Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S0001457516301725 Main
1 s2.0 S0001457516301725 Main
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Many studies have found bicycle-motor vehicle crashes to be more likely on bidirectional cycle paths
Received 8 December 2015 than on unidirectional cycle paths because drivers do not expect cyclists riding at the right side of the
Received in revised form 13 May 2016 road. In this paper we discuss the hypothesis that opening all unidirectional cycle paths for cycle traffic in
Accepted 18 May 2016
both directions prevent this lack of expectancy and accordingly improves cycling safety. A new national
Available online 1 June 2016
standard requires careful consideration because a reversal is difficult once cyclists are used to their
new freedom of route choice. We therefore explored the hypothesis using available data, research, and
Keywords:
theories. The results show that of the length of cycle paths along distributor roads in the Netherlands,
Cycling
Cycling safety 72% is bidirectional. If drivers would become used to cyclists riding at the left side of the road, this result
Bidirectional cycle paths raises the question of why bidirectional cycle paths in the Netherlands still have a poor safety record
Contra-flow cycling compared to unidirectional cycle paths. Moreover, our exploration suggested that bidirectional cycle
paths have additional safety problems. It increases the complexity of unsignalized intersections because
drivers have to scan more directions in a short period of time. Moreover, there are some indications that
the likelihood of frontal crashes between cyclists increases. We reject the hypothesis that opening all
unidirectional cycle paths for cycle traffic in both directions will improve cycle safety. We recommend
more attention for mitigating measures given the widespread application of bidirectional cycle paths in
the Netherlands.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.018
0001-4575/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Methorst et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 105 (2017) 38–43 39
suggest that, without additional measures, converting one-way encounters with oncoming cyclists. On the other hand, in coun-
into two-way cycle paths is likely to increase the number of col- tries with lower volumes of cyclists, paths may be narrow (in the
lisions between cyclists and with mopeds and/or slow mopeds. Netherlands a minimum of 2.5 m or more for high volumes of
Additionally, it should be noted that bidirectional cycle paths have cyclists is advised by CROW, 2007), of poor quality and shared with
to be wider to allow safe passing and overtaking, especially if pedestrians thereby introducing new risks. For instance, Van der
mopeds are allowed (CROW, 2007). Road authorities sometimes Voet-Kurbatsch (2014) describes that the German Cyclist’s Associ-
lack space to provide the required width. Therefore, a uniform ation ADFC has argued against the obligation to cycle on cycle paths
application of bidirectional paths will result in an increased length (the so-called Benutzungsplicht) because these are often insuffi-
of insufficiently wide paths and accordingly increased likelihood of ciently wide, of poor quality or shared with pedestrians, etc. This
collisions between cyclists and falls resulting from manoeuvres to position is to a large extent adopted in design guidelines and leg-
avoid a crash (Davidse et al., 2014). islation. There is a risk of head-on crashes with mopeds or slow
mopeds only in countries where these two-wheelers are frequently
6. Discussion: bringing different lines of research together used and where these vehicles are allowed on bicycle paths. As this
is only one of the many risks associated with bidirectional cycle
We hypothesized that opening all unidirectional cycle paths paths, there is little reason to believe that there are jurisdictions
for cycle traffic in both directions would improve cycling safety. where cycling safety can be improved by opening all unidirectional
Based on the outcomes of this study we reject the hypothesis. The cycle paths for cycle traffic in both directions.
