Yes! You're definitely not supposed to cycle, or drive, on that rough rumble strip. It's meant for drainage and for keeping cars at a bit of a distance from the pavement. Suggested cycle strips are much more like a bike lane, but without the bicycle emblem
The solution in rural areas is to make the street itself narrow as intended but widen it using grate-structured concrete tiles. This allows heavy equipment to pass each other but nobody, including cyclings, will want to drive on them or think of them as proper street. They are just extended quasi paved skirts.
Thank you for another video. Your B-roll game has improved a lot. (There's never enough B-roll. ;) The value of your videos in my eyes is the clear definition of a problem or question. Instead of immediately explaining the solution you describe the caveats how a problem appears. Often it's a good idea extended to fit another situation. Now I've learned when and why the middle line can and should be removed. While also being careful when suggestion lines can be mistaken for a dividing line, having the effect of making a street less safe. These more focused videos probably take a lot more time for you to create. As a viewer this style feels much more purposeful and shareable. Can't wait for the next one!
Great video and a very interesting challenge for engineers! Sometimes road users don't fully grasp what an engineer intended like in this video, which can lead to more dangerous behavior. That's why traffic engineering is so interesting, you have to not only understand engineering principles but also human psychology!
you are only ever required too if there is a bicycle symbol on it. And if you see a bicycle symbol and no center striping, then it is an illegal bike lane and cannot be enforced. Meaning if you are given a ticket it will be dismissed in court if you challenge it. But do what you feel comfortable with. I wouldnt tell people to place themselves in 50 km/hr traffic just because thats how its "supposed" to work. But also dont feel like you have to be sandwhiched into 0.5 meters either.
To add to the confusion: The term "Suggestivstreifen" ("suggestive lane") had been used in Germany for advisory bike lanes - and the example you have at 4:40 looks exactly like those, except the middle might be to wide. It should only allow passenger cars to go though, while trucks and busses have to yield for bikes. And yep, cyclists hate them, bus drivers hate them. And truck drivers just run over you…
1. Many of the suggestiestroken you showed aren't actually suggestiestroken. 2. The suggestiestroken you showed in industrial areas aren't on 30 kmph streets but on 50 kmph streets. Almost all industrial areas in the country have a 50 kmph speed limit and only rudimentary or tagged-on bike infrastructure.
3:17 and 4:29 are definitely suggestiestroken, because it lacks the bicycle symbol. The bicycle symbol is the only difference beween a fietsstrook and a suggestiestrook
It seems like in a situation like what is shown iat 5:36, that the easiest and cheapest solution would be to move the parking lane to where the edgelane line is and then fill the remaining space of the former parking space with, bikes racks, containers,, potted plants and so on.. if there is enough money, you can even fill up the space with pavers and have it be level with the rest of the sidewalk to have wide sidewalks. The situation at 4:15 on the other hand would be more difficult (more expensive) to take care off, since there is less use for bike racks and plants and potted plants and other such stuff there.
Hmmm... sorry.. but "sidelines" are not the same as a suggestiestrook. A suggestiestrook is an unofficial cycle path that is meant to be cycled in, like at 3:24. It's an outdated concept and not preferred anymore. Simple lines along the side of the street to visually narrow the roadway aren't a suggestiestrook per se. You can find those on roads of all kinds of speed levels. And the difference between a suggestiestrook and a bike lane is indeed only the bike symbol on the road. But it does have consequences, because different rules apply to bike lanes with symbols. Also you're mistaking the "rules" of road layouts a bit. Because the road layouts can be made up by the municipalities themselves. Nothing illegal about a bike lane on an industrial site. However the municipalities are expected to follow best practices set by the CROW. These best practices can be ignored as they are suggestive. That is good, because there are thousands of individual unique situations where standard solutions wouldn't be the best. The Haarlem industrial park dashed bike lane is better than what was there when the road was constructed: no bike lane at all. It's true that not everything that is currently constructed follows current day best practice, as many infrastructure considered good 10 years ago may already be outdated by the latest insights. That does not mean however that no bike lane is better than a dashed bike lane.
Ah, ok… Now that's the thing I know here in Germany as a "Suggestivstreifen" as well. And really, they suck - but they may be "better than nothing" for places, where you have to much traffic to make an ETW design work and to little space for a bike lane.
