We do Rick- they were installed a few days ago. I’m glad they did, as the smaller ones which are attached to the posts are rather useless when approaching at speed. We now have about five bike signals on the approach to the interchange!

Yep, they’re starting to be trialled in NZ (current legislation doesn’t allow for them)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, after the various town visit descriptions, I am preparing an overall “lessons to learn from The Netherlands” post that certainly encompasses network planning issues. In fact, after the first few cities I was already seeing a consistent trend that just continued to repeat itself everywhere else.

Occasionally we get the chance to do something completely from scratch (like my post about Houten’s planning) and that makes it easier to build in good cycle networks. The challenge is to incorporate them into existing cities (like those in NZ), but it’s the same challenge that the Netherlands faced 40 years ago.

You’ve naturally highlighted a lot of the interesting eye-level design features, such as cross-sections, in this post. But I’m also curious about your take on the network structure in either Copenhagen or Amsterdam, as experienced on the ground.

For instance, is there any connection between the type of treatment (such as painted lanes) and the path’s role in the wider network? Does the ubiquity of protected paths affect your perception of safety on a painted lane, as a user? Do the alternative routes figure in any way in your trip planning (as is supposed to happen with “quietways”)?

I understand that in the Netherlands at least, there is guidance on how to plan the network across an area, including a principle of spacing or interleaving grids of routes. Was this evident in your experience?

The bits through parks are interesting, especially to see that they avoid shared paths well off-road.

Thanks.