pedestrians were unidirectional. If you wanted to visit your neighbour who lived on the right side of your home then you could walk there directly, but to come back home again in a legal manner you'd be expected to cross the road, walk until you were opposite your home and then cross back again. Does that make sense ? Of course not. The inconvenience of expecting people to cross the road simply to walk in the opposite direction is absurd. All sidewalks are therefore bidirectional.

Bidirectional cycle-paths, well implemented, provide cyclists with a similar level of utility as do bidirectional sidewalks. Instead of having to cross a road to travel a short distance in the "wrong" direction, cyclists can stay on the same side of a road. This makes short journeys significantly faster. It also improves their safety because they don't have to cross the road twice. Crossing the road is a significant risk: I noted in a previous blog that the most dangerous locations for cyclists in many Dutch cities are often simple uncontrolled crossings (at least where more dangerous examples of infrastructure have been eliminated)

Directness of routes is important for cycling to succeed. The more efficient that we can make cycling, the more journeys there are for which people will find it a convenient mode of transport. Bidirectional cycle-paths allow for this convenience.

It is, of course, possible to create a poor version of almost anything. That includes bidirectional cycle-paths. Where they are criticised, look for other issues. For example, poor junction design which may create conflict or make cyclists less visible to drivers.

Here are some examples of where bidirectional cycle-paths make sense. Click on the links in the descriptions of the photos to see more examples:

In a city centre

In the city centre, where a cycle-path replaced a busy road, only a bidirectional cycle-path makes sense

In the countryside

Cycle-paths through recreational areas are almost always bidirectional. There would be no sense in making them otherwise. 

Alongside a busy road

This bidirectional cycle-path is alongside a busy road through an industrial area which has four lanes of motor traffic, a central reservation and destinations on both sides. It is not desirable to require people to cross the road than is absolutely necessary. Bidirectional cycling is possible on both sides of the road.

in residential areas

This bidirectional cycle-path is in a residential suburb. In this case there is a canal on the other side of the road so it would make no sense at all to require cyclists to cross the road in order to ride next to the canal instead of next to the homes which are destinations for cyclists.

Brand new infrastructure linking a residential area to the centre of the city. There is a road behind the bushes on the right, but after the road there is nothing but the railway track. Here also it makes sense for cyclists to ride on one side of the road in both directions.

Where all destinations are on one side of the road

All destinations along this road, including shops and cafes, are on this side of road while on the other side of the road there is a canal. It would make no sense here to make cyclists cross in order to ride towards the camera. On the other side of the canal there is a bidirectional bicycle road which does not offer a through route to drivers. Note also how the road junction design reduces the danger of collision with motor vehicles. The turning radius is small and the black "cannonballs" prevent drivers from cutting the corner.

Roundabout design

One of several features which defines the safest urban roundabout design for cyclists is a design which allows safe use of bidirectional cycle-paths. These also increase convenience by allowing so few crossings to be made as possible (you are never required to ride across three arms of a roundabout to turn across traffic).

Traffic light design

Simultaneous Green traffic light junction. Cyclists can go in all directions at once when the lights are green for bikes. All motor vehicles are held behind red lights and all possibility of conflict with them is removed. A very useful design for use with bidirectional cycle-paths. Also note the width of the cycle-path, which can cope with large flows of cyclists. Also see a different traffic light design which feeds into a bidirectional cycle-path without conflict.

Through tunnels

Cycle-paths through tunnels are nearly always bidirectional. Otherwise we would require two tunnels. Tunnels are generally preferable to bridges for cyclists.

Bicycle roads

This bicycle road is on the other side of the canal from the last photo. Bicycle roads are of course always bidirectional for cyclists, though they are sometimes one-way for drivers.

Where a bicycle road ends and cycle traffic is led onto a cycle-path it would be absurd to use anything other than a bidirectional cycle-path such as is shown here. In this case there are some recreational destinations on the right of the road, but the vast majority of destinations (homes and shops) are on the left, and are served well by this cycle-path. 

Adequate width for tidal flow or at junctions between cycle-paths

Just short of four metres wide, this cycle-path copes well with considerable cycling volumes, especially tidal traffic at school times (the low building behind the cyclists to the right is a secondary school). Behind the camera there is a busy road junction.

Junctions between cycle-paths require even more width. At this point, the cycle-path exceeds six metres in width. The bridges cross a canal.

Conclusion
We sometimes hear blanket criticism of the idea of bidirectional cycle-paths, but it is not justified. In many cases they improve both safety and convenience for cyclists. To a first approximation a bidirectional cycle-path is always more useful than a single-direction path for the simple reason that cyclists can use it in both directions.

