Alberto Paulon is the second cyclist in the image. The collision happened  few video frames after this image. Read more about the incident here and here.

A few days ago on a road in Melbourne Australia a car door was opened. Alberto Paulon was cycling past the car at the time. He collided with the door, fell into the path of a truck and, sadly, he died. This tragedy could and should have been avoided.

Injuries and deaths due to "dooring" incidents are common around the world. Such incidents are sometimes viewed as an unfortunate side-effect of cycling, a problem requiring driver and/or cyclist education. Cyclists should not be under constant threat of death depending on how they position themselves on roads. There is no reason for roads to be designed in such a way that danger results from mistakes by their users when they could be designed to reduce the chance of mistakes becoming tragedies.

Door zone collisions can be almost entirely eliminated by changing the design of roads. This blog post illustrates how that can be done.

What's wrong with Sydney Road, Melbourne ?
The road on which this incident happened is in the Brunswick area of Melbourne, which has a high rate of cycling for an Australian city. Unfortunately, while the people who live in and use the shops in this area cycle quite frequently, the road is designed to serve those who are passing through in motor vehicles and no proper separate space has been found to keep cyclists safe.

A twenty-one metre wide road is more than wide enough to allow cycling in safety, and more than wide enough to provide cycling facilities which are free from the "door zone" problem. However this will require making a choice of what the purpose is of Sydney Road.

Is the purpose of Sydney Road to provide a route for trams, for motor cars and trucks or is it a local shopping street. While there is an attempt to make this road serve all types of users it is likely that it will not serve any of them well. Cyclists are amongst the most vulnerable users of any road and therefore amongst those users most likely to be injured or killed as a result of inadequate infrastructure.

A narrower road in Assen is much safer for cycling
The photos below come from Groningerstraat in Assen. Groningerstraat is a through road of approximately 18 metres wide. This makes it three metres narrower than Sydney Road in Melbourne. Despite its relative narrowness, Groningerstraat provides a very high quality environment in which to cycle. It's very convenient and also very safe. Dooring is almost impossible in Groningerstraat.

Layout of Groningerstraat. 18 m in total are divided between 1.8 m wide pedestrian paths, 2.2 m wide unidirectional cycle-paths, 2.8 m wide lanes for motor vehicles leaving space for green buffers, drainage and car parking. Thanks to Streetmix.

Safe, sociable side-by-side cycling is possible in both directions along Groningerstraat.

Car parking alternates from one side to the other along the length of the road. The pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is constant.

Angled "forgiving" kerbs are used so that a cyclist who makes a mistake and collides with the kerb will simply mount the pavement and continue for a while rather than being injured. Note that in this photo the cyclists shown are riding racing bicycles. It was taken during one of several large racing events which take place in Assen. Racing cyclists use cycle-paths in the Netherlands because there is no advantage to riding on the roads.

The drain provides a gap between parked cars and the cycle-path. It provides a significant part of the total space required to open a car door. In any case, the cycle-path is wide enough that two people can pass an open door side-by-side in safety. If there are more than two side-by-side then cyclists can mount the forgiving kerb should they have to. Remember that in the Netherlands it is usual to ride on the right so most people wouldn't come close to a car door and in any case there is no risk of falling in front of a motor vehicle if they crash for any reason.

There are several reasons why cycle-paths in this position do not create a dooring risk.

1. It is normal in the Netherlands to cycle on the right, and that places an individual cyclist as far away as possible from parked cars as they are passed. If you live in a "drive on the left" country like the UK you need to reverse this image.
   
2. The drain / buffer between parked cars and the cycle-path is wide enough for a significant proportion of the total car door side.
3. The cycle-paths are of a width which allows two cyclists passing side-by-side to very easily pass an open door in safety.
4. If a cyclist swerves away from the car then they may meet the kerb between the cycle-path and the pavement, but this is an angled "forgiving" kerb over which it is possible to cycle in safety so swerving won't result in injury.
5. The Netherlands is a left hand drive country. Therefore doors of cars parked in the conventional direction (the blue car above is parked against the flow) will most frequently be opened on the opposite side of the car from the cycle-path.
6. This is residential parking, not business parking. Therefore car movements are less frequent and car doors opened less often.
7. It is possible for cyclists to swerve, stop or even crash without any danger of being run into by a motor vehicle. This means that the very worst outcomes are avoided because riding straight into a car door won't result in a secondary collision involving another motor vehicle - the cause of the death in Melbourne.

Subjective safety principles require designing roads so that they are easy to use and forgiving of mistakes. These principles are credited with reducing the rate of injury and death on Dutch roads.

Other Dutch examples

A through road in Groningen with shops on both sides. Layout is similar to Groningerstraat, but this older example doesn't have a forgiving kerb or a gap between parked cars and the cycle-path. In-between parked cars there is additional danger to cyclists due to the metal posts shown above. Such posts should never be used to separate cycle-paths from roads. On colliding with such a post, a cyclist will almost certainly fall and that fall could be onto the road where a secondary collision with a motor vehicle is likely.

A cycle-lane in from Assen. Cycle-lanes present a greater dooring danger to cyclists than a cycle-path for several reasons: 1. A cyclist who rides into an opened door can fall in front of a moving vehicle. 2. dooring is more likely because every car has a driver, who sits on the side of the vehicle next to the cycle-lane, while only some cars have passengers (average occupancy being around 1.2). On-road cycle-lanes are not good cycling infrastructure. In this case there are factors which reduce the risk. A 0.5 m buffer between parked cars and the cycle-lane offers some space for a door to open and the 2 metre width of the cycle-lane offers some swerving space for cyclists. Narrower cycle-lanes without a gap between car and lane are far more risky. Also note that these cars are parked next to residences. Therefore they do not move so frequently as they would if parked by shops. At this location it's also of note that the motor vehicle lanes are just 2.8 m wide. This is wide enough for all vehicles, with careful design ensuring that it works even through pinch points.

This road leads through villages south of Assen, providing a safe route for cyclists to the city and beyond. Approximately 1 km of the route is shown in the video. On the other side of this road there is a canal. It would make no sense at all for cyclists to have to cross the road in order to ride in the opposite direction to that which I'm riding in so a bidirectional cycle-path is provided on one side only. This is older infrastructure so not ideal in several ways (narrow for a bidirectional path, not always a smooth surface) but it functions well and provides another example of how to deal with on-road parking and entrances.
Cyclist injuries are rising across the English speaking world

Tracey Gaudry from the Amy Gillett Foundation is quoted in the ABC news story as saying that The road toll is decreasing across the country on the whole except for bicycle riders. So what is happening is that the work that is being done to protect occupants of motor vehicles, not enough is being done to protect vulnerable road users, including bike riders." The same is true across most English speaking countries because while there has been a rise in the numbers of people cycling, there has not been any significant improvement in the safety for cyclists.

The blue line shows a clear rise in cyclist injuries in the UK.

I have long been of the opinion that the concept of "safety in numbers" is a myth. Recent increases in injuries where the cycling infrastructure has not been improved would appear to confirm this (for example, recent statistics from the UK). The Netherlands has the best cyclist safety record in the world because the infrastructure is designed in a way which reduces the chance of cyclists being involved in collisions which could result in injury or death. Countries which do not follow this lead

Click here for details of the study tours.

Lots of "Sydney Roads", not many "Groningerstraats"
Many roads across the world have the same problem as does Sydney Road in Melbourne. Many of them could be improved by following the same engineering principles as are demonstrated above. On the other hand, there are relatively few roads like Groningerstraat in which these principles can be demonstrated. That is why this road has featured on our study tours since it was rebuilt in 2007.

Groningerstraat also demonstrates other examples of good design, such as an extremely safe and convenient traffic light junction and a very well designed and safe side-road crossing. Assen has many examples of good infrastructure which extend well past this one road. To see and learn from these and other examples of good design as well as to have problems caused by bad designs pointed out, book a study tour.

The "Dutch Reach" ?
What has become known as the "Dutch Reach" is the idea of teaching drivers that they should open car doors with the hand furthest from the door in order that they turn and have a better chance of noticing cyclists. This is claimed to reduce the incidence of dooring. It may indeed have a small effect, but it's mostly a distraction. The "Dutch Reach" is not the main thing which keeps cyclists safe from being injured by cycling into car doors in the Netherlands.  The main thing which keeps cyclists safe is the design of infrastructure which makes dooring nearly impossible. That is what is described above.

There is a campaign in Melbourne which has been calling for a cycle-path along Sydney Road for some time.

Many countries build combined infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. Wherever these shared-use (aka multi-use) paths exist, there are complaints due to the conflicts which occur. Many of the complaints are from pedestrians who find the speed of cyclists unacceptable on paths which they use for walking. This is a wholly avoidable problem.



The cyclists in the video above demonstrate well how most take extraordinary care around pedestrians. Every cyclist in the video has his or her journey made inconvenient by the presence of the pedestrians but they all slow down, even slowing so far as slowing to walking pace to climb an incline, a situation where cyclists naturally would like to keep their momentum as it requires less effort to climb without braking first.

What you see in the video is quite typical behaviour for cyclists anywhere in the world when they encounter pedestrians, but taking care in this way isn't enough to stop there being complaints. Cyclists are still likely to be regarded as a problem because their behaviour is different to that of pedestrians. Cyclists appear to invade personal space around pedestrians, to "squeeze past", to wobble and to swerve in and out. Even when taking care, their behaviour seems aggressive and unpredictable to many pedestrians. Complaints about excessive speed of cyclists on shared paths are often a result of perception by pedestrians rather than being due to cyclists riding past pedestrians at genuinely high speeds.

A short distance away from the location in the video there is separate infrastructure for pedestrians, but unfortunately not yet for cyclists. Cyclists have to choose between "safe" on the path or "fast" on road.

A few metres away from the bridge there are roads much like those in many countries on which motor vehicles routinely and legally travel at considerably higher speed than any cyclists in the video. Pedestrians rarely complain about excessive speed of motor vehicles on roads like this because those vehicles are driven on infrastructure segregated from pedestrians. Unless drivers leave the road and drive on the pavement (sidewalk), there is no invasion of pedestrian space and no close passing. Conflict between pedestrians and motorists is reduced by separating them.

Pedestrian zone in the centre of Assen with a "road" for cyclists only. A language which everyone understands. This design reduces conflict and complaints

All countries seem to understand how to build roads to cope with the speeds of motor vehicles and also how to build separate infrastructure for pedestrians to reduce conflict. The benefit of giving different and incompatible modes of transport their own space and not expecting them to share are understood widely. Why is there a blind spot when it comes to cycling infrastructure ? The aim is the same. Cyclists are neither car drivers nor pedestrians and should not be treated as if they were identical to either of these other two groups.

The only place with "sharing" in Assen city centre is a central square. It's a destination not a through route, and its size means that there is plenty of space for everyone.

The requirements for cycling infrastructure are not even particularly difficult to meet. Even the fastest of cyclists make their journeys at a fraction of the speed which can be reached by a car and the much lower mass combined with that speed presents a fraction of the danger of motor vehicles. Cycle-paths do not need to be so wide as roads for cars and infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels do not need to cater for such large vehicles or large weights as equivalent infrastructure for motor vehicles.

Where conflict between cyclists and pedestrians occurs, it is almost always due to cyclists being forced to use infrastructure which is not designed for them at all.

Infrastructure on which cyclists and pedestrians are expected to share equally does not properly take the requirements of either group of users into account and creates conflict situations.

The Jeremy Vine incident

A Royal Parks spokesman suggested later that the speed limit perhaps should not be applied to bikes

An incident this week in London gave a good example of what happens where there is a pretense that pedestrian infrastructure can also be used by bicycle. Radio presenter Jeremy Vine was stopped by police for speeding when cycling. How did he come to be stopped ? He was exceeding a speed limit of just 5 mph (8 km/h) on a path through a London park. The police saw this as a high enough priority that police officers were in the park to stop errant cyclists.

Despite considerably hype from the city, London is still a very difficult and dangerous place for cycling. Paths within parks in the city are well used by cyclists because they offer a rare opportunity for cyclists to make part of their journeys away from traffic. They also can offer relatively direct routes. Extremely low speeds might be acceptable for some cyclists making recreational trips but anyone trying to get somewhere at a speed competitive with other modes of transport needs to travel at more than jogging pace. 5 mph is much slower than a normal cycling speed. Almost anyone on a bicycle will exceed that speed without trying. It's clear that such a limit makes no sense for cyclists.

There followed some debate about whether or not the law applies in this specific case, but that's not really the point. Whether or not it's legal to cycle here at above 5 mph, there's still a problem: Infrastructure in parks in London which supposedly allows cycling is not good enough to make for safe and convenient journeys at normal cycling speeds. The shared nature of paths like this is itself a very large part of the reason why there is conflict. Police were present to stop cyclists in this park because there have been complaints in the past due to previous conflicts. Trying to impose an extremely low speed limit on one of the slowest means of transport is not a solution to the problem. What needs to happen is that proper consideration is made of why conflict occurs and action taken to improve infrastructure to the point that the conflict is reduced. In a city there will almost always be too many pedestrians and cyclists to allow them to share paths without conflict. Shared-use paths don't make sense in crowded cities.

Blaming victims of bad design
The idea that "speeding cyclists" are a problem which needs addressing is not new. Low speed limits to control cyclists are also remarkably common. Glasgow, for instance, wanted a 5 mph limit like that in London "to ensure other parks users’ safety" while allowing motor vehicles to travel at twice the speed. San Francisco discussed a 10 mph limit for cyclists crossing the Golden Gate bridge (the speed limit for motorists is higher of course), Sydney has a 10 km/h "advisory" speed limit over a bridge. Christchurch is planning for 15 km/h on "major cycleways".

Yes, the Sydney Morning Herald actually sent a reporter to check whether any cyclists crossing this bridge might perhaps exceed a 10 km/h advisory speed limit. Are drivers anywhere in Sydney expected to go so slowly ? If not, then why cyclists ? (and yes, it's that Sydney. The one where drivers apparently hate cyclists)

The video from Sydney is worth watching. Note first that the bridge really is very wide. It could easily allow for normal cycling speeds if only there was a separate area marked for cyclists to reduce conflict (this should preferably look like a road as in the Assen photo above to reduce confusion). Also note that the fastest cyclist was travelling at just 23 km/h. 23 km/h is not fast at all for a regular cyclist. It's well within the range of normal speeds for cycling, a speed which in my experience is exceeded by many Dutch people on standard town bikes when going shopping. Participants on one of our study tours earlier this year may remember following a young student in Groningen who was applying her make-up while cycling at a consistent 27 km/h on a normal upright Dutch bike. I don't actually believe that speeds above 10 km/h are considered to be high speeds in Sydney except when the people under observation are cyclists. Perhaps Sydney residents can tell me whether there is any place at all within the city where drivers of cars are expected to observe a 10 km/h speed limit on one of their main through routes.

