Bicycle traffic system

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common sidewalk and cycle path alongside the road in Police , Poland
The sign 244.3 issued in Germany in 2020: "Beginning of a bicycle zone"

A cycling system is primarily or exclusively for use with the bicycle is provided and a preamble for different: it can be made structurally (e.g., a bike path, in Switzerland. Veloweg ) may be defined by markings against adjacent traffic areas (cycling and protective strip together in Switzerland: Velo strips are set up) or by verkehrsregelnde measures (eg a. bicycle road ). In the narrower sense, the word refers to facilities for flowing bicycle traffic, such as cycle paths with or without compulsory use, cycle lanes, protective lanes, expanded bicycle parking lanes; in a broader sense, the term can also include bicycle parking facilities .


Cycle lanes on the lane in a one-way street in Hamburg

In Germany, it is understood to be a system for cycling that is created through marking, structural or traffic-regulating measures. The cycle traffic facilities therefore include cycle paths for cyclists with road traffic regulations (StVO) signs 237 Sign 237 - special route cyclists, StVO 1992.svg, 240 Sign 240 - common footpath and cycle path, StVO 1992.svg, 241 Sign 241-30 - separate cycle and footpath, StVO 1992.svg, i.e. cycle paths and cycle lanes , but also cycle paths without mandatory use and protective lanes as well as cycle roads with mark 244 Sign 244 - Beginning of the Fahrradstraße, StVO 1997.svg. The state of the art in this subject area, as well as criteria for the use of the respective type of bicycle traffic system, are defined in the recommendations for bicycle traffic systems (ERA 2010) of the Research Society for Roads and Transport (FGSV), to which the general administrative regulation for road traffic regulations is also based (VwV-StVO) refers.

Bicycle traffic facilities that are subject to mandatory use

As a rule, cyclists ride on the road ( Section 2 (1) of the StVO ).

Illegal construction site signs

Structured cycle paths

A structurally designed bike path is usually built with a different surface than the sidewalk that is usually next to it , sometimes also separated from it by a curb , a green strip or a narrow cobblestone strip. Depending on the local tradition or the decision-making process, asphalt bike paths , e.g. B. in Copenhagen , or created by dark gray or red colored concrete blocks , such. B. in Hamburg . Often supply lines are laid under the bike path or sidewalk, so that construction sites are more common on bike paths than on the road.

According to the VwV-StVO, the width of cycle paths that must be used should generally be at least 150 cm, but if possible 200 cm; for cycle paths on the left, at least 200 cm, if possible 240 cm. The ERA gives more detailed information on the desired widths depending on the position of the cycle path to parking lanes, footpaths, curbs, roadway . In many cities, there are still existing cycle paths with smaller widths down to 0.80 m or, at narrow points, even only 0.60 m.

Cycle paths that are subject to compulsory use may only be arranged if there is sufficient space available for pedestrian traffic. They may only be arranged where traffic safety or the traffic flow requires it. Cyclists only have to use it if there is a cycle traffic system on the street that must be used. The obligation to use is regulated in Section 2 (4) sentence 2 of the StVO. Cycle paths must be used if they are part of the street to which the lane belongs and are marked in the direction of travel with the blue traffic signs with bicycle symbols (signs 237, 240 or 241; see images on the right). The signs must be attached to signs. Signs placed on the floor are not legally effective here.

Cycle lanes

Cycle paths can also be laid out as cycle lanes at road level. To do this, they are separated from the road with a solid broad line (character 295, line width 25 cm). The width is measured including the 295 mark. According to VwV-StVO the minimum width is 150 cm, if possible 185 cm. The ERA specifies greater widths than required when parking spaces are next to the cycle path. At short bottlenecks, however, a smaller width is permissible while maintaining traffic safety. Cycle lanes are not permitted in roundabouts.

In addition to sign 295, sign 237 is a Sign 237 - special route cyclists, StVO 1992.svgmandatory part of a cycle lane. Cycle lanes are therefore compulsory. In order to make the cycle lane easier to see, the sign 237 can also be marked at regular intervals in its course.

Cycle lanes are special routes and therefore not part of the roadway.

Protected cycle lane

Protected cycle lane on Avenida Revolución, Mexico City

A protected bicycle lanes ( English protected bikelane ) is a by a vehicle restraint system , beacons , planter , bollard or guardrails separate from traffic bicycle lanes. It increases both the objective and, above all, the subjective safety of cycling and increases acceptance of cycling, especially among vulnerable population groups. Protected cycle lanes were developed in the USA and are particularly suitable for major thoroughfares.

Separate cycling and walking paths

Sign 241-30 - separate cycle and footpath, StVO 1992.svgIf a vertical white line divides the sign, it means that cyclists must use one side of the path and pedestrians the other. The minimum width for the cycle path is also 150 cm.

Common footpaths and bike paths

Sign 240 - common footpath and cycle path, StVO 1992.svgIf a blue sign shows pedestrians and cyclists a shared footpath and cycle path, then it is also compulsory for cyclists to use it. The minimum width for a shared footpath and cycle path is 250 cm in urban areas and 200 cm in rural areas.

Compulsory two-way cycle paths

In the case of two-way cycle paths that are compulsory to use, the compulsory use on the left is indicated by signs 237 Sign 237 - special route cyclists, StVO 1992.svg, 240 Sign 240 - common footpath and cycle path, StVO 1992.svgor 241 Sign 241-31.svg, the latter in "mirror-inverted" form.

Recommended, but not compulsory, is to warn both directions of oncoming traffic under the cycle path signs on the right-hand side with the additional sign 1000-31 . Supplementary sign 1000-31 - both directions, two opposite vertical arrows, StVO 1992.svg

On all two- way cycle paths, the additional sign 1000-32 must be affixed above the waiting and stop signs (signs 205/206) on converging side streets Supplementary sign 1000-32 - cyclists cross from right and left, StVO 1997.svg, which indicates cycle traffic from both directions.

According to the VwV-StVO, the width of bi-directional cycle paths that must be used (including the side safety areas) is at least 200 cm, if possible 240 cm. The ERA contains the standard width of 200 cm, 250 cm and 300 cm for a few / many cyclists and bilateral / one-sided two-way cycle paths, whereby these standard widths are increased by 25/50/85 cm protective space if longitudinal / oblique / vertical parking spaces are adjacent.

Bicycle traffic facilities without obligation to use

New protective strips and old, no longer compulsory cycle path in Metzingen , Reutlingen district

Cycle paths with no obligation to use

If a cycle path is structurally recognizable, but there is no obligation to use cycle paths with one of the traffic signs mentioned above, it is a cycle path without obligation to use . Then cyclists are allowed to use it, but they can also drive on the road. Groups of road users for whom the route is not intended are then not allowed to use this route - not even to stop or park. In the case of shared footpaths and cycle paths that are not used by cyclists, it is usually necessary to use pictograms.

Protective strip

Protection lanes , formerly also known as offer lanes or suggestive lanes , are cycle traffic facilities that are marked with the sign 340 ( guideline , an interrupted thin marking, so-called narrow line) and the symbol for cycle traffic on the road; there are the following rules: Sign 340 - guideline, StVO 1970.svg

“Anyone who drives a vehicle is only allowed to drive over protective lanes marked by guidelines for bicycle traffic on the roadway, especially to avoid oncoming traffic. Bicycle traffic must not be endangered. "

- Appendix 3 serial No. 22 sentence 2 StVO

"As a cyclist, you disregarded the right-hand driving law by not using the marked protective lane."

- Catalog of fines

“It is not allowed to stop on protective lanes marked by guidelines for bicycle traffic. Sentence 1 does not apply to bicycles and small electric vehicles within the meaning of the eKFV. "

- Appendix 3 serial No. 22 sentence 3 StVO

The holding and parking on protective strip is forbidden, even for loading and unloading.