hypothesis is based on the belief that drivers will adapt their scan-
ning strategies once they meet large numbers of cyclists from the 6.2. Limitations
right when entering a distributor road from a minor road. How-
ever, Dutch motorists encounter cyclists at a higher rate than in Unfortunately we could not empirically test our hypothesis
any other country, given that some 27% of all trips are by bike which limits our possibilities to draw firm conclusions. Technically
(Statistics Netherlands, 2015). Additionally, some 72% of Dutch it is possible to simulate a city having only bidirectional cycle paths
bicycle paths are already bidirectional, meaning that motorists in a driving simulator. Participants could drive multiple sessions to
could be expected to be accustomed to scanning strategies that monitor whether their visual scanning strategies changes. How-
include cyclists coming from the contra-direction. Still, recent ever, visual search pattern are highly automatized based on many
research found an elevated risk of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes hours or even years of driving experience which explains the differ-
at unsignalised intersections in the Netherlands (Schepers et al., ences between experienced and novice drivers (Patten and Kircher,
2011). 2006). Practically, it is almost impossible to achieve sufficient hours
We do not expect the safety levels at unidirectional cycle paths of simulator driving to resemble real world learning processes. A
to decrease to a level comparable to bidirectional paths because higher level of external validity can be achieved by studying visual
of the high risk of cyclists riding against the direction of traffic search patterns among drivers living a city with a share of bidi-
on unidirectional paths (Schepers and Voorham, 2010; Wachtel rectional cycle paths nearing 100%. Zeegers and Kamminga (2014)
and Lewiston, 1994). The share of contraflow cycling amounted to found the share of bidirectional cycle paths in some Dutch cities to
between 2% and 4% of all cyclists at unidirectional cycle paths, but approach 100%, but these cities were primarily new towns. These
there are no indications of an increase overtime. cities have only a limited length of distributor roads with bicycle
Even without expectation problems, sufficient space is needed infrastructure which could prevent drivers from developing the
to safely construct bidirectional cycle paths. A clearance between right expectations. A few older cities like Breda decided to make
a bidirectional bicycle path and distributor road of a least a few bidirectional cycle paths their standard (Gemeente Breda, 2007)
meters is needed to reduce a too complex design where drivers have so they may also achieve a share near 100% in the future. It is not
to scan too many directions in a short moment of time. This problem yet clear whether this would allow drivers to develop the right
is aggravated at some locations by sight obstructions. Also, bidirec- expectations. Along with converting unidirectional cycle paths into
tional cycle paths need to be sufficiently wide to prevent frontal bidirectional cycle paths, Breda equips intersections with new traf-
crashes between cyclists and with mopeds where they are allowed. fic lights (Methorst and Schepers, 2015). As visual search patterns at
Road authorities often lack space to meet these requirements. Con- signalized intersections are to a large degree based on traffic lights,
verting all unidirectional cycle paths into bidirectional bicycle paths it is unlikely that it will affect drivers’ expectations at the decreased
will cause new risks at locations with insufficient space. number of unsignalised intersections and roundabouts.
This paper is to a large extent based on the Netherlands where The analysis presented in this paper found an insufficient basis
drivers, due to the high model share of cycling and widespread for changing the Dutch Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic to con-
application of bidirectional cycle paths, have ample opportuni- vert all cycle paths to bidirectional (CROW, 2007). However, as
ties to grow accustomed to cyclists riding along the right side more than half of the cycle path length is open in two directions
of the road. The fact that Dutch drivers coming from a side road with a strongly increased risk of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes at
still insufficiently scan for these cyclists (Van Haeften, 2010) sug- unsignalized intersections and roundabouts (Schepers et al., 2011;
gests that more widespread application will not solve expectancy Zeegers and Kamminga, 2014), we advise to expand the discus-
problems in countries with lower volumes of cyclists and accord- sion of appropriate mitigation measures and present a start in the
ingly fewer encounters with cyclists from the right. The potential remainder of this section. For instance, a recent publication by the
human factors issues of complexity and sight obstructions are not Dutch Fietsberaad (Bicycle Council), advises speed reducing mea-
restricted to cycling countries either. For instance, an additional sures and removal of sight obstructions (Van Boggelen et al., 2011).
risk increase due to sight obstacles at the right side of a minor Very few studies specifically focussed on crossings with bidirec-
road was first discovered in Helsinki (Räsäsen et al., 1998). The tional cycle paths. An exception is a before-after study by Summala
risk of frontal crashes between cyclists and with (slow) mopeds et al. (1996). Positive results were found for a stop sign and speed
may be less elevated at bidirectional cycle paths in countries with reducing measures, but the researchers did not find visual search
lower volumes of cyclists and accordingly where there are less behaviour to be affected by markings (Summala et al., 1996). The
42 R. Methorst et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 105 (2017) 38–43
References
Birth, S., Pflaumbaum, M., Potzel, D., Sieber, G., 2009. Human Factors Guideline for
Safer Road Infrastructure. World Road Association, Paris.