I'm confused why you'd call the US' road classification system more hierarchical than the Dutch? At first I thought you had it all wrong, seeing as to how many of their cities are almost perfect grids, which is exactly the lack of a hierarchy. But ofc that's not all of it. Maybe the US have a finer distinction of roads that are all at higher speeds, and for cars, whereas the Dutch have a finer distinction of roads that are at lower speeds, and not for cars? In that sense they're both hierarchical, it's just that they've sorta specialized into different modes of traffic altogether.
Currently in Utrecht and was wondering where all of the bike infra was on residential looking streets. But yeah you were right and I also realized that nothing was needed on these quiet streets. Don't really have this in the states...
@@kailahmann1823 Yeah and larger urban planning is often a mess, which means that a lot of traffic is coming through which destination is not nearby. The grid is the perfect example of this, where you might be travalling for 20-30 min over streets non stop. In the netherlands this (almost) never happens. Streets are really just there for the last 200m of your journey. This means that streets see way too much traffic in the US. On a street meeting other cars should be the execption, not the rule.
@@jaspermooren5883 in Germany we call this problem "Schleichverkehr", which has two meanings: being slow and being hidden. It's people driving strange detours, the planners didn't even know just to avoid a traffic jam - which they often enough make worse when they re-merge…
@@kailahmann1823 that's a Dutch phenomenon as well, called 'sluipverkeer' which I'm pretty sure means the exact same thing, although my German is really bad. That is more of a problem on highways though, I was more talking about traffic inside cities.
They could just decide to not make those suggestiestroken red, not put bike pictograms on them, and just keep the street narrow enough, so that it's clear that they're suggestiestroken. It really isn't difficult to make these safe, but cities don't always choose the safest option, because they might prioritize through traffic short-cuts over destination traffic safety.
An edge line (shown at the start of the video) is not a "suggestiestrook" - that's a plain error. Also, the theory than on a local street (ETW), traffic should be so slow that you don't need a bike lane is nice, but is not practical because it neglects the stress that traffic volume, not just traffic speed, imposes on cyclists. On ETW's with 1,500 or more vehicles per day (and there are many in Dutch cities), and on rural ETW's with speed limit 60 km/h with more than 500 vehicles/day, cycling is far more comfortable when a space for cycling is designated using an advisory lane. Almost every Dutch city has them.
I think bicycle gutters works fine, at least in rural areas in the Netherlands, since motorists know when to expect cyclists, most motorists also give them enough space (depending on their speed) and the roads with bicycle gutters have a low speed limit as well as a low demand for motorised traffic ...though the literal gutter at the beginning of the video is a bit extreme
Rainwater doesn't penetrate asphalt. It does through pavement when it doesn't rain too hard though. Was this in Utrecht? These strips of parlement were policy there once. The line is not to mark a suggestion lane. It marks the edge of the asphalt.
This was in Haarlem. Yes I posted a comment where I corrected myself and identified the beginning as Kant markering. I did discuss it with my colleagues and they agreed there wasn’t a huge difference between this and a suggestiestrook because it truly in theory is not meant to be used for cycling and the markings are meant to mark the edges of the normal drivable street. The Kant markering is more of a “harder border” though. I am learning myself through these videos and I appreciate all the feeeback and information you guys give me in the comments
The statements in this video are not entirely correct. There are 2 different types of "stroken" (lanes): - A fietsstrook is a bike lane next to the road. That's an actual bikelane. Broken lines are indicating that cars are allowed to use the bikelane to pass traffic coming from the other direction where non-interupted lines are prohibiting cars to cross over to the bike lane. Fietsstroken can be painted red to make them more visible - A Fietssuggestiestrook are serving multiple purposes. The fietssuggestiestrook is actually just part of the car lane. However bikes can be expected on that "strook". The second purpose is indeed to make the road/lane seem smaller than it actually is to reduce car speed. The difference between the 2 is made clear by the bike being painted on the strook. There's a bike? Its a bike lane. No bike. Car lane, but bikes can be expected.
I would kind of think Haarlem is breaking that rule on purpose and with safety in mind. We Dutch are pragmatic people. So if something looks like a bike lane, is usable as a bike lane and has no "no bike" signs.... it is a bike lane. Not only cyclers will look at it that way but, in this case more important, car/motor traffic will look at it that way. When everyone is expecting behavior on a certain point... intentionally created or not, it is best to either remove or make official.
Well yes, but because the rvv is mostly devoid a design guidance, the “design guides” in the Netherlands have a lot more weight than in other countries. This is by deliberate choice because when they passed sustainable safety, part of the effort was to designate policy and vision to the government, and the designer know how entirely up to designers instead of doing a mix of both
But I probably shouldn’t have used the word “illegal” but I wanted to try to find a way how to express that the design guide in crow is really more than just a design guide
@@ray076NL if you check the design guidelines crow simply states “variable” as the suggested width because again, it’s not meant to be a bike lane. Preceding to design it just like one anyway breaks duurzamveilig in all but name since the ETW BIBEKO is not supposed to have a stroom functie. I think we probably eventually need a GOW 30 to solve this issue
@@buildthelanes i agree they are a piece of crap, but eindhoven is doing a decent job on streets that would otherwise be to small. they aren't bad if they are designed well, but i do mean when they have just a single lane for car traffic and in that case crow suggests 170cm. but because crow leaves it up to interpretation you get turds like in your video but the idea of those streets seem to work quit well where i live, eindhoven, as they are well designed and wide enough 'bicycle lanes'. next video bicyclestreets? i dont personally like GOW 30, i am in support of GOW 40 as proposed by fietsersbond and goudappel. i believe thats a more reasonable ask from drivers. as with GOW 30 drivers wouldn't slow down properly in neigbourhoods is my expectation. 20 would be the new 30 in that proposal, but nobody is talking about it.
Quick correction. This first example shown of a suggestiestrook is actually a “kantmarkering”
Yes! You're definitely not supposed to cycle, or drive, on that rough rumble strip. It's meant for drainage and for keeping cars at a bit of a distance from the pavement. Suggested cycle strips are much more like a bike lane, but without the bicycle emblem
even worse. its a gutter.
In a city like Duisburg or Krefeld I'd still expect it being a mandatory bike lane :)
@@roelrijkens4061 "kantmarkering" is a type of gutter.
i was about to criticize you on that but yea.. :P
I'm so excited to see all these excellent new urbanist channels on CZcams, yours included. Keep up the content! We need it.
they help me understand the country as I am starting from the bottom of the barrel. 🫶
One important thing about the Dutch method is that we keep trying to improve things.
We never think we have the perfect solution.
The solution in rural areas is to make the street itself narrow as intended but widen it using grate-structured concrete tiles. This allows heavy equipment to pass each other but nobody, including cyclings, will want to drive on them or think of them as proper street. They are just extended quasi paved skirts.
Thank you for another video. Your B-roll game has improved a lot. (There's never enough B-roll. ;)
The value of your videos in my eyes is the clear definition of a problem or question. Instead of immediately explaining the solution you describe the caveats how a problem appears. Often it's a good idea extended to fit another situation.
Now I've learned when and why the middle line can and should be removed. While also being careful when suggestion lines can be mistaken for a dividing line, having the effect of making a street less safe.
These more focused videos probably take a lot more time for you to create. As a viewer this style feels much more purposeful and shareable.
Can't wait for the next one!
Great video and a very interesting challenge for engineers! Sometimes road users don't fully grasp what an engineer intended like in this video, which can lead to more dangerous behavior. That's why traffic engineering is so interesting, you have to not only understand engineering principles but also human psychology!
So interesting! I've always wondered whether or not I should cycle on these paths
you are only ever required too if there is a bicycle symbol on it. And if you see a bicycle symbol and no center striping, then it is an illegal bike lane and cannot be enforced. Meaning if you are given a ticket it will be dismissed in court if you challenge it.
But do what you feel comfortable with. I wouldnt tell people to place themselves in 50 km/hr traffic just because thats how its "supposed" to work. But also dont feel like you have to be sandwhiched into 0.5 meters either.
Very informative! The production value gets better and better with each video!
To add to the confusion: The term "Suggestivstreifen" ("suggestive lane") had been used in Germany for advisory bike lanes - and the example you have at 4:40 looks exactly like those, except the middle might be to wide. It should only allow passenger cars to go though, while trucks and busses have to yield for bikes. And yep, cyclists hate them, bus drivers hate them. And truck drivers just run over you…
I always learn something new from these! So well done and every time I learn more, I get more frustrated with how the US designs it’s streets!
Yes! This video is just what I needed. Thank you so much.
1. Many of the suggestiestroken you showed aren't actually suggestiestroken.
2. The suggestiestroken you showed in industrial areas aren't on 30 kmph streets but on 50 kmph streets. Almost all industrial areas in the country have a 50 kmph speed limit and only rudimentary or tagged-on bike infrastructure.
3:17 and 4:29 are definitely suggestiestroken, because it lacks the bicycle symbol. The bicycle symbol is the only difference beween a fietsstrook and a suggestiestrook
Thank you for this informative video! 😊
It seems like in a situation like what is shown iat 5:36, that the easiest and cheapest solution would be to move the parking lane to where the edgelane line is and then fill the remaining space of the former parking space with, bikes racks, containers,, potted plants and so on.. if there is enough money, you can even fill up the space with pavers and have it be level with the rest of the sidewalk to have wide sidewalks.