Protection Sign 237 - special route cyclists, StVO 1992.svglanes are not special routes for cyclists and are therefore not marked with sign 237 , they are part of the roadway. Therefore, according to various court rulings, a side clearance of at least 150 cm must be observed when a motor vehicle overtakes a cyclist driving on the protective lane.

The marking of protective strips can be used in built-up areas on roads with a maximum speed of up to 50 km / h. They can be created if an obligation to use cycle lanes would be necessary, but the creation of a special path is not possible or a special protected area is to be offered to cycle traffic and the lane width and traffic structure generally allow it.

According to the recommendations for bicycle traffic facilities, protective strips must be laid out at least 125 cm wide, usually 150 cm, the VwV-StVO does not contain any information on the width of protective strips.

The remaining lane, also known as the lane or core lane , must be 225 cm wide for each intended direction of travel. A one-way street with a protective strip must therefore be at least 350 cm wide, with two protective strips 475 cm. A lane on which two cars should be able to meet must be at least 575 cm wide with a protective strip and at least 700 cm between the curbs for protective strips on both sides. Protective strips are not permitted in roundabouts.

Protection strip near Erichsburg

Model projects : In a model project in Baden-Württemberg, protective strips were created and examined in narrower lanes. Under favorable circumstances, they too have proven to be suitable. Since then, in Baden-Württemberg they can also be used in individual cases with a lane width of less than 700 cm. This option is still pending in the rest of Germany. In another model project in 2013, individual roads with a comparatively low vehicle load in several federal states were provided with protective strips outside the city, additionally signposted with a maximum permitted speed of 70 km / h and the effect examined. Special features are not only the out-of-town location and the higher vehicle speed, but also the fact that only one lane remains between the protective lanes, so vehicles have to switch to the protective lanes in the event of an encounter. Similarly, this has been practiced for some time on country roads in the Netherlands. The study has not yet been published (as of January 2017).

Controversy about the duty of use by cyclists : Whether cyclists are obliged to use the protective strip due to the right-hand driving law , as explicit entries in the catalog of fines suggest, is controversial, since there is no explicit duty of use for cyclists in the road traffic regulations. The non-use obligation is justified by the fact that protective lanes may only be used with vehicles when necessary, which cannot result from the right-hand driving law for bicycle traffic rather than for motor vehicle traffic. In addition, the often poor condition of the road (therefore sometimes also referred to as "dirt lane") and the fact that the situation is pushed to the edge is more likely to endanger bicycle traffic by overtaking vehicles, which means that another criterion for exclusion from driving is fulfilled, as bicycle traffic itself does not have protective lanes may use if he is endangered. In this view, the use required in the rule of the catalog of fines is given by the increased distance between the sides, through which a higher level of security is achieved.

Bi-directional cycle path with no obligation to use

In the case of two-way cycle paths without mandatory use, the left-hand side is indicated by the additional sign 1022-10 Cycle traffic free without a main sign . According to ERA 2010, right-hand users should be warned of oncoming traffic by cyclists in oncoming traffic without a main sign. According to the VwV-StVO, it is mandatory to warn vehicles from cross streets and from busy property entrances with the additional sign 1000-32 above traffic sign 205 to give right of way . Additional sign 1022-10 - cyclists free, StVO 1992.svg Supplementary sign 1000-33 - two-way traffic, StVO 1997.svg Supplementary sign 1000-32 - cyclists cross from right and left, StVO 1997.svg Sign 205 - give way!  StVO 1970.svg

Left-sided cycle paths with no obligation to use

Left-sided cycle paths are usually bidirectional cycle paths. There are a few exceptions, for example next to a cycle lane or on a one-way street when driving in mixed traffic in one-way direction.

Sidewalks released for cycling

A long railway underpass in Augsburg with a slight gradient, shiny meter-gauge tram rails about 1.50 m away from the curb, no overtaking (solid white line) for cars in the illuminated underpass near the main train station with a red and white train above the slightly curved tunnel vault.  A cyclist (presumably) on the 2.50 meter wide sidewalk on the right, a beggar sits a little further down on the edge of the high house wall.  Traffic sign for pedestrians with an additional sign for cycling free and the sign “Cycling on the lane is allowed”.  On the left on the opposite side of the street, there is no longer any wall separating the sidewalk from the road leading upwards.  Blue hour in the evening with a brewery building on the right.
Clearance at walking pace and a notice board indicating permission to use the lane next to the rails

The VwV-StVO prescribes a minimum width of 200 cm outside of town and 250 cm in town for the width of shared walking and cycling paths. The ERA stipulate a regular dimension of 250 cm in urban and out-of-town areas, require a distance of 175 cm outside of urban areas to rural roads and, in urban areas, require 2 cm more width per person per peak hour when used by more than 75 people per peak hour, which results in, for example, 300 cm or 400 cm width for 100 or 150 people in the peak hour.

Sidewalks released for bicycle traffic are not a bicycle traffic facility in the narrower sense . They are not cycle paths in the sense of the StVO , but remain sidewalks. Cyclists, however, have the right of way over traffic from side streets, which has been made clear since 2009 by the obligation to mark cyclist fords in the administrative regulation for the road traffic regulations.

However, if there are no separate cycle paths and if the local road traffic authority considers it to be justifiable due to the low level of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk, cycling on sidewalks can be permitted by combining the sign 239 sidewalk Sign 239 - special route for pedestrians, StVO 1992.svg with the additional sign cyclist free Additional sign 1022-10 - cyclists free, StVO 1992.svg . There is no obligation for cyclists to use it, driving on the road is permitted.

When using the signposted paths by cyclists, they are obliged to show special consideration for pedestrian traffic. Cyclists are only allowed to ride at walking pace. If necessary, they have to wait. This regulation is often made because, due to the high traffic density, cycling on the road seems dangerous or unreasonable for some user groups, and limited space prevents the creation of a separate cycle traffic facility or a shared pedestrian and cycle path that meets requirements . Often, however, the sidewalk is not wide enough to avoid usage conflicts between bicycle and pedestrian traffic. According to the regulations, high requirements apply to sidewalks that are to be released for cycling, both in terms of the number and composition of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, as well as in terms of widths, bottlenecks, house entrances, property driveways, etc. The primary aim is to allow the slower part of the cycle traffic to use the sidewalk, but conversely it must be justifiable for the faster cycle traffic to ride on the road.

Cycling on a sidewalk can be allowed in one direction or both.

The same as for the release of footpaths applies to pedestrian zones (sign 242.1 Sign 242.1 - start of a pedestrian zone, StVO 2009.svg) that are released for vehicle traffic.

Children up to the age of eight must use sidewalks with their bike, so they are not allowed to use the road or cycle lanes (if there is a sidewalk). If there is a bike path that is structurally separated from the road, children under eight years of age are also allowed to use the bike path. From the age of eight up to the age of ten , they are allowed to use sidewalks, which means that they have the choice between sidewalks or lanes or bicycle facilities. A suitable person accompanying a child up to the age of eight is also allowed to use the sidewalk ( Section 2 (5) sentence 3 of the StVO).

Management of bicycle traffic at junctions

Combined crossing system for bicycles and pedestrians ("zebra crossing") at a roundabout ( Bad Krozingen , August 2018)

Since dangerous conflict situations between bicycle and motor vehicle traffic often arise at junctions (more than half of the accidents involving cyclists in urban areas take place at junctions), safe cycling at junctions and intersections is very important.

