A basic premise in this report is that cycling should be encouraged because as the number of cyclists increases, the attention of motorists and safety improves; however, an important caveat is that the number of cyclists has to be commensurate with the infrastructure built for cycling to enhance their safety. We begin with an overview of the risks associated with cycling to emphasize the need for safety. We focus on the application of frameworks from social psychology to education, one of the 5 Es–engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation. Next we use the structure of the 5 Es to organize information with particular attention to engineering and education in the literature review. Engineering is essential because the infrastructure is vital to protecting cyclists. Education is emphasized since the central focus of the report is safety. We follow the literature review with a series of case studies, the first three in northern California–covering education in relation to safety in San José; engineering and evaluation in Berkeley; engineering, education, and enforcement in Davis–and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in the Portland, Oregon area, an effective example of the education and encouragement dimensions of the 5 Es. We conclude with a discussion and note the need for future research or evaluation, with particular reference to the use of the social psychological model presented herein. More nuanced and complete discussions of the following points can be found in the relevant section of the report with their respective citations. The points of interest follow: 1. In 2008 males accounted for 87 percent of bicycling fatalities in the U.S. More cyclists are male, but females may follow the rules more. 2. One-third of fatal accidents involve alcohol. 3. Bicycle accidents that involved a motor vehicle were a very small percentage of all bicycle accidents; however, the vast majority of fatal bicycle accidents involved a vehicle. This is why engineers suggest keeping cyclists separate from vehicles. 4. The average age of cyclists killed in crashes in 2008 was 41 years old. This is nine years older than the average age of 32 in 1998. The average age of cyclists injured in crashes in 2008 was 31 years old. This is seven years older than the average age of 24 in 1998. Perhaps adults are riding at higher speeds, and with higher speed automobile traffic, than children are. Both of these factors can increase the severity of a crash. 3 5. Driver behaviour was a significant factor in a large fraction of the accidents that involved a motor vehicle operator’s failure to yield. 6. A before and after comparison of crashes in Seattle neighbourhoods at 119 intersections that had circles added between 1991 and 1994 reported a 94 percent reduction in crashes. 7. Eighty percent of head and brain injuries can be prevented by wearing a helmet. 8. In some instances, helmet use was correlated with drivers offering less space (and thereby increasing the risk of collision) when overtaking cyclists. 9. Helmet laws increase helmet use in children and when combined with educational interventions, legislation seems effective, efficient, and socially acceptable. 10. Multi-dimensional approaches that incorporate education, design, and promotion provide the most robust and adaptable models for bicycle safety programs. 11. A lack of empirical data on outcomes makes it difficult to identify true best practices7 regarding safety education programs. However, wearing helmets, maximizing conspicuity, maintaining one’s bicycle in good working condition while following the rules of the road seem logical. 12. Few bike safety programs include objective evaluation of their effectiveness over time. 13. Repeated and continually long-term exposure to bike safety education materials is critical to sustained behaviour change. 14. Too many cyclists violate the rules of the road, yet enforcement is often lacking. 15. An objective approach to safety involves the analysis of traffic speeds and volumes and collision history at the intersection level in order to determine “Primary Collision Factors” for which new traffic safety control countermeasures can be proposed. The second concept of “subjective safety” holds that people’s perception of the relative safety of a transportation facility is an important factor in overall safety. People’s perception of the safety of a roadway or bicycle facility plays a critical role in their decision whether or not to bicycle, which in turn can have a direct impact on their objective safety while using that facility. 16. Berkeley bicyclists said that they felt unsafe sharing the road with cars and trucks, and prefer separate bikeways designated for their use. Very experienced cyclists often state a preference for faster routes that may also carry heavy automobile traffic, but surveys cited found that most bicyclists, and especially novice riders, feel more confident in some kind of clearly marked bicycle facility on a street with relatively light traffic. 17. In Berkeley conflict with auto traffic was by far the most often cited difficulty of cycling. Driver aggression, drivers “squeezing past” bicycles when there isn’t enough room for them to safely pass and cyclists riding poorly were mentioned as problems in the Berkeley surveys. The report concluded that “the difficulty of a motorist seeing a person on a bicycle seems to be the root of much of the conflict, and is one good reason for establishing visible bikeways where cyclists can be expected.” We see the value added of the present report to the extant literature as the following: a clear and concise discussion of safety education, case studies that exemplify the 5 Es and permit the reader to more actively engage in the stories told by the case authors, and the social psychological model to consider when designing the 5 Es. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting