The one in the Netherlands seems to be a 70m solar cycle lane. Cars will destroy a surface a lot faster than bikes. Maybe (dedicated) bike lanes would be a good place to start with this.
That sounds like a good idea. It would also give cities more incentive to keep the like lanes well maintained (even in bike-friendly cities, bike lanes are usually less well maintained than motorways). One problem is that bike lanes are often located close to shade-providing buildings or vegetation.
I think it'd be much better putting panels over roads. It uses pretty much the same footprint and it'll reduce the effect of roads being huge heat sinks they are.
This seems like a massive undertaking given that those panels would sit atop fast moving traffic and stand up to the elements (like tons of snow). But I'm sure at some point it will be perfectly feasible.
It's not obvious to me that cars will destroy a surface faster than bikes. Yes, cars weigh a lot more, but that weight is distributed over a larger area. The force on a given square millimeter of the surface that the vehicle is on is actually 2-4 times as high for a bike than from a car. This is why bike tires typically are inflated to 2-4 times the pressure of car tires.
It's not the point load, it's the total load. Which bends the road. Bending brittle things like solar cells cracks them. Movement of the car also causes compression waves to move through the roadbed.
Roads need regular resurfacing because bending the roads constantly causes them to crack and crumble.
Maybe the cyclists avoid the solar section. Remember, cycles are a lot less inherently stable than cars and provide much less protection in case of a crash, and glass is slippery. Even metal manhole covers get a little scary when wet.
