Safe cycle priority road crossings

I've covered several types of road crossing for cyclists in the past. Those with traffic lights, where cyclists have to wait for motorists but can stop in the middle of the road, those where there is equal priority between cyclists and motorists. Sometimes it's possible to give cyclist priority over roads when cycle-paths and roads cross but this can only be safely achieved if certain conditions are met. It is not enough simply to put up a give-way (yield) sign and expect that drivers will obey it.


Driver behaviour is more effectively controlled by road layout than by signs or speed limits. In order for it to be safe to give cyclists priority at a crossing, the speed of cars on the road needs to be controlled and traffic volumes need to be low. The junction needs to be designed such that it gives obvious visual priority to cyclists, and sight lines need to be good enough that drivers and cyclists can see each other and respond accordingly. This is not the same concept as "making eye contact". If people driving and cycling are surprised by the other party because they cannot see them in time then they are less likely to be able to respond safely.

First example in the video. Cycle priority crossing of a minor road. 30 km/h speed limit on the road, raised table starts 20 m and 14 m away from the crossing. Bend in road naturally slows cars. The cycle-path is three metres wide and runs at a distance of six metres from the parallel road.

Second example. This road has a 30 km/h speed limit, but it is a much busier road than the other two, providing a route by car to local shops and other facilities. Raised table starts 5 m and 12.6 m from the cycle crossing. Bend in road naturally slows cars. Cycle-path is 3.5 m wide and runs perpendicular to the road.

Third example. The raised table almost doesn't exist in this case and there is no bend in the road so drivers pass over this crossing at far higher speeds than the other two. Note how drivers may not be able to see cyclists coming from North or South until they are close to the crossing due to being obscured by buildings and vegetation and then there is a chance that a driver will misinterpret the intentions of a cyclist so not slow down for them. Note also how the curves on cycle-paths, especially North of the crossing, are far less helpful for cyclists than the other two examples. Cycle-path is 3 m wide and at the point of the turn it's just 3 m from the parallel road.

While the third example is the one which I believe is least satisfactory (see the video for why), collisions between cars and bikes are only recorded as having happened at the second example. There is a rational explanation for this. The second example is located adjacent to the local facilities of a suburb (shops / doctor / health / church) and this results in considerably more cycle and car traffic than the other two which located within residential streets. Three collisions with cyclists occurred over the 2007-2012 period at the second example, one of which caused an injury.

Curve radii and approach visibility
The recommendation of the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic for curve radii is particularly relevant to cycle priority crossings. The manual says that on curves with below 5 m radius, "cycling speed drops below 12 km/h and the cyclist has to work hard to remain upright" and suggests appropriate curve radii as follows:

1. cycle connections that form part of the basic network should have a radius of greater than 10 m, geared to a design speed of 20 km/h;
2. cycle routes and main cycle routes should have a radius of greater than 20 m, geared to a design speed of 30 km/h

Note that this refers to cycle-paths having a design speed of 30 km/h. Cycle facilities should not be designed to slow cyclists, but to enable efficient cycling. The first two examples above conform to this recommendation, while the third, especially when approached from the east, does not. This causes a problem for cyclists and motorists.

CROW recommended visibility at crossings by road width (crossing distance) and speed.

The requirement for approach visibility should also be noted. Take into account that these speeds are 85th percentile speeds in actual use, not merely the posted speed limit, and that the required sight lines more than double in length for any crossing of a 50 km/h road vs. a 30 km/h road. Also note that wide roads require more visibility than narrow roads because crossing times are longer.

All the roads shown in the above examples are under 7 m in width and in all those cases there is a 30 km/h speed limit so sight lines of about 50 m in length are required. All three examples include additional measures to control speed. In the first example, the posted speed limit and additional measures are adequate for a 50 m sight line. In the second example they are marginal (though helped enormously by the curve in the cycle-path which places cyclists in a more visible position and the curve in the road which slows drivers). The third example does not meet the requirements because the speed of cars is excessive and the sight-lines are not long enough.