In particular, turning left should be made easier and safer by appropriate structural measures. Basically, a distinction must be made between direct and indirect cycle traffic routing at junctions, whereby since September 2009 cyclists have been free to choose how they want to turn left. In the case of direct guidance, cyclists have to get into the turning lanes of motor vehicle traffic or they drive through a cyclist sluice or their own left turn lane for cyclists . In the case of the indirect route, the cycle traffic route initially runs along the road that joins the right-hand side to a set-up area . From there, the cyclist can cross the street (with and without cycle path ford ). Both options are mainly used for light signal-controlled nodes, but direct guidance can also be arranged without light signal protection (low vehicle strength required).

In the event of a confluence, a so-called “catchment cycle path” can enable you to turn left. For this purpose, the bicycle traffic is caught approx. 20 meters in front of the stop line and led to the side cycle path. At the end of the catchment cycle path there is a light signal that clears the way across the street. The advantage of this guidance is that the cyclists do not have to move in the lane and thus do not come into conflict with motor vehicle traffic.

If a cycle path accompanies a priority road with junctions and crossings, cycle paths must be laid at the junctions. In addition, according to the road construction guidelines and the administrative regulation for the StVO, fields of vision must be kept clear so that both crossing vehicles and turning in longitudinal traffic can recognize cyclists on the cycle path in good time. Vehicles that have to wait should be able to see the cycle path for at least 20 m, but usually 30 m, without delivering the cycle path ford. In front of junctions, there should be no obstructions between the roadway and the accompanying cycle path over a length of at least 20 m. Parking at the edge of the road or on designated areas should also be prevented there, ideally by structural facilities (forward gutters). These rules initially only apply to the left of the junction. If it is a two-way cycle path, they also apply accordingly to the right of the junction.

Another solution of cycling guide at nodal points is the so-called flared Radaufstellstreifen (ARAS), also extended Fahrradaufstellfläche (EFA) or early footprint called Dutch Opgeblazen fietsopstelstrook (OFOS or OFO). It can be set up at light signal-controlled junctions and, in contrast to the cyclist sluice, does not have an advance signal. Instead, when the red light appears, motor vehicle traffic stops at a slightly set back stop line, giving cyclists the opportunity to drive past to the right and line up in front of the waiting vehicles. Cyclists do not need to stand in the exhaust-polluted waiting area of ​​the car, they are in the field of vision of the following drivers, which reduces the risk of accidents, especially with vehicles turning right, and cyclists are guided directly and not detoured through the intersection.

Regulations for pedelecs

Pedelecs up to 25 km / h are considered bicycles; other motorized two-wheelers are not bicycles and are generally not allowed to use cycle paths. Exceptions to this prohibition are indicated in urban areas by additional signs (e.g. 1022-11, mopeds free Additional sign 1022-11 - Mopeds free (600x450), StVO 1992.svg) for mopeds. Mopeds and e-bikes are allowed to use cycle paths on cycle paths outside built-up areas.

History (Germany)

Since the second half of the 1920s, the signage of cycle paths has been established throughout Germany
Sign 241: Separate cycle and footpath. Road signs introduced with the West German StVO that came into effect in 1971
Former sign 244: Common cycle and footpath. Road signs introduced with the West German StVO that came into effect in 1971

At the beginning of the 20th century, the number of cyclists in Germany had increased significantly. At that time, 5–5.6% of the population in Munich owned a bicycle, in Stuttgart despite the mountainous terrain around 3.8% of the population.

That is why there were initial efforts to create cycle paths on country roads as well as in cities in order to “make cycling safe”. Especially within cities, it was believed that the middle of the street was most suitable for this. The primary aim was to protect pedestrians from cyclists, because bicycles "are less noticeable due to their small dimensions, [...] are not noticeable by any driving noise and very often move at too great a speed, which significantly exceeds that of other road carts". A width of 2 to 2.60 m was recommended, and for reasons of safety and comfort for cyclists, ramps should be avoided and cycle paths should be level with the road. The execution should be as level as possible. However, the use of asphalt was seen as an "inappropriate luxury".

The oldest still existing cycle path in Germany is the system ring in Offenbach am Main , which was laid out in 1907, with a structurally separate cycle path . An obligation to use cycle paths has existed in Germany since the introduction of the Reich Road Traffic Regulations (RStVO) on October 1, 1934:

"If a street is intended for individual types of traffic (footpath, bicycle path, bridle path), this traffic is restricted to the part of the street assigned to it"

- Implementation instructions for the Reich Road Traffic Regulations, Part B Behavior in traffic , Section I Distribution of traffic on the road .

The obligation to use was justified u. a. with the fact that Germany should appear as a transport-technically progressive country for the 1936 Summer Olympics :

"Let us show the amazed foreigner [for the coming 1936 Olympics] new evidence of an ambitious Germany, in which drivers can find a free, safe path not only on the autobahn, but also on all roads through cyclists."

- From a press release by the Reich Ministry of Transport on the introduction of the general obligation to use cycle paths in the RStVO of October 1, 1934

An express obligation to use cycle paths in the road traffic regulations can be found in StVO § 27 (1) from 1937. According to this, cyclists had to use the existing cycle paths. On roads without cycle paths, cyclists had to keep to the far right edge of the lane. If pedestrian traffic was not obstructed, cyclists were also allowed to use the banquets outside of built-up areas. In principle, cyclists also had to ride one behind the other. Driving side by side was only permitted if there was no obstruction to car traffic. On imperial roads, cyclists had to ride one behind the other outside of built-up areas. The obligation to use cycle paths results in a traffic safety obligation of the municipalities. In the event of damage reported in good time that is not alleviated in a reasonable time, the road construction authority, i.e. in urban areas usually the municipality, is liable to recourse in the event of an accident for which it is partly to blame .

The administrative regulation for road traffic regulations designated cycle lanes until 1 September 2009 as less desirable than structurally-scale bike paths, although they are most likely comply with the requirements laid down therein. However already separated cycle paths and footpaths as they were back then Sign 241-30 - separate cycle and footpath, StVO 1992.svgand joint go - and biking trails preferable. Cycle lanes are sometimes erroneously collectively with the protective strip as described below (driving) wheel track or cycle lanes , respectively. Sign 240 - common footpath and cycle path, StVO 1992.svg

Protection strips were officially introduced under this name with the StVO amendment of 1997, before and occasionally even today they were referred to as offer or suggestive strips, while protection strips until 1997 referred to distance areas, which are now called safety separation strips .

Left-sided bike paths

From 1934 to 1971, they were allowed to be used from March 1, 1971 . From 1980 to 2013 its use was prohibited unless it was made mandatory by signs. Both permitting and mandatory signage have been in place since 2013: Use is prohibited without signage.

Petition against the obligation to use cycle lanes

2007 had Cycle Ride initiative in the Bundestag one between March 16, 2007 to April 27, 2007 on the Internet of 16,976 people subscribed petition submitted to abolish the mandatory use bike path. The procedure was not completed until March 18, 2010, but the request was not met.

Legal restrictions (Germany)

First restriction of the obligation to use (West Germany)

From 1934 to 1971 every cycle path that could be recognized as such had to be used. The regional road-building tradition played a role (and still does today) in terms of recognizability. If there was only one cycle path on a street, it had to be used in both directions.

Since March 1, 1971 - still with and without a sign - only cycle paths to the right of the lane were compulsory, not to the left.

Since 1980, cycle paths on the left may only be used if this is permitted by appropriate signage .

Obligation to use on request

Safety and quality criteria determine when the road traffic authorities may order the use of a cycle path. This has been in force since the so-called amendment to the road traffic regulations for cyclists and the general administrative regulation for the StVO , which came into force on September 1, 1997. At the same time it was ordered to review existing usage obligations by October 3, 1998 based on the quality and safety criteria. In most cases, that did not happen.

Since 1997, a distinction has been made between cycle paths that were required to be used and those that were not required to be used, then so-called “other cycle paths” (see below). Previously, Section 2, which had been in effect until then, was partially interpreted to the effect that an obligation to use would also apply without signage and on cycle paths that do not accompany the road.