The situation at 4:15 on the other hand would be more difficult (more expensive) to take care off, since there is less use for bike racks and plants and potted plants and other such stuff there.
Interesting topic! I wish the UK adopted a proper road categorisation system like this. I'm not sure if we have one, but I don't think so.
Hmmm... sorry.. but "sidelines" are not the same as a suggestiestrook. A suggestiestrook is an unofficial cycle path that is meant to be cycled in, like at 3:24. It's an outdated concept and not preferred anymore. Simple lines along the side of the street to visually narrow the roadway aren't a suggestiestrook per se. You can find those on roads of all kinds of speed levels.
And the difference between a suggestiestrook and a bike lane is indeed only the bike symbol on the road. But it does have consequences, because different rules apply to bike lanes with symbols.
Also you're mistaking the "rules" of road layouts a bit. Because the road layouts can be made up by the municipalities themselves. Nothing illegal about a bike lane on an industrial site. However the municipalities are expected to follow best practices set by the CROW. These best practices can be ignored as they are suggestive. That is good, because there are thousands of individual unique situations where standard solutions wouldn't be the best. The Haarlem industrial park dashed bike lane is better than what was there when the road was constructed: no bike lane at all.
It's true that not everything that is currently constructed follows current day best practice, as many infrastructure considered good 10 years ago may already be outdated by the latest insights. That does not mean however that no bike lane is better than a dashed bike lane.
Ah, ok… Now that's the thing I know here in Germany as a "Suggestivstreifen" as well. And really, they suck - but they may be "better than nothing" for places, where you have to much traffic to make an ETW design work and to little space for a bike lane.
Would you ever be willing to take a dive into comparing the USA's hierarchal road classification system with the Dutch equivalent or lack there of?
hey there one of my previous videos dove into how travel surfaces in the netherlands are organized, but there are a couple of errors present
@@buildthelanes oh i didnt even realize you had that video! I think I half-watched it, thanks for being patient!
I'm confused why you'd call the US' road classification system more hierarchical than the Dutch? At first I thought you had it all wrong, seeing as to how many of their cities are almost perfect grids, which is exactly the lack of a hierarchy. But ofc that's not all of it. Maybe the US have a finer distinction of roads that are all at higher speeds, and for cars, whereas the Dutch have a finer distinction of roads that are at lower speeds, and not for cars? In that sense they're both hierarchical, it's just that they've sorta specialized into different modes of traffic altogether.
Currently in Utrecht and was wondering where all of the bike infra was on residential looking streets. But yeah you were right and I also realized that nothing was needed on these quiet streets. Don't really have this in the states...
maybe because residential streets in the US are still wide like they are freeway lanes. :)
@@kailahmann1823 Yeah and larger urban planning is often a mess, which means that a lot of traffic is coming through which destination is not nearby. The grid is the perfect example of this, where you might be travalling for 20-30 min over streets non stop. In the netherlands this (almost) never happens. Streets are really just there for the last 200m of your journey. This means that streets see way too much traffic in the US. On a street meeting other cars should be the execption, not the rule.
@@jaspermooren5883 in Germany we call this problem "Schleichverkehr", which has two meanings: being slow and being hidden. It's people driving strange detours, the planners didn't even know just to avoid a traffic jam - which they often enough make worse when they re-merge…
@@kailahmann1823 that's a Dutch phenomenon as well, called 'sluipverkeer' which I'm pretty sure means the exact same thing, although my German is really bad. That is more of a problem on highways though, I was more talking about traffic inside cities.
@@jaspermooren5883 "sluip" and "schleichen" have probably even the same source :)
They could just decide to not make those suggestiestroken red, not put bike pictograms on them, and just keep the street narrow enough, so that it's clear that they're suggestiestroken. It really isn't difficult to make these safe, but cities don't always choose the safest option, because they might prioritize through traffic short-cuts over destination traffic safety.
I will continue to cycle on these roads thanks.
An edge line (shown at the start of the video) is not a "suggestiestrook" - that's a plain error. Also, the theory than on a local street (ETW), traffic should be so slow that you don't need a bike lane is nice, but is not practical because it neglects the stress that traffic volume, not just traffic speed, imposes on cyclists. On ETW's with 1,500 or more vehicles per day (and there are many in Dutch cities), and on rural ETW's with speed limit 60 km/h with more than 500 vehicles/day, cycling is far more comfortable when a space for cycling is designated using an advisory lane. Almost every Dutch city has them.
