Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Cycling

Nov 22, 2012

Does cycling infrastructure reduce serious accidents?

A new Canadian study confirms what cyclists intuitively know: providing quality cycling infrastructure reduces the risk of accidents and serious injuries

User login status :

Share

Bicycle route preference vs route safety (source: Teschke et al)

In the latest issue of the American Journal of Public Health, a team led by Professor Kay Teschke from the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia, reports on a study examining injury risk associated with 14 types of cycling route.

They interviewed 690 adult cyclists in Vancouver and Toronto who’d been injured seriously enough while riding to be admitted to hospital within 24 hours (the severity of the injuries is not reported). Two thirds of those eligible for the study agreed to participate.

The 14 route types were categorised in four groups: major streets with parked cars; major streets without parked cars; local streets; and off-street routes.

The three on-street groups were further subdivided to account for various types of lane markings and traffic calming. The off-street routes were refined to account for variables like sharing with pedestrians and type of pavement.

The researchers found a third of accidents involve a direct collision with a motor vehicle (although another 14% of injuries are sustained in avoiding a vehicle). Most of those injured are regular cyclists, male, younger than 40 and well educated.

Accidents are distributed more or less evenly across the four main road types. However more than half of all injuries are sustained on streets with no cycling infrastructure (i.e. no works, no signs, no on-street markings).

Compared to major streets with parked cars and no bicycle infrastructure (the reference type), segregated on-road bicycle tracks have about one ninth the risk of serious injury. Marked bike lanes on major streets with no parked cars have nearly half the risk, as do dedicated off-street bike paths.

However off-road paths shared with pedestrians have about three quarters of the risk of the reference type. The authors don’t say but I expect this reflects conflict with other users.

The study also found that aside from cycling infrastructure, other route characteristics are also associated with risk reductions: quiet streets (i.e. local streets); and no car parking on major streets.

On the other hand, downhill slopes, tram tracks and construction work are much riskier than the reference route type (more than three times in the case of tram tracks).

The study also compared the risk associated with the route types against those route characteristics cyclist’s in general say they prefer. As the exhibit shows, there’s a high correspondence between these two variables. Cyclists intuitively know what’s safer.

Many route types with positive preference ratings were also among the safest: cycle tracks; local streets; bike only paths; and major streets with bikes lanes and no parked cars. These provide a range of options with potential to both lower injury rates and increase cycling. This in turn may create a positive feedback cycle because increased ridership has been associated with increased safety.

Teschke et al’s findings are consistent with those of Buehler and Pucher’s study of 90 US cities. As I’ve discussed before, they found the supply of bike lanes and paths per capita is a statistically significant predictor of bike commuting.

Cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have significantly higher bike commute rates. They found this to be true even after controlling for land use, climate, socioeconomic factors, gasoline prices, public transport supply, and cycling safety.

The link between safety – whether real or perceived – and cycling for transport purposes is compelling. Better infrastructure encourages more cycling and lowers injury costs.

Alan Davies — Editor of The Urbanist

Alan Davies

Editor of The Urbanist

The Urbanist is edited by Dr Alan Davies, a principal of Melbourne-based economic and planning consultancy, Pollard Davies Consulting.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Alan Davies

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

17 comments

Leave a comment

17 thoughts on “Does cycling infrastructure reduce serious accidents?

  1. IkaInk

    In regards to the presence of bike lanes and tram tracks in Toronto, nowadays a fair chunk of the streets with trams running along them do have bike lanes, however they’re usually little more than a painted lane between parked cars and traffic as is standard in Melbourne.

    Here’s a cycle map of Toronto if you’re interested. Note that only the red lines, the red/blue and the purple lines are anything that actually resembles cycling infrastructure. The yellow lines are nothing more than the odd bike painted in the middle of the road, to remind drivers bikes are allowed to use the full lane (which of course they’re allowed to do on any road…). The blue lines are nothing but signs on the side of the road saying that bikes use the street, although this at least is usually reserved for quiet streets. The dotted yellow lines are nothing at all and shouldn’t be there. Toronto’s bike infrastructure really seems no better to me then Melbourne’s and in many cases is much worse.

Leave a comment