Section 03 · Principle I

Protect the route.

Safety must be continuous. A route is only as safe as its weakest point, usually the intersection or the tram crossing.

Interactive

Levels of protection

Existing example

Curb-separated track

A raised curb separates cyclists from traffic, the typical Copenhagen form.

A raised curb keeps vehicles out of the cycling space along the link.

Motor trafficCycling spacePhysical separationConflict area

Conceptual schematic, not to scale and not an engineering plan.

Copenhagen’s construction logic

Carry the lane through the conflict zone

Copenhagen diagram showing an advanced cycle path with separate signal regulation — DiagramAdvanced cycle path with separate signal regulationCity of Copenhagen (2024), Cycle-friendly infrastructure, p. 55, figure 15; figure 8 in the paper. Cropped from the original page.

Copenhagen’s advanced cycle path keeps a defined cycling lane up to the stop line and marks it onward across the junction (City of Copenhagen, 2024). Under the BCES, this becomes an ambition at major crossings, subject to site-specific assessment.

The Copenhagen guidance also discusses complementary safety measures. The illustrated option uses separate signal regulation. Markings alone do not resolve turning conflicts (City of Copenhagen, 2024, pp. 53–55).

Physical separation should be the default on major cycling corridors, not an isolated showcase (Pucher & Buehler, 2008). No lane should simply end or fade into car traffic. A visible handover, defined transition or signed alternative must preserve continuity. Where full separation is not yet feasible, a clearly marked interim solution keeps the route legible.

Berlin reference · original source diagram

Adapt the reference, not copy the dimensions

Original Berlin Abb. 6 bicycle-street cross-section with German annotations: Fahrbahnbreite in einer Fahrradstraße im Zuge einer Radschnellverbindung, beidseitig Parken, mit grüner Fahrbahnbegrenzung in Schmalstrich — Figure 10 · DiagramBerlin bicycle street: original cross-section for a cycle-highway connectionSenatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz (2020), Umsetzung von Fahrradstraßen in Berlin: Leitfaden, p. 16, Abb. 6; paper Figure 10. Original PDF crop; cross-sections credited in the source to SHP Ingenieure / Design-Gruppe.

Abb. 6 describes a particular Berlin bicycle-street cross-section, including mixed motor and cycle use, parking and safety strips. Its printed dimensions belong to that source configuration. They are not thresholds for the conceptual width scenarios or a BCES engineering specification. A bicycle street is not equivalent to a physically protected track. Local feasibility and road-safety review remain essential.

Berlin tram context

Rails in the cycling line

Green-coated cycle lane on Seelenbinderstraße in Berlin — PhotographSeelenbinderstraße: cycling infrastructure in Berlin’s tram contextGB infraVelo, figure 13

On streets such as Seelenbinderstraße, cycling space runs alongside tram tracks. Rails parallel to a rider’s trajectory can catch wheels. The BCES therefore proposes clear street geometry and unambiguous guidance across tracks, assessed site by site with tram operators.

Current vs. proposed

Where protection must not end

Analysis · mechanisms and reservations

Explore the design logic

Theoretical interpretationProposed redesign

Source-grounded mechanisms, potential value and reservations. The proposed Warschauer Straße evaluation is not measured BCES evidence. Cross-level benefits require coordination and may conflict.