The basic principle is the use of the road. If safety criteria speak against it, a cycle path should be created (if necessary also at road level, then as a cycle lane ). The road traffic authority may only order an obligation to use cycle lanes if two conditions are essentially met:

Transport Technical requirements for the arrangement After § 45, Abs. 9 Highway Code of 2013 are traffic signs - the signs 237, numeral 240, numeral 241, which imply a bike path obligation to use - "only to arrange where this is absolutely necessary due to the particular circumstances. [...] In particular, restrictions and bans on flowing traffic "- this includes cyclists whose freedom of choice is to be abolished -" may only be imposed where, due to the special local conditions, there is a danger situation that poses a general risk of impairing the significantly exceeds the legal interests mentioned in the preceding paragraphs ”. The administrative regulation for Section 2 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the Road Traffic Regulations only allows the order to be made “for reasons of traffic safety”.

According to the 1997 amendment, an obligation to use cycle paths could only be ordered to maintain or increase road safety (cf. Federal Administrative Court , judgment of November 18, 2010) and not so that, for example, cars could drive unhindered or faster. So far, there is no evidence that the risk of accidents is lower on cycle paths than on roadways . Instead, there are studies that show an increased risk of accidents in connection with the existence of cycle paths. This means that in many cases the obligation to use such routes can be challenged through legal action. According to the ruling of the Federal Administrative Court of November 18, 2010, the obligation to use may only be ordered as an exception. In particular, the accident-preventing principle of segregation, which is often cited, is not a mandatory aspect. This principle can be applied to practically all existing cycle paths. If such a general argument to justify the obligation to use adequate, the above rule-exception relationship of would § 2 para. 4 traffic regulations to the contrary wrong. The same applies debilitatingly when the dangers resulting from the great instability of the bicycle are often cited ( see web links ).

From the strict requirement of the sentence "In particular, restrictions and bans on flowing traffic may only be ordered if, due to the special local conditions, there is a risk situation that significantly exceeds the general risk of impairment of the legal interests mentioned in the preceding paragraphs." over the years, however, exceptions were also included in the StVO for bicycle traffic facilities. Since the new version of 2013, this requirement no longer applied to protective lanes and bicycle roads. Since December 14, 2016, Section 45 (9) sentence 3 "does not apply to the arrangement of [...] special routes outside built-up areas (sign 237, sign 240, sign 241) or cycle lanes within built-up areas (sign 237 in conjunction with sign 295 ) ". Cycle paths that are subject to compulsory use outside built-up areas and cycle lanes that are subject to compulsory use within built-up areas may now also be arranged where there is no particular hazard according to Section 45 (9) sentence 3. The requirements for cycle paths according to other parts of § 45 or structural and other requirements according to the VwV-StVO remain in place. With the easing of cycle lanes, if there is no evidence of the particular risk situation, it is no longer necessary to switch to the mostly narrower and previously easier to arrange protective lanes, which, however, can also be used by motor vehicles.

Structural requirements for the arrangement The cycle path should meet certain structural requirements (including: clear width [paved traffic area plus safety area] at least 1.50 m or 2.50 m for common footpaths and cycle paths, straight route and "reasonable quality") . These are set out in the administrative regulation for road traffic regulations. Sufficient areas should also be available for pedestrian traffic , taking into account the recommendations for pedestrian traffic facilities and the guidelines for the construction of city streets .

As a result, many local governments are unlawfully signposting cycle paths that are compulsory to use. Mostly because they did not re-examine the cycle paths for the changes in the legal basis in 1997 and 2013. Nevertheless, the cycle paths must be used, as illegal administrative acts (putting up a traffic sign is such) are effective.

Outside of built-up areas, the minimum width for shared footpaths and cycle paths (sign 240) is reduced to 2.00 m.

Spatial limitation of the obligation to use

The obligation to use ends together with the route for which it was ordered. It should be noted that the path can also be continued over crossings and junctions. If the end of the path is not clearly recognizable or if the obligation to use it ends sooner, an obligation to use it can be lifted with a traffic sign. For this purpose, the additional symbol 1012-31 with the inscription “End” is attached under a symbol 237, 240 or 241. This regulation allows and requires an interpretation by the road users, which can vary from person to person.

The general administrative regulation for road traffic regulations (VwV-StVO), which was valid until September 1, 2009, contained a clearer formulation: ( Regarding signs 237, 240 and 241 , section I, number 1): "The signs 237, 240 and 241 establish a special route and identify the obligation to use the cycle route. You stand where the special path begins. They must be repeated at every intersection and junction. ”Since September 1, 2009, this regulation is no longer included in the administrative regulation in order to reduce the number of traffic signs to be set up.

Exceptions to the obligation to use

Common footpath and bike path (one-sided, two-way traffic) in Behringersdorf with a handicap from a wrongdoer

Cyclists only have to comply with the obligation to use it if the cycle path represents a recognizable alternative to the road, i.e. runs next to it in the same street ( alongside the road) . In the case of (independent) cycle paths that run away from the lanes , the signs with signs 237, 240 or 241 indicate that you are permitted to use bicycles and generally prohibit other types of traffic.

If a cycle path marked as mandatory is practically unusable or unreasonable, e.g. B. due to parked vehicles or other obstacles, construction sites or lack of snow clearance, the obligation to use is not applicable (see LG Oldenburg, 29 July 1952, VkBl. 53, 190; OLG Naumburg, 8 December 2011, AZ 1 U 74/11). It is not allowed to use the sidewalk , as this is only reserved for pedestrians . A judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Celle from 2001 states that even a violation of the "airspace" of the sidewalk with the handlebar protruding into it is inadmissible.

The cycle path does not have to be used if it cannot be foreseen where it will lead or if there is no possibility to drive up or down. To turn, cycle paths can be left in good time before the intersection or confluence in order to get into position. However, if you turn off via a cycle route, you must follow it in the intersection and junction area ( Section 9 (2) of the StVO).

In the case of bicycles that do not fit on the cycle path, for example tricycles and bicycles with trailers, the non-use of cycle paths should "not be objected to" ( VwV-StVO : Re Section 2, Paragraph 4, Clause 2, Point II.2.a (Margin number 23)). However, this is not a general exception to the obligation to use cycle paths for these bicycles. Effectiveness and legal consequence of the additional sign 1012-32 (cyclists dismount) , e.g. B. erected on a construction site are controversial. However, it indicates that the use of the cycle path is only possible to a limited extent and is no longer mandatory. It is advisable to use the roadway or to push on the sidewalk.

The arrangement of the obligation to use is an administrative act of the responsible road traffic authority , against which an objection and then an action can be brought before the responsible administrative court. In some federal states, however, the objection procedure has been abolished.

The legal opinion is controversial that an obligation to use protective lanes for cyclists results from the right-hand driving law. Court rulings allow cyclists a side distance of up to 80 cm from the edge of the road and stipulate a distance of at least 1 m for parked vehicles, which may require leaving the protective strip.

Cycle paths not compulsory to use or cycle paths without compulsory use

An obligation to use a cycle path is at the same time a ban on cycling on the roadway (colloquially usually called the street ). It can therefore only be ordered if, due to local conditions, there is a risk that exceeds the general risk of participating in road traffic. If different right of way rules apply at intersections , this is an indication that the cycle path and lane do not belong to the same street.

On September 1, 1997, the term “other cycle path” was included in the StVO, which was replaced by the term “cycle path without obligation to use” on September 1, 2009. Cycle paths that are not required to be used are designed to accompany the lane and are structurally designed and clearly visible to the outside for use by cyclists, but are not marked with a traffic sign. They are therefore not compulsory for anyone to use, but are reserved exclusively for cycling. For clarification, they can be marked with a marked bicycle pictogram .