Ignoring the real danger
Each year, there are more than 1.2 million deaths across the world due to crashes involving motor vehicles and tens of millions more people are injured. Cyclists and pedestrians are often the victims of such crashes. There are no similar figures for deaths and injuries due to cyclists because the scale of the problem is infinitesimally smaller. Despite this, it is cyclists who are emphasized as a risk. You may wonder where these attitudes come from. What type of organisations would support such a notion as that cyclists go "too fast" and cause danger when it's so clear that morgues and hospitals the world are full of the victims of motor vehicle crashes, not of bicycle crashes.

A code of conduct for cyclists consisting almost entirely of asking the users of paths to compensate for the problems caused by low quality design of those very same paths.

Sustrans. For 'cycling' but against cyclists ?
Sustrans is a British organisation which claims to be interested in "enabling people to choose healthier, cleaner and cheaper journeys" and which is behind the UK's "National Cycle Network". Unfortunately, in a scramble to be able to claim to have a large quantity of cycling facilities they long ago forgot about the importance of quality and as a result they are now in the position of defending inadequately designed shared-use paths which make up a significant proportion of their network. Many people, including myself, have criticised the inept designs of infrastructure which Sustrans still approves of, pointing out that they create conflict and danger. Sustrans' reaction to conflicts caused by the design of their infrastructure has been to publish a "code of conduct" for cyclists.

In their code of conduct, Sustrans point out themselves that their paths "aren’t suitable for high speeds" and suggest that "if you wish to travel quickly [...] this is better done on quiet roads". For all their claims about having provided a network of cycling infrastructure, they're actually admitting that this network is not suitable for cycling. All the emphasis is on cyclists being told to modify their behaviour except for just one clause each regarding dog walkers and pedestrians. When not telling cyclists to go elsewhere than to ride on the cycling infrastructure, Sustrans tell them to "slow down", "be patient" or use a "sensible speed" in order to work around the needs of other path users.

But what is a "sensible speed" for cycling ? That rather depends on one's perspective. If Sustrans were genuinely building routes for "SUStainable TRANSport" then these routes would be usable at normal cycling speeds. If Sustrans' National Cycle Network already truly met "the highest possible standards" then there would be no complaints, no reasons for Sustrans to tell cyclists to go elsewhere and no reason to impose limits.

Cyclist speeds cannot compete with motor vehicle speeds. The speed of cyclists is naturally limited by the limited power available from a human body. The highest speeds achieved by cyclists are comparable with the lowest speed limits imposed on motor vehicles. Countries which have no difficulty in building an extensive network of roads on which motor vehicles travel at 50-120 km/h shouldn't have any difficulty at all in building cycle-paths which can cope with cycling speeds which on the flat are seldom consistently above 30 km/h and peak speeds rarely above 50 km/h.

It's an absurdity for cycling infrastructure to be designed such that it is unable to cope with the relatively modest speeds which even fit cyclists achieve on their everyday journeys.

A photo chosen by Sustrans to illustrate their National Cycling Network shows why there are problems with it. The cyclist has to ride on the wrong side of a narrow path facing any oncoming cyclists because the path is narrow and full of pedestrians. Any path with that many pedestrians on it is not a cycle-path. This pattern of usage on such a narrow path guarantees that conflict will occur.

Sack-cloth and ashes
Sadly, Sustrans representatives have been repeatedly vocal about cyclists being "a menace that needs taming".

You might wonder how other cycling organisations in the UK reacted to an organisation which puts such a point of view and publishes a code of conflict which puts emphasis firmly on their members, fellow cyclists, as being a cause of trouble rather than pointing out that planners had done an inadequate job. Surprisingly, the answer is that many other organisations joined in. British Cycling gave its support and CTC endorsed the Sustrans code of conduct.

What's more, spokespeople from CTC and Sustrans got together to ask other cyclists to pick on an "anti-social minority", requesting that people "take action by pointing the finger" at other riders. It seems they'd all rather encourage a minor form of vigilantism and create an out-group of cyclists to blame instead of addressing head-on the problem of inadequate infrastructure which causes the conflicts to occur. It's hardly a secret that Sustrans' shared use paths are inadequate as even the photos chosen by Sustrans to illustrate their network actually demonstrate the problems with it.

With friends like this...

2016 update: Roger Geffen of Cycling UK (new name for CTC) replied to this blog post concerned about the "take action by pointing the finger" quote above. This suggestion was made by Sustrans' then chief executive. See his comment and my reply to him below.

