Reducing Collisions Involving Bicycles

An advance stop line (or bicycle box) is a right-angle extension to a bike lane at the head of a signalized intersection (Exhibit V-17). It is basically a bicycle reservoir located between the motor vehicle stop line and the pedestrian crosswalk. The box allows bicyclists to get to the head of the traffic queue on a red traffic signal indication and proceed first when the signal indication changes to green. The primary purpose of a bicycle box is to improve the visibility of bicyclists at intersections and to enable bicyclists to correctly position themselves for turning movements during the red signal phase by allowing them to proceed to the front of the queue. The primary advantages of such a treatment include the following (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002; Hunter, 2000b):

• Increasing the visibility of bicyclists by allowing them to move to the front of the queue where they are in full view of motorists on all sides of the intersection
• Enabling bicyclists to maneuver to the correct position for turning movements during the red signal phase
• Not significantly increasing delay to motor vehicle traffic
• Reducing conflicts between turning bicycles and motor vehicles by clearly delineating locations for movements to occur
• Providing a buffer between motor vehicle traffic and pedestrian crosswalk

The combined bicycle lane/right-turn lane is a standard width bicycle lane that is installed on the left side of a dedicated right-turn lane. A dashed pavement marking divides the bicycle portion and the right-turn portion of the lane. Exhibit V-18 shows the utilization of this combined lane by both modes of traffic. The purpose of the combined lane is to encourage bicyclists to use the left side of the dedicated right-turn lane where there is not enough space to mark a minimum standard bike lane to the left of the right-turn lane. Several advantages of this treatment include the following (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002; Hunter, 2000a):

• Guiding bicyclists to the correct position at intersections with a dedicated right-turn lane
• Encouraging motorists to yield to bicyclists when crossing into the narrow right-turn lane
• Requiring motorists to slow down more to make their turn

Colored bicycle lanes are short sections of the bicycle lane that are painted in high conflict zones (e.g., where motorists are permitted or required to merge into or cross the bicycle lane). Exhibit V-19 illustrates the use of blue pavement markings at intersections with channelized right-turn lanes. Several advantages of this type of treatment include (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002; Hunter et al., 2000):

• Improving visibility of bicycle lane at key locations
• Warning bicyclists and motorists of especially hazardous areas

Pavement guide lines at signalized intersections can also be used to facilitate the movement of left-turning bicyclists (Exhibit V-20).

EXHIBIT V-14
Bike Lanes Approaching Right-Turn-Only Lanes (AASHTO, 1999)

EXHIBIT V-15 Example of Bicycle Lane Treatment at a Right-Turn-Only Lane (USDOT, 2003)

EXHIBIT V-16 Example of Bicycle Lane Treatment at a Parking Lane into a Right-Turn-Only Lane (USDOT, 2003)

EXHIBIT V-17 Bicycle Box (http://www.hcaog.net/RBT.2004/AppendixB.htm)

EXHIBIT V-18 Combined Bicycle Lane and Right-Turn Lane (http://www.hcaog.net/RBT.2004/AppendixB.htm)

EXHIBIT V-19
Colored Pavement Markings at Intersections with Channelized Right-Turn Lanes (San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic, 2003)

a. At entrance to channelized right-turn roadway

b. At exit of channelized right-turn roadway

EXHIBIT V-20
Guide Lines through Signalized Intersections (Williams et al., 1998)

EXHIBIT V-21
Strategy Attributes for Improving Pavement Markings at Intersections (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Target	In general, this strategy is intended to indicate the separation of lanes for road users, assist the bicyclist by indicating assigned travel paths, and provide advance information for turning and crossing maneuvers. The bicycle box is intended for use at intersections with high motor vehicle and bicycle volumes, frequent turning conflicts, and a high percentage of turning movements by both bicyclists and motorists (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002). The combined bicycle lane/right-turn lane is intended for use at intersections where there is not enough space to implement a standard width bicycle lane and a standard width dedicated right-turn lane. Preferably, this treatment is installed at intersections with slow vehicle speeds and low heavy vehicle volumes (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002). Colored bicycle lanes are intended for use at hazardous intersections, especially where motorists fail to yield the right of way to bicyclists (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002), or at nonconventional intersections with atypical movements by bicyclists relative to motorists.
Expected Effectiveness	No accident studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety effectiveness of marking bicycle lanes at intersections or of the three innovative pavement marking treatments discussed above. However, several safety studies have been performed which looked at surrogate safety measures to evaluate these treatments, and these evaluations are summarized below. Hunter et al. (1999) compared the safety for bicyclists between marked bicycle lanes and wide curb lanes. Among other things, Hunter et al. found that left turns can present a problem for bicyclists at intersections and were made in a variety of ways. Proportionally, more bicyclists at intersections with wide curb lanes made motor vehiclestyle left turns with improper lane destination positioning compared to intersections with marked bicycle lanes. In addition, statistical modeling of conflict data showed lower conflict rates for straight through and right-turning bicycles at intersections where the bicycle lane stripe continued all the way to the intersection and the wide curb lane was not narrowed at the intersection. This is a reasonable finding in that bicyclists would have more space in these configurations. Hunter (2000b) evaluated the installation of a bicycle box at a busy downtown intersection featuring two one-way streets in Eugene, Oregon. The major findings of this evaluation are as follows: The use of the box was reasonably good. Bicyclists utilized the box in several ways. There was a problem with motor vehicle encroachments into the box. In 52 percent of the red traffic signal indications, motor vehicles encroached into the box. The bicycle box had no effect on signal violations by bicyclists. Approximately 6 to 7 percent of bicyclists violated the red signal indication both before and after installation of the box. The rate of conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles changed little from before to after installation of the box. However, the pattern of conflicts changed, and no conflicts took place when the bicycle box was used as intended. Hunter (2000a) compared the behaviors of bicyclists and motorists at two intersections in Eugene, Oregon. One intersection had a combined bicycle lane/right-turn lane, and the other intersection had a standard width right-turn lane and accompanying bicycle lane (pocket) to the left of the right-turn lane. The major findings from this study included: More than 17 percent of surveyed bicyclists using the combined lane felt it was safer than the comparison location, and another 55 percent felt that the combined lane was no different safety-wise than the comparison location. It was quite easy for bicyclists in the combined lane to ride up to the intersection and position themselves beside passenger cars and light trucks. On a few occasions, bicyclists were forced into the adjacent traffic lane, usually the result of a heavy truck taking extra space. Sometimes bicyclists would shift to the right turn portion of the combined lane if a heavy vehicle was in the through lane. Right turns on red by motor vehicles were rarely prevented when bicyclists were present at the front of the queue in the combined lane. No conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles, other bicyclists, or pedestrians took place at either intersection. Hunter et al. (2000) studied the use of blue pavement markings and associated signing to delineate 10 conflict areas in Portland, Oregon. All ten sites had a high level of bicycle and motor vehicle interaction, and both bicyclists and motorists had expressed safety concerns to the city of Portland about each of the locations. The major findings of this study are as follows: The findings tend to point to safer conditions for bicyclists as a result of using blue pavement and the associated signing to define conflict areas between bicycles and motor vehicles. The percentage of bicyclists following the recommended marked path through the conflict area increased in the after period. The percentage of motorists yielding to bicyclists increased in the after period. A concern is that this treatment creates a false sense of security in bicyclists evidenced by the fact that significantly fewer bicyclists turned their heads to the rear to scan for approaching motor vehicles after the blue pavement was in place, and significantly fewer bicyclists used hand signals to indicate their movement through the conflict area, although the percentage using a hand signal was not high in the before period. With regard to conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles, the conflict rate per 100 entering bicyclists decreased from 0.95 in the before period to 0.59 in the after period. Surveyed bicyclists riding through the marked conflict zones indicated that (a) the colored surfaces were no more slippery than before, (b) motorists were yielding to bicyclists more than before, and (c) the locations with blue pavement were safer than before. Motorists thought the locations were safer with the colored pavement markings in place and that the markings increased motorist awareness of the conflict areas.
Keys to Success	The primary key to success of marking bicycle lanes at intersections is consistency. Several optional treatments are identified for marking bicycle lanes at intersections. Agencies should select a preferred treatment and use it throughout their jurisdiction. Another key to safe operations for bicyclists through marked bicycle lanes at intersections is minimizing the number of illegally parked motor vehicles in the bicycle lane. This may require additional signing and enforcement. There are several keys to success associated with the bicycle box. It is suggested that the bicycle box be about 4.0 to 5.0 m (13.0 to 16.5 ft) deep. If it is shallower, bicyclists tend to feel intimidated by the motor vehicles, and if it is deeper, motorists tend to encroach. To increase its effectiveness, bold demarcation of the box is vital. This could be achieved with a bicycle stencil placed in the box and perhaps painting the box a contrasting surface color. Instructional signs and possibly separate bicycle signals can be installed in conjunction with the bicycle box. Finally, steps should be taken to limit motor vehicle encroachment. This could be achieved by setting the stop bars back a short distance from the box, and by increasing police presence at the intersection to issue warnings and ticket violations (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002; Hunter, 2000b). Providing related signs is important to the success of combined bicycle lane/right-turn lanes and colored pavement treatments. Exhibit V-22 suggests signing for combined lanes, and Exhibit V-23 illustrates unique signs installed in Portland which show the blue markings and yield signs for motorists. Finally, because several of these treatments have not been implemented on a larger scale, it would be useful to educate both bicyclists and motorists as to their intended purpose and use. This could be accomplished through newspaper articles, radio or television service announcements, and printed brochures. EXHIBIT V-22 Signing Associated with Combined Lane (adapted from Hunter, 2000a)
Potential Difficulties	Potential difficulties or disadvantages associated with the bicycle box include (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002): Decreased effectiveness during the green signal phase Motorists encroaching into the box Increased hazards to bicyclists when right turn on red maneuvers by motorists are permitted since the approach bicycle lane leads up to the front of the intersection In addition, it may be difficult to install bicycle boxes at intersections with offset left-turn lanes. Potential difficulties or disadvantages associated with the combined bicycle lane/right-turn lane include (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002): Forcing bicyclists into the adjacent through lane when heavy vehicles are turning right Bicyclists shifting to the right turn portion of the combined lane if a heavy vehicle is in the through lane Decreased effectiveness where a right turn island is required EXHIBIT V-23 Signing Associated with Combined Lane (Hunter et al., 2000) Potential difficulties or disadvantages associated with the colored pavement treatments include (Nabti and Ridgway, 2002): The colored markings may confuse bicyclists (especially when making right turns at right-turn lanes) The colored markings may confuse disabled road users State or local traffic laws may not permit the use of this treatment In addition, colored pavement markings may reduce skid resistance. Finally, because several of these treatments are relatively new and not widely used, drivers unfamiliar with them may be confused or uncertain about the intended purpose of the markings.
Appropriate Measures and Data	A key process measure is the number of intersections where pavement markings have been improved. Crash frequency and severity, by type, are key safety effectiveness measures. Crash frequency and severity data are needed. Bicycle and motor vehicle volume data are needed to represent exposure.
Associated Needs	Because several of these treatments are relatively new and not widely used, it may be beneficial to develop a PI&E program to educate both bicyclists and motorists of their intended purpose and use. Because several of these pavement marking treatments have not been approved by FHWA for incorporation into the MUTCD, agencies would need to develop their own standards for these pavement treatments. In addition, agencies may desire to develop related signing to install in conjunction with the pavement marking treatments. Because some of these markings are not an accepted traffic control device in the MUTCD, an agency should follow the provisions outlined in Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD for design, application, and placement of traffic control devices that are not adopted in the most recent edition of the MUTCD. Agencies will need to decide on an appropriate color to mark bicycle lanes under their jurisdiction. Different colors have been used for bicycle lanes. Red, blue, yellow, and green have been used in several European countries. Blue was used in Portland, Oregon, namely because (a) yellow, green, and red have meanings that conflict with the intended purpose of the markings, (b) color-blind individuals are often more able to differentiate blue than other colors, and (c) blue tends to stand out in low visibility conditions such as rain, fog, and nighttime. Precedence for blue has been established by the city of Portland.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional and Policy Issues	Agencies may need to adopt these pavement marking treatments and the associated signing as an acceptable traffic control device in their jurisdiction.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	This strategy does not require a long development process. Installation of pavement markings can typically be implemented in 3 months or less. Adoption as an acceptable traffic control device may require a longer time period.
Costs Involved	Costs are dependent upon the materials (e.g., paint or thermoplastic) and whether associated signage is necessary. In the case of a bicycle box, new signal heads may be desirable which are costly. Maintenance costs are expected to increase, especially for the colored bicycle lane treatment. Appendix 5 provides details related to costs of colored bicycle lanes.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Training regarding use of this strategy should be provided in highway agency courses covering the use of traffic control devices.
Legislative Needs	Several of these pavement marking treatments have not been approved by FHWA for incorporation into the MUTCD. Therefore, legislation may need to be introduced and/or local traffic laws may need to be modified to permit their use. Along the same lines, laws may be required to allow bicycles in right-turn lanes.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing this Strategy

For additional details on improving pavement markings at intersections, the reader is referred to the following studies that are available on the internet:

• A Comparative Analysis of Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Final Report, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/99034/99034.pdf (Hunter et al., 1999)
• Evaluation of an Innovative Application of the Bike Box, http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/r&d/bikebox.pdf (Hunter, 2000b)
• Evaluation of a Combined Lane/Right-Turn Lane in Eugene, Oregon, http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/r&d/blue_box_combined.pdf (Hunter, 2000a)
• Evaluation of the Blue Bike Lane Treatment Used in Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Conflict Areas in Portland, Oregon, http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/r&d/bluelane.pdf (Hunter et al., 2000)

Appendix F provides contact information for individuals if additional details are desired.

Strategy A5: Improve Intersection Geometry (T)

There are several ways to modify the geometry of an intersection to improve bicycle safety, including:

• Reducing the crossing distance for bicyclists
• Realigning intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew
• Modifying the geometry to facilitate bicycle movement at interchange on-ramps and off-ramps
• Providing refuge islands and raised medians

These geometric improvements are addressed below.

It may be reasoned that as crossing distances increase at an intersection, a bicyclist´s exposure to motor vehicle traffic increases, particularly at unsignalized intersections, increasing the potential for a bicycle/motor vehicle crash. Thus, by reducing the crossing distance across an intersection, the safety of bicyclists should be improved. Crossing distances can be reduced by narrowing the lane widths. This can be accomplished either through restriping the pavement markings or by reconstructing the intersection such that the physical distance between curbs is narrower. Curb extensions, a form of traffic calming, may also be used to shorten crossing distances. Reducing the crossing distance or narrowing the lane widths may also result in reduced vehicular speeds, which is a safety benefit to bicyclists. To minimize the crossing distance for bicyclists at single-point urban interchanges (SPUIs), SPUIs should be designed to be as compact as possible.

When roadways intersect at skewed angles, bicyclists and motorists may experience one or more of the following problems at the intersection:

• Bicyclists and motorists may have a longer distance to traverse while crossing or turning onto the intersecting roadway, resulting in an increased time of exposure to the crossstreet traffic.
• Older drivers may find it more difficult to turn their head, neck, or upper body for an adequate line of sight down an acute-angle approach.
• The driver´s sight angle for convenient observation of opposing traffic and bicycle crossings is decreased.
• Bicyclists and drivers may have more difficulty aligning their bicycles or motor vehicles as they enter the cross street to make a right or left turn.
• Drivers making right turns around an acute-angle radius may encroach on lanes intended for oncoming traffic from the right.
• The larger intersection area may confuse bicyclists and drivers or cause them to deviate from their intended path.
• Bicyclists and drivers making left turns across an obtuse angle may attempt to maintain a higher than normal turning speed and cut across the oncoming traffic lane on the intersecting street.
• Motor vehicles may obstruct the line of sight of drivers with an acute-angle approach to their right.

Realignment of intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew may be desirable to improve safety for all road users (i.e., bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians) at a skewed intersection (Exhibit V-24). This type of geometric improvement is related to Strategy 17.1 B16—Realign Intersection Approaches to Reduce or Eliminate Intersection Skew in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 5: Guide for Addressing Unsignalized Intersection Collisions and Strategy 17.2 B4—Revise Geometry of Complex Intersections in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 12: Guide for Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections.

Roadways at interchange areas often require bicyclists to perform merging, weaving, or crossing maneuvers with ramp vehicles. These conflict points are hazardous to bicyclists because there is often a wide disparity in speed between the motor vehicle traffic and bicyclists. Exhibits V-25 through V-27 provide guidance for delineating bicycle lanes through interchange areas. The AASHTO Bicycle Guide (1999) presents two treatments (Exhibit V-25) related to the design of bicycle lanes at interchange exit ramps. Option 1 redirects the bicycle lane towards the channelized roadway, intersecting at a 90-degree angle. Bicyclists are to yield to the motor vehicle traffic on the channelized roadway before crossing. In Option 2, striping of the bicycle lane is discontinued to indicate to bicyclists that they must merge with entering traffic from the channelized roadway (i.e., the exit ramp). Exhibit V-26 presents an optional treatment for marking bicycle lanes near interchange entrance ramps (WSDOT, 2001). In Option 1, the bicycle lane continues along the right side of the entrance roadway, and then bicyclists cross at 90 degrees at a designated location along the channelized roadway to return to the bicycle lane. This treatment may be preferable to bicyclists who prefer to use crosswalks to negotiate intersections. In Option 2, striping of the bicycle lane is discontinued to indicate to bicyclists that they must weave through traffic entering the channelized roadway (i.e., the entrance ramp). Exhibit V-27 presents another optional treatment for marking bicycle lanes near interchange entrance ramps, and in this option the bicycle lane is separated from the roadway for a short distance along the channelized roadway in order to loop around and intersect the channelized roadway close to a 90 degree angle (Oregon DOT, 1995).

EXHIBIT V-24 Skewed Intersection Realigned to a Right Angle (Oregon DOT, 1995)

EXHIBIT V-25 Bicycle Lanes Crossing Interchange Exit Ramps (AASHTO, 1999)

Raised refuge islands or medians at intersections provide another strategy to reduce exposure between bicycles and motor vehicles. Raised refuge islands and medians provide bicyclists a more secure place of refuge during the street crossing. This simplifies the crossing maneuver by allowing bicyclists to focus and cross one direction of traffic at a time. The minimum width of a median refuge should be 2.4 m (8 ft) for storage purposes. When a large number of bicyclists are anticipated, a storage space of 3.0 m (10 ft) or more is preferred. This strategy is related to Strategy 9.1 A3—Construct Pedestrian Refuge Islands and Raised Medians in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 10: Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians.

EXHIBIT V-26
Bicycle Crossing of Interchange Entrance Ramp (adapted from Washington State DOT, 2001)

AASHTO (1999) recommends that refuge islands be considered for use at the intersection of a shared use path and a roadway if one or more of the following apply:

• High volumes of vehicular traffic and/or speeds create unacceptable conditions for bicyclists.
• Roadway width is excessive given the available crossing time.
• Crossing will be used by a number of people who cross more slowly (i.e., elderly, children, and persons with disabilities).

EXHIBIT V-27
Bicycle Crossing of Interchange Entrance Ramp where a Bicycle Lane Becomes a Separated Path (Oregon DOT, 1995)

Exhibit V-28 provides example specifications for a refuge area at a path/roadway intersection.