Practical experience with the lifting of the obligation to use

Since the marking of cycle paths without mandatory use is not clearly prescribed and is handled differently between states and municipalities, there is often uncertainty about the authorization to use the path by bike. On the other hand, the use of the road instead of a path that gives the appearance of a cycle path, but actually not compulsory cycle path, is often interpreted by drivers as misconduct and pursued with unauthorized instructions, verbal attacks, horns, particularly close overtaking or vigilante justice.


Obligation to use cycling facilities

In Austria, up to the end of 2013, according to § 68 StVO on roads with a bicycle system, this was to be used with single-lane bicycles without a trailer, if driving on the bicycle system was permitted in the direction of travel intended by the cyclist.

What counts as a bicycle system in the sense of the StVO is in § 2 Paragraph 1 Z. 11b. regulated, the subdivision of the cycling facilities in line 7. Cycle lanes, line 7a. Multipurpose lane, line 8. Bicycle path, line 11a Pedestrian and cycle path and line 12a cyclist crossing.

The 2013 amendment to the Road Traffic Act gave the option of cycling paths that were not required to be used with effect from January 1, 2014, and introduced a new traffic sign for them, such as a blue square with a white bicycle in France. The signs for the shared and the separate footpath and cycle path are now also square, without any obligation to use them.

Exceptions to the obligation to use

"The cycling system may be used with bicycles with a trailer that is not wider than 80 cm or is only intended for passenger transport, with multi-lane bicycles that are not wider than 80 cm, as well as for training rides with racing bicycles; with bicycles with another trailer and with wider, multi-lane bicycles, the lane intended for other traffic must be used. ”(Section 68 (1) StVO). What a racing bike is is regulated in § 4 of the Bicycle Ordinance; what is a training trip in a specific case is left to the assessment of the offending executive, if reported by this to the authority and subsequently to the case law in the course of administrative criminal proceedings.

Another exception applies to roller-skaters and roller-skaters: In addition to the traffic areas for pedestrians, they may also use the bicycle traffic facilities; However, this does not apply to cycle lanes and multi-purpose lanes on the road outside the local area, or if roller-skating and roller-skating is prohibited on those in-town with floor markings (see § 88a of the StVO roller-skating ).

Not excluded from the regulations of the obligation to use are all vehicles that can either be derived directly from the law (Section 2 Paragraph 1 Line 22 StVO in conjunction with Section 20 and Section 1 Paragraph 2a KFG ) or that have been determined by the BMVIT count as bicycles. So apply z. B. Scooters (not: mini scooters), electric bicycles and Segways as bicycles.

With the StVO amendment that came into force on January 1, 2014, a traffic sign was also introduced for cycle paths without mandatory use. The legal framework was created in 2013.

There is no way to allow cyclists to drive on a sidewalk with an additional sign.

While in Germany a road-independent cycle path can only be given priority over an intersecting road by giving it road status for a short distance, in Austria (as in Poland) there is the possibility of setting up a cyclist crossing, analogous to the protective path (colloquially " Zebra crossing "). Similar to protective routes that are marked with white horizontal stripes on the road, cyclists crossings are marked with white squares on both sides of the crossing.


Zurich : Bicycle markings in three installation areas on the road

Contrary to the everyday usage of "Velo", the terms "bicycle", or "bicycle" for short, and "cyclist" are used in the Swiss regulations in German.

There are different manuals for the design, some of which are only binding for individual cantons.

In Switzerland, cycle paths and cycle lanes are always compulsory, the latter also where, as is usually the case, the yellow boundary lines are dashed. If three-lane bicycles and trailers impede other bicycle traffic, they have to drive on the lane instead. However, bicycle traffic is conducted to a much greater extent than in Germany in mixed traffic on the lane. Cycling on roads without long-distance cycle traffic facilities is supported by punctual guide elements such as installation areas and short cycle lanes (also for left-turners) at major traffic junctions, as well as, last but not least, by the cycle route signs, which, thanks to their burgundy red color, also catch the eye of motorists.

At most roundabouts in Switzerland, accidents caused by risky overtaking and blind spots are avoided by threading the bikes into the lane in front of the roundabout and all vehicles driving one behind the other on the ring lane. In Switzerland, roundabouts are exempt from the requirement to drive as far to the right as possible so that cyclists can drive in the middle of the ring lane.

It is also expressly permitted to choose the appropriate turning or straight lane at large intersections. In large squares and main roads that are difficult to cross, pictograms allow you to cycle on the left-hand sidewalk. In addition to cycle paths, two people can cycle side by side along the signposted cycle paths, even on side streets.

Rest of Europe


Typical of the Flemish Community : country roads in areas with residential buildings have cycle paths on both sides, but no sidewalks.

In Belgium all cycle paths are compulsory. The Belgian Highway Code also makes no distinction between cycle lanes and cycle lanes. Accordingly, especially in the Flemish part of the country, there are numerous intermediate forms from the classic curb cycle path to stumbling blocks and separation by the gutter to pure markings on the road. Cycle lanes on both sides are limited by dashed lines, even without cycle path signs or pictograms.

In contrast to the Netherlands, suggestive stripes have bicycle pictograms and, if colored, are never red.

In the Flemish part of the country, the cycle path network is very dense. It is noticeable that according to the signs, even in urban areas, many streets have cycle paths on both sides, but no sidewalks. It is not uncommon for inadequate, narrow ancillary facilities to be designated as cycle paths that are not separated by a sidewalk from the corners and entrances. The sign “separate cycle path and sidewalk” can be found, together with a corresponding area design, at most in shopping streets in the town center. The sign “shared cycle path and sidewalk” certainly exists, but is almost only placed on roads that are independent of the road.

In the Walloon part of the country, paths of the same design as Flemish “cycle paths” are largely sidewalks - which makes cycling much easier.

The Brussels capital region is also relying more on opening up one-way streets and reallocating car lanes to cycle lanes than on classic cycle paths. There are also proportionally used lanes with bicycle pictograms based on the French model. A model test has been running since 2012 to allow cyclists to turn right at red lights at individual intersections.

In all parts of the country, initially partially graveled, in the last few years almost only asphalted, many disused railway lines have been prepared as cycle paths. In Wallonia, they form a large part of the RAVeL network . While recreational cycling (in Belgium to a large extent in the sporty form) received significantly improved conditions, the links between these routes and the normal road network , which are important for everyday traffic , are inadequate in many places.


Vichy : on the right a gang conseillée , in the opposite direction a voie partagée

In France , pistes cyclables (French for “cycle paths”) and bandes cyclables (“cycle lanes”), also referred to as voies cyclables , can only be found in some regions, but in almost all larger cities. Depending on the signage, both can be mandatory or non-mandatory ( non-mandatory , also conseillée , i.e. “recommended”). The signs for mandatory use correspond to the German ones , those for conseillée are square with the same color. In addition, there is the option of using rows of bicycle pictograms on lanes to indicate to cyclists and motorists that they should and may cycle there. A lane or a general lane with this marking is called voie partagée , corresponding to the North American shared lane ( proportionately used lane ).

As the French everyday cycling association, Fédération française des Usagers de la Bicyclette, complains, the local authorities are not complying with the exchange of round for square signs. It is similar with the opening of one-way streets; Actually, you should be able to cycle in the opposite direction through all one-way streets in 30 km / h zones, but the corresponding signs are still missing for a large part. In contrast to Germany, there is a marking for ending cycle paths, the respective cycle path sign then shows a red line from bottom left to top right. Cyclists on French cycle paths usually have lower priority at crossings / junctions. H. Very often traffic signs are set up for the cycle path that explicitly take the right of way.