A meandering network
There's nothing wrong with building a network of meandering walking routes for people to enjoy by foot. But call it what it is. That's not how you create a network of convenient cycling routes which provide a realistic alternative to driving a car to make journeys. There's something very wrong indeed with pretending to have created cycling infrastructure or indeed an entire cycling network if actually cyclists are only welcome to use this network at a pace which makes cycling inconvenient.

If your cycling infrastructure can't cope with the speed of bicycles then it's simply not of high enough quality. A bridge which divides instead of connecting is not a success.

Racing cyclists, children, pensioners, we all need the same efficient grid of go-everywhere infrastructure.

What's really required
To encourage people to cycle, cycling must be fast. It is important that cycling journeys are made efficient and safe as otherwise cycling does not compete with other modes of transport. The Sustrans representative draws false equivalences with the Netherlands and Denmark as being places where people cycle slower, but it's simply not true. No-one has time to waste on inadequate infrastructure which slows them down. There is no demographic group in this country or any other which wants their journeys to take longer than they have to and no excuse whatsoever for building infrastructure which has that result.

Infrastructure which requires cyclists and pedestrians to use the same paths can be acceptable where there will be almost no usage by one of the groups but it will always leads to conflicts in any place where numbers of users are high, especially when there are large numbers of pedestrians. Normal Dutch practice is to build cycle-paths without separate pedestrian paths between towns where distances are relatively large and there will be few pedestrians, but paths inside villages and towns should almost always have separate paths for pedestrians. This avoids the need to built a separate pedestrian path in places where there will be little if any conflict due to the low numbers of users, but also avoids conflict where we know there will be many users.

The first video was made in Norway a few weeks back but the problems demonstrated by it are are common to anywhere that cyclists and pedestrians are forced to mix.

Sadly, the main Dutch campaigning organisation has also fallen into the trap of campaigning against cyclists rather than concentrating on where real danger comes from.

Our friend Mike Rubbo came to stay with us in March. It was -10 C here but people were still cycling much as they always do. We had had a chance to get used to the weather, of course, so I thought Mike did well to survive outdoors at all, having come here from the Australian summer.

Mike wrapped up warm to film the school run in Kloosterveen, a new suburb of Assen. It's impressive whatever the weather.

The above is the first of the films that Mike has finished about cycling in this area. This film was shot around the bike shop and cycle parking at the largest railway station in Groningen, with particular emphasis on one of the shop's customers, a lady who uses her electric bike to get around in and around the city and who had an amusing story to tell.

Bikes are everyday transport in this country for the whole population, whatever the weather.

On Friday we hosted the Cycling Dutch Style group from Australia on a Study Tour here in Assen. We had a good day for it, covering a lot of the interesting infrastructure:

Entering Kloosterveen, a new suburb of Assen

• New suburb of Kloosterveen
• Bicycle road
• Simultaneous green junctions
• City centre transformation
• Railway station cycle parking
• Groningerstraat
• Traffic lights
• Roundabouts

We also showed how it's used by everyone. Cycling here is not only by the sort of sporty cyclists that you see everywhere in the world but also for:

• Primary school students
• Secondary school students
• People doing shopping
• Older people
• People with physical handicaps

Guest blogger Mark Wagenbuur came with us for the day, which was a great help with this large group (30 people). He also made the video at the top.

Judy made some photos some of which are below:

Bikes parked with those of local shoppers while we have coffee.

Children going home from school for lunch. The very young ones are accompanied by parents, but the average age at which children are considered to be able to travel independently is about 8 and a half.

Discussing details of the new suburb which encourage cycling over driving.

One of many bridges and cut-throughs which make cycle journeys shorter and more direct than car journeys.

The bicycle road which links the new suburb with the centre of the city. Bikes on this side of the canal, cars on the other side of the canal.

Our waitress at the lunch-stop asked us what we were doing. When we explained, she told us she had taken a holiday in Australia and tried cycling there. While she cycles every day in Assen, she tried it for one day only in Australia and gave up. Apart from the danger of the traffic and lack of subjective safety. Watch her video about how she really doesn't like to wear a helmet.

Simultaneous Green junction. Cyclists go in all directions at once, and while the lights are green for bikes, all motor vehicles have red lights. Complete safety, as well as convenience and speed for cyclists.

Some consternation at a major junction, but of course we pass it on completely separated paths, and in one stage with no barriers to swerve through or delay us further.

We are holding the next public Study Tour in September. If you would like to come along, please get in touch. If you think your local representatives would benefit from being shown how well the infrastructure works here in Assen, and how it has helped to create a cycling culture where everyday people make 40% of all their journeys by bike, please recommend that they come along.

A diverse group of over 30 Australians, led by Paul van Bellen of Gazelle Bicycles in Australia, have just started an ambitious tour around the Netherlands, looking at infrastructure as well as other things while they're here and hoping to take some of the knowledge home with them.