Related: Note that it has been understood for many years in the Netherlands that posting a lower speed limit is not enough to ensure lower speeds.

Difficult to retrofit
It is very difficult to successfully retrofit crossings of this type because existing streets are often too straight, existing paths often not visible enough. While cycle priority crossings are fairly unusual in the Netherlands, retro-fitted cycle priority crossings are even more rare. All the examples of priority junctions in Assen were designed as integral parts of the road design. Those used as examples in the video and images above date from when those parts of Assen were designed and built in the late 1970s through to the 1980s.

Cycle priority is not the same as pedestrian priority
People sometimes ask why cyclists are not given permission to cross with priority on all pedestrian priority (zebra) crossings. There are good reasons why this should not be so. In many locations, it would be difficult for a cyclist to be The risk of a cyclist emerging quickly from behind a building or because there are inadequate sight lines. Cyclists are much faster than pedestrians and they require space in order to make a turn.

This crossing of a busy road gives priority for pedestrians over both cyclists and drivers. but there is no place within this layout to provide a safe priority cycle crossing. In any case, any cycle crossing would be better slightly further North on desire lines.

This location has a parallel cycle and pedestrian crossing. Pedestrians have priority while cyclists do not. This is a relatively busy through route for cars with a 50 km/h speed limit. As a result a cyclist emerging at speed from the side roads may appear in front of a driver before the driver has had an adequate chance to response and therefore there is too high a chance that a driver won't stop in time. But they have much more time to react to a pedestrian due to the slower speed of pedestrians.

In this location cyclists have priority over side road crossings which are parallel with the main road. These roads have 30 km/h speed limits and speeds are further reduced by the junction, the small corner radii and the raised tables. However only pedestrians have been priority over the 50 km/h main road.

At a very large busy junction, this example joining the 70 km/h ring road to a 50 km/h main route out of the city, neither cyclists nor pedestrians are given priority over motor traffic in any direction. On a road like this with many lanes of traffic, higher speeds and much to look out for it would be dangerous to give priority to cyclists or pedestrians. This junction is too large and busy to be a "protected intersection". While it could have seen implementation of a simultaneous green junction, instead there is a more conventional traffic light junction here next to which cycle path green lights are synchronized with motor vehicle red lights where conflicts would otherwise occur. Priority can be given for cyclists and pedestrians by other means. In other locations in Assen this is done by use of tunnels and very quick reacting light controlled crossings. Two cyclists were injured here. One due to a single sided collision with street furniture, the other due to ignoring a red light.

Hook turns

A possible solution which people sometimes think of to the problem of turning across traffic is the hook turn. We have precisely one example of this in Assen. It's a relic from the past which has somehow survived on a quiet residential street and it's shown in the photo below. Note that the hook starts with a cycle-path in the top right hand corner of the image and continues more than 60 metres to the junction which it serves in order that it could provide a gradual enough transition for cyclists. The crossing is then assisted by a large raised table. Despite all of this, it's actually quite awkward to use. It perhaps made a little more sense decades ago when this was a busier route, but it certainly doesn't help in this situation now. I don't recommend this type of infrastructure.

A generously proportioned 60 metre long hook turn assisted by a raised table. But it's still awkward to use.

"Visual priority"

The Alternative Department of Transport blog recently coined the phrase "visual priority" to refer to where priority at a crossing is indicated by the design of the street and not merely by signs. The red surfacing continuing through each of the junctions shown in the video at the top of this blog post is a good example. I like this term, it's concise and obvious, so I have used it too. Most examples of crossings in the Netherlands benefit from good visual priority. Of course, good visual priority is only one factor. In itself it is no guarantee of success. As you will see from the video, the third example of a junction with a short raised table which coincides only with the crossing itself is not successful at slowing cars even though the visual priority is good. Junctions must also encourage safe behaviour by other means, such as use of bends on roads and level changes using a raised tables to slow drivers, bends on cycle-paths to improve sight lines, and we must of course realise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The majority of junctions are not suitable for a cycle priority treatment for reasons of sight-line or traffic speeds and volumes.

