RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Sufficient cycle track width is important to prevent single-bicycle crashes and collisions between cyclists. The assumptions on which the minimum width is based in guidelines is founded on only a few studies. The aim of the present study is to investigate the relationship between cycle track width and lateral position of cyclists. METHOD: We conducted an experiment to evaluate the lateral position of cyclists along cycle tracks with different widths (Study 1). Participants cycled on an instrumented bicycle with a LIDAR to measure their lateral position. Five conditions were defined: cycle track width of 100 cm, 150 cm and 200 cm without interaction, and cycle track width of 150 cm and 200 cm with an oncoming cyclist simulated by a parked bicycle. The cross-sectional Study 2 is based on the collected lateral position measurements at cycle tracks with varying width reported in Dutch studies since 2010. RESULTS: The experimental Study 1 with 24 participants shows that an increase in cycle track width causes cyclists to ride further away from the verge and keep more distance from an oncoming cyclist. The cross-sectional Study 2 was based on lateral position measured at 33 real-life Dutch cycle tracks. Study 2 yielded similar results, indicating that doubling pavement width increases lateral position by some 50%. Study 2 shows that, compared with a solo cyclist without interaction, a right-hand cyclist of a duo and a cyclist meeting an oncoming cyclist ride around 30% closer to the verge. CONCLUSIONS: The wider the cycle track, the more distance cyclists maintain from the verge. Cyclists ride closer to the verge due to oncoming cyclists. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Given a cyclists' lateral position while meeting, common variations between cyclists' steering behavior, and vehicle width and circumstances, a cycle track width of 250 cm is needed for safe meeting maneuvers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Protected bike lanes separated from the roadway by physical barriers are relatively new in the United States. This study examined the risk of collisions or falls leading to emergency department visits associated with bicycle facilities (e.g., protected bike lanes, conventional bike lanes demarcated by painted lines, sharrows) and other roadway characteristics in three U.S. cities. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 604 patients from emergency departments in Washington, DC; New York City; and Portland, Oregon during 2015-2017 who fell or crashed while cycling. We used a case-crossover design and conditional logistic regression to compare each fall or crash site with a randomly selected control location along the route leading to the incident. We validated the presence of site characteristics described by participants using Google Street View and city GIS inventories of bicycle facilities and other roadway features. RESULTS: Compared with cycling on lanes of major roads without bicycle facilities, the risk of crashing or falling was lower on conventional bike lanes (adjusted OR = 0.53; 95 % CI = 0.33, 0.86) and local roads with (adjusted OR = 0.31; 95 % CI = 0.13, 0.75) or without bicycle facilities or traffic calming (adjusted OR = 0.39; 95 % CI = 0.23, 0.65). Protected bike lanes with heavy separation (tall, continuous barriers or grade and horizontal separation) were associated with lower risk (adjusted OR = 0.10; 95 % CI = 0.01, 0.95), but those with lighter separation (e.g., parked cars, posts, low curb) had similar risk to major roads when one way (adjusted OR = 1.19; 95 % CI = 0.46, 3.10) and higher risk when they were two way (adjusted OR = 11.38; 95 % CI = 1.40, 92.57); this risk increase was primarily driven by one lane in Washington. Risk increased in the presence of streetcar or train tracks relative to their absence (adjusted OR = 26.65; 95 % CI = 3.23, 220.17), on downhill relative to flat grades (adjusted OR = 1.92; 95 % CI = 1.38, 2.66), and when temporary features like construction or parked cars blocked the cyclist's path relative to when they did not (adjusted OR = 2.23; 95 % CI = 1.46, 3.39). CONCLUSIONS: Certain bicycle facilities are safer for cyclists than riding on major roads. Protected bike lanes vary in how well they shield riders from crashes and falls. Heavier separation, less frequent intersections with roads and driveways, and less complexity appear to contribute to reduced risk in protected bike lanes. Future research should systematically examine the characteristics that reduce risk in protected lanes to guide design. Planners should minimize conflict points when choosing where to place protected bike lanes and should implement countermeasures to increase visibility at these locations when they are unavoidable.