Concrete cycle-paths. Smooth, maintenance free and generally preferable to asphalt

A lot of the cycle-paths in this area are made of concrete rather than asphalt. When I first moved here  it seemed a slightly odd choice because concrete is a more expensive material. I was surprised that we were getting the premium product while drivers on roads alongside those cycle-paths had the "cut-price" asphalt (immaculately laid, mind you).

The advantages of concrete have become more clear with time and were reinforced by a representative of a company which builds cycle-paths who I met a few days ago at the opening of a new path in Assen. The main advantage is that once laid, concrete cycle-paths generally require no maintenance for 30 years (see example below). We've only lived here for 11 years, but while the city has been diligent about fixing problems which occur on the asphalt paths, sometimes before they're really problems at all, and in some cases three times while we've lived here, none of the concrete paths have required any work at all so far as I can tell. For this reason I'm inclined to believe 30 year claim (see example below). Another advantage is that relatively little preparation of the ground underneath the cycle-path is required, making these paths less labour-intensive to install than would otherwise be the case. Obviously the ground underneath should be flat, but that can be sand and a 20 cm thick layer of concrete is then enough to spread the load and withstand damage without the same multiple layers of support as asphalt paths require.

There are concrete cycle-paths in this area dating from when we moved to this area which still look exactly as they did when we first saw them except that the bright colour has faded a bit. Others which already looked faded when we first came to live here also remain perfectly smooth and pleasant to cycle over. Even when there are trees nearby, these paths appear to be so completely immune to the problem of root damage.

Cycle-path which is at least ten years old. Next to trees. Perfect.

A brand new cycle-path in Assen, to be covered in the next blog post

A cycle-path in Assen which is around ten years old - surface is still perfect

Another older path, next to trees. Perfect surface The gap was cut into the path after it was laid in order to allow for expansion. There is difference in height and you can't feel this as you cycle over it.

Even where paths are also used by occasional motor vehicles (this one is only a golf kart, but tractors are quite common on rural paths) they're very resilient.

There are many hundreds of kilometres of paths like this in this area now and they're all delight to ride on. This one is in a rural area for recreational use, hence less width than a busy urban path. Note also the unsurfaced road alongside for motor vehicles. This is how routes in the countryside are unravelled.

Paths like this in the countryside are extremely popular with all cyclists who like to ride a bit further and faster.

Rural but a main route alongside a fairly busy road. No damage here even at the entrance coming up where motorists have to drive across the concrete cycle-path.

By comparison, even with good asphalt cycle-paths, root damage is a constant threat. This path was resurfaced less than ten years ago but already has been marked for repair. The repair happened very soon after the photo was taken and before the path became unpleasant to use, but it simply wouldn't have been necessary with concrete which is more expensive in the first place, but cheaper in the long term.

How these paths are constructed
The good concrete cycle-paths are poured on site and made in one long continuous pieces, usually 300 m in length. Where they join after each 300 m, there are a few cm of slightly soft asphalt to fill the gap and allow for a little movement. Every 3-10 metres (this seems quite variable) the concrete is cut after it has cured to allow for some movement. The surface is textured so that it provides grip for your tyres even when icy.

The concrete is 20 cm thick

Ground preparation is nothing more than making a level surface and applying a layer of soft sand. You can also see in this photo where the path was cut every few metres. Note that the zoom lens makes the distance between cuts seem far less than in reality. Note that when the cycle-path was completed the vertical sides were covered up. The second photo from the top shows the same cycle-path a few weeks after it was completed. There is now no vertical drop at the side.

This textured surface provides grip for bicycle tyres in any weather.

An alternative type of concrete cycle-path
Recently, the first stretch of a new fietssnelweg (cycling motorway) came into use between Haren and Groningen. It's a boon for commuting cyclists because it provides a decently wide path taking a very direct route along the canal which avoids traffic lights and junctions so is faster than any other route over its 3.5 km length. However, while this is a concrete path it's not built to the same quality as those illustrated above so unfortunately the new "fietssnelweg" is actually a bit unpleasant to cycle over.

Instead of using the successful method of construction shown above, where a path kilometres in length is made of one piece of concrete poured on site, the Haren-Groningen path is made of two metre long pre-fabricated sections from a company called Easypath Nederland B.V. These pre-fabricated sections are designed to interlock. It is supposed to be stable over time. But even newly laid these paths are already a huge step backwards in comparison with continuous concrete paths, and while those are stable over decades we can only expect the bumps between these separate sections to get worse with time. I rode over the path when it first opened and it was already possible to see nearly a centimetre difference in height between successive concrete sections.