EXHIBIT V-28
Specifications for a Refuge Island at a Path/Roadway Intersection (AASHTO, 1999)

EXHIBIT V-29
Strategy Attributes for Improving the Geometry (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Target	When bicycle safety concerns cannot be sufficiently addressed through traffic control (i.e., signing and pavement markings), modifications to the geometrics should be considered.
Expected Effectiveness	No accident studies have been performed that prove reducing the crossing distance at an intersection is a safety benefit for bicyclists. However, based upon exposure time, it is reasonable to expect that such a treatment improves bicycle safety, and research by Landis et al. (2003) on intersection level of service for bicyclists indicates that bicyclists feel safer crossing shorter distances. Concerning the expected safety benefits of realigning the roadway, a group of experts concluded from a review of the literature that realigning intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew improves motor vehicle safety at unsignalized intersections along two-lane rural highways (Harwood et al., 2000). Skew angle is less of a safety concern at signalized intersections since the traffic signal separates most movements from conflicting approaches. The expert panel concluded the safety effectiveness of realignment is as follows for total motor vehicle crashes:   AMF = exp (0.0040 SKEW) For three-legged intersections and   AMF = exp (0.0054 SKEW) For four-legged intersections where:   AMF = Accident modification factor SKEW = Intersection skew angle (degrees), expressed as the absolute value of the difference between 90 degrees and the actual intersection angle. Multiplying the AMF by the proportion of bicycle/motor vehicle accidents at an intersection would give an indication of the expected number of bicycle/motor vehicle accidents that would be reduced due to this treatment. Interchange areas are high conflict locations for bicyclists because of the merging and weaving that occurs with motor vehicle traffic. No accident studies have been conducted on the safety benefits of modifying the geometrics near on- and off-ramps for bicyclists. Uniformly applying the optional treatments would increase both driver and bicyclist expectancy, which in turn is expected to improve bicycle safety. Although no accident studies have investigated the safety effectiveness of raised medians on bicycle safety, raised medians have provided significantly lower pedestrian crash rates on multi-lane roads, compared to roads with no raised median (Zegeer et al., 2002). It is reasonable to expect that raised medians would also benefit bicyclists at path/highway crossings. Raised refuge islands can also serve to calm traffic (i.e., reduce motor vehicle speeds), which is beneficial for bicyclists.
Keys to Success	The key to successfully applying this strategy is to identify candidate locations at which crash patterns exist that may be remedied by one of these various geometric improvements. Some of the optional treatments for improving bicycle safety near interchange areas have the bicyclist taking a path that is not necessarily the shortest distance through the interchange area for the bicyclist. A key to successful implementation is not to significantly increase the travel distance for bicyclists. Raised refuge islands should be considered where there are a limited number of gaps in the traffic stream and at intersections with long crossing distances. For example, AASHTO (2004) recommends that a refuge island be considered when the crossing distance exceeds 18 m (60 ft). Holding rails can also be installed so bicyclists do not have to put their feet down, thus making it quicker to start again. Finally, crossing islands must be visible to the motorist. This can be accomplished either with lighting (or illumination) or through retroreflective signs, pavement markings, or other materials (e.g., retroreflective tape can be installed along hand rails located within the median island to improve visibility).
Potential Difficulties	Several potential difficulties related to reducing the crossing distance for bicyclists are that it could negatively impact the level of service of the intersection and depending upon how the reduced crossing distance is achieved, it may decrease the separation distance between motor vehicles and between motor vehicles and bicyclists, which could negatively impact safety. When realigning a skewed intersection approach, it is possible to create such a sharp horizontal curve that the curve itself becomes a safety concern. Thus, the designer should be careful to avoid trading one safety concern for another. Realignment may also negatively affect adjacent properties. Because some of the optional treatments for improving bicycle safety near interchange areas are not necessarily the shortest distance through the interchange area for the bicyclist, some bicyclists may deviate from the bicycle facility. If it is not designed properly, a refuge island near an intersection could potentially be hazardous for all road users (i.e., bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists). Thus, the designer should be careful to avoid trading one safety concern for another. Exhibit V-28 provides general specifications for a refuge island.
Appropriate Measures and Data	A key process measure is the number of intersections where geometric improvements were implemented to improve bicycle safety. Crash frequency and severity, by type, are key safety effectiveness measures. Separate analysis of crashes targeted by the improvement is desirable. The analysis should also investigate bicycle/motor vehicle crashes and strictly vehicular crashes separately. Crash frequency and severity data are needed. Both bicycle and traffic volume data are needed to represent exposure. Crash location data is also important, particularly in interchange areas.
Associated Needs	None identified.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional and Policy Issues	Highway agencies should ensure that their design policies for new or reconstructed intersections incorporate these geometric considerations for bicyclists. Guidance should be provided on where one or more of these geometric considerations are appropriate.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	Most of the options for modifying the geometry of an intersection to improve bicycle safety can be implemented in a relatively short time frame (i.e., 1 to 2 years). The exception is realignment of skewed intersections, which could potentially take as long as 4 years. At least 1 year is necessary to work out the details of intersection approach realignment and to communicate the plan to affected businesses and residents. Where relocation requires right-of-way acquisition or demolition of existing structures, an extensive project development process up to 4 years long may be required.
Costs Involved	The costs for this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the design. Reducing the crossing distance can be accomplished either through restriping the pavement markings or by reconstructing the intersection such that the physical distance between curbs is narrower. Obviously, restriping costs are minimal compared to the intersection reconstruction costs. Reducing or eliminating the skew angle of an intersection involves the realignment of at least one intersection approach. The cost of this type of construction project is usually high. Furthermore, additional right-of-way will generally need to be acquired. Costs for improvement to interchange areas should be relatively minimal, unless a separated path is provided. Costs for additional signing and pavement markings could be incurred. Costs for refuge islands and raised medians vary depending upon the design, site conditions, and the use of landscaping. Appendix 9 in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 10: Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians provides typical cost estimates.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	None identified.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Strategy A6: Restrict Right Turn on Red (RTOR) Movements (E)

Throughout the United States motorists are permitted to make a right turn on red (RTOR) movement unless prohibited by a posted traffic sign. The only exception to this rule is within New York City, where RTOR is generally prohibited unless otherwise permitted at specific locations by posted traffic signs. State RTOR laws generally require that drivers come to a complete stop and yield to approaching traffic before making a RTOR maneuver. The national policy permitting RTOR was instituted primarily to reduce fuel consumption following the energy crisis of 1973. Additional benefits of the RTOR policy include reduced vehicle delays and tailpipe emissions (Retting et al., 2002).

Following the adoption of the national RTOR policy, significant increases in bicycle crashes at signalized intersections were reported (Preusser et al., 1982; Zador, 1984). The effects were more pronounced in urban and suburban areas than in rural areas that have fewer signalized intersections (Preusser et al., 1982). Preusser et al. (1982) also reported that in most cases bicyclists were approaching from the driver´s right side and drivers frequently claimed they were looking to the left searching for a gap in traffic and never saw the bicyclists.

The primary purpose of this strategy is not to restrict RTOR at all signalized intersections in an area or local jurisdiction. Rather, the purpose is to restrict RTOR movements at certain signalized intersections throughout the entire day or during portions of the day (e.g., during periods of peak bicycle activity). At signalized intersections with a history of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes resulting from RTOR movements, an analysis of the time of day of the crashes may provide justification for restricting RTOR movements throughout the entire day or during specified hours of the day.

EXHIBIT V-30
Strategy Attributes for Restricting Right Turn on Red (RTOR) Movements (E)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Target	This strategy is to be implemented at signalized intersections where a significant number of motorists have struck bicyclists while making a RTOR. The prohibition may be scheduled throughout the entire day or during specified hours. This strategy may be especially applicable to intersections located near schools.
Expected Effectiveness	Approximately 3 to 4 percent of all bicycle/motor vehicle crashes occur during a RTOR maneuver, and 6 percent of these crashes result in serious or fatal injuries (Tan, 1996). The expected number of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes that may be reduced by implementing this strategy is difficult to assess because it is an experimental treatment for improving bicycle safety. However, this strategy has been recommended for improving pedestrian safety based upon a field study by Retting et al. (2002). Similar to bicycle crashes, significant increases in pedestrian accidents at signalized intersections have been reported following the adoption of the national RTOR policy. Retting et al. (2002) report that traffic signs prohibiting RTOR during specified hours were very effective at increasing driver compliance with stop lines, reducing the number of drivers turning right on red without stopping, and reducing the number of pedestrians yielding the right-of-way to turning vehicles. It seems reasonable to expect that restricting RTOR movements, even only during specified hours of the day (i.e., during periods of peak bicycle activity), would reduce the likelihood of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes resulting from RTOR movements.
Keys to Success	Keys to success include (a) identifying signalized intersections where bicycle/motor vehicle crashes resulting from RTOR movements have occurred, (b) determining whether the restrictions should be throughout the entire day or only during specified hours of the day (e.g., periods of peak bicycle activity), and (c) consistent enforcement of the restrictions.
Potential Difficulties	Depending upon how this strategy is implemented and whether any potential PI&E programs might be released with this strategy, motorists may become disgruntled at any inconvenience (i.e., increased delay) that they experience if they personally do not view or encounter any bicyclists at the respective intersections during the periods of restricted movement. Enforcing the RTOR restrictions could also be difficult.
Appropriate Measures and Data	Key process measures include the number of signalized intersections where RTOR movements are restricted. Key safety effectiveness measures include (a) the frequency and severity of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes resulting from all right turn movements at signalized intersections, (b) the frequency and severity of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes resulting from RTOR movements at signalized intersections, and (c) the percentage of vehicles that comply with the RTOR restrictions. Exposure data is also critical for measuring safety effectiveness. In particular, bicycle exposure data (i.e., bicycles per hour that enter the respective intersections) during the periods of restricted movement is important, as well as motor vehicle counts (i.e., number of right-turning vehicles per hour and number of RTOR movements per hour). RTOR bicycle problems begin with wrong-way riding so the percentage of bicyclists riding in the wrong direction of travel (i.e., wrong-way riding) is also an important safety measure that should be collected.
Associated Needs	An accident analysis that investigates the time of day of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes that resulted from right-turn movements and RTOR movements may help to establish specific hours for the RTOR restrictions. In the absence of accident data, conflict studies could be performed at intersections to identify where this strategy may be applicable. Bicycle exposure data should also be gathered to determine periods of peak bicycle activity. A PI&E program may be released in part to educate bicyclists about the inherent dangers of wrong-way riding and to educate motorists about the primary purpose for the RTOR restrictions so that they may be more understanding of the RTOR restrictions and comply better with the restrictions.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional and Policy Issues	None Identified
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	This strategy can be implemented in a relatively short timeframe (i.e., 3-6 months). The only issues affecting the implementation time are conducting respective accident analyses/ conflict studies and gathering exposure data (See Associated Needs section). It is assumed that the accident data are readily available in electronic format for analysis. Similarly, if a PI&E program was released in conjunction with this strategy, it could be developed in a short time period.
Costs Involved	Costs for implementing this strategy are relatively minimal. Associated costs would involve performing the accident analysis/conflict study and gathering exposure data. Gathering bicycle exposure data is often labor intensive and could require significant funds, depending upon the amount of data desired. Costs for a PI&E program may also be incurred. Finally, costs for supplying and maintaining the No Turn on Red signs and supplemental plaque (Exhibit V-31) showing the times of day that the restriction is in place will be incurred. EXHIBIT V-31 No Turn on Red Signs and Supplemental Plaques (USDOT, 2003)
Training and Other Personnel Needs	The presence of law enforcement personnel may be required periodically to enforce and encourage higher compliance from motorists. Possibly in conjunction with a PI&E program, law enforcement personnel can also educate bicyclists who may be riding the wrong-way through these intersections on the inherent dangers of wrong-way riding.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Strategy A7: Accommodate Bicyclists through Roundabouts (T)

When used and designed properly, roundabouts have been proven to significantly reduce motor vehicle crashes (Persaud et al., 2001). However, bicyclists do not experience the same safety benefits at roundabouts as motorists, although the results are mixed. Shen et al. (2000) concluded that bicycle accident rates at roundabouts are 15 times those of motor vehicles, and surveys taken from bicyclists indicate that bicyclists find roundabouts significantly more stressful to negotiate than other forms of intersections, particularly on roads with heavy traffic. A Danish accident study conducted on 48 Dutch roundabouts found that 66 percent of all injured users were bicyclists (Jorgensen & Rundkorsler, 1991). Alternatively, a separate 1994 Danish study used a sample of 201 roundabouts and concluded that while they did not benefit as significantly as motor vehicles, bicycles and mopeds experienced a 44 percent reduction in the number of casualties (Schoon and Minnen, 1994). In considering these European studies, it should be noted that compared to the United States, European countries have a proportionately higher number of bicyclists. It should also be noted that smaller, single-lane, low-speed roundabouts are likely safer for bicyclists than larger, multilane roundabouts.

Several recommended approaches for improving bicycle safety at roundabouts include (Robinson et al., 2000):

• Avoid bicycle lanes on the outer edge of the circulatory roadway. A 1992 German study focusing on bicycle safety at urban intersections found that including bike lanes or crosswalks on the outside of a “circular intersection” actually created more safety risk in an already dangerous environment than when bicycles simply shared the roadway with motor vehicles. It should be noted, however, that the intersections studied did lack some of the safety attributes of modern roundabouts (Schnull et al., 1992). Even when bicycle lanes are provided on the outside edge of a roundabout, preliminary results of a Danish study suggest that 60 percent of bicyclists do not even use the bicycle lane (Herrstedt et al., 1993). It should be noted that the MUTCD states that bicycle lanes shall not be provided on the circular roadway of a roundabout intersection.
• On single lane roundabouts where vehicular traffic volumes are low and operating speeds are lower, allow bicyclists to mix with vehicular traffic without any separate facility outside the circulatory roadway.
• Speed is a fundamental risk factor in the safety of bicyclists. Design treatments that slow traffic such as tightening entry curvature and entry width, and radial alignment of the legs of a roundabout should improve bicycle safety. The necessity of a safe entry is illustrated by a 1986 study that found 86 percent of collisions involving bicycles and motor vehicles occurred between circulating bicyclists and motor vehicles entering the roundabout (Layfield and Maycock, 1986). Robinson et al. (2000) indicate that commuter bicyclist speeds can range from 19 to 24 km/h (12 to 15 mph) and designs that constrain the speeds of motor vehicles to similar values will minimize the relative speeds and improve safety.

EXHIBIT V-32
Strategy Attributes for Accommodating Bicyclists through Roundabouts (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Target	This strategy should be considered at all roundabouts where bicyclists may be expected.
Expected Effectiveness	The use of modern day roundabouts is still in its infancy in the United States. As a result, the few safety evaluations of these facilities that have been conducted have focused on the safety impacts to motor vehicles, and for the most part, the negative impacts that roundabouts have on bicyclists have been identified but not studied. Thus, no accident studies have been conducted that estimate the safety benefit to bicyclists of implementing the recommended approaches to improving bicycle safety at roundabouts. However, these recommended approaches are in European policies where roundabouts have a longer history of use so it is reasonable to expect that implementing these recommended approaches will improve bicycle safety at roundabouts in the United States.
Keys to Success	Because roundabouts are still a relatively new intersection treatment in the United States, new roundabouts are being constructed around the country. The key to success is to design these new roundabouts to accommodate bicyclists initially, rather than to modify the design at a later date to accommodate bicycle travel. Also, all traffic control devices should be in compliance with the MUTCD.
Potential Difficulties	It is difficult to ignore the safety benefits to motor vehicles that have been reported in the various safety evaluations. Persaud et al. (2001) reported reductions of 40 percent for all crash severities combined and 80 percent for all injury crashes, and reductions in the numbers of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes were estimated to be about 90 percent. Agencies may be willing to overlook the safety disbenefits to bicyclists in exchange for the safety benefits to motorists.
Appropriate Measures and Data	A key process measure is the number of roundabouts under the jurisdiction of the highway agency. Crash frequency and severity, by type, are key safety effectiveness measures, and location data are important to diagnosis a safety problem (e.g., did the crash occur on the approach to the roundabout, at the entry, or within the circulatory roadway). Crash frequency and severity data are needed. Bicycle and motor vehicle volume data are needed to represent exposure. Speed is also a fundamental risk factor in the safety of bicyclists, especially at roundabouts, so it is an important safety measure to collect vehicular speed data on approach and entry, as well as within the circulatory roadway.
Associated Needs	None identified.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional and Policy Issues	Related to the potential difficulties, highway agencies should establish a policy to consider bicyclists during the design of every roundabout.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	Because roundabouts are currently being constructed, these recommended approaches to improving bicycle safety at roundabouts could be considered during the design process and should have minimal impact on completing the final design of a roundabout.
Costs Involved	Costs for accommodating bicyclists at roundabouts are minimal in most cases.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Training regarding use of this strategy should be provided in highway agency courses covering the use and design of roundabouts.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Strategy A8: Provide an Overpass or Underpass (T)

At path/roadway intersections, an overpass or underpass allows for uninterrupted flow for bicyclists and completely eliminates exposure to vehicular traffic. These gradeseparated crossings can improve safety and are desirable at some locations. However, because grade-separated crossings can be quite expensive, may be considered unattractive, may become sites of crime or vandalism, and may even decrease safety if not appropriately located and designed, these types of facilities are primarily used as measures of last resort (AASHTO, 2004; Zegeer et al., 2004). The AASHTO Bicycle Guide (1999) provides guidance on the design of overpasses and underpasses. This strategy is related to Strategy 9.1 A5— Install Overpasses/Underpasses in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 10: Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians.