RESUMEN

China has a historic system of wide cycle tracks, many of which are now encroached by cars, buses and bus stops. Even with these conditions, college students still bicycle. On campuses, students park their bikes on facilities ranging from kick-stand-plazas to caged sheds with racks, pumps and an attendant. In other countries, including Canada, some of the newer cycle tracks need to be wider to accommodate an increasing number of bicyclists. Other countries will also need to improve their bike parking, which includes garage-basement cages and two-tiered racks. China could provide lessons about cycle tracks and bike parking. This study applied the Maslow Transportation Level of Service (LOS) theory, i.e., for cycle tracks and bike parking, only after the basic needs of safety and security are met for both vehicle occupants and bicyclists can the higher needs of convenience and comfort be met. With random clustering, a self-administered questionnaire was collected from 410 students in six dormitory buildings at Peking University in Beijing and an environmental scan of bicycle parking conducted in school/office and living areas. Cycle tracks (1 = very safe/5 = very unsafe) shared with moving cars were most unsafe (mean = 4.6), followed by sharing with parked cars (4.1) or bus stop users (4.1) (p < 0.001). Close to half thought campus bike parking lacked order. The most suggested parking facilities were sheds, security (guard or camera), bicycle racks and bicycle parking services (pumps, etc.). If parking were improved, three quarters indicated they would bicycle more. While caged sheds were preferred, in living areas with 1597 parked bikes, caged sheds were only 74.4% occupied. For the future of China's wide cycle tracks, perhaps a fence-separated bus lane beside a cycle track might be considered or, with China's recent increase in bike riding, shared bikes and E-bikes, perhaps cars/buses could be banned from the wide cycle tracks. In other countries, a widened cycle track entrance should deter cars. Everywhere, bike parking sheds could be built and redesigned with painted lines to offer more space and order, similar to car parking.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Cities in North America have been building bicycle infrastructure, in particular cycle tracks, with the intention of promoting urban cycling and improving cyclist safety. These facilities have been built and expanded but very little research has been done to investigate the safety impacts of cycle tracks, in particular at intersections, where cyclists interact with turning motor-vehicles. Some safety research has looked at injury data and most have reached the conclusion that cycle tracks have positive effects of cyclist safety. The objective of this work is to investigate the safety effects of cycle tracks at signalized intersections using a case-control study. For this purpose, a video-based method is proposed for analyzing the post-encroachment time as a surrogate measure of the severity of the interactions between cyclists and turning vehicles travelling in the same direction. Using the city of Montreal as the case study, a sample of intersections with and without cycle tracks on the right and left sides of the road were carefully selected accounting for intersection geometry and traffic volumes. More than 90h of video were collected from 23 intersections and processed to obtain cyclist and motor-vehicle trajectories and interactions. After cyclist and motor-vehicle interactions were defined, ordered logit models with random effects were developed to evaluate the safety effects of cycle tracks at intersections. Based on the extracted data from the recorded videos, it was found that intersection approaches with cycle tracks on the right are safer than intersection approaches with no cycle track. However, intersections with cycle tracks on the left compared to no cycle tracks seem to be significantly safer. Results also identify that the likelihood of a cyclist being involved in a dangerous interaction increases with increasing turning vehicle flow and decreases as the size of the cyclist group arriving at the intersection increases. The results highlight the important role of cycle tracks and the factors that increase or decrease cyclist safety. Results need however to be confirmed using longer periods of video data.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Cycle track design guidelines are rarely based on scientific studies. In the case of off-road two-way cycle tracks, a minimum width must facilitate both passing and meeting maneuvers, being meeting maneuvers the most frequent. This study developed a methodology to observe meeting maneuvers using an instrumented bicycle, equipped with video cameras, a GPS tracker, laser rangefinders and speed sensors. This bicycle collected data on six two-way cycle tracks ranging 1.3-2.15m width delimitated by different boundary conditions. The meeting maneuvers between the instrumented bicycle and every oncoming bicycle were characterized by the meeting clearance between the two bicycles, the speed of opposing bicycle and the reaction of the opposing rider: change in trajectory, stop pedaling or braking. The results showed that meeting clearance increased with the cycle track width and decreased if the cycle track had lateral obstacles, especially if they were higher than the bicycle handlebar. The speed of opposing bicycle shown the same tendency, although were more disperse. Opposing cyclists performed more reaction maneuvers on narrower cycle tracks and on cycle tracks with lateral obstacles to the handlebar height. Conclusions suggested avoiding cycle tracks narrower than 1.6m, as they present lower meeting clearances, lower bicycle speeds and frequent reaction maneuvers.

Asunto(s)