"Cycling is an unknown phenomena in Australia"

They're also making headlines. This article was syndicated around the Dutch newspapers today.

We're meeting the group on Friday and taking them on what will be a condensed one-day study tour in this area, showing the infrastructure and how it serves local people by making everyday cycling a pleasant, convenient and relaxing experience for everyone.

In September we're organising another public Study Tour in Assen. This will follow the usual three day route, so we'll have a bit more time to look at things. If you're interested, book now.

Update 15th May. The Study Tour was successful on Friday. A further blog post has been made about it.

Note that even though this is almost flat between Great Britain and the Netherlands, this is the best case graph for people who think there's a correlation between car fuel price and cycling. This is because this graph concerns only the price of petrol.  If you compare diesel prices then it doesn, those are somewhat lower in the Netherlands vs. other countries. Diesel costs less here than in the UK, for instance and perhaps unsurprisingly, diesel cars are common in the Netherlands.

One of those myths that won't die is that the Netherlands has a high rate of cycling because the price of petrol ("gas" to Americans, "benzine" in The Netherlands) is high. This seems particularly to be suggested by Americans, because the price of petrol in their country is so low, and so is the cycling rate.

However, I don't believe this to be the case. If you remove the USA, and Australia to a lesser extent, many other countries have very similar petrol prices, but markedly different rates of cycling.

The graph shows the rate of cycling as a percentage of journeys in several countries in the world, plotted along with the January 2011 prices for petrol.

There are three areas of this graph which show a story.

On the left you can consider the USA, Australia and Great Britain. All three of these countries have a cycling rate of around 1%, but the petrol prices are spread widely - between 60 cents and €1.47 per litre.

You can then consider the largest part of the graph, Great Britain through to Finland. In all of these countries except Austria and Switzerland, the petrol price is very similar: between €1.40 and €1.48 per litre. However, the cycling rates vary across nearly the whole spectrum, 1% of journeys at the low end and 11% of journeys at the high end. The two end positions are taken by Great Britain with petrol at €1.47 per litre and Finland where petrol costs €1.48 per litre.

Lastly, take a look at the top three: Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands. If you look hard enough here, then you can see an upward trend in both petrol price and cycling rate. However, petrol in the Netherlands is actually only 11% more expensive than Finland (€1.62 vs. €1.48) while the cycling rate is 2.5 times as high (27% vs. 11% of journeys).

But what about diesel ?
But actually, this doesn't tell the whole story. Because we've considered only petrol and not diesel, we've simplified the issue. When I last covered this, I noted that while petrol was more expensive in the Netherlands than in the UK, diesel was 14% cheaper in the Netherlands than in the UK. Considering both petrol and diesel together, the price of fuel is actually more equal between nations than it appears on my graph. For the driver of a diesel engined car (roughly half of new cars sold in Europe run on diesel), the fuel to run it is actually cheaper in the Netherlands than in Britain - yet these two countries span the widest range possible of cycling rates.

I think it's fair to say that there's no real relationship shown here between the price of fuel for cars and the cycling rate. Even when fuel for cars is expensive and congestion results in journeys being slow and inconvenient, people will continue to want to drive if driving remains the least bad option.

The cost of taxation and insurance are also not factors which make driving more expensive in the Netherlands. Insurance for new drivers in particular is much cheaper in the Netherlands than in the UK.

Many myths and excuses exist for why the cycling rate in other countries is lower. The only thing which really explains why the Netherlands stands out so far above other countries is that the experience of cycling is so different. In the Netherlands, cycling takes place away from the threat of motor vehicles on good quality cycle paths and roads which prioritize cyclists. Never is it necessary to take on busy motorized traffic by bike, or even to ride up the side of rows of stationery vehicles. This leads to an outstanding level of subjective safety, and as a result all types of people cycle.

To see the policies, infrastructure and campaigning which have lead to the Netherlands having both the world's highest cycling rate and also the world's safest cyclists, click on what works.

I mentioned a few days ago that this weekend is the national recumbent bike weekend in the Netherlands.

Contemporaneous with this, there's a slightly worrying story from Australia. Apparently there is a proposal to make all recumbent cyclists in the country have a flag on their bikes in order to "increase regulation and legal compliance of human powered vehicles." As the linked article notes, "this proposal appears to be based based on spurious and anecdotal experiential demand."

Australia is already one of the very few places where cycling helmets are compulsory, and this is another step along the same lines. The message would seem to be that "cycling is dangerous". It's a mystery to me why Australians, who to much of the world seem to have rather a "rugged" reputation should seemingly be scared of bicycles and leading the world in such scaremongering. However, Australia's cycling rate is one of the very lowest in the world, so if the intention is to marginalize cycling then I guess it's working.

Bicycles are in themselves extremely safe. It is automobiles which kill as many people as wars, not bikes. Recumbent bikes may actually be rather safer, in that falls are often from a lower height, and if you fall, you usually land on your backside. In the case of a velomobile like my Mango, you're completely surrounded by a shell which protects in the case of a crash.