EXHIBIT V-33
Strategy Attributes for Providing an Overpass or Underpass (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Target	This strategy primarily focuses on path/roadway intersections, particularly at intersections of freeways or other high-speed, high-volume arterial streets.
Expected Effectiveness	The effectiveness of this strategy depends largely upon the likelihood that bicyclists will utilize the facility to cross the street, which is determined largely by convenience. If the grade-separated crossing is placed within a reasonable distance of the desired route/path of the bicyclists, it will likely be highly utilized. If bicyclists have to go out of their way to access the grade-separated crossing, it will be underutilized. One agency suggests that an overpass or underpass should be at least 600 ft from the nearest alternative “safe” crossing (Edwards and Kelcey, 2002). A safe crossing is defined as a location where a traffic control device stops vehicles to create adequate gaps to cross.
Keys to Success	One key to success is establishing a policy that may be used to determine the need for a grade-separated crossing. For example, Exhibit V-34 illustrates guidelines established by the Minnesota DOT to help determine the need for grade-separated crossings. Several other factors that should be considered in determining the need for grade separation include (Minnesota DOT, 1996): Traffic volume and traffic mix Motor vehicle operating speeds Number of lanes to be crossed (i.e., crossing distance) Sight distance Design bicyclist Approach grade Destinations Design of turning movements Primary path function Approaching path design Impact of bicycle traffic on vehicular traffic EXHIBIT V-34 Choice of Intersection Type (Minnesota DOT, 1996) Another key to success of grade-separated crossings is they must be well-designed. Several attributes of well-designed grade-separated crossings include (AASHTO, 2004): The facility is located where it is needed and will actually be used. Crossing structures are built with adequate widths. The design is accessible for all users (i.e., meets ADA requirements). Barriers/railings are provided to add an increased sense of safety. The facility is well-lit to provide an increased level of security.
Potential Difficulties	Potential difficulties include ensuring that bicyclists will utilize the facility. Also nearby residents may find the structure “ugly” and may complain about loss of privacy (Zegeer et al., 2004). Grade-separated structures often require a considerable amount of right of way. Underpasses can have drainage and associated debris problems if not properly designed and maintained. Crime, vandalism, and graffiti can also cause problems.
Appropriate Measures and Data	A key process measure is the number of grade-separated crossings at path/roadway intersections. Crash frequency and severity, by type, are key safety effectiveness measures. Gradeseparated crossings can be used by all shared use path users (i.e., bicyclists, pedestrians, in-line skaters, etc). Accident analysis should include all types of trail users. Crash frequency and severity data are needed. Both bicycle and traffic volume data are needed to represent exposure. The impact on traffic operations (i.e., level of service of the crossing) should also be evaluated. A final measure is the percentage of bicyclists (and other shared path users) who use the facility compared to those that cross at street level.
Associated Needs	Grade-separated crossings must meet ADA requirements. Grade-separated crossings should also be able to accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional and Policy Issues	Agencies should establish a policy that may be used to determine the need for a grade-separated crossing.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	Finding adequate funds to construct an overpass or an underpass may impact implementation time. Acquisition of additional right of way may be required which could significantly impact the implementation time, and significant time will be required to design the structure.
Costs Involved	The cost for an overpass or underpass can range from $500,000 to $4 million, depending on the site characteristics and right of way acquisition required (Zegeer et al., 2004).
Training and Other Personnel Needs	None identified.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Objective B—Reduce Bicycle Crashes along Roadways

Strategy B1: Provide Safe Roadway Facilities for Parallel Travel (T)

As discussed in Section III, 35.5 percent of bicyclist crashes with motor vehicles occur when travel directions are parallel. Roadway facilities that better identify appropriate travel areas for all road users and their expected behavior may provide a safer environment for bicyclist travel along parallel paths and help reduce crashes.

Bicycle Lane Striping

Striped bicycle lanes provide marked areas for bicyclists to travel along roadways and provide for more predictable movements for both bicyclists and motorists. Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when it is desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists.

The AASHTO Bicycle Guide (1999) provides detail for installation of striped bicycle lanes. Bike lanes are usually along the right edge of the roadway but may be placed to the left of parking or right-turn lanes. Marked bicycle lanes on roadways should be one-way only and carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Bike lane markings can reduce the risk of “dooring” (i.e., bicyclists being struck by opening car doors) when the lane runs along a parking lane, although placement of the lane markings is critical for achieving this outcome. Bicycle lanes are often appropriate where most bicyclists on the route are less experienced (Wilkinson et al., 1994).

Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Evidence also shows that riding with the flow of vehicular traffic reduces bicyclists´ chances of collision with a motor vehicle. Locations with bicycle lanes have lower rates of wrong-way riding (Hunter et al., 1998). Most crashes associated with marked bike lanes are concentrated where the marking ends, typically at approaches to intersections, and bicyclists must enter mixed traffic, or at locations where automobiles entering the roadway cross the marked bike lane. Such crashes may be reduced by application of other treatments discussed in this report, including intersection and driveway treatments.

EXHIBIT V-35 MUTCD Example of Striped Bicycle Lanes ( http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part9/fig9c-05_longdesc.htm)

EXHIBIT V-36 Example of Roadway Cross Sections with Bicycle Lanes (AASHTO, 1999)

Striped bicycle lane design can be quite challenging in situations where the existing urban traffic patterns are complex and crosssections are already constrained by heavy traffic volumes. Examples of different lane cross sections based on different roadway characteristics are shown in Exhibit V-36.

Examples include the following:

• Oakland, CA—Since 1999, Oakland has installed nearly 93 mi of bicycle lanes. Many of these individual projects are described on their website: http://www.oaklandpw.com/bicycling/bikelanes.htm.
• Phoenix, AZ—In 1987, Phoenix began implementing an aggressive program to install over 700 mi of striped bicycle lanes. A net decrease in the rate of bicycle/ motor vehicle crashes has been observed, although the number of bicyclist fatalities has remained constant. A case study describing Phoenix´s experience is included in the BikeSafe Countermeasure Selection System (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe).

EXHIBIT V-37 Chevron Shared Lane Marking in San Francisco (Deirdre Weinberg, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, 2004)

EXHIBIT V-38 San Francisco´s Standard Shared Lane Marking and Placement (Burk and Sallaberry, 2004)

Additional information on bicycle lane striping may be found at:

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center—http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/onstreet.htm#bike
• Chicago, IL—http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/bikelaneguide.htm (Bike Lane Design Guide) [Note: some of the designs in the Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide are not consistent with current MUTCD standards.]
• City of San Francisco, CA—http://sfgov.org/bac/anlreport1001.htm
• Florida Department of Transportation—http://www11.myflorida.com/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhchpt4.pdf

Shared Lane Marking

Shared lane markings are a promising experimental method for providing parallel travel facilities. Similar in concept to striped bicycle lanes, shared lane markings consist of markings placed in the area of desired bicyclist travel. The markings do not indicate a separated bicycle lane, but instead direct bicyclists to travel outside the car door zone and improve awareness of bicyclists and motorists that they are sharing part of the roadway environment. Shared lane markings have the advantage over striped bike lanes of also reducing wrong-way riding and car door crashes. They are intended for use primarily on roadways where traffic lanes are too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side by bicyclists and motor vehicles.

Example:

San Francisco, CA—San Francisco conducted an extensive study of different shared lane markings, and developed recommendations that are now included in California's MUTCD for use on streets where there are parallel on-street functions. More information about San Francisco´s program can be found at: http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dptbike_index.asp?id=22747.

Information about shared lanes in general, including signed shared lanes, may be found at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/onstreet.htm#signed.

Paved Shoulder

Paved shoulders are very similar to bike lanes as a bicycle facility. The pavement edge line for the paved shoulder provides separated space for the bicyclist much like a bike lane. The AASHTO Bicycle Guide notes that in rural areas “adding or improving paved shoulders often can be the best way to accommodate bicyclists,” and shoulders have the additional attraction of providing a variety of benefits to motorists and other road users as well.

Widths are a function of motor vehicle speeds, volume, percentage of truck and bus traffic, etc. If the paved shoulder is less than 1.2 m (4 ft) in width it should not be designated or marked as a bicycle facility. Widths should be increased with higher bicycle volumes, motor vehicle speeds above 80 km/h (50 mph), or higher percentage of truck and bus traffic. Further guidance on the appropriate width of shoulders to accommodate bicyclists on roadways in these situations can be found in FHWA´s Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists. Paved shoulders tend to result in fewer erratic motor vehicle driver maneuvers, more predictable bicyclist riding behavior, and enhanced comfort levels for both motorists and bicyclists (Harkey et al., 1996).

Example:

Wisconsin DOT has a policy of providing a 0.9 m (3 ft) paved shoulder on all highways with an average daily traffic in excess of 1,000 vehicles, and this is widened to 1.5 m (5 ft) if a moderate number of bicyclists regularly use the road (Wisconsin DOT, 2003).

For more information, see the following resources:

• Oregon´s ped-bike program´s discussion of paved highway shoulders: (http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/whyhave.htm)
• http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/onstreet.htm (Includes discussion of both paved shoulders and wide outside lanes, as well as a comparison of striped bike lanes to paved or wide shoulders.)

Colored Pavement Marking

Colored pavements (e.g., green bike lanes) or different paving materials have been used in certain situations to distinguish bike lanes from the motor vehicle lanes. Use of colored bike lanes is being considered but is not yet an accepted MUTCD standard. Colored pavement markings have mostly been applied and studied at intersections and other high-conflict areas where motor vehicles are more likely to enter the bicycle lane. A description of colored bicycle lanes for use at intersections is also included with Strategy A4—Improve Pavement Markings at Intersections in this guide. Colored bicycle lanes have been used to visually narrow the roadway while also maintaining a preferential area for bicyclist usage. Colored pavement may be appropriate where a wide roadway results in high traffic speeds, but certain forms of traffic calming raise concerns about emergency vehicle access.

EXHIBIT V-39
Colored Pavement Placement at High-risk Roadway Location

Colored bike lanes have been a feature of bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands (red), Denmark (blue), France (green), and many other countries for many years. In the United Kingdom, both red and green pigments are used to delineate bike lanes and bike boxes. However, in the United States their use has been limited to a few experiments in just a handful of locations. The most extensive trial took place in Portland, Oregon, where a number of critical intersections had blue bike lanes marked through them, and the results were carefully monitored.

For more information about colored lanes and the Portland study, visit http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/bicycles/bluebike.htm.

EXHIBIT V-40
Strategy Attributes for Providing Marked Roadway Facilities (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	This strategy targets both bicyclists and motorists by providing multiple cues that indicate preferential areas for each to travel along roadways.
Expected Effectiveness	Marked roadway improvements such as striped bicycle lanes and other treatments suggest a protective effect for certain types of bicycle/motor vehicle collisions (Lott and Lott, 1976). Striped Bike Lane Bike lanes have been found to provide more consistent separation between bicyclists and passing motorists than shared travel lanes. The presence of the bike lane stripe has also been shown from research to result in fewer erratic motor vehicle driver maneuvers, more predictable bicyclist riding behavior, and enhanced comfort levels for both motorists and bicyclists (Harkey et al., 1996). The extra space created for bicyclists is also a benefit for bicyclists on congested roadways where bicyclists may be able to pass motor vehicles on the right. Shared Lane Markings Shared lane markings have resulted in a 203 mm (8 in) increase in the distance of bicyclists from parked cars. The markings also resulted in an increase of over 0.6 m (2 ft) between bicyclists and passing motorists. Markings also reduce the number of bicyclists who ride on sidewalks, as well as resulting in an 80 percent reduction in wrong-way riding (Burk and Sallaberry, 2004). Wide Curb Lanes Wide curb lanes provide an area sufficiently wide for both motor vehicles and bicyclists to use the lane. Research (Harkey et al., 1996) has shown that paved shoulders tend to result in fewer erratic motor vehicle driver maneuvers, more predictable bicyclist riding behavior, and enhanced comfort levels for both motorists and bicyclists. Colored Pavement Marking Colored pavement markings are expected to increase the visibility of bicyclists by explicitly defining the bicyclist right-of-way. In Portland's painted lane experiment, significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before entering colored pavement areas.
Keys to Success	Where bicycle lanes exist, riding should be restricted to the direction of motor vehicle travel. Adequate facility lane width should be provided to accommodate bicyclists. Information through signage and/or pavement marking should be provided to encourage desired behavior and guide users to the facilities. Custom or specially developed signs may be necessary for new facilities. EXHIBIT V-41 Signs Developed for Portland's Colored Lanes (http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/bicycles/Bluelane.pdf) Adequate space between the bike lane and parked cars should be provided so that open doors do not create a hazard for bicyclists. Termination of bike lanes that place bicyclists in a vulnerable situation should be avoided. Finally, it is important to determine if special signs or markings are necessary for situations such as a high-volume of bike left turns on a busy roadway.
Potential Difficulties	Although treatments included here have been studied and shown favorable results, not all are currently included in the MUTCD. The MUTCD is regularly revised, and most of these treatments are under consideration. The level of a bicyclist's experience influences facility preferences. There is rarely one pavement treatment that satisfies all users. Wide curb lanes are not generally as effective as striped bike lanes and marked shared lanes at reducing wrong-way riding. The cost of maintaining stripes, shared lane markings, and colored bicycle lanes may be high, but proper selection of paint or colored surface material can minimize these costs. Proper placement of on-road bicycle facilities requires balancing user needs with right-of-way limitations. Placement of bicycle lanes on roads with parallel parking, in particular, should occur so that impacts with car doors are unlikely; this is accomplished by placing the lane markings outside the expected door opening area. There may be resistance to establishing bicycle lanes from a portion of the community. This resistance may be based on perceptions of erratic bicyclist behavior, and might be overcome with an effective PI&E program.
Appropriate Measures and Data	Comparing before and after data about bicyclist exposure or usage and crash or injury data would provide the most comprehensive evaluation of roadway facilities for bicyclists. However, useful exposure data is usually unavailable, leaving only crash or injury data for evaluation.
Associated Needs	Although many bicyclists and motor vehicle operators understand how to ride or drive on roads with striped bicycle lanes, installation of other on-road bicycle facilities should be accompanied by public information campaigns to clarify how they should behave with the new facilities.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	The needs of bicyclists and motorists must be balanced when considering any changes to roadways. Factors such as lane widths, operating space, parking, vehicle speeds, etc. need to be completely examined so that the most appropriate alternative can be selected.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	Facilities that consist of adding paint to the roadway can be implemented within a very short timeframe. Paved shoulders require significantly more time to plan and construct.
Costs Involved	The BikeCost tool (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost) provides an online estimation calculator of approximate cost for many bicycle facilities, including marked roadway facilities. The cost of installing a bicycle lane is approximately $3,100 to $31,000 per kilometer ($5,000 to $50,000 per mile), depending on the condition of the pavement, the need to remove and repaint the lane lines, the need to adjust signalization, and other factors. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. Shared lane markings have significantly lower initial and maintenance costs compared to striped bicycle lanes. Paved shoulder costs can be quite variable. Using data from Iowa DOT average contract prices for calendar year 2000, a minimum design width of 1.2 m (4 ft) of paved shoulder width to accommodate bicycle traffic was estimated at $44,000 per kilometer ($71,000 per mile) (Souleyrette et al., 2001). Painted bicycle lanes cost approximately $3,700 per kilometer ($6,000 per mile) in both directions. The cost of widening and resurfacing a section of roadway to make painting appropriate varies depending on current conditions, but a minimum cost estimate is at least $93,200 per kilometer ($150,000 per mile).
Training and Other Personnel Needs	None identified.
Legislative Needs	The use of any treatment that is not contained in the MUTCD requires the approval of the FHWA.
Other Key Attributes
Wide Curb Lane Alternative	Wide curb lanes are an alternative to marked roadway facilities such as bicycle lanes and shared lane markings. They are intended to create on-street facilities for bicyclists by creating a lane that is wide enough so motor vehicles and bicycles have adequate room to share the lane during overtaking. Advocates of wide curb lanes believe that they encourage bicyclists to operate more like motor vehicles and thus lead to more correct positioning at intersections, particularly for left-turn maneuvers. A wide curb lane is the lane nearest the curb that is wider than a standard lane and provides extra space so that the lane may be shared by motor vehicles and bicyclists. Wide curb lanes can be placed on roads with or without curbs. Wide curb lanes may be present on two-lane or multi-lane roads. The desired width is 4.3 m (14 ft) for the lane, not including the gutter plan area. Wider lanes may result in the operation of two motor vehicles side-by-side in the lane, and narrower widths may not provide adequate space for the bicyclist and motor vehicle to operate side-by-side. In addition, the usable lane width is reduced by drainage grates, raised reflectors, or on-street parking, so lane width should be increased to accommodate those impediments. Because wide curb lanes are a shared-lane countermeasure, they are not marked or signed like a bicycle lane. As a result, bicyclists may not know of their existence or utility as a bicycle facility. Shared lane markings may supplement wide curb lanes. These markings would provide a relatively low-cost approach to help identify the facility for bicyclists. Shared lane markings may also encourage proper placement of the bicyclist within the wide curb lane and will encourage bicyclists to travel in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic.
Width of Bicycle Lanes	Minimum and maximum design widths for bicycle lanes should be carefully examined. For example, bicycle lane widths of 1.8 m (6 ft) maximum may be desirable when one or a combination of the following conditions exists: traffic volumes and speeds are high; adjacent parking use and turnover is high; catch basin grates, gutter joints, and other features in the bicycle lane may present an obstacle to cyclists; steep grades exist; truck volumes are high; or bicycle volumes are high. Also, bicycle lane widths of 1.2 m (4 ft) minimum may be acceptable when: physical constraints exist for a segment of less than 1.6 km (1 mi) that links to existing bikeways on both ends, implemented in conjunction with traffic calming devices (see Strategy C1—Implement Traffic Calming Techniques), adjacent to parking with [very] low use and turnover, or adjacent to an uncurbed street shoulder.

Strategy B2: Provide Contraflow Bicycle Lanes (T)

Contraflow Bicycle Lanes

A contraflow bicycle lane establishes a two-way street for bicyclists on a street that only allows one-way motor vehicle traffic. Contraflow lanes allow bicyclists to travel in the opposite direction from motor vehicle traffic on the same roadway. Bicyclists are generally expected to follow established rules-of-the-road such as riding in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. However, there are certain situations where the placement of a bicycle lane counter to the normal flow of traffic can increase safety or improve access for bicyclists. Some one-way streets, particularly in hilly or downtown areas, may provide benefits to bicyclists if a contraflow bike lane is designated to allow bicyclists to ride against the flow of traffic.

EXHIBIT V-42 Contraflow lane application in Cambridge, MA (Photo by Cara Seiderman)

EXHIBIT V-43 Contraflow Lanes may Require Specific Signs (BikeSafe—www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe)

It should be made clear that there are safety concerns associated with wrong-way riding, as this places bicycles in a position where motorists do not expect to see them. However, there is precedent for opposite direction riding that emanates from Europe, where bicyclists are often allowed to ride in the opposite direction on one-way streets, usually with slow motor vehicle traffic. The contraflow bike lane is a specific bicycle facility that can be used in special situations and is intended to reduce the number of conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles. The facility also would be intended to save time for bicyclists having to travel an extra distance if they rode with traffic. It may also alleviate riding on a high speed, high volume route.

Examples of contraflow bike lanes can be found in cities in the United States with large numbers of bicyclists, including Cambridge, Massachusetts; Boulder, Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin; and Eugene, Oregon.

The Madison contraflow lane—University Avenue—runs through the heart of the University of Wisconsin campus and carries heavy flows of bicyclists and other road users. Because of the high demand for bicycle travel in both directions, the road was rebuilt with a bus lane, bike lane, and three travel lanes in one direction and a bike lane only (separated by a raised median) in the other direction.