This new method of constructing paths presumably has some advantage or it would not have been used. Perhaps it is cheap. Hopefully no-one would pay extra for an obviously lower quality. But why should cyclists put up with a cheap solution ? If this is good enough then why is it not also used for cars ? Groningen is spending many millions to upgrade the motorway into the city which runs in parallel with this cycle-path. Why doesn't the "city of cyclists" provide the same quality of experience for cyclists as they provide for drivers (in this case miraculously smooth asphalt) ? I have fears that this path simply won't prove to be both durable and of high quality.

We're stuck with this section now. I hope not to see any more of this low quality construction for cyclists.

In the worst case the gaps between sections have almost a centimetre difference in height

The sections are four metres wide and two metres in length. Running over the gaps every two metres means that you will notice them quite often if some of them are less than perfect. It's certainly not unpleasant at the moment, but I'm concerned that it will get worse and then anything which rattles on your bicycle will rattle annoyingly.

There are 3.5 km of this and it does make a very efficient cycle-path. In any other country in the world, a direct cycle-path like this would be seen as a miracle - especially when this new high quality route is parallel with four other very good, safe and convenient routes into Groningen from the South within a few kms, all of which we've taken with study tour particpants in the past: a very pretty and pleasant countryside route on the other side of the canal (the pleasantness of which excuses this more direct route being tainted by motorway noise - we're given a choice), another route a bit further to the right of this photo which passes the airport and a third which isn't all that far away from the motorway on the left but which has a few too many traffic lights for my liking and finally another route even further to the left which I used to take to reach my work in the SE of Groningen.

This video shows a short part of the Groningen-Haren path:

Please also see an updated video showing the entire route, including all the faults with this path.
Good paths are good. Not all concrete is the same.
Note that the good examples above are of concrete paths which are laid in one piece, are wide, have thick concrete which is resistant to damage, they're textured for grip and they do not have vertical drops at the side of the path. All of these aspects are important. Cycle-paths should not be constructed out of separate tiles between which there is always a bump or with thin surface layers which are guaranteed to crack. They should not have vertical drops at the sides, should not be too narrow for people to ride side by side. Corner radii should be generous, care should be taken to keep cyclists out of the "door zone", sight lines need to be long so that collisions can be avoided and priority at junctions must be obvious so that all parties know what they should do. Please read other cycle-path blog posts for other details of good design.

Longevity - update April 2019
When I ride to the west from Assen I often use an excellent concrete cycle-path between Huis-ter-Heide and Veenhuizen. This cycle-path existed when we first came to live here and featured in one of my videos from 2008. Just a few days ago I realised that what I had thought was a manhole cover was actually a commemorative plate:

This commemorative plate was laid when the cycle-path between Huis-ter-Heide and Veenhuizen came into use on the 13th of December 1990.

It's nearly 30 years old but this cycle-path still has an almost completely perfect surface. The white lines are new. Everything else is original. In theory, a freshly laid asphalt cycle-path can offer a slightly lower rolling resistance. But an asphalt cycle-path degrades very quickly by comparison so that for much of its life it will offer an inferior surface to cyclists.

The surface is also perfect on the section which runs between trees. No tree root damage is detectable here.

The quality of such cycle-paths is impressive. Their life-span is also impressive. While concrete has a significant environmental impact, this must be weighed against the impact of repeatedly repairing and rebuilding paths built of lesser materials. This long lasting cycle-path was of course constructed with the continuous poured concrete method as described at the top of this blog, not the sectional method which creates irregularities even from new.

Update August 2019
The Assen-Groningen fast cycle route is continuing to be developed. This video shows a new section, this time surfaced with the good quality continuously laid concrete:

A few days later with Judy on another section of the same newly laid cycle-path. This is really excellent.

Mass cycling requires sociable side-by-side cycling which requires cyclists to take up space. Why then are cyclists the only road users expected to travel single-file?

Children cycling home from school five-abreast in Assen. Riding on the pavement is not what we encourage, but this is a good illustration of how safe those children feel. Read more about this street, which is particularly well designed.

For ten years on our study tours we've suggested to participants that they should take advantage of the opportunity to cycle side-by-side while they are in the Netherlands. Not only does this keep groups together better than they ride single-file but more importantly it's far more sociable and more efficient. We can talk to each other as we cycle and it takes less time for the group to arrive at each destination than if we are strung out into a single line.