I'm not aware of any real evidence that recumbents are less visible than other bikes. Indeed, my experience on first riding one on the roads in the UK was that more drivers noticed me, and these would give me more space on the road. Sometimes dramatically more space. I certainly don't believe that my 2.5 m long bright yellow Mango would be more visible if only for a 15 cm long flag, and my brief experimentation with a flag on a two wheel recumbent (in the photo above) lead to a conclusion that from behind, the flag was the least visible part of the bike.

I don't believe that there is actually any reliable evidence one way or the other about relative safety of recumbent vs. other bicycles, so punitive laws against a particular group of cyclists are difficult to justify.

It's issues like this that require cyclists to behave as a whole. It does no good for different "tribes" to develop. It's no good for racers to disregard the interests of mums with kids on bikes, or for "slow cyclists" to distance themselves from sport cyclists. Indeed, it doesn't even help for cyclists to distance themselves from drivers. If we're to see a dramatic increase in cycling around the world, people who drive now are future cyclists. These kinds of issues affect everyone. "Them and us" helps none of us.

The photo is of my old Pashley PDQ on the top of Shap Fell, part way along the one tour when I did use a flag. It was less visible than the basket. Of course, if you prefer to ride with a flag, that's your own personal choice. Good luck to you.

The Sydney Morning Herald from Australia recently reported that Sydney is "the city that hates bikes." Cycling rates are low all across Australia, but Sydney is the city which has "the lowest rate of bicycle ownership of any major city in Australia as well as the lowest proportion of people who cycle every day." Melbourne has double the cycling rate of Sydney, with 2.1% of commutes by bike vs. 0.8% in Sydney.

John Pucher, who I wrote about previously, spent a sabbatical year researching ways to boost cycling in Sydney, and wrote a detailed report which looks into the reasons why Sydney has so little cycling, making comparisons with Melbourn and with the rest of the world.

The graph shows the relationship between the bicycle modal share for commuting and the proportion of bike trips which are by women for various areas of Melbourne. Women are typically more cautious than men, and where subjective safety is lacking, fewer women will cycle. It is noted in the article that cycling rates for women are very low in Australia, while the highest rate of cycling by women is here in the Netherlands where 55% of all cycle journeys are made by women.

Normally I would note here that the commuting rate is usually a lot lower than the modal share for all journeys. This is true in most instances because children, parents with children and the elderly are even more affected by subjective safety issues.

However, Australia's cycling rate is so low that other effects come into play. In Sydney, fully 53% of cycle journeys are made for recreational purposes. This is quite an unusual situation. Conditions are such that utility cycling by "normal people" who don't identify themselves as "cyclists" has almost been eradicated.

Pucher's article (please read it) spends a lot of time looking at the factors which make cycling particularly unattractive in Sydney. Topography and climate, population density and urban form, trip distance, socioeconomic and demographic factors. I've covered most of these issues before, and none really add up to a reason for no-one to cycle.

I've covered these excuses before, so I won't go over them again, except for one. The problem of trip distances is so commonly over-stated that I will write about that. The average work trip length in Sydney turns out to be 16.9 km. That's quite a high figure. However, 32.9% of work trips are actually under 10 km, and 15% of trips to work are under 5 km. Even with such a large number of short commutes, only 0.8% of all these commutes are being made by bicycle. Journey distances may put off some potential cycle commuters, but they are clearly not the real reason for the cycling rate of Sydney being so extraordinarily low.

It is often believed by people from low cycling English speaking countries that the Dutch only make short journeys. That of course is not the truth. Across the whole of the Netherlands, 35% of all trips for all purposes that are under 7.5 km are made by bike. So are 15% of journeys between 7.5 and 15 km and 3% of journeys over 15 km. The Dutch have the longest commutes on average of any nation in Europe.

So what is the problem ? Why do Australians cycle so infrequently ? Section 5 on page 14 of the article gets down to it:

"Concern about the danger of road cycling is a serious deterrent to getting more people to cycle—especially for children, the elderly, and women, but also for anyone who is risk averse (Bauman et al, 2008). A recent survey of 1,150 Sydney residents living within 10 km of the CBD suggests that perceived traffic danger is the primary reason why non-regular cyclists do not cycle more often (City of Sydney, 2006). Thus, improving cycling safety is an important approach to encouraging more cycling among a broader cross-section of society. Of course, reducing cyclist injuries and fatalities is an appropriate public health goal in itself, but the potential impact of improved safety on people’s willingness to cycle is yet more reason to pursue this goal."

There you have it. There is a lack of Subjective safety.