For more information about contraflow bicycle lanes:

BikeSafe Countermeasure Selection System includes a number of case studies of contraflow lanes: (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe)

Portland, Oregon´s Bicycle Design and Engineering Guidelines ( http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/designreferences/bicycle/appenda3.htm)

San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Toolbox ( http://www.bayareatrafficsignals.org/toolbox/Tools/ContraFlowBike.html)

EXHIBIT V-44
Strategy Attributes for Providing Contraflow Bicycle Lanes (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Contraflow bicycle lanes are targeted to ensure that potential conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists are minimized. They target bicyclists´ behavior and sense of security and motorists´ behavior.
Expected Effectiveness	Contraflow bicycle facilities are generally recommended in areas with numerous oneway streets or where following traffic flow would result in difficulty for bicyclists. They provide facilities that bicyclists generally consider safer, encouraging more use.
Keys to Success	Portland, Oregon´s Bicycle Design and Engineering Guidelines (http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/designreferences/bicycle/appenda3.htm) recommend using contraflow bicycle lanes only under the following conditions: The contraflow bicycle lane provides a substantial savings in out-of-direction travel compared to the route motor vehicles must follow; The contraflow bicycle lane is short and provides direct access to a high-use destination point; Safety is improved because of reduced conflicts; There are no or very few intersecting driveways, alleys, or streets on the side of the proposed contraflow lane; Bicyclists can safely and conveniently reenter the traffic stream at either end of the section; A substantial number of bicyclists are already using the street; and There is sufficient street width to accommodate a full-dimension bicycle lane. The Portland guide further recommends the following special treatments to ensure success of contraflow lanes (note that these are requirements for Portland, but might alternatively be considered as recommended practices in other communities. Other locations may recognize acceptable exceptions to these regulations): The contraflow bicycle lane must be placed on the right side of the street (to drivers' left) and must be separated from oncoming traffic by a double yellow line. This indicates that the bicyclists are riding on the street legally, in a dedicated travel lane. Any intersecting alleys, major driveways, and streets must have signs indicating to motorists that they should expect two-way bicycle traffic. Existing traffic signals must be fitted with special signals for bicyclists, with loop detectors or push-buttons. The push-buttons must be placed so they can be easily reached by bicyclists, without having to dismount. It is preferable to place a separate bicycle lane in the direction of motor vehicle traffic, striped as a normal bicycle lane. Where the roadway width does not allow this, bicyclists will have to share the road with traffic. In this situation, striping the contraflow bicycle lane should take precedence, otherwise some bicyclists will be tempted to ride illegally, against traffic. The BikeSafe Bicycle Countermeasures Selection System ( http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe) recommends that pavement markings and signs should be thought through carefully in the design, rather than following a standard guideline. It is preferable to implement the lane when longer-lasting pavement marking materials can be installed (thermoplastic or in-lay tape), otherwise a strict maintenance program to keep paint highly visible will be required. Bicycle symbols and arrows should be placed at frequent intervals (far more frequently than standard AASHTO recommendations). Consideration should be given to adding color (blue is most visible) in the lane. Signs should be installed wherever motorists would be approaching the street (at the beginning of the intersection and at any intersecting roads or major driveways). Proper coordination between on-street parking and contraflow lanes is necessary. Lanes should be placed so that both bicyclists and motorists leaving parking spaces are expecting potential conflicts and can see each other. When parking is adjacent to the contraflow lane, drivers exiting a parking space cannot see bicyclists until they are about halfway into the contraflow lane. It is therefore recommended that parking not be adjacent to the contraflow lane (i.e., on the left side of the road for the motorists.)
Potential Difficulties	Special attention must be paid to the treatment given contraflow lanes at intersections, because bicyclists will be traveling on the wrong side of the street through the intersection. Similarly, bicyclists turning left from contraflow lanes will encounter oncoming traffic unless traffic control devices stop motor vehicles, including those approaching from intersecting lanes. Motorists approaching contraflow lanes may not notice approaching bicyclists because the motorist is expecting and looking for traffic from the other direction. Contraflow lanes require signs specifically for bicyclists, because signs posted for motorists face the opposite direction of bicycle travel. There is also a lack of empirical evidence about the safety and other benefits of contraflow lanes. Anecdotal reports from Cambridge, Massachusetts, indicate no negative safety effects. Future research should examine safety benefits and specific issues such as nighttime use (i.e., whether auto headlights affect the bicyclist). The use of sidewalks as contraflow lanes should be avoided (see “Other Key Attributes” below).
Appropriate Measures and Data	Comparing before and after data about bicyclist exposure or usage, and crash or injury data would provide the most comprehensive evaluation of roadway facilities for bicyclists. However, useful exposure data is usually unavailable, leaving only crash or injury data for evaluation.
Associated Needs	Treatments that are new to a community are more likely to succeed with a PI&E program to educate both bicyclists and motorists of their intended purpose and use.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional and Policy Issues	None identified.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	This strategy may require time to plan and construct new facilities. In addition, public involvement in the planning phases of this strategy will improve acceptance and compliance with the new facilities.
Costs Involved	The cost of installing bike lane markings (such as for contraflow lanes) is approximately $3,100 to $31,000 per kilometer ($5,000 to $50,000 per mile), depending on the condition of the pavement, the need to remove and repaint the lane lines, the need to adjust signalization, and other factors. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	None identified.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
Potential Use of Sidewalks	Sidewalks should not be used as bicycle facilities. Some early bikeways used sidewalks for both pedestrians and bicyclists. While in rare instances this type of facility may be necessary, or desirable for use by small children, in most cases it should be avoided. In instances where it cannot be avoided, carefully considered and prepared education for the children should be a component of the use (http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/II1c.htm). Sidewalks are not suited for bicycling for several reasons: Bicyclists face conflicts with pedestrians. There may be conflicts with utility poles, sign posts, benches, etc. Bicyclists face conflicts at driveways, alleys, and intersections: a bicyclist on a sidewalk emerges onto driveways and alleys unexpectedly and is generally not visible to motorists. This is especially true of bicyclists who ride opposing adjacent motor vehicle traffic; drivers do not expect a vehicle coming from this direction. Bicyclists are put into awkward situations at intersections where they cannot safely act like a vehicle but are not in the pedestrian flow either, which creates confusion for other road users. Where constraints do not allow full-width bikeways, solutions should be sought to accommodate both modes (e.g. narrowing travel lanes or reducing on-street parking). In some urban situations, preference may be given to accommodating pedestrians. Sidewalks should not be signed for bicycle use—the choice should be left to the users.

Strategy B3: Improve Bicyclists´ Visibility (T)

Lighting

Improved roadway lighting may help to reduce crashes that occur under less than optimal light conditions. Intersections may warrant higher lighting levels than roadway segments. Good lighting on roadways, bridges, tunnels, and multi-use paths is also important for personal security. Sufficient roadway illumination also helps nighttime bicyclists see surface conditions and obstacles or people in the path of travel.

Bicyclists, particularly commuters, may have to ride during early dawn hours or during twilight or darkness, particularly in the winter months. Although bicyclists riding during dark conditions are generally required to have appropriate lighting on their vehicles or persons, requirements vary from state to state, and bicyclists can still be vulnerable to not being seen by motor vehicle operators. Conspicuity, making the bicyclist more conspicuous with lights and retroreflective material, is a behavioral treatment that is discussed in Strategy F2.

Lighting is a complex treatment requiring thoughtful analysis. Not only are there safety and security issues for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, but potential light pollution, longterm energy costs, and aesthetics also become factors. With good design, lighting can enhance safety of the bicycling as well as pedestrian environment and improve the ambience of areas of nighttime activity.

Virtually all research on lighting has focused on motor vehicles, with much of that research related to highways. More research is needed on the safety and mobility benefits of lighting improvements to bicyclists.

Examples include the following:

For more information about improving lighting conditions for bicyclists, the Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook provides guidance for path illumination (p. 4–35 to 4–37 available from: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/bike-facility.pdf). For in-depth roadway lighting specifications, see American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting ANSI IESNA RP-8 (available from the Illuminating Engineering Society).

The Florida Department of Transportation provides some guidance on the lighting of bicycle facilities at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhchpt4.pdf.

EXHIBIT V-45
Strategy Attributes for Improving Bicyclists´Visibility (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Improved lighting targets both bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers. Better lighting allows bicyclists to see the roadway and debris or potential obstructions. It also makes bicyclists more visible to drivers in low light conditions.
Expected Effectiveness	Improved lighting is expected to change conditions to reduce bicycle/motor vehicle crashes. Optimize visibility of bicyclists (and pedestrians) during low-light conditions, particularly in locations where high numbers of bicyclists may be expected such as commuter routes, routes to and from universities, intersections, and intersections with multi-use trails. Improve personal security of bicyclists and make roadway safer for all users. Data from 5 years of North Carolina bicycle/motor vehicle crashes indicate that about one-quarter of reported collisions and more than one-half of bicyclist fatalities occurred during non-daylight conditions, probably far exceeding the proportion of riding that occurs under these conditions ( http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/bike_main.htm). Similarly, estimates from Florida State University (http://www.safety.fsu.edu/bicyclemanual.html#accidents) indicate that “nearly 60 percent of all adult fatal bicycle accidents in Florida occur during twilight and night hours even though less than 3 percent of bicycle riding takes place during that time period.”
Keys to Success	The AASHTO Bicycle Guide recommends using average maintained illumination levels of between 5 and 22 lux. Additional research is needed on the safety and mobility benefits of lighting improvements to bicyclists.
Potential Difficulties	Lighting decisions should include consideration of potential light pollution, long-term energy costs, and aesthetics. With good design, lighting can enhance safety of the bicycling as well as pedestrian environment and improve the ambience of areas of nighttime activity. Other difficulties may include acquiring adequate funding to install new lighting with new construction projects.
Appropriate Measures and Data	In addition to standard measures of crash frequency and severity, a key measure is whether the new installations bring lighting levels up to recommended levels.
Associated Needs	Install lighting on both sides of wide roadways for most effective illumination. Provide generally uniform illumination avoiding hot spots, glare, and deep shadows; some intersections may warrant additional illumination. Consider rural locations for lighting improvements if nighttime or twilight crashes are a problem.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	It is important for state and local agencies to establish policies for lighting of bicycle facilities, as well as a procedure for identifying and implementing needed lighting improvements. Most state DOTs have policies that limit or prohibit payment for lighting as part of road construction projects, leaving funding for lighting as a local contribution.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	This strategy does not require a long development process. Lighting improvements can typically be implemented in less than 6 months. Availability of funding for lighting improvements is a key issue affecting implementation time. Also, local governments often prefer more expensive, decorative lighting instead of the standard lighting recommended by many state standards. Resolving these issues, including who pays for various aspects of the improvements, can delay lighting project completion.
Costs Involved	Cost varies depending on fixture type, design, local conditions, and utility agreements.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Lighting improvements can be made by agency personnel or by private contract. In both instances, experienced personnel are needed to design and install lighting improvements. Monitoring and maintenance programs are also needed, including night inspections.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Legislative Needs	Local legislative bodies (city and county governing boards) may establish policies that require adequate lighting for bicyclists and pedestrians in all new developments. This may reduce the direct governmental costs incurred to install adequate lighting.
Other Key Attributes
Behavior	Another lighting issue to consider is the use of lights and reflectors by bicyclists. This topic is discussed in Strategy F2-Increase Rider and Bicycle Conspicuity. Generally, when riding at night, bicyclists are required to have front and rear lights (or rear reflectors)-both to aid in their detection and to help them see what's in front of them. The Oregon DOT has an easy-to-understand section of its manual that addresses the equipment needs of bicyclists, including lights (http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/bicycle.htm#equipment).
Lighting Option	The type of lighting (mercury vapor, incandescent, or high pressure sodium) should be selected based on the needs for a given roadway.

Strategy B4: Improve Roadway Signage (T)

Signs are placed along roadways to provide regulation, warning, and guidance information to road users, including bicyclists. This strategy focuses on providing additional regulatory and directional signs to improve bicycle safety and behavior along roadways. The AASHTO Bicycle Guide (1999) and MUTCD (2003) should be consulted concerning bicycle-related signs.

Shared Roadway Signage

The intent of shared roadway signage is to let bicyclists and motorists know what to expect along the roadway, thus improving the chances that they will react and behave appropriately. These signs reinforce that bicyclists have a legal right to use the roadway. The safety effectiveness of shared roadway signs has not been evaluated, and their overall use is thought to be decreasing. Some experts now feel that they are only appropriate in “pinch point” locations where roadway facilities may not fully accommodate both bicyclists and motorists.

Shared roadway signs typically consist of yellow warning signs

with the legend “Share the Road” and a bicycle and car logo (Exhibit V-46). Similar messages may be used, including “Cars Share the Road,” to specifically indicate that motor vehicles should accommodate bicyclists in the roadway. These signs are typically placed along roads with significant bicycle traffic but relatively hazardous conditions for riding, such as narrow travel lanes with no shoulder, roads or streets with poor sight distance, or a bridge crossing with no accommodation for bicycles.

EXHIBIT V-46 Share the Road Sign (USDOT, 2003)

EXHIBIT V-47 Special Bicycle Signs may be Needed for Unusual Circumstances (MUTCD) (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/fig9b-02_longdesc.htm)

Special Bicycle-Related Signage

As with shared roadway signage, special bicycle-related signage conveys important information intended to provide information to bicyclists and motorists so they know what to expect, and thus improve the chances that they will react and behave appropriately. Examples of special bicycle-related signs include the use of “No Parking in Bike Lane” signs, intended to keep bike lane spaces clear for cyclists, “Bikes Wrong Way” signs, special warnings to alert motorists and bicyclists about specific approaching conditions that might present a dangerous environment, and specific regulatory signs. Regulatory signs, such as “Stop,” “Yield,” or turn restrictions require driver actions and are enforceable. “No Turn on Red” signs can improve safety for bicyclists (and pedestrians). Problems often occur at RTOR locations as motorists look to the left for a gap in traffic, especially if bicyclists are riding the wrong way either in the street or on the sidewalk.

Care should always be exercised when placing non-standard signs. Proliferation of special bicycle-related signs may limit their impact as well as decrease the effectiveness of other signs.

For more information about special bicycle-related signage, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center's bicycle signs and markings information page contains links and examples of most established sign types: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/signs_markings.htm.

The MUTCD (2003) defines national standards for signs relating to bicyclists along roadways (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part9/part9-toc.htm).

Bicycle Route Signage

By providing bicycle route signs that identify official bicycle routes and provide additional information about the route, bicyclist travel can be directed to areas that have better facilities, as well as provide both bicyclists and motorists additional information about their expected behavior. Typical bicycle route signage identifies that a roadway is part of a bicycle route and then identifies the primary destination served by the route. Bicycle routes can consist of local routes, as well as regional routes. They often are used where a local community has identified a system of preferred bicycle routes.

Placement of bicycle route signs is important for achieving successful compliance with the bicycle routes, as well as providing a more welcoming environment for bicyclists. They also increase motor vehicle operator expectations of encountering bicyclists along the route, which increases the potential that a motorist will detect, recognize, and avoid potential collisions with a bicyclist.

Creating bicycle routes is an inexpensive but visible way to improve the bicycling environment by taking advantage of the existing bicycle facility network. Although evaluation of the existing environment and careful planning should be conducted before establishing bicycle routes, the bicycle routes and signs can be changed with relative ease. This is important when experimenting with route ideas and approaches. Unlike moving a poorly sited bicycle bridge, for instance, it is relatively easy to remove signs and then install them in a different location.

Bicycle route systems may function as a means of identifying potential sites for other types of improvements in order to complete a functional network. For instance, building a bike bridge at a particular location can help complete a route through one part of town; striping bike lanes can help make it work in another.

EXHIBIT V-48 MUTCD Standard Bicycle Route Signs (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part9/fig9b-04_longdesc.htm)

EXHIBIT V-49 MUTCD Recommended Placement of Bicycle Route Signs (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part9/fig9b-06_longdesc.htm)

EXHIBIT V-50
Strategy Attributes for Improving Roadway Signage (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Bicycle-related signs are primarily targeted towards providing information and affecting the behavior of bicyclists, although motorists may also benefit from having access to the information contained in the signs. Some signs, particularly “Cars Share the Road” signs, are targeted specifically at motor vehicle operators.
Expected Effectiveness	Roadway bicycle-related signs are effective at communicating information and regulations about how both bicyclists and motorists should operate in the roadway. They are important for safety improvement, helping bicyclists avoid unsafe conditions or navigate unfamiliar locations.
Keys to Success	Success of many roadway signs for bicyclists is dependent upon proper installation and designation at intersections, where bicyclists and motorists first encounter the roadway facility, or in other locations where roadway conditions change. Information about signage at intersections is found in Strategy A3—Improve Signing of this guide. FHWA has an extensive web site about the MUTCD that includes answers to many commonly asked questions about the manual, including one that confirms its status as the national standard for traffic control: “all traffic control devices nationwide must conform to the MUTCD. There are no exceptions” (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov). In addition to the MUTCD, many States supplement the national manual with additional optional signs and markings, or complete Uniform Traffic Control Devices manuals. As an example, the Oregon DOT has a chapter in its bicycle plan detailing which signs and markings should be used in conjunction with bicycle facilities (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/II8a.htm). Roadway signs that serve both bicyclists and motorists should be placed and mounted in accordance with standard MUTCD guidance for sign placement, available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part2/part2-toc.htm. EXHIBIT V-51 MUTCD Guidance for General Placement of Signs (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part2/fig2a-01_longdesc.htm)
Potential Difficulties	Care should be taken not to overuse traffic signs. If used in excess, regulatory and warning signs tend to lose their effectiveness. The ease of signing for bicycle routes can also mean that bicyclists may not view the effort as a major commitment to bicycling.
Appropriate Measures and Data	A key process measure is the number and interval of roadway signs. Crash frequency and severity, by type, are key safety effectiveness measures.
Associated Needs	None identified.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	Roadway signs for bicyclists should comply with community policy and desires. Agencies should ensure that bicycle-related signs reflect the community's established or planned bicycle facilities.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	This strategy does not require a long development process. Signing improvements can typically be implemented in 3 months or less.
Costs Involved	Costs to implement signing are relatively low. An agency's maintenance costs may increase.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Training regarding use of this strategy should be provided in courses covering the MUTCD and the use of traffic control devices.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Strategy B5: Provide Bicycle-Tolerable Shoulder Rumble Strips (T)

General Description

Bicycle-tolerable shoulder rumble strips are rumble strip configurations that decrease the level of vibration experienced by bicyclists when traversing rumble strips, while at the same time providing an adequate amount of stimuli to alert inattentive/drowsy motorists. Highway shoulder rumble strips have proven to be an effective measure in reducing run-offthe- road (ROR) crashes on urban and rural freeways. (See Strategy 15.1 A1—Shoulder Rumble Strips in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 6: Guide for Addressing Run-Off-Road Collisions and Strategy 15.2 A4—Install Shoulder Rumble Strips in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 7: Guide for Reducing Collisions on Horizontal Curves.) ROR crashes may be reduced by as much as 20 percent to 50 percent when rumble strips are installed. As the use and benefits of shoulder rumble strips are extended to non-freeway facilities, bicyclists will encounter rumble strips more frequently. Bicyclists are concerned about maneuverability problems while traversing rumble strips because they can be very uncomfortable to ride over and may cause loss of control of the bicycle.

The incompatibilities between shoulder rumble strips and bicycle use are a major concern and much research has been performed on this issue. The three most comprehensive studies on the effects rumble strips have on bicyclists were conducted in Pennsylvania, California, and Colorado by Elefteriadou et al. (2000), Bucko and Khorashadi (2001), and Outcalt (2001), respectively. Each study included bicycle and motor vehicle testing of various rumble strip designs. In general, the rumble strips that provided the greatest amount of stimuli (i.e., noise and vibration) to alert an inattentive or drowsy driver were also the most uncomfortable for the bicyclists to traverse. Likewise, the rumble strips that were the most comfortable for the bicyclists generated the least amount of stimuli in a motor vehicle to alert an inattentive or drowsy driver. In all three studies, compromises were made when selecting the rumble strip design most compatible for both types of road users. Exhibit V-52 provides the recommended configurations from the respective studies as the most compatible for both motorists and bicyclists.

None of these bicycle-tolerable rumble strip configurations should necessarily be considered “comfortable” for a bicyclist to ride over for a considerable length of time. Rather, these rumble strip patterns cause less discomfort and allow for better control of the bicycle when encountered as compared to other rumble strip patterns designed strictly with the motorist in mind.