After a two-year pilot phase, in 2012 the municipalities were allowed to use traffic signs or flashing lights to allow cyclists to turn right at red traffic lights. This option has been available for all vehicles for over ten years, with the German green arrow corresponding to a yellow flashing light.


In Italy , cycle lanes are generally subject to compulsory use, but racing cyclists do not have to use the cycle lane during training. The road traffic regulations differentiate between pedestrian crossings and bicycle crossings . The latter, however, is also calculated, which in Germany would be a marking to clarify the normal right of way for cycle paths along the main roads.


Suggestion strips in the country

Most of the cycle paths in the Netherlands are subject to compulsory use, but there are also a few cycle paths along the road that are not subject to compulsory use, the corresponding traffic sign shows the word 'fietspad' written out. Overall, the cycle path network is even denser than in Germany. Bicycle lanes must also be used by mopeds , some of them by mopeds . The corresponding traffic sign shows a bicycle and a moped on a blue background.

There is no sign of a common footpath and cycle path , where there is no sidewalk, pedestrians have to use the cycle path.

Stripes on the edge of the road without bicycle pictograms that are only marked by a different paving or red color with a dashed border line are not cycle lanes subject to compulsory use, but rather suggestive strips without legal obligations. Despite the different design, their function is somewhat similar to the shared lane markings of Anglo-Saxon countries, with the big difference that they are deliberately not placed too close to the edge of the road. They must not be confused with edge strips (Kantstroken) , also with a dashed demarcation, but in the surface material of the roadway, which should not be used for cycling if possible.

The Dutch traffic research institute CROW recommends giving priority to cycling over the connected roads at roundabouts only in urban areas. In fact, in some areas the Fietsers have to wait in built-up areas, in others they also have right of way at roundabouts outside built-up areas. The Fietsersbond complained the risk of accidents caused by divergent regulations. One-way and two-way cycle paths are more clearly differentiated and the two-way cycle paths are more traffic-friendly than in Germany. On all-green is about in Groningen pointed with warning signs.

Turning right on a cycle path that leads past a red traffic light, generally permitted in Germany, is only permitted in the Netherlands with a special traffic sign.

For traffic in metropolitan areas and between neighboring cities, the Netherlands has started to develop a network of Fietssnelwege ( cycle superhighways ). However, these sometimes run along motorways and expressways, so they are fast, but not pleasant. Completed sections are already marked with the final signposts; At the end of such an upgraded route, along with the comfortable alignment, there is also an end to the signposting.

Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic, there are not only cycle paths next to the road in some cities and on individual major country roads, but also three types of cycle traffic routing on the road. Delimited lanes for cycling ( cyklistický jízdní pruh , "cycling lanes") can be "softly" separated from the car lane by a dashed line that can be crossed and then correspond to German protective lanes , or they are strictly separated like German cycling lanes with a solid line and then become vyhrazený jízdní pruh ("Reserved lane") called. In addition, there is also the cycle route guidance without a boundary line (corresponding to the Anglo-Saxon shared lanes ) using a series of pictograms, Czech piktogramový koridor .

Great Britain

In the UK , the use of cycle paths and cycle lanes is voluntary. In the UK, a planned recommendation in the Highway Code that cycle lanes should be used was turned away at the last moment in 2007.


In Spain, following the French model, there is a distinction between a cycle path with a round sign and a cycle path without an obligation with a square sign.

Outside of Europe

North America

Proportionately used lane with shared lane markings in Toronto

In the United States , some states and Canada require bike lanes and cycle lanes in the province of Québec , but most do not. In both countries (and also in Western Australia ), apart from forms of separation, i.e. cycle paths next to the road (cycletrack) and bicycle lane , there are also forms of integrative cycle guidance . They are referred to as shared lanes and the corresponding pictograms are referred to as sharrow (from share and arrow ). The bicycle pictograms, which are applied in relatively close succession on the shared lane, remind drivers that they have to expect cyclists here, and remind cyclists to drive on the lane, in the middle or on the right half of a lane, however not too close to parked cars.

In the United States as well as in Canada, cycle lanes are used near intersections. Sometimes colored green (similar to the red coloring in Germany) in order to better distinguish them from other lanes and to increase awareness of bicycle traffic.

Latin America

In Latin America , cycle paths are known as Ciclovías and are mainly found in urban areas. Out of town z. T. Vías Verdes cycling.


Different positions on the bike path

Reasons for the construction of bicycle traffic facilities

From the point of view of traffic planning and policy, cycling facilities were created for four main reasons:

  • To improve the flow of traffic for motor vehicles on the road and for cyclists on the bicycle traffic facility
  • To increase traffic safety by separating motorized traffic from bicycle traffic
  • To promote local recreation, cycling and tourism ( cycling trails )
  • To offer a better surface (for example on roads with coarse pavement)

The protection of cyclists from harmful emissions is also an argument in favor of installing cycle traffic systems. The ability to drive past motor vehicles means that cyclists do not have to stand directly behind their exhaust pipes and thus move outside of the point of greatest pollutant concentration.

Criticism because of the greatly increased risk of accidents

Relative accident risk on bike paths at intersections.

Some international statistical surveys and scientific studies show significantly higher numbers of accidents on cycle paths compared to lanes shared by all vehicles, the so-called mixed traffic on the lane. There is an increased risk of accidents, especially on bike paths that are spatially separated from the road. The severity of the accident is no less than that of accidents on the road.

The data surveys come primarily from the 1980s and 1990s, and for Berlin also from the 21st century. Some of the secondary literature, such as parliamentary correspondence or publications by the Deutsche Verkehrswacht, cites the results of original papers quite uncritically. This applies both to writings that warn of the risks of cycle paths and those that warn of roads without cycle paths. Some original papers in traffic research (regardless of the topic) contain distortions due to influences that have not been investigated, methodological errors in statistics or unsecured interpretations with regard to the direction of causality of correlations.

Several original papers are extremely cautious about transferring them to general statements. Investigations that generally prove a safety gain through the installation of bicycle traffic facilities and thus refute the statements of the studies are not known. However, the safety of bicycle traffic in mixed traffic on the road has only rarely been investigated and if so, then not with methods comparable to those used for bicycle traffic facilities. On the other hand, there are numerous risk comparisons between different design forms. The recommendations derived from the figures may differ in some points from country to country or over time. The safety risk or the frequent occurrence of accidents on or in connection with the use of cycle traffic facilities, especially cycle paths, is attributed to various causes:

  • Not insignificant for the increase in risk is the sense of security valued by many cyclists, with the resulting reduction in attention to irregular behavior by motorists.
  • Cyclists on cycle paths are less perceived by drivers because they move outside of the driver's perception, which is focused on the road. Vehicle drivers turning, turning and entering from property are therefore easy to overlook or disregard cyclists on cycle paths. The resulting violations of right of way interrupt the flow of bicycle traffic and endanger cyclists. Incorrect turns and other right-of-way violations are the most common causes of accidents for which the driver is to blame.
  • Bicycle traffic systems are often not arranged according to the direction of travel at intersections according to the StVO. If the straight lane of the cyclists is to the right of the right-turn lane, accidents with vehicles turning right are more likely. However, safety advantages have been demonstrated for cycle lanes to the left of the right-turn lane.
  • Prescribed safety distances to parked vehicles, to pedestrians, when overtaking, to obstacles, at junctions (to maintain an overview) etc. are often not observed on cycle paths.
  • Bike paths are often of poor quality. Elementary standards are often disregarded during construction (e.g. width, curve radii - especially with regard to faster e-bikes and pedelecs, freedom from obstacles, surface quality, freedom from edges when changing between cycle path and lane at intersections, visual connections at downstream road junctions). The roots of adjacent trees damage the path enormously over time. The maintenance and repair of defects is often insufficient.
  • Vehicles parked on the cycle path repeatedly force you to swerve, for which mostly only the lane is allowed. This maneuver is dangerous and often requires braking.
  • Vehicles parked too close to intersections obstruct the view of the cycle path and lead to accidents. Checks are too rare to prevent this and the above misconduct.
  • Cycle paths are often more polluted, which increases the risk of falls. The causes are, on the one hand, the lack of cleaning by the wind from moving vehicles, and, on the other hand, often poorer cleaning and snow removal by the road construction authorities . In addition, dirt from the road is occasionally disposed of on the bike path. In many localities, the obligation to clean cycle and footpaths is also transferred to the residents and is not, as is the case with the carriageway, taken care of by the municipal companies. The paths are often not well maintained, especially on uninhabited or fallow land. Increased use by agricultural vehicles also pollutes bicycle traffic facilities.
  • Pedestrians perceive the cycle paths badly or ignore them. a. if the boundaries to the sidewalk are difficult to see.
  • Bicycle traffic facilities are often not run continuously or are confusing. They force cyclists to do dangerous driving, such as. B. unsecured threading into mixed traffic on the roadway at the end of a cycle path.
  • With existing bicycle traffic facilities, drivers are less considerate of cyclists on the road, as many drivers do not know or accept the exceptions to the obligation to use them. This applies in particular to cycle paths that are not required to be used, cyclists who leave the cycle traffic facilities to turn, or cyclists who ride on the road because the cycle traffic facility cannot be used. Many drivers react to this with coercion and willful threats to cyclists.
  • Directional cycle paths along roads entice cyclists to use the wrong direction, as it is more convenient to drive in the wrong direction than to cross the lane for short distances in the other direction, possibly several times. Driving on the wrong side of the road (left-handed cyclists, also known as ghost cyclists ) is one of the main causes of accidents with motor vehicle traffic. Without cycle paths, the right side is automatically changed when driving on the road.
  • The following applies in particular to cycle lanes on the road:
    • The width of the strip is often not sufficient to be safe in front of suddenly opening doors of vehicles parked on the right. If there were no protective strips and if the occupants opening the door had to expect motor vehicles, they would be more cautious. Vehicles parked on the left also pose a risk to cyclists due to the door-opening occupants (co-drivers).
    • Motorists are encouraged to overtake cyclists without the prescribed minimum distance of 1.5 m as long as they are only moving in “their” lane. This danger is particularly great at narrow points. Cyclists can prevent this by driving so far to the left when the cycle lane is too narrow that overtaking is only possible via the opposite lane or in narrow spaces.

The first two arguments apply more and more to left-sided cycle paths, since other road users do not expect cyclists to be “on the wrong side” there. This applies regardless of whether use on the left is permitted or even mandatory.

There are various characteristics and causes for the discontinuity of cycle routes. Bicycle traffic facilities often end

  • at level crossings (high costs and high administrative effort)
  • at overpasses and underpasses (high costs)
  • at structural constrictions and slopes (high costs)
  • to change of responsibilities (coordination problems)
  • at roundabouts (known safety risks of cycling facilities in roundabouts)
  • on long steep slopes (smaller differences in speed)
  • in town crossings (higher costs, constraint points, lower speed differences, different responsibilities)

Ending the cycle traffic routing is often safer than maintaining the separation despite the need to merge into motor traffic. This is especially true in roundabouts, where the risk of accidents on cycle paths is significantly higher than at conventional intersections. If the safety of the threading system required by the regulations for cycling facilities is dispensed with, cyclists will be endangered.

In addition, the signage and signaling at intersections with cycle paths is often incorrect or not clear:

  • There is a sign giving right of way ( Section 41 (2) Z. 205 StVO ) only after the cycle path that crosses a priority road.
  • A light signal of the cycle path is only after crossing pedestrians and cyclists at the edge of the crossing lane.
  • A “ grant right of way” sign is affixed to the cycle path , although it belongs to a priority road and runs parallel to its lane.
  • At intersecting roads or construction sites, cycle paths are marked with the additional sign Cyclists get off, although this is not covered by the StVO.

In general, however, many of these conditions are formally legal and, in accordance with prevailing case law, cyclists are expected to drive in accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act in such a way that they recognize these dangers (e.g. recognizable posts on the cycle path to prevent them the use of the cycle path by vehicles with more than two wheels).

Disadvantages for foot traffic

Conflict-prone cycle path, Mögeldorf

The creation of bicycle traffic facilities is often at the expense of pedestrian traffic areas . The associated reduction in sidewalk widths is often accompanied by a reduced separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Overall, the speed differences between the two types of transport are very high, and the potential for conflict is correspondingly high. Lack of space and insufficient separation create new conflicts without significantly reducing the conflicts between cyclists and motorized traffic, which are concentrated on the intersection points.

The almost silently approaching bicycles are a potential hazard, especially for elderly or visually impaired people as well as for children. For the blind, the cycle paths, which are often only separated by markings or rows of paving stones, are difficult or impossible to see with the cane, so that they do not have to be considered barrier-free . The sidewalk, which was formerly intended as a shelter for pedestrians, is turned into a danger area by the construction of sidewalk cycle paths. In addition, there is often a considerable lack of knowledge about the safe installation of bicycle traffic facilities among traffic planners, as the adjacent example from Nuremberg-Mögeldorf shows. This creates further points of conflict.

An unconstrained movement of pedestrians on sidewalks is often no longer possible when the cyclists are guided in the side area. From the point of view of pedestrians, cycling traffic on the road appears to be the best solution. Curb cycle paths and forms of shared tours are also viewed very critically due to the requirements imposed by laws on equality for the disabled . In Germany, a joint position paper by the ADFC Landesverband Thüringen and the Blind and Visually Impaired Association of Thuringia states: “Both associations see the fundamental separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic as the only relevant problem solution. All traffic planning options are to be used. The implementation of this requirement is ultimately not only in the safety interests of cyclists and pedestrians, but in the interests of all road users. "

Tourist bike paths

Pop up bike lanes

In order to quickly ensure more space and safety in bicycle traffic in the event of a current dangerous or crisis situation or sudden changes in road traffic conditions, some cities are setting up temporary pop-up cycle paths at short notice.

Cycle lanes in the central position

A special form of cycle traffic management at traffic junctions is the cycle lane in the central position, also known as the “cycle switch”. The cycle path runs with broken guidelines along the straight-ahead lane or has its own left-turn lane, which is crossed by the turning motor traffic.

See also


  • Peter Gwiasda among others: Recommendations for bicycle traffic facilities (= FGSV number. 284). FGSV Verlag, Cologne 2010, ISBN 978-3-941790-63-6 .
  • Dankmar Alrutz , Felix Bögert, Jörg Backhaus: Protective strips for bicycle traffic in through- towns . Lower Saxony state authority for road construction and traffic. Hanover January 2007 ( PDF; 4 MB ).

