New Floating Cycle Roundabout (2012) | Hacker News Reader

New Floating Cycle Roundabout (2012)

bicycledutch.wordpress.com

56 pointssgwil45 comments

Another multi-level roundabout dating back to the 1940s, De Berekuil: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Berekuil (The Bearpit)

We like our cyclists.

This is even better by letting the cars do the vertical movement, while the bikes stay on flat ground.

Possibly but images like this an be misleading. As the article on the floating roundabout points out it's not all that high above ground, the junction itself is below ground level. The cars are in fact doing most of the vertical movement.

The floating roundabout does have the disadvantage that you need a bigger height difference to allow the cars to pass below it.

I know both the "Berekuil" as well as the "cycle roundabout" as they are both down here in Eindhoven.

The Berekuil is nice, but very confusing as to what direction to go as you no longer can see the roads once you are down in there.

The floating cycle roundabout OTOH is fantastic as you keep having a great overview. It really is a marvel of engineering.

The slope is not a problem on either of them for the average bicyclist in the Netherlands.

edit: Just noticed that the referenced Berekuil above is another one in Utrecht. I meant this one [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenkuil,_Eindhoven

There is yet another in Arnhem, the "Airborneplein" is also nicknamed Berekuil.

Bikes also have some vertical movement there, but it's hard to see in the perspective.

And making bikes go down before an intersection is a terrible idea because cyclists are extremely keen on preserving inertia when they know that it's going uphill soon. When an intersection is raised, yielding becomes almost zero-cost.

Here's a similar solution in Malmö https://www.google.com/maps/@55.5648378,13.0021608,801m/data...

Ooh, three levels! Makes sense that the bikes don't actually need a roundabout to manage traffic.

Damn, these guys must have some good engineers / PMs to finish that in 6.5 million euros. Doubt a version here could be done for that or even just stand up when it's done considering the novel design.

>Damn, these guys must have some good engineers / PMs to finish that in 6.5 million euros.

Or just normal engineers/managers working within a system that doesn't bleed money to "not quite technically corruption" at every step.

Could be, but that's even worse because it means their people are better at keeping their systems non-corrupt in a way that we have failed.

Wow, this is how you prioritize safety for cyclists. Really impressive.

I cycle over the Hovenring almost every workday, and I drive underneath it often too. Now you know roughly where I live. Ask Me Anything...

Patat or Friet?

Excellent question.

Friet, although I have to remember to ask for patat when visiting Oma en Opa.

I'm not a hardliner so that's an excellent and balanced approach

Current Google Maps view:

https://goo.gl/maps/dfKWDZjcjsKa5sjM9

There's quite a contrast between the elegance and simplicity of the bike route and the seeming chaos of lane markings of the underlying motor vehicle intersection.

Looks elegant. I wonder how to use it would be to a car crashing into the central pole?

I've never tried crashing my car into the central pole, but as you can see here [1] there's quite a lot of clearance around it, and in my experience the lights are almost always red when approaching the junction anyway, so you rarely get the chance to crash at high speed.

[1] https://goo.gl/maps/Ke4NFcE2osEvCNTH6

[2012]

This is the kind of construction that is great if you can afford it. As a cyclist I would love it, as a taxpayer I am not sure I do: it is not cheap enough to be mass implemented, building one (or a handful) is then a marketing stunt. If I use the bicycle to go to work I have a dozen of heavy traffic intersections to cross, about 1/4 of the trip time I spend waiting for a green light, if one of these would be built there will be no significant change to the overall experience.

Its about safety, not traffic efficiency. BIcycles were being run over when folks made a mistake (and they made a lot of mistakes in this massive roundabout)

And I'm not sure civil engineering jobs like this are more efficient en masse. They're all essentially one-off?

They did it for about $6mil, which is pocket change for an intersection of that size.

That's just insane, building two sets of parallel road systems, it's probably the most inefficient engineering ever, are you also going to build a new set when a new type of vehicle comes along? what about a scooter only road? And all of this because of the irrational believe that cyclists are inferior and can not share the road with motorists. I am so glad I don't live in Denmark.