Placement of rumble strips within the right of way is also important for the safety of bicyclists. If placed improperly, rumble strips can render a shoulder unusable for bicycling. The AASHTO Bicycle Guide recommends that rumble strips not be used on routes used by bicyclists unless a minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) of rideable surface remains for the bicyclist (1.5 m [5 ft] from a curb or guardrail). Other rumble strip policies that have been instituted in an effort to balance the needs of motorists and bicyclists include:

• Using rumble strips exclusively on limited access or controlled access facilities
• Using a textured white fog line (Oregon) rather than rumble strips
• Leaving gaps between the rumble strips to allow bicyclists to cross them if necessary
  (e.g., 3.7 m [12 ft] gaps every 12.2 or 18.3 m [40 or 60 ft]) (Moeur, 2000)

EXHIBIT V-52
Bicycle-Tolerable Rumble Strip Dimensions

State	Groove Width (Parallel to traveled way)	Groove Depth	Groove Spacing	Comments
Pennsylvania (Elefteriadou et at., 2000)	127 mm	10 mm	178 mm between grooves	Non-freeway facilities with operating speeds near 88 km/h.
	127 mm	10 mm	152 mm between grooves	Non-freeway facilities with operating speeds near 72 km/h.
California (Bucko and Khorashadi, 2001)	50 mm	25 mm	200 mm on centers	None
	125 mm	8 ± 1.5 mm	300 mm on centers	None
	Allows for installation of raised/inverted profile thermoplastic in areas where shoulders are less than 1.5 m
Colorado (Outcalt, 2001)	127 mm	10 ± 3 mm	305 mm on centers	Recommend gap pattern of 14.6 m of rumble strip followed by 3.6 m of gap.

Research is underway in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 17-32 to develop further guidance for the design and application of shoulder and centerline rumble strips as an effective motor vehicle crash reduction measure, while minimizing adverse operational effects for motorcyclists, bicyclists, and nearby residents. This research will provide additional guidance related to the installation of rumble strips while taking into consideration the concerns of bicyclists.

Additional information on rumble strips can be found at FHWA's resource site about rumble strips at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_rumble.library.htm.

It should be noted that this strategy focuses on the impact of bicycle-tolerable rumble strips on bicycle safety. The primary purpose of rumble strips, however, is to improve motorist safety. The reader should refer to Strategy 15.1 A1—Shoulder Rumble Strips in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 6: Guide for Addressing Run-Off-Road Collisions and Strategy 15.2 A4—Install Shoulder Rumble Strips in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 7: Guide for Reducing Collisions on Horizontal Curves for more detailed information related to rumble strips and their impact on vehicular safety.

EXHIBIT V-53
Strategy Attributes for Bicycle-tolerable Rumble Strips (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Bicycle-tolerable rumble strips are intended to provide a safer environment for bicyclists when rumble strips are present along a roadway. They are not intended to change the behavior of bicyclists.
Expected Effectiveness	Bicycle-tolerable rumble strip patterns have been recommended to accomplish the intended goal of providing rumble strips to benefit motorists without generating excessive vibration for bicyclists who ride over the rumble strips. The actual safety effectiveness of this treatment is difficult to assess because most agencies do not have data on bicycle-only crashes or loss-of-control bicycle injuries related to rumble strip encounters. However, by installing bicycle-tolerable rumble strips (which have been intentionally designed with the bicyclist in mind) rather than rumble strip patterns that have been designed strictly based upon motorists' needs, it can be expected that bicyclists will experience less vibration when they encounter the bicycle-tolerable rumble strips, resulting in less discomfort and more control over their bicycles, reducing the risk to bicyclists. If bicyclists know that bicycle-tolerable rumble strips are installed along a route, the bicyclists may be more willing to ride along the shoulder, rather than in the travel lane, thus reducing the exposure to motor vehicle traffic.
Keys to Success	Rumble strip policies that take bicyclists into consideration should be adopted. Shoulder width requirements for installation of rumble strips are very much related to bicycle use. An FHWA Technical Advisory (2001) recommends a minimum shoulder width of 1.8 m (6 ft) where rumble strips are to be installed, but it should also be noted that some agencies require as little as 1.2 m (4 ft) of paved shoulder before rumble strips will be installed. The FHWA Technical Advisory also indicates that a minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) of shoulder width be given outside of the rumble strips where bicyclists are present. This recommendation is consistent with AASHTO (1999) policy which states that rumble strips are not recommended where shoulders are used by bicyclists unless there is (a) a minimum clear path of 0.3 m (1 ft) from the rumble strip to the traveled way, (b) 1.2 m (4 ft) from the rumble strip to the outside edge of paved shoulder, or (c) 1.5 m (5 ft) to adjacent guardrail, curb, or other obstacle. Exhibit V-52 provides information on groove width, depth, and spacing of bicycletolerable rumble strips. Two other dimensions associated with rumble strips that are critical to their impact on bicyclists are the transverse width (i.e., perpendicular to the traveled way) of the rumble strip and the distance the rumble strips are offset from the edge line. Most state policies specify the transverse width to be between 305 and 406 mm (12 and 16 in) (Elefteriadou et al., 2000), and most state policies specify that the rumble strips be offset from the edge line by 152 to 305 mm (6 to 12 in). These two dimensions affect the clear path available for bicyclists.
Potential Difficulties	Some bicycle groups may be totally against adopting a bicycle-tolerable rumble strip pattern, citing that all rumble strip patterns cause some discomfort and increase the risk for loss of control of bicycles. Rather than adopting a bicycle-tolerable rumble strip pattern, these bicycle groups may take the position that no rumble strips should be installed along routes where bicyclists may be expected to ride.
Appropriate Measures and Data	Appropriate process measures may include the number of shoulder miles or lane miles where bicycle-tolerable rumble strips are installed. This could be compared to the number of shoulder miles or lane miles of rumble strip installations with dimensions other than those specified to be bicycle-tolerable. Appropriate measures used to evaluate the safety effectiveness of the bicycle-tolerable rumble strips include data on bicycle-only crashes or loss-of-control bicycle injuries related to rumble strip encounters. Vibration levels experienced by bicyclists while traversing the rumble strip pattern can be used as a surrogate measure to evaluate the tolerability of rumble strip patterns. Rumble strip patterns that generate lower levels of vibrations for bicyclists are more tolerable for bicyclists.
Associated Needs	None identified.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	An agency should have a written rumble strip policy that takes bicyclists into consideration.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	Rumble strip programs can be implemented quickly (i.e., within a year of an agency deciding to proceed). They can be implemented as components of both new construction and rehabilitation projects.
Costs Involved	Costs for installing rumble strips are minimal. An average cost of approximately $0.82 per meter ($0.25 per foot) or $1,640 per kilometer ($2,640 per mile) for the installation of milled-in rumble strips on the shoulders on both sides of two-lane roads has been reported. Incremental costs would be even less for rumble strips being implemented concurrently with reconstruction or resurfacing of a highway.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	None identified.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Information on Organizations Currently Implementing this Strategy

Appendix 7 illustrates the policy developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to guide the installation of bicycle-tolerable shoulder rumble strips. The Washington Department of Transportation developed a shoulder rumble strip installation policy that includes required coordination with the WSDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. More information is available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/folio/Rumble_Strips.pdf.

Objective C—Reduce Motor Vehicle Speeds

Strategy C1: Implement Traffic Calming Techniques (P)

General Description

Traffic calming refers to traffic management techniques and engineering measures intended to enhance the safety of road users and, in many cases, improve the livability of a community.

The goals of traffic calming are to reduce motor vehicle speeds, traffic volume, or both. Reducing motor vehicle speeds has the potential to reduce both the frequency and severity of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes, and reductions in vehicular volumes ultimately decrease bicycle exposure to motor vehicle traffic.

Several of the companion guides provide detailed information on traffic calming techniques intended to reduce motor vehicle speeds. The reader is referred to these guides for more detailed information on implementing traffic calming techniques. In particular, the reader is directed to the following objectives and strategies in the respective guides:

• Objective 9.1 C. Reduce Vehicle Speed
• Strategy 9.1 C1. Implement road narrowing measures
• Strategy 9.1 C2. Install traffic calming.road sections
• Strategy 9.1 C3. Install traffic calming.intersections

• Objective 17.1 H—Reduce operating speeds on specific intersection approaches
• Strategy 17.1 H2—Provide traffic calming on intersection approaches through a combination of geometrics and traffic control devices

• European experience clearly shows bicycle use often increases after traffic calming projects are completed. This could, in part, be explained by the fact that traffic calming projects are often designed to prioritize bicycle transportation.
• One European study reported a doubling of bicycle use and an increase in bicycle crashes after the completion of a traffic calming project. Although the frequency of bicycle crashes had risen, the crashes were primarily non-injury crashes.
• The city of Palo Alto (California) has installed traffic calming measures and created a priority street for bicycles (i.e., a bicycle boulevard). The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to provide (a) a throughway where bicyclists have priority over vehicular traffic, (b) a direct route that reduces travel time for bicyclists, (c) a route that reduces conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles, and (d) a facility that promotes and facilitates the use of bicycles as an alternative mode for all purposes of travel.

Traffic calming engineering measures intended to reduce vehicle speeds can be divided into three categories: vertical, horizontal, and narrowing. Exhibit V-54 shows an example of incorporating a bicycle lane within the roadway cross section, resulting in narrower lane widths. Drivers see only the travel lanes as available road space, so the roadway appears narrower than it is (Oregon DOT, 1998).

Bicyclists may experience problems in traffic calmed streets where they have to use the same space as motor vehicles, in particular with humps and other vertical measures (Van Schagen, 2003). In these situations, bicyclists' comfort and safety can be improved by concentrating the vertical elements in the center of the street, leaving space at both sides, so bicyclists can avoid the traffic calming device, or by designing the traffic calming measures with the bicyclists in mind (e.g., designing speed humps that are more tolerable for bicyclists). Vertical measures in streets that are built on a slope should be avoided at all times. Horizontal measures such as road narrowing can also leave separate space for bicyclists so they can pass through in a straight line.

For more information on traffic calming as it relates to bicycles, Lesson 11 of the FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation pertains to traffic calming (see http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/fhwa-training.cfm).

EXHIBIT V-54
Trees and Colored Bike Lanes Make a Roadway Appear Narrow (Oregon DOT, 1998)

Strategy C2: Implement Speed Enforcement (T)

General Description

The intent of this strategy is to reduce motor vehicle speeds through speed enforcement programs. Reducing motor vehicle speeds through speed enforcement has the potential to reduce the frequency and severity of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes. Most highway agencies implement some form of speed enforcement programs in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies.

The keys to a successful speed enforcement program are selecting targeted locations and public awareness. A review of recent speed studies and crash data will aid in selecting specific locations for enforcement activities. Input from officers who regularly patrol the streets will be useful in selecting target locations, and input from the general public, including bicycle clubs or local bicyclists, can also be sought. Media attention is also critical in raising public awareness of the program and need for the program. Finally, enforcement activities should be conducted during hours of the day when speeding is most prevalent at the targeted locations.

Several of the companion guides provide detailed information on speed enforcement programs intended to reduce motor vehicle speeds. The reader is referred to these guides for more detailed information on implementing speed enforcement. In particular, the reader is directed to the following objectives and strategies in the respective guides:

• Objective 4.1 A. Deter aggressive driving in specific populations, including those with a history of such behavior, and at specific locations
• Strategy 4.1 A1. Target enforcement

• Objective 17.1 H. Reduce operating speeds on specific intersection approaches
• Strategy 17.1 H1. Provide targeted speed enforcement

• Objective C— Improve efficiency and effectiveness of speed enforcement efforts
• Strategy C1— Use targeted conventional speed enforcement programs at locations known to have speeding-related crashes

Objective D—Reduce Bicycle Crashes at Midblock Crossings

Strategy D1: Improve Driveway Intersections (T)

Driveway improvements are intended to modify the intersection of driveways and roadways to minimize potential conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles. The design of connections to the street network has a considerable impact on bicyclist safety and access because a significant portion of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes (approximately 20 percent) occur when either bicyclists or motorists ride or drive out from a driveway without properly yielding to oncoming traffic. Every driveway connection is a potential conflict point for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians and should be designed to minimize unsafe conflicts.

Examples of driveway intersection improvements include:

• Tighter turn radii at driveways that slow vehicle speeds. Curb cuts should have sufficient flare, however, for bicyclists to complete turns into the driveway or into the nearest lane without “swinging wide” into the adjacent lane.
• On streets with sidewalks, the walkway should continue at grade across the driveway to provide for clear pedestrian movement and make it clear to motorists and bicyclists that pedestrians have the right-of-way.
• Paved driveway approach aprons may be better suited for intersections with unpaved streets and driveways so that gravel and debris can be contained and prevented from accumulating in the bikeways, where it can lead to unsafe riding conditions at the driveway intersection. Although 4.6 m (15 ft) is a typical minimum length for the paved apron, to better reduce transfer of gravel and debris from the unpaved portion into the bicycle lane, longer paved aprons should be considered. Driveway aprons should also not have deep “lips” or grooves that may disrupt bicycle tires.
• Driveway right-of-ways should also be kept cleared of foliage, signs, and other objects that obscure visibility.
• Pavement markings may improve conditions for bicyclists at driveway intersections; although skip-striping is typically intended to provide information to motorists about an approaching intersection with a right-turn lane, it might also be considered as a means of informing bicyclists that drivers might turn into the driveway.

EXHIBIT V-55 Unsafe Driveway Intersections may Lengthen Conflict Areas Between Bicyclists and Motor Vehicles (Dan Burden, http://www.pedbikeimages.org)

EXHIBIT V-56 Paved Driveway Aprons Help Keep Gravel from the Bikeway (Portland, http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/designreferences/bicycle/appenda1.htm)

EXHIBIT V-57
Strategy Attributes for Improving Driveway Intersections (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Driveway improvements target both bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists benefit from safer mid-block driveway intersections, and motorists are encouraged to operate more safely as a result of improvements.
Expected Effectiveness	Approximately 20 percent of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes occur at driveway locations. This strategy is intended to improve conditions for bicyclists at driveway locations, and result in reduced bicyclist-involved crashes at those locations. This strategy is expected to result in the following types of improvements: Provide good visibility for motorists and bicyclists accessing the roadway. Slow motor vehicles entering / exiting the roadway and establish pedestrian right-of-way. Reduce the chances of a bicycle-only fall or turning error when bicycles enter or leave the roadway. Driveway improvements also may improve conditions for pedestrians.
Keys to Success	It is best to properly design and consolidate driveways at the outset. Local regulations can require appropriate driveway design when driveways are repaired or modified, or when new driveways are built. Where there is a parking and/or bicycle lane, consideration should be given to designing curb radii tighter than modern guides recommend (e.g., older cities in the Northeast and in Europe frequently have radii of 0.6 to 1.5 m [2 to 5 ft]). More typically, in new construction, the appropriate turning radius is about 4.6 m (15 ft) and about 7.6 m (25 ft) for arterial streets with a substantial volume of turning buses and/or trucks. Tighter turning radii are particularly important where streets intersect at a skew. While the corner characterized by an acute angle may require a slightly larger radius to accommodate the turning movements, the corner with an obtuse angle should be kept very tight, to prevent high-speed turns. It is important to make sure that public maintenance vehicles, school buses, and emergency vehicles are accommodated.
Potential Difficulties	Several driveway designs may cause safety and access problems for pedestrians, including excessively wide or sloped driveways, driveways with large turning radii, multiple adjacent driveways, driveways that are not well defined, and driveways where motorist attention is focused on finding a gap in congested traffic. Local landscape ordinances and other driveway guidelines may be needed to establish clear zones for driveway rights-of-way and maintain roadway surfaces. Along corridors, driveway consolidation creates the need for u-turns, which can be hazardous along roadways with high speeds or ADTs. Large trucks and buses may ride over the curb at intersections with tight radii, creating a danger for pedestrians who are waiting to cross. Driveways without a level sidewalk landing may not comply with ADA pedestrian standards. See Designing for Pedestrians with Disabilities, http://www.walkinginfo.org/de/index.htm.
Appropriate Measures and Data	A key process measure is the number of driveways that receive improvements. Performance measures include the number of crashes involving bicyclists at driveways, and bicycle and motor vehicle volume data are needed to represent exposure.
Associated Needs	None identified.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	Agencies may need to develop new or revised driveway design, construction, and access management policies.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	Implementation time may be affected by the amount of public involvement and controversy surrounding the proposed program. This can occur during the planning, design, and funding acquisition processes.
Costs Involved	No additional costs are incurred when incorporated into original plan and construction. Costs for retrofitting changes vary depending on existing conditions and scope of work. For example, construction costs for reconstructing a tighter turning radius are approximately $2,000 to $20,000 per corner, depending on site conditions (e.g., drainage and utilities may need to be relocated).
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Because sidewalks also cross many driveways, training on ADA requirements may be needed for anyone involved in the design, construction, or maintenance of driveway areas.
Legislative Needs	Changes to driveway requirements may require updates to local development and construction regulations.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Strategy D2: Implement Access Management (T)

Managing the number, spacing, access, directional flow, and other aspects of driveway connections protects those traveling along the corridor from conflicts with those entering or leaving the corridor. Every driveway connection is a potential conflict point among motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Access management strategies such as providing raised/non-traversable medians and limiting driveway access may be useful in promoting safe bicycle travel, particularly on arterial or major collector streets, since they help reduce the number of potential conflict points.

The principles of access management incorporate providing specialized roadways appropriate to their intended use. The trade-off is between providing direct access and promoting through movement. For example, the main purpose of freeways and arterials is to move through traffic, and access should be restricted to necessary interchanges. Local streets should generally serve all destinations, and access should not be limited. There are exceptions, however, if management is needed to reduce non-local traffic. Access management includes such measures as:

• limiting the number of driveways (or establishing minimum spacing between driveways),
• providing for right-in, right-out only movements,
• locating signals to favor through movements,
• restricting turns at certain intersections, and
• using non-traversable medians to manage left- and U-turn movements.

For more information:

• The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee on Access Management identifies 10 principles or strategies of access management altogether, along with the rationale and elements of a comprehensive program (see http://www.accessmanagement.gov/).
• TRB also published the Access Management Manual in 2003 that provides comprehensive descriptions of access management principles, techniques and effects, and rationale and steps toward developing an access management program and policies.
• Oregon DOT provides extensive guidance to local communities for access management as it relates to bicycle and pedestrian planning and facility development (see http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/backgrnd.htm).