Real examples in real-life usage

It's not possible to completely understand infrastructure like this from reading blog posts and watching youtube videos. On our study tours we demonstrate real life examples.

Central reservations enable cyclists and pedestrians to cross safely

Where cyclists or pedestrians must cross a road which is used by an appreciable number of motor vehicles, central reservations make a huge difference to safety. They allow the cyclist to cross just one stream of traffic at once, which is moving in one direction, before making a second decision from the centre of the road before crossing again.

Of course, such a reservation needs to be adequate in size. The crossing shown above, in a residential area in Assen by the local shops, allows two cyclists travelling in each direction to pass each other, and is long enough for a bicycle with trailer to stop safely in the middle. it also has a completely separate crossing for pedestrians, and of course both the cycle and pedestrian paths on both sides of the street. The speed limit for cars is 50 km/h (30 mph).

Here is another view of the crossing:

Open in Google Maps - note that cyclists don't suffer from a "pinch" effect due to cars because there are separate cycle-paths either side of the crossing.

When we first moved to Assen, there
was no central reservation at this
crossing. Image from a leaflet
explaining the change

This is an example of a crossing which works extremely well for cyclists, but it is not in any way an unusual or unique design. It's actually strikingly normal - there are so many crossings like this in Assen that I couldn't possibly count them. You need look no more than a hundred metres to the South from this one to find three more which are similar (see them here on Google Maps).

However, that this is very common doesn't imply that such crossings have existed forever. Actually, this one was retrofitted quite recently.

Back of the same leaflet
explaining what was
being done to improve
safety. Particularly
aimed at school children

Note five features on and around this crossing which make motorists slow down. Firstly, the shape of the crossing requires that motorists must decelerate and change course to go around it. Secondly, the width of the lanes either side of the central reservation is narrow which makes maneuvering difficult at speed. Thirdly, the road is narrow and there is no central white line. This makes motorists less sure of their position on the road and further reduces speed. Fourthly, the speed limit is 50 km/h (30 mph) on this street, which provides access, and 30 km/h (18 mph) on surrounding streets. Fifthly, there is also a pedestrian zebra crossing here for which motorists must stop if a pedestrian is crossing. Cyclists don't have priority in this case, but often receive it anyway.

The requirement that motorists have to swerve could be dangerous to cyclists due to a pinching effect if cyclists were on the street but because there are parallel cycle-paths on both sides of the street there is no danger at all.

See also videos showing the same crossing in use by hundreds of school children.

This can be seen as something which is easily "lost in translation" when implemented elsewhere because while the same concept might appear elsewhere, the implementation is completely different. For example, here's the same concept as implemented in Cambridge, UK:

Crossing of Madingley Road in Cambridge, UK. This is one of several roads in Cambridge which are unpleasant to cycle along and which can be difficult to cross safely by bicycle. We used to do this with our children, but this made us very much the exception as most people would not see this as a safe thing to do with their children. It's important for campaigners to realise that they are part of a self-selected group. Conditions like this are a reason why keen cyclists stop when they have children.

The example shown at the top of this blog post from Assen is on a relatively minor street with a slow speed limit and a significant but not enormous flow of vehicles. Those are the conditions in which  a crossing, if built to a high enough standard, can work well. However this Cambridge example is on a major arterial road, one of the busiest in Cambridge. This central reservation is too small in both dimensions. It does not slow traffic because the lanes either side of the reservation are too wide and it doesn't cause motor vehicles to change course, but the central reservation is also too narrow. Only one person can use it at a time and it can't be used if towing a trailer. It also doesn't feel safe because there is not much separation from high speed traffic. There's also no separate provision for pedestrians and neither pedestrians nor cyclists are prioritised at this crossing.