Germany last week: He's in the bushes, we're on the grass.
Sadly, German cycle-paths are often inadequate.

Cyclists from other countries often find this a little difficult to do because they are conditioned to being able only to cycle single-file and it feels as if you're "in the way" if you ride side-by-side. I point out that it is only cyclists who are subjected to this restriction:

Pedestrians expect to walk side-by-side everywhere in the world. No-one would consider advocating that pedestrians should always travel single-file.

Drivers travel side-by-side even when they're alone as in a car they take an empty chair along beside themselves taking up the space that another person might otherwise use. Tandem seating cars are almost unheard of (I know of this) there are no demands are made for drivers without passengers to use motorbikes instead of cars in order that they take up less space.

Sitting four abreast on a bus, we take up nearly as much width
as the five cyclists at the head of the page, but this is normal
and no-one complains.

On buses it's possible to be able to sit four abreast yet there are no calls for buses to be made narrower.

It is cyclists alone who are told they must cycle single-file, or who find that where side-by-side cycling is allowed by law they are regardless put under pressure to ride single-file.

As an example, the UK's highway code states "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" which while it sounds quite liberal actually gives lots of scope for telling cyclists not to ride two-abreast. Many roads are narrow or busy and all roads have bends.

Four members of the same family riding together in a sociable manner in Assen city centre. Dad is helping the youngest.

Side-by-side cycling makes cycling safer and more fun
Being able to cycle side-by-side is important because it allows cycling to be sociable. All other forms of transport are sociable and cycling should be too. People carry on conversations as they travel by car by public transport or as they walk, and it should be equally possible while cycling. What's more, side-by-side cycling is also necessary for safety. If you're accompanying a child or accompanying someone who is unfamiliar with your town, cycling side-by-side is a good way to ensure that the other person is travelling in the same direction or has seen the same signs as you have.

Riding two-abreast shouldn't be unusual, it should be the norm. Cyclists are people too, and just like those who choose other forms of transport we should also be able to speak to friends and family as we travel. Infrastructure which doesn't make side-by-side cycling easy to do is inadequate infrastructure.

Cycle-path width is important to enable side-by-side cycling

A cycle-path in the UK. The red stripe supposedly serves as
a bidirectional cycle-path but it's not wide enough for sociable
side-by-side riding even in one direction so we are stretched
out and also using the pedestrian path. An example
of designed-in conflict.

Cycle-paths need to have sufficient width to allow cycling side-by-side. If it is necessary for cyclists to constantly adjust their position relative to each other in order to achieve part-time side-by-side cycling, this consumes a lot of extra effort.

Required widths
Unidirectional cycle-paths between 1.2 and 1.9 metres wide enforce single-file cycling. They also make overtaking of one cyclist by another difficult, resulting in cyclists wishing to use the road. Any width below 1.9 metres may as well be single-track as it's not really usable for side-by-side cycling.

The minimum unidirectional path width for comfortable side-by-side cycling is 2 metres. The extra width of a 2.5 m wide single direction path makes the experience more relaxing and more forgiving of error.

One of the oldest cycle-paths in Assen. It's 2.5 m wide, which
makes it suitable for one cyclist to pass in each direction, but
not wide enough for side-by-side cycling in all conditions.

Bidirectional cycle-paths between 2.5 and 3.2 m wide enforce single-file cycling whenever there are cyclists coming in the opposite direction. If two couples approach each other, both riding side-by-side then it's likely that both will switch to single-file, making any width between 2.5 m and 3.2 no better than the narrower width.

For this reason, the required width for a bidirectional cycle-path is a minimum of about 3.3 m. On such a path it's possible for two groups of cyclists both riding two-abreast to pass each other. Extra width makes the experience more pleasant and makes passing easier.

"Sharing" a path with pedestrians over a bridge in Assen
 results in conflict just as it does anywhere else.

Sharing with pedestrians causes conflict
Shared use paths do not work for efficient cycling because pedestrians are unpredictable and cause extra conflict.

In out of town areas the number of pedestrians may be small enough that a single path suffices, but inside towns it is almost never a good idea to ask cyclists and pedestrians to "share" because they will get in the way of one-another.

A separate path is required for each mode. The two paths together will still require fewer resources and take up less space than is routinely allocated for motor vehicles.

This works because that "road" isn't really a road at all. The
only motor vehicles which use this road are maintenance
vehicles or those which require access to the two domestic
properties visible in the photo.

Traffic levels are important
Cyclists should never be expected to ride on roads which have traffic levels so high that they cause cycling side-by-side to be a problem. In the Netherlands, through motor traffic is excluded from virtually all residential streets and city centre streets. Motor and cycling routes are unravelled from one-another and cyclists are close to 100% segregated from motor traffic.

Example of cycle-path widening to
nearly four metres at a junction.

Efficiency
By allowing two cyclists at a time to pass, and by allowing overtaking, cycle infrastructure which permits side-by-side cycling doubles the throughput of cycle-paths. If you're aim is true mass cycling in which everyone sees a bicycle as an efficient mode of transport for themselves, it's important to keep this efficiency as much as possible. That requires that cycle-paths widen at junctions and through corners.

Example photos

A bicycle road in Assen. Over five metres wide, and used by motor vehicles only for access. A direct route to the city centre along which sociable cycling is enabled and on which children can ride their own bikes in safety.

A 2.5 m wide unidirectional cycle-path from a suburb into the city centre from a different direction. Sociable cycling is enabled here without anyone feeling too cramped.

City centre street. This area allows motor vehicles access at particular times to make deliveries. Otherwise the "road" is a cycle-path through a pedestrianized area.

More of the city centre. Note the disability buggy being used as a bicycle. Also note the lighter coloured stripe of ridged tiles on the left of the photo which provides guidance for blind people.

Children, of course, have independence and can access the city centre area on their own bicycles.

Only the youngest children are transported on their parents' bicycles.

Youngsters in town on their own cycle side-by-side and talk to each other.

Another example of how people with disabilities benefit from good infrastructure. This is the same junction as shown in a small photo above where a unidirectional cycle-path widens to nearly four metres to accommodate cyclists at the junction. It is possible for cyclists to make this left turn while riding side-by-side and with all conflicting motor traffic stopped. The sign on the back of the tricycle indicates that that person has hearing difficulties and perhaps requires some guidance. Riding side by side allows this.

Continuing after they turn the corner. But note that the left bike is slightly over the centre line on this bidirectional cycle path, which is unfortunately only three metres wide and therefore of inadequate width for comfortable cycling in all conditions.

A 2.5 metre wide unidirectional cycle-path. Riding next to a friend is no problem at all here.

2.5 metres wide unidirectional cycle-path - a couple ride together with no difficulty.

A 3.8 metre wide bidirectional cycle-path. On this width, it's possible for two couples to comfortably pass each other while remaining side-by-side. The road on the right has two lanes for motor vehicles, each of 2.8 m in width. This may look like a wide cycle-path but note that the car driver and his passenger are still allocated more space than the cyclists.

In the countryside, a 3.5 metre wide cycle-path allows for cycling at a good speed without the difficulties which we had last week on much narrower cycle-paths in Germany in similar situations (see photo above).

Wide bidirectional cycle-path leading to a medium sized simultaneous green traffic-light junction. Side-by-side cycling is possible through the junction while all motor traffic is stopped. This type of junction is very efficient. Very many cyclists can cross the junction in all directions with one short green phase for cyclists.

The safest design of roundabouts for cycling also easily supports side-by-side riding, which again doubles the capacity of the junction for cyclists vs. how it would be if people had to ride single-file.

Demonstrating a four metre wide recreational cycle-path to a study tour group. No problem with side-by-side cycling here.

To finish, another photo of teenagers "misbehaving" by cycling five-abreast, but doing so in a manner which actually doesn't cause any problem at all. They can do this because this residential street, like almost all residential streets in Assen, is a non-through route for motorists and therefore there are almost never any motor vehicles with which to conflict. Rest assured that the boy on the pedestrian path rode back onto the road before he came close to the woman walking. He's already ahead of the other cyclists in this photo, preparing to make this move.

Two-abreast. Always. Everywhere.
Cyclists are the only group of road users routinely required to travel one-behind-the-other. There is no logic to this. No reason why side-by-side cycling should not always be encouraged. It's a matter of providing infrastructure which accommodates the requirement. Given that people like to pair up, regardless of which mode of transport they choose, the width required for cycling should always be considered to be the width of two people cycling side-by-side.

The cycle-path grid in Assen. Read more about this.

By "everywhere" I really do mean everywhere. There can be no gaps in a real cycling grid. Cyclists need to be able to make their entire journeys in safety.

If mass cycling is truly a target then cyclists must be allowed and even encouraged to ride side-by-side. Make cycling sociable, comfortable, safe and efficient, keep people on bikes well away from motor vehicles, and suddenly cycling becomes attractive.

Mark Treasure also blogged about side-by-side cycling today.