EXHIBIT V-58
Effective Access Management Reduces the Number of Conflict Points
(Oregon DOT, http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/backgrnd.htm)

EXHIBIT V-59
Strategy Attributes for Implementing Access Management (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	This strategy targets bicyclists who utilize multi-lane arterial or collector roadways and left-turning motorists on those roads.
Expected Effectiveness	By limiting and consolidating driveways, by providing raised or landscaped medians, or by creating frontage roads, bicyclists and pedestrians benefit in several ways: The number of conflict points is reduced; this is best achieved by replacing a centerturn lane with a raised median (left turns account for a high number of crashes with bicyclists and pedestrians). Motor vehicles are redirected to intersections with appropriate control devices or appropriate assignment of right-of-way. Pedestrian crossing opportunities are enhanced with an accessible raised median and fewer conflicts with turning cars. Accommodating people with disabilities is easier, as the need for special treatments at driveways is reduced. Improved traffic flow may reduce the need for road-widening, allowing part of the right-of-way to be recaptured for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other users. Benefits of this strategy include smoother vehicle flow, reduced delay, and fewer crashes (Gluck et al., 1999; Demosthenes, 2003). Effective access management planning can also reduce total roadway facility costs by reducing the number of driveways and intersections. Demosthenes (2003) found that access locations (driveways and intersections) account for more than 60 percent of vehicular crashes in urban areas, so incorporating access management strategies can significantly reduce urban crash rates.
Keys to Success	It is difficult to retroactively reduce, consolidate or eliminate existing accesses. Policies that properly control access should be adopted so that agencies can proactively work to improve safety for bicyclists and motorists. A PI&E program should be developed and implemented to educate bicyclists and motorists of the intended purpose of the access management changes, as well as alert them to upcoming changes in traffic patterns. A test period may be helpful to identify and make adjustments to potential problems for affected properties.
Potential Difficulties	Limiting the number of street connections may have a negative impact on nonmotorized mobility, especially for pedestrian crossings: Providing for free-flow of traffic by reducing connections may result in increased travel speeds and volumes. Eliminating local street crossings eliminates pedestrian crossing opportunities, reduces pedestrian and bicycle travel choices, and may increase out-of-direction travel. Reduced access to businesses may require out-of-direction travel, discouraging walking and bicycle trips. Placing concrete barriers down the middle of the road (rather than a raised or landscaped median) effectively prohibits pedestrian crossings. Improperly designed raised medians act as barriers: pedestrians should be able to see to the other side of the street (vegetation should not decrease visibility) and curbs should be no more than standard height. Access management that reduces traffic conflict and traffic speeds, or reduces total vehicle travel, is expected to result in increased traffic safety. By contrast, access management that simply increases arterial traffic speeds can increase automobile use, and may discourage nonmotorized transportation. Development of an access management program should include awareness of this difference and focus on activities that reduce traffic conflict and speed. There may be costs associated with specific designs and changes to driveway access. It can favor economic development in some locations over others, which imposes costs on some businesses and property owners, and benefits others.
Appropriate Measures and Data	Performance measures include the number of crashes involving bicyclists at mid-block locations, and bicycle and motor vehicle volume data are needed to represent exposure.
Associated Needs	Access management policies need to be coordinated with land use regulations. These policies may easily conflict with each other unless all agency stakeholders are involved. Development of access management requires consistency so that all aspects of motorized transportation, nonmotorized transportation, and land use management/development support the desired outcomes.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	Agencies that implement access management changes should involve all potentially affected parties early in the planning process. Agencies may need to develop new or revised policies regarding access management, or support their governing bodies in the development of new or revised policies. Public hearings may be required if driveway access will be restricted or changed.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	It may take significant time to implement this strategy. Studies should be conducted to determine whether the strategy is appropriate and to identify the most appropriate treatment or countermeasure to address the existing environment.
Costs Involved	If included in initial design and construction, access management measures might raise or decrease costs compared to other designs. Cost of retrofit measures would depend on the type and extent. For example, adding a raised median is estimated to cost $15,000 to $30,000 per 30 m (100 ft). Prohibiting left turns with diverters may cost from $15,000 to $45,000 each. Access management activities can have a number of equity impacts. Changing vehicle access and development patterns can harm some businesses and property owners, while benefiting others. Property owners sometimes receive compensation for lost access.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Training may be needed to improve awareness of access management among transportation professionals. Training will help overcome institutional resistance to new approaches within transportation agencies and will reduce conflicts among stakeholders
Legislative Needs	Governing bodies may need to adopt policies that require access management.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Objective E —Improve Safety Awareness and Behavior

Safety behavior and awareness are major factors in many bicycle crashes, and addressing them through improved skill education for bicyclists, better education about and enforcement of bicycle-related traffic laws (which educates both bicyclists and motorists), and increased use of helmets and other safety-related devices is an often-overlooked technique for reducing collisions involving bicyclists and reducing the severity of injuries from such collisions.

Child bicyclists are deemed to be solely at fault 70 to 80 percent of the time in crashes with motor vehicles, while only about 40 percent of adult bicyclists are deemed to be at fault (Hunter et al., 1996). Both bicyclist and motorist are identified as contributing to the crash in 5 to 20 percent of crashes over various bicyclist ages. Motorists were deemed to be solely at fault in from 5 percent of crashes with the youngest aged bicyclists to about 36 percent of crashes involving adults ages 50 to 59. Improving safety awareness and behavior for all roadway users should help reduce these percentages.

Strategy E1: Provide Bicyclist Skill Education (T)

A comprehensive approach to bicyclist safety encompasses education and enforcement as well as changes to the built environment. Bicyclist education can provide bicyclists with the training, knowledge, and practical experience necessary to ride skillfully and interact safely with motorists on the roadway. Bicyclist educational programs can be carried out at many levels from distributing brochures or showing videos, to comprehensive school-based onbike programs, to community or adult education or recreation facility-based program. Bicyclist educational programs can also target audiences from young preschool-age children to seniors. They may touch on a number of issues, including: safety-related training, bicycle-related laws, helmet information, and nearly any other behavioral aspects of bicycling.

Understanding the different needs for educational audiences and the resources available for each is important when considering educational activities. For example, the educational needs of children are substantially different from those of adult bicyclists. Similarly, language needs should be considered when evaluating educational materials. Resources for bicyclist education are extensive and provide information for many audiences, although as more is learned about the actual effectiveness of different education approaches and methods, additional resources that incorporate better information should be developed. Specifically, with increasing national diversity, materials should be developed for individuals with different ethnic and/or cultural backgrounds.

General Education Resources

The FHWA National Bicycle Safety Education Curriculum identifies and prioritizes the specific topic areas that should be addressed for various target audiences and includes a resource catalog with information on training programs that address each of the various topics. The Resource Catalog is also available as an online searchable database (www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/fhwa.html). Users can search this database by key word(s), by a specific target audience (e.g., young bicyclists ages 9 through 12; adult bicyclists; motorists); and by selected topic or subtopic areas (e.g., bicycle-riding skills, rules of the road, essential equipment, riding for health and fitness, etc.).

In 2006, NHTSA released the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Resource Guide, which updates the previous bicycle resource guide and combines the new information with pedestrian resources, as well. The guide provides a compilation of existing and proposed countermeasures that can be used by a variety of implementers to help solve a wide range of bicyclist and pedestrian safety problems. The guide also includes an extensive listing of educational resources (DOT HS 809 977, available on CD-ROM from U.S. DOT).

Age-Specific Education Resources

The PBIC website provides an education page (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/education.htm) that contains links to many bicyclist safety education programs, tools, and resources that can be used by professionals planning a program as well as by individual bicyclists. For example, the section for young bicyclists ages 9 through 12 contains links to sites with information on choosing the right bike and helmet and how to park and secure your bike, among others. The section for adult bicyclists contains links to materials available from the League of American Bicyclists (“League”) covering areas ranging from “A Guide to Commuting for the Employee” to “How to Shift and Change Gears” to “Bike Maintenance 101.” FHWA developed the “Bicycle Safety Education Resource Center,” hosted by PBIC at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/fhwa.html/, which includes a database with hundreds of case studies, examples, and recommended education messages and practices for all age groups. The database can be searched by word, age range, or main topic areas. With ready access to these resources, program developers do not need to reinvent the wheel to implement a bicycle safety education program, and young and old riders alike can readily find the information they need to be safer riders.

The League operates a “BikeEd” program that provides education for many audiences. The program includes different courses for adults, children (5th to 7th grade), and commuters, as well as motorists. NHTSA's “SRTS for Middle School Youth” is designed to be taught by anyone and provides students with an overview of the safe routes to school initiative and the basic principles of walking and bicycling safely to school. It is hoped that this basic program will inspire schools and youth to initiate and develop a SRTS program in their school. For more information contact NHTSA at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov. Schools or groups wishing to advance to more in-depth bicycle training including on-bicycle experience may contact the League for assistance in finding local instructors to provide this series of classes. For more information see http://www.bikeleague.org.

NHTSA has developed three bicycle safety videos, including: “Ride Smart-It's Time to Start” for elementary and middle school-age children. This video discusses why everyone should wear a bicycle helmet and proper helmet fitting. Another video for elementary and middle school-age children is “Bike Safe. Bike Smart.” It discusses rules of the road for bicycling and reviews proper helmet fit. A third video, “Bicycle Safety Tips for Adults,” discusses basic tips for choosing and fitting a bicycle, proper helmet fit, rules of the road, and responsibility for personal safety while bicycling. The League has also developed a video that further expands on the basic tips presented in the NHTSA video. This video, “Enjoy the Ride: Essential Bicycling Skills,” may be purchased through the League.

FHWA has also developed a “Good Practices Guide for Bicycle Safety Education” (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/bestguide.cfm) that contains case study descriptions of 16 programs spanning riders of all ages, along with helpful information on planning, funding, implementing, and evaluating a program in your own community or state.

Other Useful Resources

A number of Spanish language materials have been developed including a version of “Be Smart. Bike Safe.” NHTSA developed the “Bicycle Safety Activity Guide,” a collection of educational materials and activities in Spanish and English that teachers, parents, and caregivers can use to teach bicycle safety to children ages 4 to 11.

Using trained, adult crossing guards is another fairly simple but effective method of providing correction and education to bicyclists and pedestrians, particularly children traveling to and from school. Crossing guards can educate children on safe bicycling and walking behaviors, assist them in crossing at certain locations, and may help to encourage use of these modes in traveling to school, since they provide a measure of comfort that engineering treatments alone cannot provide. Additionally, well-trained adult crossing guards may assist in enforcing motorist speed limits, yielding, and other laws (through reporting offending motorists), and in educating motorists. The state of Florida requires that most localities provide minimum training using the Florida School Crossing Guard Training Guidelines, produced by the Florida DOT and administered by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The guidelines are available at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Safety/ped_bike/training/ped_bike_training.htm. A comprehensive guide to crossing guards has also been developed by the National Center for Safe Routes to School, and can be accessed at: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/crossing_guard/index.cfm.

Other examples of bicycle education programs include:

Chicago, IL—Mayor Daley's Bicycling Ambassadors and Bike Lane Education (http://www.chibikefed.org/ambassador/)

BikeSafe Bicyclist Safety and Countermeasure Selection Guide case studies (available at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/):

• Duval County, FL—Injury Control for Bicycle-related Injury in Duval County, Florida (McCloskey et al.)
• Victoria, Canada—Share the Road: Motorist/Cyclist Traffic Rule Education and Enforcement Programs (Litman)

EXHIBIT V-60
Strategy Attributes for Providing Bicyclist Education (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Bicyclist education programs target the behavior of bicyclists.
Expected Effectiveness	This strategy is intended to teach bicyclists of all ages safe bicycling skills, including how to interact with motorists in traffic. Education programs should teach bicyclists the importance of having a bike that fits, maintaining the bike in good condition, and always wearing a helmet when riding. Bicycle safety training programs are based on the premise that behavior by bicyclists contributes to the risk of crashes and injuries, and that this behavior can be changed through training programs. Several studies have shown that most crashes were primarily due to some form of human error and very few were due to environmental conditions (Clarke and Tracy, 1995). Nationally, bicyclist errors contributed to almost 65 percent of the bicycle/motor vehicle fatalities in 1991. NHTSA's 1993 report indicated that the most common crashes were due to bicyclist's failure to yield (21.8 percent), improper crossing of roadway or intersection (12.6 percent), and failure to obey traffic signs, signals, or a police officer (8.6 percent) (Clarke and Tracy, 1995). Reports on a state level have similar data suggesting that the five leading contributing factors attributed to bicyclists in bicycle/motor-vehicle crashes were: (1) failure to yield right of way, (2) non-motorist error, (3) disregard for traffic control devices, (4) driver inattention/distraction, and (5) improper/unsafe lane use (Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 2005). The monograph “Training Programs for Bicycle Safety” (http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pdf/report.pdf) includes a review of 27 educational programs for children and adults. The most comprehensive programs have all incorporated helmet education, traffic rules, safety guidelines, and on-bike training into their curricula. Six of these programs have been evaluated and shown to be effective in increasing participant's knowledge and observed riding skills. There has been little evaluation of program effectiveness in reducing injuries, or evaluation of long-term program effects.
Keys to Success	An education strategy should do more than just provide information. The goal is to motivate a change in specific behaviors to reduce the risk of bicyclist injuries. The most successful education programs encourage people to think about their own travel attitudes and behaviors and help them make informed, better choices. Education should target all road users; one very important element of a comprehensive education program is to educate the general public and motorists about current laws relating to bicycles. Many State DOTs include an information page for relevant laws and regulations on their Bicycle and Pedestrian Program websites. A long-term commitment is required, both to reinforce learned behaviors and to accommodate new bicyclists. Long-term programs are also more likely to be effective in achieving results with regards to educating motorists about proper behavior around bicyclists. The most comprehensive programs have incorporated multiple educational elements, particularly those programs aimed at children. The length of these programs is highly variable, ranging from 1 hour to 40 or more hours. Many programs are strictly classroom based, while others utilize extensive riding experiences. Two common themes have emerged from the overview of various bicycle safety education programs. First, it is the opinion of many researchers that bicycle safety education curriculum for youth should be institutionalized in a school environment to reach more children more consistently (Thomas et al., 2005; Stutts and Hunter, 1990). Second, several experts feel that bicycle education curriculum should be presented as part of a continuum of traffic safety education that begins in elementary school and ends in high school, where children previously trained in bicycle safety transfer their knowledge and skills to motor vehicle driving skills and safety (Thomas et al., 2005; Stutts and Hunter, 1990). Another reason for implementing bicycle education in schools is that schools are more likely to administer a bicycle education course for a time period that will be sufficient for children to learn. Illustrating this point, a Canadian study that evaluated a 2-hour bicycle skills training program found that their brief skills training program (The Kids CAN-BIKE Festival) was not effective in improving safe bicycling behavior, knowledge, or attitudes among fourth grade children due to its inadequate time frame (Macarthur et al., 1998). However, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect schools to devote a sizable amount of time out of their curriculum for bicycle safety training. For older youths and adults, the optimal length of a training program is unclear. While a longer training program might impart more skills, few except the most dedicated bicycle riders will spend a substantial amount of time (and money) on bicycle training. For children, a comprehensive bicycle safety education program should include an on-bike component. The NHTSA-supported National Bicycle Safety Network (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/nbsn/) has proposed that the following elements or messages be part of every education curriculum: Wear a helmet every time you ride. Ride with, not against, traffic. Don't ride on sidewalks—drivers don't expect it. Obey traffic laws and signs, and use proper hand signals. See and be seen—wear brightly colored or reflective clothing; use lights and reflectors. Stay alert—always look and listen for traffic, pedestrians, and other bicyclists.
Potential Difficulties	Adequate educational materials are not available for all populations that may need education. For example, no resources for education relating to alcohol-impaired bicyclists could be found. (Note that the primary message should be convincing them not to ride while impaired.) Limited resources are available for many minority populations, particularly Hispanic audiences. Most Spanish language materials are developed locally and are not available nationally. There is no mechanism to identify and track most locally developed materials. The primary challenge of any bicycle safety education program is sustained results. Studies have shown that most one-time education activities have a maximum effect of 6 weeks, and by 6 months have lost most of their effectiveness (Thomas et al., 2005). Repeating education activities may be necessary to achieve a lasting result. Education programs and curriculums are different, with different intended audiences. Although many bicycle safety education materials and programs exist, it is important to choose the right program for your particular needs and situation. Some studies have also raised questions about the value of children's bicycle safety education as an injury prevention intervention, primarily because the links between safety knowledge, safe behavior, and fewer crashes is insufficiently researched (Thomas, et al., 2005). An early evaluation of the “BikeEd” program in Victoria, Australia, showed that it significantly increased children's bicycle knowledge and riding performance, but subsequent research revealed that trained children were no less likely than untrained children to receive emergency room treatment for a bicycle-related injury (Carlin et al., 1998). Another study evaluating the effect of skill training on injuries, a population-based case control study from Melbourne, Australia, further indicated that this type of education did not reduce injuries but appeared to actually increase injuries. This negative effect was stronger among children whose parents did not themselves bicycle, among low socioeconomic groups, and younger children. The authors suggest skills training might produce harmful effects in some children, perhaps due to inadvertent encouragement of risk-taking behavior or of bicycling without proper supervision. Adult education can be particularly challenging. Anecdotal reports from adult bicyclist educators indicate that many adults are not receptive to education because the value of the education is not clear. Most adults feel that they already know how to ride a bicycle and are not aware of the safer behaviors they might learn through an education program. Liability is an unresolved potential difficulty. In some jurisdictions, educators may be liable during safety education or for the post-education activities of participants. In general, reasonable attention to the quality of the education program should avert liability concerns, although agencies should consult their legal advisors if this concern is raised. Clarification should also be sought to establish whether the liability concern is related to concerns about the actual safety training activities (i.e., conducting onbicycle education or on-street practice), or is more general about the overall institutional fear of liability that might arise from encouraging (or even allowing) children to bicycle or walk to school. Each of these liability concerns might be addressable, but likely require different strategies.
Appropriate Measures and Data	The overall effectiveness of different and age-appropriate bicycle safety education programs should be better evaluated, both to verify the usefulness of these programs and to improve the selection of most appropriate curricula and programs. In general, the appropriate measures for evaluating bicycle safety education programs should include the following: Changes in behavior Changes in knowledge Changes in crashes or injuries Program effectiveness evaluations should compare program participants to a comparable group that did not receive training. Outcomes assessed should include number and types of crashes, the number and/or severity of injuries, the level of helmet use, and the number of bicyclists in the area. An ideal assessment should also measure the extent to which the learned program skills are retained correctly and for the long term. As with most bicycle-related evaluations, better data regarding exposure would improve analysis and understanding of the effectiveness of bicycle safety education.
Associated Needs	Motorist education programs should also be addressed to improve bicyclist safety. Motorists are often also bicyclists, so this approach will increase the reach of safe bicycling information. Motorist education can also help improve motorist awareness and safe driving around bicyclists. Bicycle education programs should be thoroughly evaluated before their implementation. Plans and funding for proper evaluation should be set forth at the beginning of the program.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	Coordination between interested agencies can provide a balanced approach to bicycle safety training, so that students receive information from more than one discipline (i.e., law enforcement and safety education) during the training.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	Bicycle education programs can be implemented in less than 3 months.
Costs Involved	Costs for bicycle education programs vary widely depending on the nature of the program. Costs might range from no direct costs, with activities provided by volunteers, to extensive safety training sessions that might involve national experts and cost thousands of dollars.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Implementation of bicycle-related training requires expertise in safe bicycle riding techniques. Qualified instructors should be used for bicycle education programs. Basic safety principles that don't include on-bicycle training can be taught by other qualified trainers.
Legislative Needs	No necessary legislative needs are identified, although legislative bodies may be able to influence any liability concerns by taking action to indemnify agency-sponsored programs.
Other Key Attributes
National Strategies	The National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety includes goals, strategies, and short- and long-term actions that can be taken to reduce injury and mortality associated with bicycle-related incidents. Efforts to change the bicycling environment have five key goals (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/bicycle_safety/): Motorists will share the road Bicyclists will ride safely Bicyclists will wear helmets The legal system will support safe bicycling Roads and paths will safely accommodate bicyclists

Strategy E2: Improve Enforcement of Bicycle-related Laws (T)

Along with engineering and education approaches to improving bicyclist safety, enforcement of traffic laws can help to create a safer riding environment, whether this enforcement is directed at the motorist or the bicyclist. With respect to motorists, efforts to reduce speeding in residential areas and along roadways frequented by bicyclists can make them safer places for bicyclists and also safer for other motorists and pedestrians sharing the roadway. Similarly, efforts to curb running of red lights and/or stop signs at intersections will benefit all road users. In most instances, enforcement programs should focus on simultaneous enforcement activities for both bicyclists and motorists, rather than just enforcement against one population. Dangerous behavior by motorists, including driving or passing too close to bicyclists, throwing objects at bicyclists, or yelling at bicyclists, can distract or frighten bicyclists and may cause them to crash.