CROW, 2007. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW, Ede.
Davidse, R., Van Duijvenvoorde, K., Boele, M.J., Doumen, M.J.A., Duivenvoorden,
C.W.A.E., Louwerse, W.J.R., 2014. Letselongevallen van Fietsende 50-Plussers
(Injury Crashes of Cyclists Older than 50 years). SWOV Institute for Road Safety
Research, The Hague.
De Goede, M., Obdeijn, C., Van der Horst, A.R.A., 2013. Conflicten Op
Fietspaden—Fase 2 (Conflicts at Bicycle Paths—Phase 2). TNO, Soesterberg.
De Waard, D., Schepers, J.P., Ormel, W., Brookhuis, K.A., 2010. Mobile phone use
while cycling: incidence and effects on behaviour and safety. Ergonomics 53,
30–42.
De Waard, D., 1996. The Measurement of Drivers’ Mental Workload. Groningen
University, Groningen.
Elvik, R., Høye, A., Vaa, T., Sørensen, M., 2009. The Handbook of Road Safety
Measures. Emerald, Bingley.
Elvik, R., 2006. Laws of accident causation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 38, 742–747.
Ewalds, D., Moritz, G., Sijstermans, 2013. Bromfietsen in Nederland (Mopeds in the
Netherlands). Statistics Netherlands, The Hague.
Fietsersbond, 2014. Fietsrouteplanner (Bicycle Route Planner). Fietsersbond,
Utrecht.
Gemeente Breda, 2007. Fietsen, net zo gemakkelijk, Breda.
Henson, R., Whelan, N., 1992. Layout and design factors affecting cycle safety at
T-junctions. Traffic Eng. Control 33, 548–551.
Jacobsen, P.L., 2003. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking
and bicycling. Inj. Prev. 9, 205–209.
Ligtermoet, D., 2009. Bicycle Policies of the European Principals. Fietsberaad,
Utrecht.
Methorst, R., Schepers, J.P., 2015. Tweerichtingsfietspaden en Spookrijden
(Bidirectional Cycle Paths and Riding Against Traffic at Unidirectional Cycle
Paths). Delft, Rijkswaterstaat.
Methorst, R., Schepers, J.P., Vermeulen, W., 2011. Snorfiets op het Fietspad (Slow
Moped on the Bicycle Path). Delft, Rijkswaterstaat.
Patten, C.J.D., Kircher, A., Östlund, J., Nilsson, L., Svensson, O., 2006. Driver
experience and cognitive workload in different traffic environments. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 38, 887–894.
Räsänen, M., Summala, H., 1998. Attention and expectation problems in
bicycle–car collisions: an in-depth study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 30, 657–666.
Räsäsen, M., Summala, H., Pasanen, E., 1998. The safety effect of sight obstacles and
road-markings at bicycle crossings. Traffic Eng. Control 1998 (February),
98–102.
Sakshaug, L., Laureshyn, A., Svensson, Å., Hydén, C., 2010. Cyclists in
roundabouts—different design solutions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42, 1338–1351.
Schepers, J.P., Voorham, J., 2010. Oversteekongevallen met Fietsers (Crossing
Fig. 4. Traffic sign with flashing lights to warn drivers for approaching cyclists. Accidents with Cyclists). Delft, Rijkswaterstaat.
Schepers, J.P., Kroeze, P.A., Sweers, W., Wust, J.C., 2011. Road factors and
bicycle-motor vehicle crashes at unsignalized priority intersections. Accid.
