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.

Van "blocking" a four metre wide cycle-path. Note that pedestrians have their own 2 m wide path. The widths of both paths remain the same through the underpass

Just like anywhere else in the world, maintenance vehicles in The Netherlands sometimes stop on cycle-paths.

I took this photo on the way to the shops a few days ago (the same route as in this video).

Of course it is a bit of an irritation when vehicles like this stop on the cycle-path. However, usually they pull off the cycle-path, and when they have no choice but to block it, they only block half of it. As vehicles like this are usually there for a good reason and really not much of an obstruction is caused, few people would complain.

Just 200 m away, a van "blocking" a residential street. Pedestrians have paths on both sides of this street. Service vehicles cause the same degree of obstruction on the road as on the cycle-path because both are of similar width

Of course, it's not just cycle-paths that occasionally have maintenance vans parked on them.  Maintenance is also needed on roads and streets. Just around the corner from the first example, I spotted the example to the right.

Again it's not really causing much of a problem because it's only blocking half of the street. The same situation, the same level of inconvenience.

Equal obstacle opportunities for roads and bike-paths !

Of course, the problems caused by maintenance vehicles on cycle-paths would be much greater if there were not so much room. This is an advantage of having sensible widths for cycle-paths.

The cycle-path in the photo at the top is not special. It's simply part of a normal, everyday route. Standards need to be high everywhere so that conditions are good wherever someone chooses to cycle. It's no good if high standards are reserved only for a few special pieces of infrastructure. Read more about the need for a tight grid of high quality cycling facilities.

Note that when there are ongoing road works which cause real disruption, Dutch cyclists are not forgotten.

When I say that cycle paths here are quite often 4 m wide, I'm quite sure that a lot of people don't believe me.

An amusing way of demonstrating this occurred to me on Saturday. I put my bike sideways on a cycle path which is being resurfaced (so officially out of use, not that this stops many people) in a position where it wouldn't get in the way due to the pile of tiles for resurfacing the pedestrian path, but would demonstrate the width.

As you'll see, if it were possible to ride your bike sideways along here, it would still also be possible for someone to ride in the same manner in the opposite direction without any danger of crashing...

There was a little confusion, so I've added another photo, showing the same spot from the opposite direction. Here you can more clearly see the pedestrian path alongside the cycle path. It's been dug up in the first photo. Also you can see how a temporary dropped kerb was made to allow easy cycle access to the recommended detour route.

And why this cycle path ? It's nothing special as such, but it's part of the most direct route for us to the city centre so I come along here often. I took photos when I saw it was being improved.

View larger map
The image above is from a cycle path which I use for a good part of my commute. I've written before about how this path is great for commuting at a decent pace, and shown how this cycle path has priority over side roads. The cycle paths here are 2.5 m ( 8 feet ) wide, that's the minimum allowed for a unidirectional cycle path. Such paths should also be separated from the road by a minimum of 1.5 m (just short of five feet), however, in this case, the separation is actually about 4.5 m ( 14 and a half feet ).

Back in Britain there is currently a campaign called "3 feet please" (link is not longer correct), which is asking merely for motorists to give cyclists 3 feet ( 0.9 m ) of clearance as they pass cyclists. The campaigners behind this correctly notice that "Fear of traffic" (i.e. a lack of Subjective Safety) prevents people from cycling in Britain, but their suggested fix is woefully inadequate.

"3 feet please" didn't originate in Britain. It is actually an idea that the British have imported from the USA. The problem is that while this passing distance requirement is law in some American states, the cycling rate in the USA is just as low as it is in the UK. Britain copying America or America copying Britain is never going to result in a high rate of cycling (and you can add any of the other English speaking countries to this. Australia, New Zealand etc. They all have about the lowest rate of cycling it is possible to have).

It's no good looking to where people don't cycle to find ways to encourage people. You need to look to where people cycle a lot. The Netherlands leads the world by a wide margin. 3 feet is not enough. Complete segregation of cyclists from motorists is what is actually required to make the masses feel that cycling is safe. It's also required to make cycling efficient and safe.

This can be achieved by a combination of two means: high quality cycle-paths with proper traffic light and roundabout design, and by treatment of roads to achieve segregation without cycle-paths. The concepts of Sustainable Safety lie behind the Dutch success.

The Dutch highway code tells drivers to pass cyclists with a minimum 1 to 1.5 m gap. However just like everywhere else this doesn't mean it actually happens because just as everywhere else, drivers make mistakes. What keeps cyclists safe in the Netherlands is not tbe law but the physical infrastructure which exists where most cycled journeys are made. To learn from the Netherlands it is necessary to emulate the things which really make a difference here, not just anything which is "Dutch". Note that the example cyclists are shown riding side-by-side. That's normal in the Netherlands.

This infrastructure isn't only for high speed adult commuters. I also made a video showing how school children use this same cycle path to get into the city from a village. Note also that in this instance the cycle paths have a concrete surface which is smoother, and faster to ride on than the asphalt of the road. This type of surface is increasingly common in the Netherlands.