Law enforcement officers sometimes find it difficult to “ticket” bicyclists or even to stop a young child; however, actions such as wrong-way riding (riding facing traffic), weaving in and out of traffic, ignoring “Stop” signs, and riding without proper lights at night are dangerous, and these behaviors can create ill will with motorists. Law enforcement officers can take advantage of the opportunity to stop and educate the offending bicyclist about the importance of obeying traffic laws.

Because helmet laws have been proven to reduce fatalities and serious head injuries, it is especially critical that officers enforce any helmet wearing law in effect, to increase the effectiveness of the law.

Although law enforcement officers are trained to make motor vehicle traffic stops for speeding, red-light running, and other dangerous behaviors by motorists, they typically do not receive any special training with respect to bicycle law enforcement. It is not surprising, then, that there is very little active enforcement of traffic laws affecting bicyclists in U.S. communities. In the state of Wisconsin, however, the situation is improving because of an innovative training program that is offered upon request to individual police departments. Officers who participate in the 2-day “Enforcement for Bicycle Safety Course” are taught which laws to enforce and how to enforce them to improve safety. Participants significantly improve both their knowledge and attitudes about enforcement for bicycle safety and are more likely to make enforcement contacts in their communities.

NHTSA offers a 2-day course to train law enforcement officers on steps that they can take to improve bicycling safety in their communities. The “Community Bicycle Safety for Law Enforcement” course provides guidance to officers interested in working with their communities to encourage bicycling and improve bicycle safety, with a focus on assessing safety needs and promoting bicycle safety programming (see http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/enforce_officer03.htm for more information).

Another source of support for law enforcement officers is the Law Enforcement Bicycle Association (LEBA), an organization “run by cops for cops” (http://www.leba.org). LEBA's courses focus on bicycling techniques and issues for bicycle-mounted police. For communities considering a more aggressive approach to enforcing bicycle traffic laws, the International Police Mountain Bike Association (http://www.ipmba.org) and a growing number of consultants offer training to help police departments understand bicycle law enforcement issues (http://www.witc.tec.wi.us/pgmpages/lawenf/rlake/bicycle.htm).

With sponsorship from NHTSA, the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition developed a training program for law enforcement officers that covers most bicycle-related aspects of law enforcement. The program is intended to be taught by law enforcement officers to law enforcement officers as a stand-alone resource. The major objective of the program is to give law enforcement officers of all backgrounds the tools they need to properly enforce the laws that affect bicyclists. The program focuses on all police officers, including those who may not be interested in bicycling or who are not able to attend in-depth trainings. The guide, including video examples, can be downloaded at http://massbike.org/police/.

The Florida Bicycle Association has been very active in developing multimedia materials for law enforcement education. These resources, available at http://www.floridabicycle.org, include “Ride on By,” “Ride on By II,” and “Understanding Bicycle Law Enforcement.” A “Florida Bicycle Law Enforcement Guide” is also available.

Finally, there are two recommended sources for information about bicycle-related laws:

• NHTSA has compiled a resource guide on laws related to pedestrian and bicycle safety. The guide is available for downloading at http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/resourceguide/index.html.
• The Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition also maintains a list of bicycle-related law resources at http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/law_resources.htm and a page with links to state bicycle laws at http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/statelaws.htm.

Additional Resources:

The PBIC maintains a resource listing of law enforcement-related materials:
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/enforcement.htm.

EXHIBIT V-61
Strategy Attributes for Improving Enforcement of Bicycle-related Laws (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	This strategy directly targets activities of law enforcement officers as they relate to bicycling and indirectly targets behavior of bicyclists and motorists.
Expected Effectiveness	The ultimate goal of this strategy is to prevent crashes and enhance traffic safety. Many crashes can be avoided if both bicyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road. Heightened awareness among law officers of these rules can lead to: enforcing of laws, modeling of good behaviors, and recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities to educate both bicycles and motorists.
Keys to Success	Some communities have periodic enforcement blitzes, and others may concentrate enforcement efforts on particular intersections and behaviors in order to have the maximum impact. Enforcing bicycle laws has the same effect as enforcing other traffic laws: it curtails behavior that may result in injuries and fatalities. This point should be reinforced for law enforcement officers who do not feel that enforcing bicycle laws is worth the effort. Officers could probably make up to 100 ten-minute traffic stops for the same amount of effort as one fatal crash investigation, and they will have 100 individuals who are less likely to be involved in a crash because of their efforts. A successful law enforcement strategy must effectively communicate the message that “Crash prevention pays off.” Bicycle law enforcement programs are most needed in communities and areas with high levels of bicycling, such as on and around college campuses. Enforcement campaigns should be preceded by PI&E programs that communicate to bicyclists and motorists the proper behaviors that will avoid enforcement action.
Potential Difficulties	Law enforcement officers are the only ones who can enforce laws, both for bicyclists and motorists, to improve bicycle safety. They must, therefore, be supportive of the enforcement effort. Because of the many demands placed on law enforcement officials' time, it may be difficult to convince police departments of the importance of officers' receiving training in bicycle law enforcement. Although “education” (i.e. traffic warnings from law enforcement officers) is emphasized over “ticketing,” the problem of how to handle young offenders especially can be a roadblock to effective bicycle law enforcement. Most training programs address this issue. Law enforcement also involves enforcing motor vehicle operating laws as they relate to bicycling. Bicyclists often report law enforcement resistance to citing motorists for unsafe behavior around bicyclists. Specific common examples include non-enforcement (or incorrect enforcement against the bicyclist) of roadway positioning laws and refusal to investigate complaints about motorists. Effective training programs should also include information and training to provide law enforcement officers with the necessary skills to enforce laws pertaining to motorists, as well as bicyclists. Information on how law enforcement officers may enforce laws with motorists can be found at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/enforce_motorist.htm. Similarly, special skills may be needed to enforce laws with bicyclists, as well. Bicyclists may be difficult to stop for enforcement, may not have proper identification, or may be more resistant to authority than most motorists. Information on how law enforcement officers may enforce laws with bicyclists can be found at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/ee/enforce_bicyclist.htm.
Appropriate Measures and Data	Process measures for bicycle-related law enforcement might include the number of warnings and/or citations issued. Performance measures include the number of crashes involving bicyclists at driveways, and bicycle and motor vehicle volume data are needed to represent exposure. In addition, directly linking law enforcement activities with safety outcomes may be difficult, although they are generally thought to have an effect.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	Law enforcement agencies should adopt policies to enforce traffic laws; without a policy to enforce traffic laws for roadway users—including bicyclists—changes in attitudes and behaviors of officers may be difficult to achieve.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	Law enforcement training can be prepared and implemented in less than 3 months.
Costs Involved	The Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition law enforcement training program is available as a freely downloadable course, although the course should be taught by an experienced instructor. The estimated cost for an officer to participate in a 2-day Wisconsin course is $90 to $100, with discounts available to sponsoring departments and some training costs covered by the state. Other training programs would have similar costs.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Law enforcement officers should be properly trained.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
National Strategies	The National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety includes goals, strategies, and short- and long-term actions that can be taken to reduce injury and mortality associated with bicycle-related incidents. Efforts to change the cycling environment have five key goals (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/bicycle_safety/): Motorists will share the road Bicyclists will ride safely Bicyclists will wear helmets The legal system will support safe bicycling Roads and paths will safely accommodate bicyclists

Objective F —Increase Use of Bicycle Safety Equipment

Strategy F1: Increase Use of Bicycle Helmets (P)

The use of bicycle helmets has been proven to reduce fatalities and serious head injuries that result from bicycle crashes. Studies have shown that riders wearing helmets are 70 to 88 percent less likely to suffer serious head injuries or fatalities in a bicycle crash than unhelmeted riders. There is, however, no evidence that use of helmets reduces collisions and crashes. This strategy of encouraging increased helmet use is recommended as an approach for improving bicyclists' behavior (i.e., the decision to wear a helmet) that will result in fewer fatalities. The option of mandatory helmet use laws should be seriously considered. Helmet laws, along with enforcement of those laws, are effective in increasing helmet use, and helmet use decreases fatalities. This is the only proven strategy for reducing bicyclist fatalities when crashes do occur.

Education

Despite clear and convincing data regarding the effectiveness of bicycle helmets, few people across the United States are usually observed wearing bicycle helmets. The latest estimates from 1994 of helmet ownership and helmet use among children in the United States are 50.2 percent and 25.0 percent, respectively. Helmet use varies widely across the country, due to the local variation in educational campaigns and the presence of helmet laws.

Education of bicycle helmet effectiveness in preventing head injury is one popular method used in the attempt to increase and sustain bicycle helmet use. Education interventions can be community-based, school-based, physician-based, or some combination of these settings. They can be multifaceted in their means of increasing helmet use or may just have one method of employing the strategy. Also, they should combine education about proper use and fitting with helmet discount programs that offer helmets for free or at reduced prices. Information about discount programs can be found at http://www.helmets.org/toolkit.htm. Helmet interventions are likely most effective when combined with related activities, such as bike rodeos and media announcements.

Legislation

Mandatory helmet use laws are an effective means of increasing helmet use. Legislation is quite effective in increasing helmet use, and the effect is not heavily dependent on enforcement. Legislation can be at the level of a municipality, county, or entire state and can affect just children, adolescents, or the entire age spectrum. The effectiveness of legislation in augmenting helmet use can be evaluated by direct observation of helmet use, sales of helmets, injuries reported, citations written, or some combination of these data.

As of February 2007 there were 21 state laws (including the District of Columbia) requiring minors to wear helmets while bicycling, and at least another 149 local ordinances, some of which cover bicyclists of all ages. For a comprehensive, state-by-state review on bicycle laws in the United States, visit http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included a compendium of bicycle helmet safety program evaluations in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) issue titled, “Injury Control Recommendations: Bicycle Helmets” (see http://www.helmets.org/evaluate.htm).

The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute conducted a formal study on the effect of bicycle helmet legislation on bicycling fatalities that can be found at http://www.helmets.org/leggrant.htm.

EXHIBIT V-62
Strategy Attributes for Increasing Use of Bicycle Helmets (P)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	This strategy targets the behavior of bicyclists.
Expected Effectiveness	Wearing an approved helmet in the proper manner (i.e., taut chin strap, helmet shifted forward on the head, and proper-fitting helmet) is the most effective way one can prevent serious head injury or death from a bicycle crash or collision. Even a modest increase in helmet use rates can prove beneficial in reducing these rates. Overall, helmets decrease the risk of serious head injury by as much as 85 percent and the risk of brain injury by up to 88 percent. Helmets have also been shown to reduce the risk of injury to the upper and mid face by 65 percent. A Consumer Product Safety Commission study concluded that the presence of a State law increases helmet use by 18.4 percent (http://www.helmets.org/briefs.htm#rodgers_state_laws).
Keys to Success	Passage of mandatory helmet use laws are the most important key to success. Education programs to increase helmet use should be closely coordinated with other bicycle-related education programs, and they should draw from the techniques and programs that are discussed in Strategy E1—Provide Bicyclist Skill Education. An important element in intervention programs is the participation of parents. Studies have provided further evidence that children are more likely to wear helmets if their riding partners, whether adults or children, are also wearing helmets. Helmet education programs should be based on research data, focus on a carefully selected target age group, include the use of a bicycle helmet (through discounts or donation) in addition to other tactics, and have a built-in evaluation component. A community-wide program that has these four factors can give an intervention the best chance for success and possibly provide the basis for local, state, and nationwide campaigns.
Potential Difficulties	Developing a comprehensive program to increase helmet use will involve an ongoing dedication of effort and resources. Not all bicyclists can afford a helmet, and this issue should be addressed as part of passing a mandatory helmet law. There are multiple organizations that have established criteria for helmets, which may confuse helmet users. Although many helmets meet all standards, some less expensive ones are only tested by one, rather than multiple, agencies. Mandatory helmet laws that refer to “established and generally accepted standards” are less likely to cause confusion or resistance about this issue. Helmets are often thought by inexperienced users to be uncomfortable, to mess up rider's hair, or to be too hot. Ongoing advances in bicycle helmet design may enable manufacturers and promoters of helmet use to circumvent obstacles against helmet use such as poor fit and poor air circulation, high cost, and the “uncoolness” of wearing a helmet. These obstacles, especially peer pressure, are particularly difficult to overcome among children. Legislation mandating bicycle helmets is not universally accepted. The opponents view such legislation as an infringement on personal freedom that will cause some bicyclists to give up a healthy form of exercise. There is evidence that mandatory helmet laws result in less people riding (Robinson, 2006). Opponents of legislation may also claim that bicyclists wearing helmets might engage in risky behavior, which brings their risk of serious injury back up to the same level it would be if they were not required to wear helmets.
Appropriate Measures and Data	This strategy can be evaluated by direct observation of helmet use, sales of helmets, injuries reported, or some combination of these data. To avoid excessive costs, direct observation of helmet use could be conducted through sample observations at a limited number of locations, rather than trying to observe all use.
Associated Needs	Although it makes inherent sense that helmets would protect against head injury, establishing the real-world effectiveness of helmets is important. Numerous studies have established the effectiveness of bicycle helmets. A listing of many of these studies can be found at http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html. In all studies reviewed, there are consistent data indicating that wearing an industryapproved bicycle helmet significantly reduces the risk of head injury during a crash or collision.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	A common evaluation barrier for programs that target youth is gaining permission to collect data in a school environment. Arranging this permission through the involvement of the school (district-level or individual school) is a key step for being able to evaluate programs targeted towards children.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	A helmet education and promotion program can be implemented in less than 3 months. Developing legislation relating to helmet use may require significant time, as public involvement is a necessary component for new rules and regulations.
Costs Involved	Costs for enacting legislation are low, although if enforcement activities are part of the legislative strategy, they will require law enforcement resources. Costs for helmet promotion programs may include acquiring helmets (sometimes available for low cost through local bicycle stores or directly from suppliers) as well as regular costs associated with developing and implementing any education program.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Any individuals involved in actually fitting helmets should be qualified to provide sound advice and guidance to people unfamiliar with helmet use.
Legislative Needs	Developing new helmet-related legislation is a legislative process that requires evaluation of alternatives (i.e., which ages, implementation timeline, enforcement policies, etc.) and consensus-building before new policies can be adopted.
Other Key Attributes
National Strategies	The National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety includes goals, strategies, and short-and long-term actions that can be taken to reduce injury and mortality associated with bicycle-related incidents. Efforts to change the cycling environment have five key goals (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/bicycle_safety/): Motorists will share the road Bicyclists will ride safely Bicyclists will wear helmets The legal system will support safe bicycling Roads and paths will safely accommodate bicyclists

Strategy F2: Increase Rider and Bicycle Conspicuity (T)

It is illegal in most states to ride in low light conditions without a front white light and a rear red reflector. These laws, however, are rarely followed and even more rarely enforced. Yet studies show that dark, unlighted conditions increase the severity of injuries to bicyclists and pedestrians relative to daylight conditions (Klop and Khattak, 1999). Darkness decreases bicyclist visibility, and therefore the reaction time of motorists near bicyclists. Logically, dark conditions increase the potential that a bicyclist will not be seen, and subsequently struck, by a motorist. Also, the Toronto Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Collision Study (City of Toronto, 2003) concluded that when bicyclists mix with motor vehicle traffic in dark conditions, they become even more difficult to spot.

There are four stages in the detection and recognition of bicyclists:

1. A motorist's expectation of encountering other vehicles—specifically bicycles,
2. The effort taken to look for the other vehicles or roadway users (including bicyclists),
3. The actual detection of a moving object, and
4. The recognition of the detected moving object as a bicyclist traveling along a potentially conflicting path.

Darkness, poor visibility, and lack of conspicuity can hinder the last two stages of the detection and recognition process (City of Toronto, 2003).

Increasing bicyclists' conspicuity can be achieved in several ways. Bicycle lanes, discussed in Strategy B1, provide a consistent and predictable space for bicyclists, making them easier to detect (City of Toronto, 2003). Some bicyclist education programs teach bicyclists that they can improve their detection and recognition by riding in a prominent position on the road. But the most effective way for bicyclists to make themselves more conspicuous, and hence more detectable and recognizable, is to use headlights and rear lights and to wear retroreflective clothing.

Reflective and Retroreflective Clothing

Studies have found that reflectorization can increase the visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians by a factor of five (Blomberg et al., 1984). Retroreflective materials reflect light using specially designed glass or synthetic beads. These materials are required for most roadway markings such as stop lines and lane markings, so their ability to increase conspicuity is established. Vests and other clothing for bicyclists have been made with retroreflective material. The standard specification for Nighttime Photometric Performance on Retroreflective Markings for Visibility Enhancement is set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International (ASTM, 2003). For access to ASTM standards, visit the ASTM web site, http://www.astm.org.

Lights on Bicycle

Exclusive use of reflectors on bicycles (as required by the Consumer Product Safety Commission) is not effective at increasing the conspicuity of bicyclists, except for when headlights shine directly on the reflector. For example, a car approaching an intersection will not see a reflector on a bicycle approaching on the intersecting street. A headlight, however, is more likely to be visible to the motorist. For this reason, headlights are recommended, if not required, for all riding in low light or dark conditions. Although many states require a headlight and a rear reflector, few have programs in place to help bicyclists acquire the headlight. Just as helmet discount programs are thought to help increase helmet use, headlight discount programs would likely increase headlight use. States that do not require headlights and rear reflectors should consider implementing such a requirement.