Web links

Wiktionary: Bicycle path  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. a b c d e f g h General administrative regulation for road traffic regulations, section on § 2, paragraph 4.
  2. Protected cycle lanes , ADFC position paper, March 13, 2018.
  3. Please turn over! , Chrismon, January 2019.
  4. Cycle path information - ADFC NRW - Kreisverband Gütersloh e. V. Accessed April 20, 2017 .
  5. a b Annex 3 No. 22 StVO
  6. a b TBNR 102142 to 102145 § 2 StVO (road use by vehicles). In: Retrieved April 25, 2016 .
  7. Fifty-fourth ordinance amending road traffic regulations
  9. Germany: Start of the nationwide model project “Bicycle protection lanes out of town” in Cologne ,, accessed on June 16, 2013.
  11. Appendix 2 of the Road Traffic Regulations
  12. Cycling on sidewalks , Fuss eV, accessed on April 8, 2017.
  13. ERA 95 - Recommendations for bicycle traffic facilities, FGSV no. 284, FGSV 1995
  14. William Angenedt u. a. 2006: Improvement of cycle traffic management at nodes
  15. § 2 StVO 2013 - single standard. Retrieved October 26, 2017 .
  16. a b Max Dietrich, F. von Laissle (edit.): Preliminary work, earthworks, foundation work, road and tunnel construction . In: L. von Willmann (Ed.): Handbuch der Ingenieurwissenschaften . 4th edition. tape 4 . Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig 1912, first part, p. 307 ( [PDF; accessed on November 11, 2019] conversion of the information “one bicycle to 18–20” or “26 inhabitants” in percent).
  17. ^ Otto Lueger : Lexicon of the entire technology and its auxiliary sciences . 2nd Edition. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1920 ( [accessed on November 11, 2019] encyclopedia entry “Radfahrwege”).
  18. ^ Willi Ernst: Offenbacher Fahrradgeschichte (s). On: February 19, 2014, accessed February 6, 2015.
  19. History of the obligation to use cycle paths
  20. Volker Briese: History of the cycle paths. Bicycle lanes for the development of motor transport . In: ADFC (Ed.): Research Service Bicycle . No. 218, May 28, 1994.
  21. § 27 Use of the cycle paths and hard shoulders; Section 28 Driving in a row and side by side. In: Reichsgesetzblatt. Part I, No. 123, p. 1186.
  22. Names and years from Schützen protective strips?
  23. Petition against the obligation to use cycle lanes at the Bundestag ( and at the initiative ( .
  24. Survey on the funding practice of the federal states and municipalities for the financing of cycling measures
  25. a b Federal Administrative Court: Judgment of November 18, 2010 - 3 C 42.09 ( Memento of January 11, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  26. Obligation to use cycle paths. ( Memento from March 31, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 59 kB). ADAC , June 2014, accessed December 20, 2015.
  27. Cycling on the road is the norm. Federal Administrative Court confirms Bavarian judgment . ( Memento of October 24, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) ADFC press release, November 18, 2010, accessed on December 21, 2015.
  28. Synopsis of §45 StVO
  29. a b On § 2 Road use by vehicles . General administrative regulation for road traffic regulations on the private website
  30. Chapter 2.3.6 of ERA 10, Recommendations for bicycle traffic facilities, FGSV no. 284, FGSV 2010.
  31. OLG Celle, March 21, 2001, Az. 9 U 190/00. In: NZV 2001, 346.
  32. Bernd Sluka: Cyclists get off! About the meaning of an additional symbol . Private website as of July 14, 2010, accessed December 20, 2015.
  33. Norbert Paul: Reader's question: How far does “cyclists dismount” apply? General German Bicycle Club Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e. V., August 3, 2014, accessed December 20, 2015.
  34. KG, VersR 1972, 1143; cautious OLG Karlsruhe, VersR 1979, 62
  35. Bike path long since liquidated. In: Märkische Oderzeitung . ( Page no longer available , search in web archives: )@1@ 2Template: Dead Link /
  36. Obligation to use cycle lanes - Berlin police on problems faced by drivers with cycle lanes that are not required to be used ( memento of February 13, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  37. Horst Basler: Cycling next to cycle paths ( Memento from June 11, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
  38. ↑ Following cycle paths - numerous links to reports
  39. § 2 StVO on
  40. ^ Radlobby Niederösterreich: StVO NEW - The changes to the road traffic regulations for cycling from March 31, 2013
  42. 25th Amendment to the StVO, 2109 dB (XXIV.GP)
  43. Excerpts from rules of conduct and traffic rules as well as marking and signaling regulations. ( Memento from September 23, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Civil engineering office of the Canton of Bern.
  44. Light two-wheeled traffic. As of 2015, there under 8. further, Switzerland-wide regulations. Canton of Aargau, Department of Construction, Transport and Environment. ( Page no longer available , search in web archives: ), cf. also list of standards for the road and traffic system in Switzerland # pedestrian and bicycle traffic and 4.5. and 4.6.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link /
  45. Archived copy ( Memento from November 28, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  47. Nieuwe fietsvoorzieningen in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest / Nouveaux aménagements cyclables en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale from January 16, 2014 (PDF)
  48. ^ Voies cyclables non-obligatoires . Fédération française des Usagers de la Bicyclette.
  49. VeloBuc: Le double-sens cyclable (DSC)
  50. Archived copy ( Memento from November 26, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
  51. What is a fietspad and what is a fietsstrook?
  52. Peter Kroeze: Slechte stroken schaden fietsverkeer goede en slechte voorbeelden van fiets-, suggestie- en kantstroken. Gouda / NL, 1991.
  53. CROW - tennis platform "Verkeer en Vervoer"
  55. The Highway Code, 59-82: Rules for cyclists
  56. Department for Transport: Know Your TRAFFIC SIGNS Official Edition
  57. US Federal Highway Administration, Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14)
  58. International and national (ADFC Hamburg) bicycle test drives with video recording and simultaneous pollutant measurement
  59. Leif Linderholm: Signal regulatorade korsningars Funktion och olycksrisk för oskyddade trafikanter (=  Delrapport . Cyklister, No. 1 ). 1984 (Swedish).
  60. a b c R. Schnüll among others: Securing cyclists at urban junctions. Report on the research project 8925 of the Federal Highway Research Institute (= research reports of the BASt . No. 262). Federal Highway Research Institute , Bergisch Gladbach 1992.
  61. W. Angenendt et al .: Traffic-safe system and design of cycle paths (= reports of the Federal Highway Research Institute . Volume V 9). Federal Highway Research Institute, Bergisch Gladbach 1993.
  62. Federal Minister of Transport (Ed.): Summary evaluation of research results on cycling in the city. (= Research City Traffic. Issue A7). 1991, ISBN 3-88267-037-1 .
  63. Ole Bach, Ole Rosbach, Else Jørgensen: Cykelstier i byer - the sikkerhedsmæssige effect. Vejdirektoratet , Næstved 1985, ISBN 87-7491-169-4 , also to be found in: ADFC Hessen (Hrsg.): Fahrrad Stadt Verkehr. II. Proceedings. Darmstadt 1988, ISBN 3-9801529-1-X , pp. 53-55.
  64. Summary on safety on cycle paths
  65. ^ Ulrich Lamm: Critical analysis of the UdV research report 21 on turning accidents. 2017.
  66. Ohm, D. u. a .: Management of bicycle traffic in mixed traffic on inner-city main roads. BASt report V 257, Bergisch Gladbachdbach 2015.
  67. Dankmar Alrutz et al: Accident risk and standard acceptance of cyclists. (PDF). BASt V184, 2009.
  68. Oversteekongevallen met fietsers - The effect of infrastructuurkenmerken op voorrangskruispunten. Jan. 2010. ( ( Memento from October 19, 2017 in the Internet Archive ))
  69. M. Räsanen, H. Summala: Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car collisions: An in-depth study. In: Accident Analysis and Prevention. Volume 30, 1998. (Abstract)
  70. WW Hunter, DL Harkey, JR Stewart, ML Birk: Evaluation of Blue Bike Lane Treatment in Portland, Oregon. (= Transportation Research Record). In: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 1705, 2000, pp. 107-115.
  71. ↑ Accident risks while cycling ,, accessed on July 14, 2016.
  72. cf. OLG Hamm v. May 14, 1996 - 9 U 218/95 in VersR 1997, 892; MDR 2002, 643, v. March 22, 2001 - 1 U 144/99 - MDR 2001, 1052f uv November 27, 2003 - 1 U 53/02, permissible LG Rostock v. August 25, 2005 - 4 O 139/04