University of Groningen tested the traffic sign depicted in Fig. 4 Anal. Prev. 43, 853–861.
which has flashing lights to warn for approaching cyclists. Visual Schepers, J.P., Heinen, E., Methorst, R., Wegman, F.C.M., 2013. Road safety and
bicycle usage impacts of unbundling vehicular and cycle traffic in Dutch urban
search behaviour improved in that drivers from a minor road more networks. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 13, 221–238.
often scanned for cyclists from the right, but it was only a small Schepers, J.P., Hagenzieker, M.P., Methorst, R., Van Wee, G.P., Wegman, F., 2014. A
scale test with indicative results (Van Haeften, 2010). In addition conceptual framework for road safety and mobility applied to cycling safety.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 62, 331–340.
to LED-lights on the traffic sign, there are other solutions to add Schepers, P., Twisk, D., Fishman, E., Fyhri, A., Jensen, A., 2015. The Dutch road to a
LED-lights on the surface along the crossing. Both kinds of flashing high level of cycling safety. Saf. Sci., in press.
lights are turned on after an approaching pedestrian or cyclist is Schepers, J.P., 2010. Fiets-Fietsongevallen (Bicycle-Bicycle crashes). Delft,
Rijkswaterstaat.
detected (Sysconnect, 2016). Statistics Netherlands, 2015. Statline.
Summala, H., Pasanen, E., Räsänen, M., Sievänen, J., 1996. Bicycle accidents and
drivers’ visual search at left and right turns. Accid. Anal. Prev. 28, 147–153.
7. Conclusion
Summala, H., 1988. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of
driver behaviour and its implications. Ergonomics 31, 491–506.
Bicycle-motor vehicle crashes are more likely on bidirectional Sysconnect, 2016. Interactieve oversteekplaats verbetert de veiligheid (Interactive
cycle paths than on unidirectional cycle paths. In this paper we dis- Crossing Improves Safety). Downloaded 6.3.2016 from http://www.
sysconnect.nl/interactieve-dynamische-oversteekplaats-zebrapad.html.
cuss the hypothesis that opening all unidirectional cycle paths for Van Boggelen, O., Schepers, J.P., Kroeze, P.A., Van der Voet, M., 2011.
cycle traffic in both directions would solve this problem because Fietsberaadpublicatie 19: Samen Werken aan een Veilige Fietsomgeving
drivers get used to cyclists riding at the left side of the road. Based (Collaborating to Improve Cycling Safety). Fietsberaad, Utrecht.
Van Haeften, M., 2010. Het Kijkgedrag van Automobilisten en Fietsers bij
on an exploration of available research, data and theories, we reject Kruispunten met een Tweerichtingsfietspad (Viewing Behaviour of Drivers and
the hypothesis. Bidirectional cycle paths are far more risky than Cyclists at Intersections with a Two-Way Cycle Track). University of
unidirectional cycle paths. A uniform application of bidirectional Groningen, Groningen.
Van Minnen, J., Braimaister, L., 1994. De Voorrangsregeling voor Fietsers op
cycle paths would probably cause new risks due to sight obstruc- Rotondes met Fietspaden (The Priority Rule for Cyclists at Roundabouts with
tions at intersections and a lack of space to construct sufficiently Cycle Paths). SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam.
wide paths. Van der Voet-Kurbatsch, M., 2014. Ervaringen met Speed-pedelcs in Duitsland
(Experiences with Speed-Pedecs in Germany). In: Schepers, P., Van der
Voet-Kurbatsch, M. Effecten van mogelijke gedragsregels voor speed-pedelecs.
Acknowledgement Rijkswaterstaat.
Vandenbulcke, G., Thomas, I., Panis, L.I., 2014. Predicting cycling accident risk in
Brussels: a spatial case–control approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 62, 341–357.
This work was supported by Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure Wachtel, A., Lewiston, D., 1994. Risk factors for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions at
and the Environment. intersections. ITE J. 64, 30–35.
R. Methorst et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 105 (2017) 38–43 43
Wijlhuizen, G.J., Dijkstra, A., Bos, N.M., Goldenbeld, C., Stipdonk, H.L., 2013. Zeegers, T., Kamminga, J., 2014. Een Inventarisatie van het Voorkomen van
Educated Guess About the Consequences for Casualties as a Result of Tweerichtingsfietspaden in Nederland (An Inventory of Bidirectional Cycle
Introduction of the Measure Light Moped in the Carriageway (SOR) in Paths in the Netherlands). Fietsersbond, Utrecht.
Amsterdam; A First Estimate of the Effects Related to Road Safety. SWOV
Institute for Road Safety Research, The Hague.