EXHIBIT V-63
Strategy Attributes for Increasing Rider and Bicycle Conspicuity (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	This strategy targets the behavior of bicyclists who are riding at night near motor vehicle traffic, but also affects motorists by making bicyclists more conspicuous.
Expected Effectiveness	Bicyclists that are more visible are expected to be involved in fewer crashes during low light conditions. Although no studies have been identified that indicate this outcome, bicyclists that are more easily seen are likely to be more easily avoidable, as well. In addition, the use of headlights may provide bicyclists with better visibility of roadway conditions. A study by Blomberg et al. (1984) investigated the effectiveness of countermeasures to improve conspicuity of bicyclists and pedestrians. Measures such as reflective vests increased detection of users by more than 300 to 400 percent and recognition as a bicyclist or pedestrian by approximately 300 percent over someone not using a reflective vest. Use of lights increased detection by more than 600 percent and recognition by 300 percent.
Keys to Success	Efforts to increase use of lights on bicycles should be combined with activities to increase enforcement of laws that require their use. Also, studies of bicycle/motor vehicle nighttime collisions have concluded that bicyclists do not understand the potential benefits of adequate conspicuity. Therefore, education about the benefits of bicycle lights, as well as retroreflective materials, should be conducted in tandem with efforts to encourage use of these items. Correct information should be communicated. For example, Blomberg et al. (1984) showed that wearing white or light-colored clothing does not effectively increase conspicuity, yet this remains a commonly recommended practice. Similarly, the use of reflective materials that highlight the movement of the bicyclist are more likely to increase recognition or shorten the time it takes a motorist to recognize a bicyclists, but the potential benefits of these types of products are rarely explained to bicyclists. Riding at night should not be discouraged. When properly using lights, bicycle-mounted reflectors, and retroreflective clothing, bicyclists can be sufficiently visible and recognizable at night. Combined with proper riding techniques, riding at night should be as safe as riding during daylight. Many bicyclists rely on their bicycle as primary or important modes of transportation. Promulgating the message that bicyclists should not ride at night may stigmatize those who do, and reduce the belief among drivers that they should expect bicycles at night. Effective recommendations should be that “If you ride at night...” followed by the recommended practice. The message to increase use of lights and retroreflective clothing should be part of any bicycle-related education. There are no established light- or reflector-only promotions, but this message is part of most bicycle rodeo and similar curriculums. The League of American Bicyclists offers advice to bicyclists about the use of lights. Their recommendations could be incorporated into a PI&E campaign (http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/advancedcycling.php).
Potential Difficulties	It has proven difficult to overcome numerous barriers to using conspicuity-increasing materials and lights. These include: Lack of understanding by bicyclists of the benefits of lights and reflective materials. Poor (or nonexistent) enforcement of existing laws requiring lights and reflectors on bicycles. Resistance to use of lights and reflective materials based on associated costs, added weight, and inconvenience for bicyclists. A sense that the current Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) requirement of reflectors on new bicycles will make the bicycle adequately conspicuous. Over the years, numerous bicycle manufacturers have offered bicycles that included lighting systems. These bicycles have not enjoyed commercial success, so manufacturers only rarely offer products with pre-installed lights. No standards have been developed for evaluating retroreflective materials for bicyclists' conspicuity. It is not known whether commercially available materials are retroreflective enough. Also, the minimum distances at night for detection and recognition have not been determined. Comparisons have been drawn between early automobiles and bicycles; when automobiles were first sold, they did not include headlights. It was only over time, as evidence of their increasing nighttime use and the role of inadequate lighting became established, that governments (federal and state) began requiring lighting systems on all new cars. Further research is needed to understand both conspicuity of bicyclists and the lighting levels needed to effectively see the roadway. This research could lead to conspicuity and lighting standards that ensure visibility and recognizability to motorists, as well as ensure that bicyclists can properly see the roadway.
Appropriate Measures and Data	A reduction in the frequency of low-light (dusk, nighttime, and early morning) bicycle crashes is a prime measure of effectiveness. A surrogate measure might be the percentage of bicyclists using headlights or wearing more retroreflective clothing at night.
Associated Needs	There is need for education/awareness activities to convey the importance of being visible at night while bicycling. In states that do not have mandatory requirements for front headlights and rear reflectors, such laws should be put into place.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	Current CPSC regulations that require reflectors are insufficient yet may be referenced to support resistance to mandatory headlight requirements. Alternative national standards for lights, although considered by the CPSC, have not been adopted.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	None identified.
Costs Involved	Costs for retroreflective materials are minimal, with adhesive materials costing between $5 and $15 and more extensive uses, such as reflective vests, costing up to $40. In addition, retroflective materials are increasingly included in non-bicycling specific outerwear, as well as bicycling-specific commuting clothing. Lighting systems vary widely in cost. Less expensive lights cost between $12 and $25, while the top-of-the line lighting systems can cost over $350. In general, more expensive lights are brighter, have better battery systems, and are easier to install and remove. One relatively recent development that has reduced the cost of bright, low cost lights with long battery lives is the increasing use of light emitting diodes (LEDs) as headlights.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	None identified.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
National Strategies	The National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety includes goals, strategies, and short- and long-term actions that can be taken to reduce injury and mortality associated with bicycle-related incidents. Efforts to change the cycling environment have five key goals (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/bicycle_safety/): Motorists will share the road Bicyclists will ride safely Bicyclists will wear helmets The legal system will support safe bicycling Roads and paths will safely accommodate bicyclists

Objective G —Reduce Effects of Hazards

Strategy G1: Fix or Remove Surface Irregularities (T)

General Description

Surface quality directly impacts the safety of bicyclists. Two surface conditions that are singled out for attention are (a) railroad crossings and (b) drainage grates and utility covers.

At-grade railroad crossings can cause serious problems for bicyclists. On diagonal railroad crossings, the gap next to and on the inside of the rail (called the flangeway) can catch the front wheel of a bicycle resulting in a sudden fall for the bicyclist. This problem is most serious when the track crosses at an angle less than 45 degrees to the direction of travel. The more shallow the angle, the greater likelihood of a problem for the bicyclist. Wet weather makes the situation worse, making the tracks even more slippery than normal (Williams et al., 1998). The vertical offset between the rail and the pavement surface can also jar bicyclists, causing control problems.

Drainage grates and utility covers can also cause serious problems for bicyclists in several ways. Raised or sunken grates and covers can stop or divert the front wheel of a bicycle, potentially causing a crash. Similarly, old-style drainage grates with parallel bars can trap the front wheel of a bicycle, potentially causing a crash (Williams et al., 1998).

The goal of this strategy is to fix or remove particular surface conditions that may be hazardous for bicyclists. There are two primary solutions for addressing problems associated with diagonal railroad crossings: (1) provide a way for bicyclists to approach the crossing at a wider angle, and (2) fill the flangeway with rubberized material. The first approach can be best accomplished by flaring out the bicycle facility. Exhibit V-64 illustrates two ways that bicyclists can cross railroad tracks at a better angle without swerving into the motor vehicle travel lanes. One solution is to provide a flare near the crossing, and the other solution requires providing a short separated path near the crossing. Alternatively, rather than changing the approach angle to the crossing, installing a flangeway fill works only on very slow speed rail lines (Exhibit V-65). Since a train's wheels must compress the material, the train must be moving slowly, if not, the fill will cause a train to derail. All surface gaps at railroad crossings should meet the most current requirements of the U.S. Access Board.

EXHIBIT V-64
Bicycle Crossing at Right Angle (Clarke and Tracy, 1995)

EXHIBIT V-65
Bicycle Crossing at Right Angle(Clarke and Tracy, 1995)

There are several solutions for problems associated with drainage grates and utility covers. For grates and utility covers that are sunken below the roadway surface, these should be brought to the proper grade. Ideally, during reconstruction of a facility, grates and utility covers can be relocated to positions outside of the common paths of bicyclists. Finally, old-style drainage grates (i.e., with parallel bars) can be replaced with bicycle safe grates that are hydraulically efficient. Consideration should also be given to installing curb face inlets which could move the inlet out of the roadway entirely.

Other surface irregularities, in addition to those addressed above, that may cause problems for bicyclists should also be remedied.

EXHIBIT V-57
Strategy Attributes for Improving Driveway Intersections (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Driveway improvements target both bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists benefit from safer mid-block driveway intersections, and motorists are encouraged to operate more safely as a result of improvements.

EXHIBIT V-66
Strategy Attributes for Fixing or Removing Surface Irregularities (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Surface defects that may cause bicyclists to crash. In most cases, this strategy focuses on bicycle-only crashes, or bicycle/motor vehicle crashes where the most harmful event is the result of a surface defect rather than a movement/maneuver made by a motorist.
Expected Effectiveness	The expected safety effectiveness of this strategy is difficult to assess. No studies have been conducted to evaluate its impact on the frequency and/or severity of bicycle crashes. This may be in part because bicycle crashes caused by surface defects rarely involve a motor vehicle, and thus they often do not get reported to the police. Consequently, accident databases may not include these bicycle-only crashes, or if they do, it is likely only a small percentage of the crashes. However, this strategy is expected to reduce the frequency of bicycle crashes because it reduces the likelihood of the front wheel being suddenly trapped or diverted, which may result in a sudden fall by the bicyclist.
Keys to Success	Keys to successfully treating irregular surface conditions at railroad crossings are to identify all diagonal crossings of bicycle facilities and prioritize the degree of the hazard. The need for a treatment is based upon the angle of the crossing, the width of the flangeway opening, and the amount of bicycle traffic that uses (or potentially uses) the crossing. The second type of treatment (i.e., installing a flangeway filler material) can only be used on low speed rail lines. The key to successfully treating irregular surface conditions caused by drainage grates and/or utility coverings is to identify the hazards and develop a program to replace/address the problem locations. If all of the problem locations cannot be addressed at one time, then a schedule should be developed to fix or remove the problem locations over a period of several years. Bicyclists can be utilized to identify surface irregularities by developing a postcard program (or similar programs) where bicyclists can mail in postcards to the highway agency to report problem locations. These types of programs can be established through communications between the highway agency and local bicycle clubs or bicycle shops. Old-style drainage grates should be replaced with bicycle-safe, hydraulically efficient models. Exhibit V-67 illustrates vane and honeycomb grate designs. FHWA has conducted extensive research to develop bicycle safe, hydraulically efficient drainage grates (Chang, 1980; Burgi, 1978a; Burgi, 1978b; Burgi and Gober, 1977; Pugh, 1980a; Pugh, 1980b; and Woo and Jones, 1974). EXHIBIT V-67 Bicycle Safe Grate Designs (Williams et al., 1998) Finally, drainage grates and covers can be relocated out of common bicycle paths whenever routine field work is scheduled for the facility.
Potential Difficulties	Train derailment if filler material is installed within the flangeway of high speed rail lines.
Appropriate Measures and Data	A key process measure is the number of locations that were addressed where known surface defects existed (i.e., were reported). This number can be compared to the number of locations with reported surface defects that were not addressed. Frequency and severity data are key for determining safety effectiveness. This data may be difficult to obtain because bicycle crashes caused by surface irregularities and defects are often not reported to the police. It may be necessary to collect frequency and severity data from hospital (i.e., emergency department) records.
Associated Needs	If a railroad crossing is particularly hazardous but no treatment is possible in the near term, installation of warning signs may be necessary. Exhibit V-68 illustrates a typical skewed highway-rail grade crossing sign which could be used to warn both bicyclists and motorists. Exhibit V-68 also shows a sign with which several communities have experimented, illustrating a flared approach for bicyclists (Williams et al., 1998). Once again, if an agency plans to install a sign that is not an accepted traffic control device in the MUTCD, the agency should follow the provisions outlined in Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD for design, application, and placement of traffic control devices that are not adopted in the most recent edition of the MUTCD. EXHIBIT V-68 Examples of Warning Signs for Use at Diagonal Railroad Crossings (Williams et al., 1998) Many railroad crossings take a continual beating from both motor vehicle traffic and train traffic. As a result, these crossings become rough and uneven. Frequent maintenance is essential to minimize problems for bicyclists. However, the best solution is to replace a defective crossing with either a non-slippery concrete crossing or one of the rubberized installations. Exhibit V-69 shows a railroad crossing treated with rubberized material to improve bicycle safety (Clarke and Tracy, 1995). EXHIBIT V-69 Rubberized Railroad Crossing to Improve Bicycle Safety(Clarke and Tracy, 1995) Where it is not practical to eliminate a drainage grate or other surface defect that may cause problems for bicyclists, pavement markings may be used to delineate the area (Exhibit V-70). To the extent possible, utilities should not be located in common or desired bicycle paths. Although not a long term solution, steel bars may be welded perpendicular to old-style parallel bars so bicycle wheels do not become trapped (AASHTO, 1999). EXHIBIT V-70 Pavement Marking for Obstructions (USDOT, 2003)
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	Agencies may need to go through procedures to adopt standard warning signs for hazardous bicycle/railroad crossings that cannot be immediately treated.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	In most cases, this strategy can be implemented in a short timeframe (i.e., 3 to 6 months). A separated bicycle path designed and constructed to cross a railroad track at close to a 90 degree angle will take longer to implement. If acquisition of right of way is required, this treatment could take even longer. Many of these problem locations can be prioritized and scheduled for treatment over a period of years during routine maintenance of a facility.
Costs Involved	Depending upon the problem identified and the type of treatment, the resources necessary for particular railroad crossings may vary from a few warning signs to full concrete or rubberized crossings. A few warning signs can be installed for approximately $200. The latter treatment (i.e., full concrete crossing) could easily cost $100,000, depending upon the roadway width and other geometric and traffic considerations (Williams et al., 1998). Costs are minimal for replacing old-style drainage grates with bicycle safe grates. Costs include the grate itself and installation costs. If grates and covers are moved, it is desirable to relocate them during regularly scheduled maintenance to minimize costs.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	None identified.
Legislative Needs	None identified.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.

Strategy G2: Provide Routine Maintenance of Bicycle Facilities (T)

General Description

Maintenance programs and activities are critical for successful bicycle facilities (Williams et al., 1998). Bicycles and bicyclists tend to be particularly sensitive to maintenance problems (i.e., loss of control type crashes). Most bicycles lack suspension systems and so potholes that motorists would hardly notice can cause serious problems for bicyclists. In addition, since bicyclists often ride near the right edge of the road, they use areas that are generally less well maintained than the main travel lanes. On higher speed facilities, motor vehicle traffic tends to sweep debris to the right, where most bicyclists travel. In addition, ridges such as those found where a new asphalt overlay does not quite cover the older roadway surface can catch a wheel and cause a bicyclist to fall. Not everyone recognizes shoulders as bicycle facilities, but shoulders should be maintained on a regular basis to allow extra room for bicyclists to ride along the side of the traveled way or to maneuver outside of the traveled way when necessary.

The overall goal of this strategy is to modify the current maintenance program and procedures of highway agencies to satisfy maintenance requirements of bicycle facilities. The following are some of bicyclists' most common maintenance concerns and some common solutions:

• Surface problems: For potholes and other surface irregularities, patch to a high standard, paying particular attention to problems near common bicycle travel paths.
• Debris (sand, gravel, glass, auto parts, etc.): Sweep close to the right edge. If necessary, use vacuum trucks to remove material, particularly if the debris accumulates adjacent to curbs. Special attention should be paid to locations such as underpasses where changes in lighting conditions can make it difficult for bicyclists to see surface hazards.

  For debris or surface irregularities on curves or at intersections, special attention should be paid to areas between typical turning paths and through motor vehicle traffic. These areas often fill with debris and are in typical bicyclist trajectories. Areas where debris wash across paved surfaces should receive special attention. For example, eliminating the source of the problem by providing better drainage may ultimately be a more cost effective treatment than increased sweeping.

• Chip seal gravel: Chip sealing of roadways often leaves deep piles of gravel just to the right of the typical paths of motor vehicles. To reduce the impact on bicyclists, remove excess gravel as soon as possible and suggest alternative routes as detours.
• Ridges and cracks: These should be filled or ground down as needed to reduce the chance of a bicyclist catching a front tire. Particular attention should be paid to ridges/ cracks that run parallel to the direction of travel (e.g., edgedrops and driveway lips). During overlay projects, care should be taken to minimize the edgedrops that could occur at the edge of the pavement. Ruts in the pavement, particularly on intersection approaches, should be ground down to provide a smoother surface through the intersection.
• Roadway bicycle signs: Bicycle signs should be maintained in the same fashion as other roadway signs, paying particular attention to bike route signs at decision points, warning signs at special hazard locations, and regulatory signs on popular bike-lane streets.
• Pavement markings for bicycles: Bicycle lane striping should be renewed at the same time that other stripes are painted. The same goes for bicycle lane pavement markings. Some markings may experience more wear and tear than others and deserve special attention.
• Snow removal: Bicycle facilities should be cleared of snow and ice during the maintenance of the roadway facilities. Care should be taken not to clear snow and ice from roadway facilities and deposit them onto bicycle facilities.

EXHIBIT V-71
Strategy Attributes for Providing Routine Maintenance of Bicycle Facilities (T)

Attribute	Description
Technical Attributes
Targets	Problem locations where surface conditions, pavement markings, and signs can be remedied through maintenance programs or activities.
Expected Effectiveness	The expected safety effectiveness of this strategy is difficult to assess. No studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of maintenance programs and activities on the frequency and/or severity of bicycle crashes. This may be in part because bicycle crashes that may be remedied by maintenance programs and activities rarely involve a motor vehicle, and thus they often do not get reported to the police. Consequently, accident databases may not include these bicycle-only crashes, or if they do, it is likely only a small percentage of the crashes. However, this strategy is expected to reduce the frequency of bicycle crashes because maintenance program and activities can address concerns that are often reported to highway agencies by bicyclists.
Keys to Success	One key to success is encouraging bicyclists to report maintenance problems and other hazards. This can be accomplished by developing a “bicycle spot improvement form” and distributing copies throughout the bicycling community. It is critical that reported problems are addressed in a timely manner (Williams et al., 1998). Another key is to design and build new roadways and bicycle facilities in such a way as to reduce the potential for accumulation of debris. This can be accomplished by using edge treatments, shoulder surfaces, and access controls that reduce the potential for accumulation of debris, and by using materials and construction techniques that increase the longevity of pavement surfaces. In general, engineers should consult bicycle experts and groups during the design process. It is also key to include maintenance costs and clearly define maintenance procedures in all bicycle facility projects. It is critical to include reasonable maintenance costs in project budgets, and it is important to establish clear maintenance responsibilities in advance of construction. Finally, riding the bicycle network from the saddle of a bicycle can help uncover previously unknown problems.
Potential Difficulties	If a spot improvement program is developed, but the reported concerns are not acted upon in a timely manner, the bicycle community will become frustrated with the program and eventually no longer report concerns.
Appropriate Measures and Data	It will be important to review maintenance logs to assess how often maintenance activities are performed on bicycle facilities. It will also be important to keep track of the numbers and kinds of problems reported by bicyclists and how the concerns were addressed. Frequency and severity data are key for determining safety effectiveness. These data may be difficult to obtain because bicycle crashes remedied by maintenance programs and activities are often not reported to the police. It may be necessary to collect frequency and severity data from hospital (i.e., emergency department) records.
Associated Needs	For the most part, bicycle-related maintenance activities involve the work an agency already performs. In some instances, though, additional equipment may be necessary.
Organizational and Institutional Attributes
Organizational, Institutional, and Policy Issues	Agencies should develop modified versions of maintenance policies and practices where warranted. In some cases, it may be necessary to develop new maintenance policies.
Issues Affecting Implementation Time	This strategy can be implemented with regular maintenance programs scheduled throughout the year. If the maintenance programs and activities are implemented as intended, the total mileage of bicycle facilities that need to be maintained will impact the implementation time.
Costs Involved	In most cases, the costs involved are related to work that the agency already performs, so additional costs should be minimal. A percentage of the maintenance budget should be allocated for user-requested spot improvements.
Training and Other Personnel Needs	Bicycle-related maintenance activities should be taught in highway agency courses covering highway maintenance. Similarly, bicycle-related maintenance issues should also be taught in highway design courses so as to minimize future maintenance needs (e.g., utility coverings).
Legislative Needs	Tort liability concerns may arise if bicyclists report maintenance-related problems, but a highway agency neglects to address the problem in a timely manner.
Other Key Attributes
	None identified.