What's more, the speed limit here is much higher than that of the Assen example, at 40 mph (64 km/h) and this is a major arterial road into Cambridge so there are usually far more cars driving here than you find at the equivalent looking crossing in Assen.

When we crossed at this point with our children it was difficult to accompany them and cross the road safely. What's more, when I pulled a child trailer across this junction it didn't fit, so I had to make the crossing in one step.

It's an example of something extremely inadequate being installed in completely the wrong situation. The closest equivalents we have in Assen would be this or this.

Another view of the crossing of Madingley Road. It's similar to Huntingdon Road a little further North and many other roads in and around Cambridge. These are part of the reason why Cambridge's cycling is limited to a demographic group. View Larger Map

If your only reference to good infrastructure design comes from books, websites and looking at Google Maps, then it is very easy to misinterpret what is seen on the ground in the Netherlands. This is why it is important that planners from English speaking countries should see for themselves what good infrastructure actually looks like, and see it in the country which has the best standards. Referring only to what is in, for example, the UK can only result in copying from bad examples. It is to try to help to prevent this problem that we organise study tours.

See other examples of ideas "lost in translation", enabling of crossing the road, and perhaps most important, examples of what works in the Netherlands.

Delays at traffic light controlled crossings

Cyclists and pedestrians elsewhere often feel that their time is wasted by pedestrian and cycle crossings which are timed in such a way that they prioritize "keeping traffic moving" over people who want to cross roads. This often causes people to cross against a red light, especially if they are in a hurry.

Here in the Netherlands, timings are quite different. This video shows a crossing on the route to school taken by my youngest daughter. The maximum delay is eight seconds. Therefore she never has to wait too long for a green light and I am happy that she is never tempted to cross while the cars are still moving.

If only it could be like this everywhere...

Comparison with the UK
Some years ago, I did some calculations based on a pedestrian crossing which I used with my daughter on the route which we walked to school in Cambridge. This was a very typical crossing for Britain. Even though the highway engineers can correctly claim that the cycle time is the same for motorists and pedestrians, the average delay for motorists still works out as a far shorter time than that for pedestrians:

Assuming that the junction splits time 50:50 for the two different directions, and that there is a 1 minute cycle time, a motorist can expect to be delayed a maximum of 30 seconds. Half of drivers are not delayed at all as the light is already green, and the other half are delayed by an average of 15 seconds, making an overall average delay of just 7.5 seconds for a driver.

On the other hand, a pedestrian only gets to cross if they walk right up to the crossing and push the button. Typically, the green phase for a pedestrian will last as little as 3 or 4 seconds, fitted into the 1 minute cycle. What's more, there is an initial use delay on the button intended to make pedestrians bunch up. The intention of this is to make best use of the this short time and "keep traffic flowing" on the road in the meantime.

So, you push the button. Wait, say, 10 seconds, then have an average delay of (60-4)/2 = 28s. As a result, the average delay for a pedestrian is 38s. That's 8s longer than the maximum for a driver or 5x as long as the average for a driver even though they are subject to the same cycle time.

Now I know that some people will say "it's just a few seconds", but let me explain further. At one time I would walk my children to primary school, then return, walk again to collect them, and return again, using this crossing four times a day. That means that on average the pointless extra delay would consume one and a half minutes each day. That's about as long as it would have taken to make one of the journeys by car. I literally worked the numbers out while waiting for a green light to show.

Newly built junction in Cambridge,
England. Cyclists and pedestrians on
shared use path must use four crossings
to cross one road.

Other examples in Cambridge were even worse. This junction was built next to a new development near us while we lived in the city. It's a less major junction than the large junction shown in the video above, but it's far less convenient for cyclists or pedestrians. At this junction, drivers have one set of traffic lights to wait for with the timings generously set up for them, average delay of around 7.5 s as worked out previously. However, pedestrians and cyclists on the shared use path had to use up to four (never fewer than three) light controlled crossings just to cross one road. I wrote about it as soon as I saw a copy of the plan. Complaints had no effect. It was implemented exactly as in the plan.

As you'll have seen from today's video, it's really not the same here. Cyclists often get to avoid traffic lights altogether so you see far fewer of them than if you drive. However, when you come to a traffic light it will work well for pedestrians and cyclists and not cause you to feel like a second class citizen due to a ridiculous delay. Almost always the junction will have started counting before the button is pressed because it is normal to have both a loop under the ground and a button at junctions. Sometimes such crossings are even set up so that the light defaults to green for the cyclist.

Peter Miller also wrote about delays at a pedestrian crossing in the UK.

Note that the junction at the top also allows cyclists to take a short-cut which isn't open to drivers. This is an example of how unravelling of driving from cycling routes encourages cycling by making it more convenient than driving.

Of course, some traffic lights in the Netherlands are not so ideal. But I've yet to find one which appears to be set up specifically to annoy pedestrians as sometimes seems the case in the UK. The day after this post, Gaz545 wrote a response which shows "Delays at crossings in the United Kingdom".

Countdown timers on cycle traffic lights

There are now a variety of different types of countdown timer used on cycle path traffic lights in the Netherlands. This is one example from Assen.


And another from Groningen. They're not limited to just these two examples, nor to these two cities, but are appearing all over the country as crossings are upgraded.

It's very useful to have an indication like this of when the lights will turn green. You know to regulate your speed as you approach the traffic light, so can ride more efficiently.

The bridge in Assen was featured on the blog before, when I used the example of the one-way streets into which it leads. The example in Groningen heads towards the main railway station, which has also been covered before.

Both of these sets of traffic lights also illustrate two other very important things:

• Traffic light cycle times for cyclists are short. This leads to a low average delay for cyclists at these points, often lower than the average delay for drivers. This increases the competitive advantage of bikes over cars.
• Permeability for cyclists. In both cases in these videos, we're crossing in a direction where motorists can't also drive, meaning that cyclists get more direct routes. Again, a competitive advantage for bikes over cars.

Not the same as London and New York
Please note that these timers are installed for exactly the opposite reason to those recently installed in London, where similar technology has been used to make pedestrians walk faster in order to reduce delays to drivers, a rather unpleasant idea which Britain imported from the USA. The Dutch use this technology to help cyclists and pedestrians, not to hinder them. It's another good idea seemingly "lost in translation".

There are several other posts showing how traffic lights in the Netherlands don't unduly hinder cyclists.

Not stopping at red traffic lights

Here's a great example of where Dutch cyclists don't have to stop at red traffic lights.

The first photo shows a road junction between our home and the city centre from as close as I usually get to it.

Instead of stopping at these red traffic lights, cyclists have a cycle path which goes through an underpass, making cycle journeys quicker as well as more pleasant than they would be by stopping at the lights.

The cycle path is four metres wide and there is a separate pavement for pedestrians just over 2 metres wide.

The second photo shows what the road looks like. There are five lanes in one direction and two in the other at this junction. Not really a very pleasant place to cycle... but you never have to cycle here so it doesn't matter. Also note the noise barriers which, combined with the 70 km/h speed limit and quiet road surface, keep noise levels to a whisper for those who live near the road. This is also a bus-stop. The bus stop is built into the noise barrier and provides somewhere dry to wait for a bus.

Here's a video showing riding through the tunnel, how you get from the bus stop in the second photo to the cycle parking for the bus stop on the other side, and the cycle path which parallels the main road:

Explanatory captions on this video are visible only if you view it on a computer and not on a mobile device

This is the road which we avoided having to cross by using the tunnel:

Grotere kaart weergeven

There are many examples of where Dutch cyclists get to dodge traffic lights.

My bike is the one in the cycle parking which has lots of plastic bottles in the rear basket, left over from the kid's halloween party. They're there because there is a deposit on them and I'm on the way to the supermarket to return them for the deposit.