It doesn't have to be like this. In the Netherlands we have infrastructure which supports cyclists by giving them direct journeys with a high degree of subjective safety making cycling easily accessible to all. The result is not only an enormous difference in the number of short and slow journeys made relative to other countries, but increases interest in all types of cycling. You also see it reflected in the very high rate of participation in racing, and the resulting success in international racing vs. other countries, and the high rate of long distance cycle commuting. The latter particularly benefits due to infrastructure specifically designed to support it. The quality of Dutch provision has made a great difference to my own commuting speed. For keen cyclists, there is no down side to the type of infrastructure which exists in the Netherlands.

The story about Sydney came to me via the Crap cycling and walking in Waltham Forest blog.

Mike Rubbo recently made this film about Jackie Fristacky, the Councillor for Nicholls Ward, City of Yarra which is located in Melbourne in Australia.

Over here, it's nothing special to be a "cycling councillor." In fact, quite the reverse. When 93% of the population ride a bike at least once a week, it would be a brave councillor who tried to get elected with any kind of anti-bike message. In this country, the royal family ride bikes, and do so publicly in part because it's a way of connecting with the public and appearing a bit more normal rather than aloof.

However, in Australia it is not the same, and Jackie is sticking her head out in being a "cycling councillor." It is perhaps not a co-incidence that she represents the area with the highest cycling rate in Australia. 9% of commutes in Yarra are by bicycle, which is vastly higher than the average for the country as a whole.

Now, that's all very interesting, but what I like to know about places like this is what makes them special. What makes Yarra a place where cycling is more acceptable and more commonplace than elsewhere in Australia ? I sent Mike this question, and got a very comprehensive reply from Jackie herself, listing her reasons why Yarra has a high cycling mode share:

• Location close to key destinations such as CBD (1-2kms away to 5kms away at the extreme), employment and local activity centres;
• Yarra being 19.5 sq kms, and only a few kms from CBD (Central Business District), so distances all easily cyclable;
• Relatively flat terrain;
• Hoddle grid street pattern (rectangular blocks) makes cycling easy;
• High youth population, including students, given proximity to many tertiary educational institutions (University of Melbourne, RMIT, Australian Catholic University, and city campuses of Monash University, Vitoria University and others);
• Demographic is diverse with high proportion of professionals (higher incomes), and students and public housing (low incomes); both demographics cycle;
• cycling as an egalitarian and independent mode, suits the Yarra demographic;
• Congestion, so it is far more effective to cycle - being faster and door to door;
• 20% of households do not have a car, compared with Melbourne average of 10%;
• 73,000 residents; and 8,700 business in Yarra, employing some 60,000 people, Yarra having the largest source of employment outside the CBD. Some large businesses, like the CUB, have large secure bike cages for staff. Many employers are starting to encourage their staff to cycle to work with good parking and other facilities. Under the State planning scheme, these have become mandatory for larger new developments, but this is effecting existing businesses too. At meetings with planners, we take every opportunity to point out that more bikes are sold than cars, especially in Yarra, so where are residents/workers going to put their bikes. We say that if they do not want them in corridors and on balconies where they can cause trip hazards and WorkCare claims, then they need to plan better storage places;
• people are employed locally though more are employed in the CBD and also in surrounding areas;
• Yarra inherited a good cycle path to the CBD (Canning Street) but this has been supplemented by bike paths on virtually all roads in Yarra due to policy change directing this;
• Role models of Mayor and councillors on bikes, and senior staff including Directors on bikes;
• PR with press features on cycling and facilities;
• many local workers like to attend a bar or the like after work and having a car hampers them with restricted parking, drink driving etc; a bike gives more flexibility and less likely to be DUI.

Compare with a city in the Netherlands with a "low" rate of cycling

The renowned Australian film director, Mike Rubbo, recently made a film about cycling in the Netherlands which features me. It's rather unusual to be the subject of a film in this way, and I've resisted putting it on my own blog, not because I don't like the film, but because it seems a bit conceited for me to do so. However, Mike kept asking me to put it up, and here it is. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

In the film I make reference to a Dutch study relating cost savings by employers to commuter cycling. There are quite a lot of shots of one of the cycle paths by a canal here in Assen, and then some of streets in Amsterdam.

Also, the film includes clips of a film showing cycling in the Netherlands in the 1950s and refers to reliable everyday bikes, the important features of which I covered a few months back.

What I'm riding at the start of the film is a Sinner Mango Velomobile. This is not only is very fast indeed, but also comfortable, and it has the fully enclosed chain, reliable brakes and puncture resistant tyres essential to make for reliable everyday transport. Oh, and we could have adjusted it to fit Violeta properly...

Mike's own blog can be found at www.situp-cycle.com. It includes many other videos which he's made, including interviews with other people such as Mikael from the Copenhagenize blog, a cycling doctor in Australia and Sue Abbott who has achieved some fame due to fighting the helmet laws in Australia.

Mike Rubbo also has been busy making bicycle art. Kindly he sent us an example which you can see here. Please visit Mike's website for more information. The video was shot for Mike by Violeta Brana-Lafourcade.

Two years after this video was shot, the cycle-path along the canal was resurfaced and improved.