I think bicycle gutters works fine, at least in rural areas in the Netherlands, since motorists know when to expect cyclists, most motorists also give them enough space (depending on their speed) and the roads with bicycle gutters have a low speed limit as well as a low demand for motorised traffic ...though the literal gutter at the beginning of the video is a bit extreme
Rainwater doesn't penetrate asphalt. It does through pavement when it doesn't rain too hard though. Was this in Utrecht? These strips of parlement were policy there once. The line is not to mark a suggestion lane. It marks the edge of the asphalt.
This was in Haarlem. Yes I posted a comment where I corrected myself and identified the beginning as Kant markering. I did discuss it with my colleagues and they agreed there wasn’t a huge difference between this and a suggestiestrook because it truly in theory is not meant to be used for cycling and the markings are meant to mark the edges of the normal drivable street. The Kant markering is more of a “harder border” though. I am learning myself through these videos and I appreciate all the feeeback and information you guys give me in the comments
I'm Dutch and I had no idea about ETW's, though I have wondered. Thought they were misdesigned bike lanes!
The statements in this video are not entirely correct. There are 2 different types of "stroken" (lanes):
- A fietsstrook is a bike lane next to the road. That's an actual bikelane. Broken lines are indicating that cars are allowed to use the bikelane to pass traffic coming from the other direction where non-interupted lines are prohibiting cars to cross over to the bike lane. Fietsstroken can be painted red to make them more visible
- A Fietssuggestiestrook are serving multiple purposes. The fietssuggestiestrook is actually just part of the car lane. However bikes can be expected on that "strook". The second purpose is indeed to make the road/lane seem smaller than it actually is to reduce car speed.
The difference between the 2 is made clear by the bike being painted on the strook. There's a bike? Its a bike lane. No bike. Car lane, but bikes can be expected.
I would kind of think Haarlem is breaking that rule on purpose and with safety in mind. We Dutch are pragmatic people. So if something looks like a bike lane, is usable as a bike lane and has no "no bike" signs.... it is a bike lane. Not only cyclers will look at it that way but, in this case more important, car/motor traffic will look at it that way. When everyone is expecting behavior on a certain point... intentionally created or not, it is best to either remove or make official.
5:50 I don't think this car was doing 30 km/u here
yup,
3:22 as far as I know, a fietsstrook is not illegal in a ETW, because these are all guidelines
Well yes, but because the rvv is mostly devoid a design guidance, the “design guides” in the Netherlands have a lot more weight than in other countries. This is by deliberate choice because when they passed sustainable safety, part of the effort was to designate policy and vision to the government, and the designer know how entirely up to designers instead of doing a mix of both
But I probably shouldn’t have used the word “illegal” but I wanted to try to find a way how to express that the design guide in crow is really more than just a design guide
@@buildthelanes ah thank you
well, its not really undecided, it should be between 170 and 200cm. anyting under 170cm will feel small.
It’s not a bike lane
@@buildthelanes i know, i design these things. youre welcome.
Crow is considering scrapping suggestiestrooks and good riddance
@@ray076NL if you check the design guidelines crow simply states “variable” as the suggested width because again, it’s not meant to be a bike lane. Preceding to design it just like one anyway breaks duurzamveilig in all but name since the ETW BIBEKO is not supposed to have a stroom functie.
I think we probably eventually need a GOW 30 to solve this issue
@@buildthelanes i agree they are a piece of crap, but eindhoven is doing a decent job on streets that would otherwise be to small. they aren't bad if they are designed well, but i do mean when they have just a single lane for car traffic and in that case crow suggests 170cm. but because crow leaves it up to interpretation you get turds like in your video but the idea of those streets seem to work quit well where i live, eindhoven, as they are well designed and wide enough 'bicycle lanes'. next video bicyclestreets?
i dont personally like GOW 30, i am in support of GOW 40 as proposed by fietsersbond and goudappel. i believe thats a more reasonable ask from drivers. as with GOW 30 drivers wouldn't slow down properly in neigbourhoods is my expectation. 20 would be the new 30 in that proposal, but nobody is talking about it.
You pronounce it suGGGGGGGGustiestrook, not sujestiestrook. ;)
You made a lot of this video up. Kantmarkering is no suggestiestrook, it mostly functions as an indicator of road speed.
try saying the word suggestiestrook with a bit more g just a tip on your language :)