But that's in the Netherlands.

What makes cars deserve a big piece of asphalt but cyclers not? We have a lot of cyclers in the Netherlands and they deserve the safety and convenience of separate roads, away from multi-ton vehicles.

Also, bike roads are not as overly constructed like car roads (maybe just 1 or 2 layers of asphalt instead of more)

The problem segregating bicycles is that that automatically means that they are excluded from the best infrastructure which are the regular roads, which by the way do not belong to cars. I suffer that discrimination everyday when I ride my bike and there is a bike path adjacent to the road in places where I had no problem before, and that's after many years of riding so I can tell you that it is completely safe to share the road. Bike paths are built to kick us out of the roads it is pretty obvious to me now.

> The problem segregating bicycles is that that automatically means that they are excluded from the best infrastructure which are the regular roads

The above is purely a public policy decision. We (as in we the people) can decide to change this.

Of course the example here might not be so bad because it is so far away from the road that motorists may not know it is there. The moment they know and they see you on the regular road then they yell at you harass you.

Unless you ban cars completely from streets, no matter how good the asphalt is I would not want to be around cars. I actively avoid cars if I have an option to go longer path, but with less car nearby me. I have no driving license, but I'm sure that as a car driver I would also prefer to see cyclists away from me.

I don't see how someone would want to go on main street if you have an option to drive on a separate road.

Whenever I wanted to go to a place by bike I used to go into google maps then clicked on the "avoid freeways" option and I would take that route. Nowadays where I live I have to not only avoid freeways but streets or roads with bike paths, it is really awful. I've been riding my bike to work every day for the last 13 years and I realize that If I want to keep using the road safely and correctly I am going to have to buy a car or a motorcycle.

You realize that the Netherlands is famous for being probably the most bike-friendly country in the world? Everybody cycles, and cyclists are definitely not seen as inferior to vehicle traffic.

There were bicycles in the Netherlands before they were segregated, a lot of them. Then they were kicked off the roads to let "progress" (i.e. the car) go unimpeded. Now yeah, they sell that as bike-friendly, so sad.

You're clearly not up to date with the situation on the ground here. We're upgrading our cycle infrastructure and removing cars from city centres at the same time. Where there's no space for segregated infrastructure or in rural areas where it would not be economical, speed reductions are generally applied: 30 km/h in built-up areas, 60 km/h outside.

As for the why: car and bicycle speeds are just too different. Segregation improves life for both, and especially safety for cyclists, who will always be at a physical disadvantage in an accident.

There is one basic rule of traffic engineering: first come first served. It allows for vehicles of different speeds to share the road. Your responsibility as a driver of a vehicle is to not drive so fast that you can not possibly stop within your field of view (you are not driving a train), that is enough to share the road with bicycles, tractors, horses or whatever. Of course drivers of cars do not want to be bothered with that an want the road all for themselves, that's why you still insist in getting cyclists off the roads, at least where there is enough space to do so. The fear of cars is very convenient for this purpose.

You are stating the obvious, then drawing a conclusion that is the opposite of the logical one. I can only conclude that you are trolling.

As a cyclist who have taken the effort to ride correctly not only I have to put up with motorists who think that the road belongs to them, also with bicycle activists who think it is best for me to ride as If I were a pedestrian on wheels and that of course the road also belongs to motorists. Now I also have to put up with people on the internet who say that I am a troll because I try to explain as best as I can how me and fellow cyclists are being mistreated by almost everyone.

I am a daily fervent cyclist, but from what I'm reading I don't think I am a fellow cyclist of you.

You are probably a pedestrian on wheels then

That's far from how I would describe myself, but go ahead, thoughts are free.

Also the speed is not so different. The speed difference is even greater between bicycles and pedestrians yet you see places where they mix them. As a pedestrian I have been passed by cyclists which disappear much faster than a car when a car passes me as a cyclist.

You are right, highways really were a mistake. Who builds roads that can't even be used by cyclists, or wait, you probably mean roads right, I mean who wastes asphalt for surfaces that can't even be used by pedestrians?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com